Some reactions to the latest developments in conference realignment:
I. WINNERS
Nebraska – More than doubling your TV money, raising the academic profile of the university overall and not having the Austin bogey-man anymore in the shotgun reconciliation of the Big 12-ish? Not bad.
Big Ten – A week ago, we were wondering if Jim Delany might have gotten played by Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott and Delany protege Kevin Weiberg. As it stands now, though, the Big Ten is the only conference that is clearly stronger than before by adding one of the top 10 programs of all-time and the formation of a lucrative conference championship game. With the apparent new TV money getting thrown at the Big 12, one could only imagine the type of increase that the Big Ten is going to garner with another marquee school in the fold. Now, I do believe that it’s going to be necessary for the Big Ten to address shifting population trends in the long-term (whether it’s going to the East Coast or after some Southern-based schools), but if we stay at 12 with just Nebraska for awhile, I believe most Big Ten partisans are going to be perfectly fine with that.
Texas – I’ll be honest: I severely underestimated the need for Texas to have control as opposed to sheer money (although they go hand-in-hand). Sure, lots of Big 12 partisans have complained about the Texas control for years, but I always thought it was overstated and that the “control” really came in the form of simply TV revenue. Well, it appears that they really do love control over everything else since they just turned down a spectacular opportunity to effectively bring all of its rivals to a more stable and prestigious conference with larger markets in the Pac-10 in order to save the Big 12-ish. As I noted in the “Underrated Players in Conference Realignment” post a few weeks ago, the Longhorn Sports Network turned out to be critical. Why the heck Texas still believes that a solo sports network will be better off in the long-term compared to a share in the Big Ten Network or what would’ve been created in the Pac-10 is beyond me, but DeLoss Dodds is going to get his chance to create his baby. Regardless, Texas got what it wanted: more control over its own conference and expanded local TV rights, which translates into more revenue across-the-board. Like the Big Ten, though, this is only a temporary win for Texas. The way that the Big 12-ish got a reprieve isn’t exactly a harbinger of conference stability, so we might be going through this process again with the Longhorns in 5 years or so.
II. LOTS OF HOPE
Utah – Within the span of a couple of days, the Utes went from thinking that they’d never have a chance to move in with their Pac-10 brethren if the Pac-16 came to fruition to now being at the top of the list for a natural pairing with Utah in the new Pac-12.
III. GLAD TO BE ALIVE
Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Missouri, Baylor – Wow, these guys were fucked up until today. Especially Mizzou, whose fans were trying to figure out the best routes to Laramie after dreaming of Ann Arbor and Madison road trips for several months. From the very beginning in the Big Ten Expansion Index post, I believed that Missouri’s role would more likely be that of a stalking horse for other schools that the Big Ten was targeting and it ended up being completely true. I know that I’ve been accused by some Missouri alums of supposedly having some type of Illini bias (which is ridiculous since Illinois would’ve been the school that could’ve benefited the most by adding Mizzou), but I honestly didn’t want to see that school or any of the others in the Big 12 North get shut out without a home. So, these schools will live on in a BCS home, yet it’s going to be an even more tenuous relationship with its fellow conference-mates for a long time.
Colorado – It got into its long-time natural home of the Pac-10 after being threatened to have it taken away by Ken Starr’s Right Wing Conspiracy. With the Big 12-ish surviving, though, CU is looking at a lone move to a conference that may not really pay more TV revenue compared to its old situation… and this is an athletic department whose checks bounce off of the ground like Super Balls. Still, if you had to bet you entire life savings on which conference would be more likely to exist 10 years from now, would you put it on the Big 12-ish or the Pac Televen? Call me crazy, but I’ll take the odds on the latter. With that being the case, this was a good long-term move for CU even if it might be a short-term hit to the budget.
Dan Beebe – The Big 12-ish commissioner gets a ton of credit for slapping together a better TV deal for theconference in such a short period of time (although it looks like he got by with a little help from his friends), but fans have a right to ask where the bloody hell was that TV deal before it lost a marquee school (Nebraska) and its largest market outside of the state of Texas (Denver). At least the @DanBeebe Twitter feed has been awesome through all of this.
IV. TO BE DETERMINED
Pac-10 – As I’ve explained before, the Pac-10 could never compete with the Big Ten and SEC financially in order to lure a school like Texas, so it leveraged its main asset of flexibility to make a massive power play to annex half of the Big 12. For the Pac-10 to have had a chance to move into the same financial tier as the Big ten and SEC, it absolutely had to throw down its best and most aggressive offer. With the gamble not working, the Pac-10 is now stuck at 11 with a decent school with a decent market in Colorado (essentially the equivalent of what Missouri was looked at by the Big Ten). It’s expected that the Pac-10 will move in on Utah as opposed to staying as the Pac Televen, but it’s clear that the West Coast league is going to be stuck in the second financial tier for the foreseeable future. I’ve got to give Larry Scott and Kevin Weiberg a ton of credit, though – they had the cajones to put it all on the line these past two weeks and pushed the timetable for realignment forward.
Big Ten Hopefuls Elsewhere – Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, maybe Maryland? The latest rumored candidates of Boston College or Georgia Tech? What the Big Ten is going to do over the next 12-18 months is still up in the air. It is clear from all of the information that I’ve seen that Texas was the #1 target for the league, so it’s going to take some time to re-assess if and where it wants to expand to next. Rutgers may still become a Big Ten member eventually, but the fact that a superconference wasn’t formed on the West Coast and Texas isn’t part of Big Ten expansion is going to slow down the timeline drastically.
General BCS Hopefuls – Schools like BYU, TCU, Memphis, East Carolina and UCF all have been harboring BCS conference dreams and were even banking on a massive fallout, but with not much of an upheaval at this time, the waiting continues. I believe that the Big 12-ish would be well-served to add BYU for sure, yet it appears the financial argument for that conference to bring in replacements is fairly weak. (Note that I love TCU yet understand that the Horned Frogs don’t bring a new market to the Big 12-ish.)
So, out all of the speculation and millions of hours of productivity lost in offices across the nation this past week refreshing Orangebloods, we have the Big Ten adding Nebraska, the Pac-10 adding Colorado and the Mountain West adding Boise State. The college sports world won’t be experiencing a massive upheaval this week, but with the Big 12-ish progressing on shaky ground (similar to the Big East after the 2003 ACC raid) and Notre Dame always out there as a paradigm-shifting free agent, the rumors will undoubtedly continue to percolate. Don’t worry about me not having things to write about for the next few weeks – I’m on every LeBron-to-the-Bulls rumor like white on rice.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111)
(Image from Big 12 Conference)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Gratuitous ego post:
Not everyone underestimated the need for control (and other factors that would work to keep the B12 together) …
LikeLike
Muffulettas.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
add some more
LikeLike
Added
LikeLike
Yum.
LikeLike
On a more germane note (and perhaps lagging in subject matter):
I doubt ND will have any interest in even talking to the B10 until after the season is over.
The reason has been staring us all right in the face: Brian Kelly.
My bet is that the ND crowd is split. Swarbrick sees BCS conferences bulking up, an uncertain relationship with NBC, the possibility that the next BCS negotiations will leave ND without its special status, and the state schools becoming inexorably better. He likely thinks ND should join a conference before its negotiating power evaporates.
At the same time independence is fiercely valued by alumni, fans, students, etc. There is value in independence and ND’s special status.
My guess is that a compromise of sorts has been reached. If Brian Kelly can win, then everything changes. ND strengthens its TV appeal and its negotiating position for the BCS. If the excitement comes back, then the pressure is off. ND can stay independent. Or — it puts ND in a much stronger negotiating position if it does want to go to the B10.
If Kelly can’t turn it around — if he goes 7-6 or 8-5 with a bad bowl loss, then Swarbrick et al. may decide that its time to hitch up with a conference lest ND sinks to Harlem Globetrotters status.
ND’s administration is going to take a gamble with Brian Kelly. All you Domers out there who want independence better get out your rosary beads, you need 9-10 wins to stay out of the B10.
LikeLike
Can I have multiple 10-win seasons under Kelly and admission to the Big Ten? Por favor?
LikeLike
Agree with that sentiment. I think we are in the minority.
LikeLike
That’s an interesting position re: Kelly.
I tend to agree with the idea that Notre Dame will more likely than not make a somewhat final decision on whether to join the Big Ten in the coming years. The wrinkle that it might all lay on Kelly’s back would end up being fascinating.
LikeLike
Living in Michigan and seeing the success Kelly has had at Grand Valley & Central Michigan if this is the case ND is in good hands.
Outstanding hire by the Domers. Also leads me to believe those running the show at ND are several times smarter than those at MSU or UM.
LikeLike
Big 12-ish is the best you could come up with? Not Texas Ten, the Mack-Ten, Texas and “Friends”, HopkinsHorn’s Worst Nightmare, the Lone Star Conference (think about it a bit), or the SWC II?
Looking back, the worst assumptions made on this blog were the need for Texas to control its own fate (and its own state), the flexibility of the Pac-10, and the idea that Texas A&M would consider the Big Ten under any circumstances. I’m not criticizing, since these mistakes (and many more) were made in other places, but it’s good to go back and judge previous arguments. If we look at the “Template for Shooting Down Any Argument Against Texas Going to the Big Ten”, a few points are very questionable:
“3. The largest slice of the pie in the Big XII is still smaller than an equal slice of the pie in the Big Ten”
Depending on the new deal, this might not be the case.
“5. The Pac-10, with its own expansion plans, is REALLY helping the Big Ten out”
It could be argued that the Pac-10 offer gave Texas the leverage to give the ultimatum which led to Nebraska’s departure, but I wouldn’t say that they could be described as working in concert with the Big Ten in any way.
“6. Texas isn’t doing this for leverage because the Big XII can’t give anymore”
As unbelievable as it sounds, Texas has more leverage in the Big 12 today than it did before. As one of Mandel’s tweeters said, Texas has become an independent with a conference.
“7. The Big XII won’t magically sign a new TV contract that is anywhere close to what the Big Ten and SEC are receiving today”
Apparently they have. I don’t quite understand it either.
“8. The Longhorn Sports Network (which is why there isn’t a Big XII network today) is an open question mark”
Texas is willing to take on that question.
“11. Texas A&M or no Texas A&M? That is the question”
I don’t think any individual in power at A&M ever seriously considered the Big Ten. They wanted to go to the SEC, which shows what their goals are.
Also, don’t try to tell Colorado fans that they aren’t winners in this scenario. They get to join the Pac-10 and don’t get quarantined in the Turf division. They might be the most pleased group from Texas’ decision to stay put.
LikeLike
Texas doesn’t look at the BTN and think “I wish those guys would let me be a part of that” Texas thinks “I can do better” — even if they can’t.
That’s basic Type A personality human psychology.
Texas is the most powerful member of the B12-2 and would have had much less power in the egalitarian B10. But its power is diminished.
Could not disagree more with FTT on the B12-2 instability. Don’t you think the schools KNOW that they have had problems? Don’t you think they want to avoid another soap opera in 5 years? Don’t you think their TV partners will demand some kind of stability? It defies logic that the B12-2 won’t deal with this issue. It is likely that the schools will bind themselves more tightly together. In doing so, they take the ‘departure’ hammer out of Texas’ hands and diminish Texas’ power. Texas has played its trump.
Texas will still be the biggest dog, but its bark won’t be quite as loud.
FTT — you are pissed that Texas did not make the move to the B10 and think they are being foolish. You may very well be right. But your analysis, which to date has been pretty good (certainly far superior to the dreck on the rest of the interweb), should not deteriorate into sour grapes.
LikeLike
@PensfaninLAexile – Actually, I’m not pissed that Texas didn’t make the move to the Big Ten. I’m more perplexed that they didn’t take the Pac-10 deal. That seemed to have everything that Texas could possibly want with an upgraded conference. As for Big 12-2 stability, the circumstances in which it came back together look almost exactly like the Big East back in 2003 (which was on the verge of splitting until the 11th hour and almost sent Notre Dame to the Big Ten). It will be safe for a few years and I’m sure there will be harsh exit penalties (note that strong conferences keep their members via carrots as opposed to sticks), but we’ll see rumors about Big 12-ish schools leaving by the middle of this decade just as we do with the Big East today.
LikeLike
RE PAC-10 deal —
My guess is they were split over what to do. Any university is composed of different centers of power. It could be that there was a faction that wanted to go to the B10, maybe even one looking at the SEC, ambivalence over how a 16-team conference would work in the long haul, uncertainty over $$ payout and distribution, conference governance, etc.
In the end, the only thing they might have agreed on was that the low risk model was to fix the B12-2. Since Texas makes more $$ in athletics than anyone else (is tOSU ahead?) as a member of the B12 already, why take the chance?
In a state of confusion, end the drift, stick with the familiar.
LikeLike
And —
I don’t mean to assume facts not in evidence with respect to your demeanor. Perhaps ‘exasperated’ would have been a better choice.
LikeLike
Personally I think TAMU said no chance in hell and had enough political power to push a move to the SEC. If the rest went to the Pac.
IMO, that scuttled the move to the Pac more than anything.
LikeLike
Absolutely Correct. Plus Texas could see the erosion of it’s recruiting grounds with the SEC close and Texas in California. This fact more than anything else caused the “GREAT TEXAS CHANGE OF MIND”.
LikeLike
Frank,
Read between the lines of the Katz article: There were some powerful, let me correct myself – POWERFUL forces at work to keep the Texas 10 together…My guess is rich and influential alumni at various schools willing to push advertising dollars towards whatever network that was willing to take a chance on a Texas 10 team conference…And also give Texas the opportunity to “experiment” with their own little pet project – TLN.
But, my guess is in 3-5 years, the warts will still be there and you will have a lot of unhappy campers. And if the BTN and Big10+2 conference is thriving, the model will have been established as to how to run a league.
Let Texas play around and I think they will eventually learn what everyone associated with a sports league learns: Equals and rivals that are paid equally are critical to your own success! You can’t be a dominant force in a market and enjoy success….Unless your the Yankees.
LikeLike
Equals and rivals that are paid equally are critical to your own success! You can’t be a dominant force in a market and enjoy success….Unless your the Yankees.
But that is somewhat of a myth.
The B10+ and ACC distribute equally, the SEC and P10 do not. The SEC has the conference contracts paid out equally, but they allow individual schools to have their own sub-networks. That’s the model TX wanted with the P10, but the P10 said no. TX would have kept its LSN and a few games, but the big games would have still been on the P16 network with all the conference TV/cable money distributed equally. The P16 network would aim for basic cable, the LSN would be strictly for the sports tier as a compliment to, not a replacement for the P16 network.
And some of the B10 schools have public mentioned the desire for individual schools to find similar revenue sources that aren’t shared.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now!
What are you talking about when you say that “they [the SEC] allows individual schools to have their own sub-networks”?
LikeLike
@M – I like Big 12-ish! Those names are pretty good, though. Others should make their own suggestions.
The big surprise for me was this new TV deal that came up all of the sudden. Jim Delany must be salivating at his next negotiation with ESPN if that P.O.S conference can garner $14-17 million per school for national TV rights. I didn’t think that the Big 12 could get that even with Nebraska and Colorado in the fold, much less losing both of them and a conference championship game.
As for Colorado, I actually was being pretty nice to them. Most of the writers I’ve seen have said that they’ve made a mistake because the new Pac-10 won’t necessarily make more than the new Big 12 while CU has tons of financial problems. Long-term, though, I’d take the Pac-10 any day over the Big 12-ish.
LikeLike
Seriously, Delany has to be seeing an aggregate of at least $35M per school in the Big Ten even without Texas if we just hold at 12 in the 2016 round of negotiations.
And I’d be willing to bet anything that Fox will bid it up as an added benefit just like the ACC deal ended up paying out like $3M extra per school after bidding.
LikeLike
The Colorado Athletic Department has been operating in the black for several years. It’s the rest of the university that is in the red.
LikeLike
The Big Ten -should- be sitting in the catbird seat next go-round. They should be able to get Fox and ESPN into a bidding war and could always threaten to take more content onto BTN, which by then should have proven itself a solid money-maker.
LikeLike
I keep saying it, but am I the only one who noticed the comment “could pay as much as 17 million by 2012”?
Maybe its just the fuzziness of the information at this time, but I smell a lot of “if” coming off that contract.
IMO, Texas, and maybe one or two other schools , are going to get close to the current SEC/BigTen numbers in a couple years. The rest I think will be closer to ACC payouts.
Meanwhile the Big/SEC just keep getting bigger.
This deal is only going to cause more trouble in about 5-10 year…
LikeLike
PSUGuy,
You aren’t the only one to notice. The B12 has the same contract for the next two years, although it will be higher per school now that there are two less mouths to feed (but the schools probably lose nearly a million bucks each due to the lack of a title game). Then in fall 2012, the “maybe” deal kicks in.
LikeLike
Agreed. Come 2020 or 2025, it’s very likely that the new Big 12 will have the same level of revenue disparity with “rich” leagues/teams as currently. I don’t think this new contract solves that, especially given its length.
Also, we just don’t know the details and it seems to me that the $17M number is probably an average over the life of the (very long) contract and will not be close to that in 2012-2015; thus, I’m not sure they are really narrowing the gap that much in the short term anyway. And that’s assuming there even is firm details — a lot of times vague promises and assurances go away once finer points of a contract get written down.
Point being, I’m pretty skeptical that this new Big 12 TV deal ends up as good as it superficially appears at this moment.
LikeLike
Frank, remember that Colorado wanted their road to California. Under the Pac16 they would have been relegated to a far inferior Eastern Division. The Pac16 falls through though and Colorado comes out of this with the academic and demographic progress they wanted – as well as stability, like you noted. In my book, that makes CU one of the ¨winners.¨
LikeLike
What happens now to the Pac 10 with regard to divisions and whatnot? Do Colorado and Utah team up with the Pacific Northwest schools? Do they do a zipper? Someone’s not going to like how they split the deal.
LikeLike
Once you take out the 8 million immediate hit they take for leaving…what’s left.
The Big 12, who just lost one of its three marquee teams and its second largest market, has two choices. Add two so-so teams in so-so markets to get to the conference championship game (15 million right there). Or, stay at 10 and maximize your “per school payout” but lose the 15 million from a championship game.
The PAC10, on the other hand, is about to negotiate this spring. USC’s slap on the wrist will hurt their negotiations a bit, but I’d bet they’ll make a good bit more than the Big 12 will when it renegotiates. I think Denver will pay more for PAC10 teams than they would have for BIg 12 teams. PAC10 fans aren’t rabid, but they do have a huge Cali population base they are drawing from.
And depending on how much of its product Texas keeps for itself, the Big 12 might offer less to the ESPN/FOX/whomever conglomerate and thus get a lower offer.
And last but not least, there is the stability factor. I’m of the minority that isn’t even sure the Big 12 will last two more years DESPITE this affected show of solidarity this week. The only way Colorado will lose from this is in the short-short-term…like two year financial picture.
LikeLike
Big 12-ish is the best you could come up with? Not Texas Ten, the Mack-Ten, Texas and “Friends”, HopkinsHorn’s Worst Nightmare, the Lone Star Conference (think about it a bit), or the SWC II?
The Big Yawn
LikeLike
UTen
LikeLike
BigBevo
LikeLike
The Longhorn Empire
LikeLike
Big (te)X
LikeLike
Babylon Tex?
LikeLike
The Big Texas*
*et al
LikeLike
I would add that OSU Pres. Gee got played by TX Pres. Powers on that “Tech problem” remark. TX had no real interest in coming to the BT, with or without Tech.
LikeLike
“Big 12-ish is the best you could come up with? Not Texas Ten, the Mack-Ten, Texas and “Friends”, HopkinsHorn’s Worst Nightmare, the Lone Star Conference (think about it a bit), or the SWC II? ”
Lone Star Conference is already taken. Midwestern State is a strong cycling school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Star_Conference
LikeLike
How about the Big xII. No matter who is added (if they add any), they will be the “Little 10” or “x”. UT would be one of the Big I’s. We’ll let TAMU & OU argue over who the other “Big I” is.
LikeLike
Up late
LikeLike
The last week was a wild ride if you are a fan of any of the Big 12 teams.
I’m looking forward to each team playing eachother each year in football. No more of this divisional stuff. Also– home and home in basketball in what will be the best top to bottom league in the nation.
The bigger question is who was pulling the strings on this new TV deal? Fox has a vested interest in stopping superconferences and keeping conference TV stations from forming. It allows a playoff system to develop at a later date (the tv rights could be worth super bowl levels), keeps the balance of power diluted (weaker bargaining power for colleges) and it keeps conferences from hoarding their broadcasts under an in house network (essentially forming a union– keeping control over the fruits of their labor).
Great work on this blog, Frank. Now I’m going to get some work done this week. I’m waaaay behind.
LikeLike
Colorado is elated, pretty much got everything they wanted out of this deal. How the revenue streams flow eventually in B12 vs.P10 comparison remains to be seen.
Nebraska got what it wanted and B10 is stronger for it.
Texas got exactly what it wanted, even more power and control. However, it’ll cost them in the long run when the power players in charge today are no longer running the show. Texas and OK will be #1 and #2 every year, and when battling it out for a BCS bid, they better hope neither has another conference loss plus played and beat some massive heavyweights in what will now be just 3 non-conference games. Strength of schedule matters when you look back and see only 1 or 2 quality wins. What’s a quality win in the UTen conference? Getting 1 BCS bid every year does cost money. I do hope it works out for them though, or they’ll be knocking on the Pac’s door soon.
The rest of the UTen schools, not sure how those fans keep it going. Even the OK fans have to wonder why they are second fiddle to UT. Even if there are some close games and different outcomes, all seems very Harlem Globetrotters and Washington Generals to me.
LikeLike
On a side note, since the topic is dying down and a lot of us will likely scatter in the coming days/weeks. Thanks Frank for hosting the discussion and it’s been a great couple of months since you first posted on the subject with your listing and put Texas at the top of your list and had Nebraska marginally edging out Missouri. That post was an eye opener, and it really helped focus the mind in terms of the possibilities and how the Big Ten was moving in the process.
I also think that the various discussion here helped to narrow us down to the assumption that Nebraska would be added as the 12th or in a move to 14 regardless of the circumstances, at least several weeks before that became common knowledge elsewhere.
And even with those whom I’ve had disagreements before in the comments, we’ve actually managed to have an intellectually stimulating discussion on a topic that too often devolves into ESPN-message-box chatter that tends to waste everyone’s time.
I guess I’ll stick around for a while as long as things remain calm, and I hope that the next time expansion rolls around (I’m looking at you Notre Dame/Maryland/Rutgers/UVA/Pitt) that you post on it because I know I’ll be back, even if it’s in 2015 in time for the 2016 contract negotiations.
LikeLike
@zeek – Thanks for the kind words. I’ve been fortunate to have all of these readers visit from across the country. I’m serious when I say that reading everyone’s comments is more fun for me than actually writing the blog posts. The level of the discussions have been incredible – there aren’t too many places where you can have 1000 comments to a post and pretty much all of them are truly well thought out.
I’ll have plenty of thoughts on the rest of the sports world. However, I don’t know if you can think of a topic that’s more perfect for blog speculation than conference realignment.
LikeLike
Just want to echo zeek and others comments Frank – Thanks for the articles and insight throughout this whole crazy realignment ordeal – you have been a great host for college sports junkies.
LikeLike
yep, 100% echo and agree with Zeek on this; thank you Frank for providing this wonderful platform and community.
and a big THANKS to all the various posters and commentators over the last few months. I am amazed amazed amazed at the quality of comments and the length of comments and the sheer brain power exhibited by everyone on here.
AND it has never devolved into name-calling or trolling or any other bad internet behavior.
So again, thanks to everyone. it’s been a pleasure to read everyone’s comments and I have learned soo soooo much about CFB. Oh and thanks everyone for the links and research, etc. it was/is so much fun to have people dig out articles and blog posts that I would never have found on my own.
and btw, i’m still hanging around. Delaney is not done yet, IMHO.
LikeLike
Well, as long as we’re gettin’ all mushy…I just want to know where my “Expansion Family” is moving to now that we aren’t going to have anything to talk about or post about….Makes me think if the ol Bud Light Commercials…..
Jeez…I love you guys!
LikeLike
i’m staying here;
we’ll just have to make Frank come up with new topics for discussion: Frank can do his best Dana Carvey impression (SNL comic; do I have his name right?): Topic (in woman’s NYC Jewish accent): the Big East should start it’s own cable network. Discuss!
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau
You’re thinking of Mike Myers SNL character/skit, “Coffee Talk with Linda Richmond”.
LikeLike
Agreed, thanks Frank. Its been fun, see ya sometime between next June and 5 years from now. The stage is set, college football will revamp no later than the next negotiations for the BCS (or its replacement.)
LikeLike
10 > 12
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
How confident should Utah be over a Pac-12 invite? I see very few positives and quite a few negatives to the Pac-11 on a Utah invite.
The biggest positive is a CCG and a divisional split that would make scheduling easier.
But the downsides are many. One, it’s another mouth to feed, and while Salt Lake City may be a growing market, it’s still not big and they share it with BYU. Another downside is for that the non-California schools would likely get only one game a year in California and likely only every other year in SoCal. If they divide up the divisions into CA/AZ and the rest, then you run into a possible Big 12 North situation. But if you try to divide up the teams more evenly, you’re going to split up in state rivals.
Finally, how attractive is a Pac12 CCG going to be? It will have a crummy starting time for national TV, and SC is the only P12 school with national appeal right now. And SC just got hit with major sanctions that could set them back for a while.
I think you hit it on the head–the P10 took the equivalent of Mizzou on the hope they’d bring friends and now they’re stuck with this boring guy who’s never going to leave your house.
LikeLike
The value of a CCG should make Utah automatic, unless they think it turns into the ACCCG. But it probably won’t if it’s held in LA, which is the heart of the Pac-10 anyways. You do have a point though that the Pac-10 CCG will be compared with the Big Ten CCG and SEC CCG. In effect the Big 12 would be smart to not re-expand and just move to the old Pac-10 setup so as not to compete with CCGs.
People are suggesting a zipper kind of setup to split every grouping of 2 by state into 2 divisions.
LikeLike
I question the chances for a Pac-10 Championship game to succeed. Let’s say it’s in San Francisco… that’s automatically flying distance for Colorado, ASU, Az, UW, and WSU fans. If it’s in LA, it’s flying distance for UO/OSU fans instead of Az/ASU fans.
No matter where the game is held, how can the Pac-10 expect to sell tickets to those far-flung fanbases when the division titles aren’t decided until one week before the game?
Let’s not forget that one of the oft-overlooked factors in the SEC’s successful championship games is simple geography. To date, only Arkansas and LSU fans have had a drive longer than 5.5 hours to Atlanta from their campuses. (This is why I predict the ACC’s move to Charlotte will pay off greatly; central location is key.)
LikeLike
I’m wondering if the Pac 10 should just hold at 11 for awhile in order to assess exactly how stable the Big 12-lite is and to see if the Big 10 goes to 16 (and maybe takes Mizzou which may destablize the Big 12-lite). The reason that I say that is because UT is still the Pac 10’s only chance at going to 16, and their only chance at getting UT is to invite it’s lapdogs. So if the Pac 10 ever forsees a situation down the road where it may want to revisit going to 16 teams, then it needs as many slots has it can have available to offer UT’s lapdogs.
LikeLike
ooooh, I like “big 12-lite”
LikeLike
How about Big Twilight?
LikeLike
Bamatab,
I’m thinking the same thing. Why cut off options by taking Utah (who’s inferior to most current Pac10 schools by any metric you care to look at)? The Pac11 is lukewarm about a championship game anyway.
LikeLike
Bamatab, but now that we know that A&M prefers the SEC, couldn’t the Pac-10 just offer UT/Tech/OU/OSU?
LikeLike
That’s making the assumptions that 1.) aTm would have an offer to the SEC the next time and 2.) if aTm would want to separate from UT next time. The answer to one of those questions could be no.
LikeLike
Agree about 10>12. While I love Nebraska in the Big Ten, I hate the idea of a conference championship game and am not convinced its better for the school teams to be in bigger conferences (even if it is beneficial to the conference itself).
LikeLike
it is going to be interesting to see how the Big Ten divides up into divisions (or if they do that at all). They have said that they do not want a CCG rather have everyone play their rival on the last weekend of the season (which has been moved back a week or two). Now if that is the case then there are going to be a lot of great rival games that weekend.
Michigan/Ohio State, Nebraska/Iowa, Penn State/MSU, Wisconsin/Minnesota, Indiana/Purdue, Illinois/Northwestern
LikeLike
Penn State vs Michigan State should never be listed under “great rivalry games.”
They are each other’s third priority rivalry at best.
LikeLike
yeah, and to hear it, both Neb and PSU want to have an end-of-year game.
btw, i find the whole “competing-to-be-NEB’s-new-BFF” amusing and a little worrisome. Iowa, Wiscy, and PSU are all wanting NEB as their new rival. The new girl already has the bucks fighting amongst themselves and I hope there aren’t any hard feelings when the newbie makes a choice.
LikeLike
If the B10 adds Michigan-UP, Wisky can have them as their rival. PSU has been clamoring for an Eastern partner, so they can’t claim the Westernmost as their “rival”. IA-NEB makes the most sense.
LikeLike
Geographically Iowa makes the most sense, but historically and big name game wise, Penn State edges them out imho. Even though Iowa has been a better team recently.
Penn State – Nebraska has some unsettled national championship hype going back and forth and I think would be a much bigger TV game – hence drive revenues and heartbeats. Michigan obviously fits this mode too, but they are taken.
Iowa has that Omaha back and forth since there are a lot of Iowans that work in Omaha. Outside of Omaha (which is 40% of the state population) it doesn’t resonate as much.
Having grown up in small town Nebraska, and gone to college and lived in Omaha I am OK with either.
WI is kind of an meh even though Barry is an Alum.
LikeLike
Yes, this PSU fan wants Nebraska every Thanksgiving for the 1994 Trophy (or McCloskey’s cleats or Steinkuhler’s prescription or whatever)
LikeLike
Jubilation,
Who is saying that they don’t want a CCG? The coaches and fans?? Delaney said explicitly that there would most likely be a CCG after the Nebraska press conference. I don’t think Delaney would say that if the schools did not want a CCG.
LikeLike
Re Pac 10 soon Pac 12 as Big winner in spite of themselves
Upon reflection:
The biggest winner is the Pac 10 who narrowly escaped bringing in schools that don’t belong but almost accepted because the money looked good.
If the Pac 10 adds Utah with Colorado they add 2 schools who actually want into the conference; they get a conference playoff game; they get an opportunity to create a conference channel with a stable group of schools.
The Pac 10 escapes taking schools like OK and A&M who belong in the SEC by preference but are tied to the Texas 10 by politics: OK needs be with OSU; A&M choosing to be with the 3 other Texas schools.
The Pac 10 escapes taking in clones like OSU and Texas Tech.
The Pac 10 escapes the possible alienation of the AZ schools by separating them from the California schools.
By staying at 12, the Pac 10 preserves the conference as an actual conference rather than 2 parallel conferences with ironclad divisions linked by a logo.
The Pac 10 escapes from a conference where half the teams would be “gagging” at the thought of being associated with each other.
Talk about confusion: Tech, A&M, OK, OSU versus USC, UCLA, Stanford, California, U of Wash, U of Oregon:
Money isn’t everything.
Maybe there is a lesson in this with respect to the Big 10 obsession with ND.
LikeLike
Re Big 10 now 12 as a winner
The Big 10 made an excellent add with Nebraska; a school that wants to be part of the conference, will be a great competitor and makes possible a championship game.
LikeLike
agreed; my last five days (including the weekend) have been hell at work. I got home last night and just was able to hear about the BXII being “saved” but was too tired to get into details.
now, this morning, i’m just astonished. Friday morning TX et. al. were off to the PAC16 with BofR votes on Tuesday and then on Wednesday (OK and OKST).
today, the BXII-lite exists and the PAC-16 has shrunken back down to 11.
quite a turn-around.
LikeLike
P10 should have taken in TCU, SMU, UTEP, BYU and UAB, paired them with USC and UCLA and they could have had an all initial division.
Seriously, Colorado is very happy. They’ve been wanting in the P10 for a long time. They have more alumni in Arizona than all of the B12-2 states combined (excepting Texas). And they have a lot more alumni in CA than TX. Their economy used to be tied more to the plains and energy, but now its more tied to the Pacific Coast. In the 70s they REALLY hated Texans for buying all the ranches and driving up land prices. By the 90s they REALLY hated Californians for buying all the ranches, driving up land prices and turning all their BBQ joints into sushi bars.
Colorado is where they belong and where they want to be. Of all the players, TV money was the least important to them. As long as it was close, they wanted the P10.
Thanks Frank for your blogging. Its been a wild ride. I suspect its not yet over for the B10.
LikeLike
And now Nebraska ranchers really hate the Colorado ranchers who sell out for housing developments and come buy up Sandhills ranches at any price and drive up the land valuation for everyone.
LikeLike
Utah a done deal?
http://cbs4denver.com/sports/university.of.colorado.2.1751602.html
Reports have Utah and Colorado going to a Pac 12 South division w/ UCLA/USC/UA/ASU. Pac 12 North made up of Wash/WashSt/UO/OSU/Stan/Cal
LikeLike
That’s an interesting setup, and it’s smart to not put all the California schools in a single division.
The only problem I see is that isn’t the Pac-12 North really light on population footprint? If you split California up in two like that, South California/Arizona/Colorado/Utah should have most of the population. I guess an East/West didn’t really make sense though…
LikeLike
I think the best set up is to split the CA schools or else you would more than likely have a B12 N/S type situation. The South has more population w/ SoCal, Phoenix, and Denver. But the N still has a lot with NorCal, Seattle, and Niketown.
Bottom line though is that whatever division ended up with the SoCal schools was going to be percieved as the better/stronger/more desirable division. Splitting the CA schools just makes it less lopsided.
LikeLike
Also – going back to some comments I have made in the past concerning the Pac’s psuedo hierachy of decision makers – 3 are in the North (Stan/Cal/Wash) where 2 (albiet most powerful) are in the South. So it splits up and balances power as well as you can there as well I think.
LikeLike
Let me start by saying that this blog has been a blast to lurk on. As a Stanford fan and occasional Pac10 (now Pac11) homer, this question on divisional structure is very important to me.
The best attribute of this blog has been the mindset of thinking like the decision-makers in this conference realignment-palooza. I think we should do the same for this organizational quandary.
First, let’s assume that we do indeed add Utah. They make a good enough rival to Colorado and will be treated as such in our structure of paired rivals.
Second, can we identify who has the clout to influence such decisions in the conference? With only one recruiting hotbed (SoCal), everyone will want to maximize access to the same resources. If the schools all fight for their self interest, can we assume that the league office is strong enough to mediate a compromise?
Third, what rivalries are valued and to what extent? Obviously, each school has a main in-state/crosstown rival (or in the case of UU/CU, a border rivalry.) But take the case of Oregon vs. Washington. Surely they would want to protect their yearly game by being in the same division. I may be biased as a Stanford fan who grew up and lives in SoCal, but I think all four CA schools want to play each other as much as possible.
Finally, can we judge any proposed alignment not only on how well they address the above concerns, but also how they compare to the example of a successful 2-division conference (SEC) and to the less successful ones (ACC, Big XII)? I believe the SEC has succeeded because it has both balance and is divided on geographic lines. Meanwhile, the Big XII lacked balance while the ACC lacks geographic common sense.
How do the proposals stack up?
1) Every impartial outsider seems to settle on the zipper. Stanford will hate having to give up one of the LA schools. Given the UC connection between the Bears and Bruins, I guess my Cardinal goes with the Trojans. Does Cal care that we get more access to USC? Does Stanford care that Cal gets more trips to the Rose Bowl? Will the same questions be asked by other rival pairs as they are assigned to one division or the other?
2) What about geography? Surely the region left out of LA will form an effective and cohesive voting block against any proposal.
I hate to sound defeatist, but there really is no good way to organize a Pac12. It is my personal opinion that Stanford and Cal were willing to overlook the very obvious shortcomings of Texas Tech and Oklahoma State not only because they would ensure the annexation of their more desirable brethren and bring a financial windfall, but also because going to 16 schools eliminated the difficulties of organization.
Well, the Pac16 was not to be, so here we are left with a problem with no solution.
LikeLike
@ Robber:
I’ve been wondering about the Pac 11 also and now that they aren’t getting Texas, besides the fact that they would get to host a championship game, do you think they really “want” to add a 12th team in the form of UTAH or do they want to wait?
Methinks they are disappointed in the Texas decision and they are going to be a little bit more liek the Big 10 with the Domers: We know who we want….And no one gets an invite until we’re ABSOLUTELY 100% sure we know what the answer is….
Just a hunch.
LikeLike
I don’t really know what our presidents/chancellors are thinking because I was surprised to learn that Scott had authority to pursue not only a P16 but also a P12 as he sees fit. I suppose the post-Hanson reaction is very strong. As a fan, I want us to wait on Utah. Will they really turn us down if we wait?
The problem with waiting is organizing an 11-team league. But I suppose this board is full of experts on how to do just that. I really would prefer to play at least 9 conference games and I am told that 9 is impossible with 11 teams. I would be all for an 11-team round robin, but the coaches and even many fans are tired of our relative disadvantage in playing the most conference games of the BCS leagues and don’t want to exacerbate that disadvantage.
LikeLike
You have the population issue by keeping the CA schools together, but scheduling works very well with CA/AZ together and a 5-2-2 schedule, 5 division opponents, 2 every year rivals, 2 rotating teams. For example, Washington and Oregon St. could get Cal and UCLA every year with USC/Stanford every other year. Washington St. and Oregon could get USC/Stanford with Cal/UCLA every other year. The Arizona schools would have CO/UT every year. The NW schools get 3 California schools every year and play in the Bay Area and Southern California 3 out of 4 years.
If you split the CA schools, their 2 other division rivalry games would be against each other. So the NW schools get into Southern California, the prime recruiting grounds, only every other year.
Historically, there would be a good balance of power as WA and CO have been the 2nd and 3rd best of the 12, though obviously not now. However the Oregon schools are good right now.
LikeLike
This works if they want 9 conference games every year, but you guarantee additional losses within the conference. With an 8 game conference schedule a team could play 5 in division and then one from each of the remaining pairs, and alternating every year.
Using the current proposal of splitting the NoCal schools to the northern division, Oregon would play:
1st year
OSU
UW
WSU
Cal
Stanford
USC
AU
Utah
2nd year
OSU
UW
WSU
Cal
Stanford
UCLA
ASU
CU
LikeLike
The PAC10 and Big XII actually have similar issues in that they have rich recruiting grounds that really could be addressed by scheduling (south California and Texas respectively).
Assuming the PAC10 adds Utah, they might be well-advised to use a zipper splitting state of California (only), then group the rest logically by region. It would wind up looking something like this…
North – USC, Stanford, Ore, Ore St, Wash, Wash St
South – Cal, UCLA, AZ, AZ St, Col, Utah
USC-UCLA and Stanford-Cal would (of course) be protected cross-division rivalries.
If the Big XII were to go to two five-team divisions (probably isn’t happening), I think they should do something similar to the state of Texas…
Wilkinson Divison – Baylor, Texas Tech, OK, OK St, Missouri
Royal Division – Texas, Texas A&M, Kansas, Kansas St, IA St
LikeLike
Full circle.
Bravo, Frank. For seven months you’ve brought the knowledge on the topic of Big Ten expansion with great insight, persuasion and wit – far beyond what can be had from conventional media. You clarified and defined a behind-the-boardroom-door drama that might be unique in the history of both American business and sport.
The many fantastic commenters drawn to your blog are a telling testament.
Thanks for the ride.
LikeLike
Fully agreed.
Frank, it’s been awesome to read your intelligent analysis. Thank you for the great reading.
And if you need something to blog about regarding Big Ten expansion down the line, do me a favor by explaining why Maryland/UVA/UNC/GT/etc. would NOT be good candidates for the Big Ten… I’m a big ACC fan living in BT territory, so I appreciate both leagues. I just hope that the ACC will be able to assert itself among the elite soon. The football talent has been there for years; just look at the number of NFL first-rounders in the past five years. But for long-term success, the league needs more eyeballs and more cream to rise to the top. If that can happen, there will be little reason for ACC members to look elsewhere, whether Big Ten or SEC; more winning and more viewers will mean more competitive TV revenue.
But in any case, your blog has been truly entertaining. Congrats to you for your Hawks’ long-awaited championship.
LikeLike
I think they are. Maryland, UVA, UNC, GT, Duke, Miami, & maybe FSU to the Big20, I say (along with ND or Rutgers or both).
LikeLike
Which raises an interesting point. TX and the Big Yawn staying at 10 for now could in part be a hedge on if super conferences emerge on a 20-school, rather than 16-school model.
For political reasons I think 5×16 is far more likely than 4×16, especially if eventual break away is on the table. 4×20 splits it the same way, and allows for 8 division winners to meet in the current 4 BCS bowls to start a playoff.
LikeLike
Dang, I should really proofread. let’s try again:
For political reasons I think 5×16 is far more likely than 4×16, especially if eventual break away is on the table. 5×16=80 schools. 4×20 splits that same 80, allowing for 8 division winners to meet in the current 4 BCS bowls to start a playoff.
LikeLike
(All analysis, no news here!) I agree that UNL and the Big Ten are the biggest winners- this is a clear, concise addition for both school & conference that certainly helps the bottom line; solves the problem of a CCG; and adds a marquee program that provides continuity of fit & culture. The major minus of academic average being slightly lessened is mitigated by the fact of AAU membership and potential for growth, which, like PSU, will come in time.
This is the perhaps the best possible outcome given how expansion has played out at this point- a solid add amidst much uncertainty and rumor. Imagine if the B10 had, say, last week, jumped on Missouri? The result would be no BXII deal, a 13th member, and ongoing chaos/grabbing. As it stands, the conference has a solid addition and EXACTLY as Delaney has said, will continue on the “12-18 month” timetable.
Take him at his word, folks. I’m not saying Delany is omniscient/omnipotent, but according to his press conference comments, the B10 knew it wanted UNL and acted according to their window of opportunity. Delany has pulled off the feat of making a move that is both revolutionary, progressive and conservative- no mean feat! It follows that going forward, the B10 will continue to pursue their priorities and won’t be swayed by media(dare I say internet?) hype & rash judgment. UT, while having many attractive features, proved to be too tied to regional politics & concerns and institutional control issues. As if in an elaborate pledging ritual, UT showed themselves as too personally motivated to warrant the special circumstances the league might have been prepared to offer them.
My personal belief is that ND remains the true target and that expansion efforts, though they might become quiet again, will continue towards that end. I would be very surprised if Delany/B10 makes an Armageddon-like move to FORCE ND’s hand (see Big Ten Jeff’s excellent input above). Thinking like a university president: the first moves have been made and are solid on their own merits, let a year pass and see how the changes turn out. The results may help demonstrate how ND will fit into the most mutually-beneficial partnership possible.
Texas was a nice idea that turned out to be a pipe dream, but it truly IS All About Notre Dame + The Big Ten…
LikeLike
On a side note – and I know Bama touched on it in the last thread – I am going to be pretty upset if the B10 jumps to 16 within the next couple of years. I mentioned that I was sitting on the fence on whether I really like the idea of the P16 w/ UT and its gang (although I liked it a lot after rumors of aTm dropping for either Utah or KS), but that being said – I definitely don’t like the idea that there were those that conspired against the conference to stop it. Will those same “unnamed” conspire against future B10 expansion (or was it them doing the conspiring)? I get the model – B10/SEC stops P16 to remain unchallenged alphas…just doesn’t sit right to stop someone then flip around and allow another.
Dog eat dog world – I get it, but still…
LikeLike
There might be a couple things that impact your view of this B12-lite contract.
First, it looks like it’s going to be Fox Sports Net, not the ideal power network
Second, rumor is 18-25 years. That is an awful long time to tie into a contract.
Third, per Chip Brown the contract will have provisions to “keep the schools from jumping conferences. So they are locked in together (for better or worse).”
Fourth, I can picture those ‘provisions’ (penalties), 3+ years notice to leave, forfeit 90-100% of 3+ years revenue ($45m+), no ability to leave within a certain timeframe of signing contract (say 5 years or so). Who is going to be able to pay that sort of penalty, oh wait Texas could…who else – no one.
Fifth, how funny will it be if Memphis is invited to join the B12 lite and FedEx signs up as a league sponsor at a rate of $10-17m/year?
LikeLike
A few thoughts…
Certainly the Big Ten is a winner here. Nebraska couldn’t be a better addition. Speaking for Wisconsin, I’m quite pleased. A very good new foe. A school that will be a great partner.
(The last two additions are Penn State and Nebraska. Not bad…)
Besides strengthening yourself, weakening the Big 12 and having your closest ally strengthen modestly (though not as much as you), and having your main competitor lose out on what was likely an addition into the lucrative Texas market, the other plus to this soap opera is that the Big Ten can see how much the networks will pony up for the next TV deal. Who’d have thought the Big Ten would see so much benefit from just adding Nebraska?
But while things will likely calm down a bit now, (and while our domer friends must be resting well tonight), I don’t think things are at all over for Big Ten expansion plans quite yet. And that means the conference turns to the east.
I know the Pac-10 has to be disappointed with all this, but Utah and Colorado are good additions academically and in terms of new markets to get them to 12. Allows for a championship game, if they wish it and a better TV deal. (In fact, with what the Big 12 just got paid, the Pac-10 will likely do reasonably well.) Additionally, while they’re likely quite disappointed that they didn’t get their prize, I think they’ve dodged a major bullet. I don’t feel they’d be strengthened at all by the schools they were about to take. And for the moment, they don’t need more teams anyway.
The remaining Big 12 schools (Iowa State and Kansas State in particular, who had zero options) must be ecstatic. But that conference is built on silt, forever susceptible to liquifaction once again with the next “seismic” conference change.
(Hope you liked the analogy; I don’t get a chance to use my geology much…)
Finally, Frank, “Cajones” means ‘drawers’. “Cojones” is balls. Though I suppose you might need big drawers if you have big balls.
(In Canada, I don’t get to use my Spanish much either.)
LikeLike
I agree. I think everyone’s breathing easy now, but I can’t believe its going to be over yet.
Maybe not till next year.
LikeLike
The Pac-10 “losing” on UT, etc. is also mitigated in that UT, OU, and A&M are staying in the Big XII, and not going to The Big Ten or SEC and creating the first superconference(s).
Big Ten and SEC may go to 16 eventually, but if they did with UT, the Pac-10 would have been staring at perhaps four BCS conferences, and three of them SuperConferences. Now, at the very least, the Big XII will also be a non-SuperConference. The Big East remains unsettled, but for the time being, it looks like there will be a minimum of 5 BCS conferences, and the Pac-10 won’t be left behind just yet.
LikeLike
And, frankly, I think the SEC has far better options for the next round.
BT possibles: Mo., Kan., RU, Pitt, Syr., U Conn., Md., ND
SEC: A&M, Ok., Ok. State, Mo., Va. Tech, Clemson, FSU, Miami, W. Virginia
BT would not be able to match A&M, FSU/Clemson, OK., OK St. unless ND comes on board, which remains unlikely.
LikeLike
If the SEC has A&M as a possibility in the “next round”, why wouldn’t the Big Ten have Texas as a possibility?
LikeLike
Haven’t read many of shroom’s posts, have you?
LikeLike
TX never came close to being in the BT. A&M was 50-50 to the SEC for a week. Tx doesn’t want in the BT, period-neither the fans nor the administration.
LikeLike
Why limit the Big10? You should include all the academically good ACC schools from Virginia to Miami as potential targets as well.
LikeLike
From the sounds of it, the Big 12 Lite will not be an option for some time… and there are thoughts that Clemson/FSU/WV/Mia are not what the SEC had in mind. for either academic or footprint issues. I think Va Tech would be a great add for the SEC.
I still cannot believe A&M did not take this golden opportunity to break away. I am sure politics was a big part of it.
I think options are about equal. Who knows what the future holds. I look forward to it. I am in the minority that loves the idea of miami/GT in the Big Ten. There are a huge amounts of Big Ten fans in Florida.
LikeLike
thanks for hosting this ride, Frank. With the exception of the guy early on who claimed dominance, most of the posters have been interesting in giving their views. I guess we will learn if academics and location will produce a hexadecimal conference rather than dancing with the 2 prima donnas. Maybe we can get BTN to show the Ozzie & Kenny throw down…
LikeLike
I think the most interesting and surprising result of all of this is the amount of money the TV networks are literally throwing at these conferences!!! There’s only so much money they can squeeze out of the advertisers. I think several big things are going to fall out of this: conferences cannot start their own TV networks while under what are today huge TV contracts, TV networks are reaching the maximum they can pay, and advertisers are going to start moving over the the BTN because the rates will be lower and the BTN is becoming larger and more attractive.
All of these things combine to make the Big Ten more money in the long run. How much more is open to debate. But the Big Ten looks to be well in front of the other conferences in the long-term financially right now. As others have said, the 2016 TV contract should be at least as much as what the ACC and Big Tex make right now. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.
P.S. Thanks to FtT for his insightful blog, and to all of the commenters who have contributed so much information and analysis to the discussion.
LikeLike
Yes well done Frank, your twitter replies have helped me get through a pretty tough week as (primarily) a Jayhawk fan.
My dad and his whole side of the family is from Nebraska and I always rooted for UNL when I was a kid. The first Starter jacket was a big red one. But I was born here in KS and that has certainly grown into my first allegiance.
So from the beginning I was hoping UNL would go to the Big Ten but only if Kansas could land well if the whole thing went to shit.
Somehow…some way my prayers were answered and now I can root for UNL as hard as I did as a kid when I didn’t know you HAD to choose one team.
Thanks again for your great coverage and I’ll stay tuned. And Big Ten fans…I promise you your shit does stink.
Rock Chalk
LikeLike
oh come now, how do you know about the smell of our shit? LOL… and, personally, mine smells of sweet roses and lilacs.
LikeLike
hey i can smell yours through the TV every time OSU craps in a BCS game! jk:)
LikeLike
Can we add the Big East under “glad to be alive?”
They still exist with their best programs and no-one started the dominoes with the ACC.
LikeLike
The Big East is still unstable and the conference administrators have shown no inclination to do anything to fix the problem for the football schools. If anything the speculation has been on how the BB conference changes.
This is a pause in expansion and the Big East has an oh so temporary respite. With Texas off the table, the Big Ten will:
1) defer to ND’s decision time line (which must now be in the years category)
2) force ND’s decision time line by expanding in a calculated manner
3) wait for proactive moves
(a) by the SEC :: (now unlikely?)
(b) by the ACC :: (If the Big Ten is dormant, why not consider moving on attractive Big East schools?)
One constraint on the above is the question of whether the Big Ten is leaving money on the table without a further expansion now. One line of reasoning is that it doesn’t matter until the next contract negotiation. However, I think we have established that the right expansion is accretive through BTN carriage rates and advertising on increased inventory.
So, even if ND is the fish to play for, does it follow any further expansion has a negative impact on the probability of landing ND?
There is one point missed in Frank’s summing up. Delaney and the Big Ten know a great deal more about ND’s parameters for a decision. It is highly probable this information has resulted in selection of both a strategy and the alternative expansion scenarios. A critical piece of information is whether ND is gettable and what acceptable requirements are associated with that (e.g. bringing in another private smallish school). If ND is judged to be available only with seismic changes where they are looking for safe harbor, one might suppose keeping a slot open will be enough.
Absent this critical knowledge about ND — which Delaney and the Big Ten now possess — we will need to watch the Big Ten actions. Bottom line, there is nothing we have learned, apart from Texas coming off the table, that suggests the Big Ten stops here. We can infer that ND was in play (though perhaps only paired with Texas) and the analysis on this board suggests the BTN benefits in a nonlinear fashion with new inventory and footprint. Those points introduce real uncertainty for the question of a significant pause in expansion.
LikeLike
well put, although I’m not sure I agree.
honestly, i have doubts that the B10 presidents are seeing this in terms of B10 Network households and cable footprints. thus, expanding just to add inventory? not sure.
would agree with your comments on ND, particularly in the sense of what information was shaken loose in the last few months. the B10 has good, current-as-of-now information on what ND wants/needs to become a member of the B10. also, if FtT’s recent post about the BEast splitting into BB and Football divisions, the B10 also has lots of information on how to force ND’s hand (if such was desirable).
it will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens.
LikeLike
I would bet ND isn’t telling the BT a damn thing about its intentions.
LikeLike
yes, not anymore.
but, from all accounts, ND expressed positions on various issues (e.g., we want to join with TX, we want more OOC games, etc.)
at minimum, a lot of information/sentiment has been provided by bloggers, media and fans.
LikeLike
yeah, seems to me Big East goes in the TBD category.
LikeLike
1. Some people and some organizations are never meant to be part of anything they don’t control. I am glad that TX knows that about itself and that at least a few B10 presidents learned it about them as well. For better or for worse they need to go their own way, and good luck to them.
2. The TX subsidiary corporations (otherwise known as MO, KU, etc.) are permanently screwed. You guys are probably right that they all had to lock into a long term deal to get this done but that means that they are locked out of the chance for large revenue streams that might help them upgrade both their school and their athletic programs. Absent those upgrades they will never be attractive to another conference and are thus relegated to a life of conference subservience.
3. Having said that however I find it hard to believe that there aren’t some outs in the B12ish contracts. The thing about control freaks like TX is that they also like to control their ability to leave and surely the other schools aren’t stupid enough to let TX build in outs that don’t apply to the rest of them as well?? Surely??
4. This move cements the future ability of B10 and SEC to practically pick their new partners. No school east of the Mississippi will go the P12 nor will anyone join the TX Corporate Conference. Once the enhanced TV money starts to flow to B10 and SEC as a result of what got thrown at TX then the prestigious schools we have all discussed will have to rethink where they sit in the BE and ACC.
5. Frank, I echo all the things said about you and your work on this blog. It ain’t over till it’s over.
LikeLike
2. The TX subsidiary corporations (otherwise known as MO, KU, etc.) are permanently screwed. You guys are probably right that they all had to lock into a long term deal to get this done but that means that they are locked out of the chance for large revenue streams that might help them upgrade both their school and their athletic programs.
Every school just got at least a 50% pay raise. Actually closer to double for the lesser schools.
LikeLike
yeah, but … that’s great for the short term, but a contract lasting nearly two-decades is really a problem particularly with TX being able to do it’s own network and with TX getting unequal revenue sharing. TX (and probably OK) will continue to grow their revenue, maybe OKstate and TX Tech and A&M grow. but the remainder of the BXII will slowly starve and decline (just like now).
LikeLike
Late post… sorry…
This all seems like re-upping in the military. We’ll give you a nice bit of money (short-term i.e. carrot) if you commit for another 4 or 6 years… but it’s not on your terms.
Lil extra cash now… a little short term security… but…you may end up in Siberia.
LikeLike
As long as the penalty for leaving the Big 12-ish is only money, it will be no impediment for the Longhorns the next time they want to go looking. Every other team can be kept in place with a fairly sizable forfeiture clause.
LikeLike
Per a USAToday article:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-06-14-texas-staying-big-12_N.htm
“and Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany has said his league will make no further moves for at least six to 12 months.”
1)Anyone know where this quote came from?
2)If its true, looks like the roller coaster ride isn’t totally over yet.
LikeLike
Also of interest in the article:
-Texas and a few other schools get way more than the others (by $5mill in some estimates).
-The values thrown around are high per the evaluator used for that article. With overall averages coming out to around ACC payouts.
IMO, what we saw happen is Fox Sports become the defacto “Big12-ish Conference TV Channel” that is supposed to pay out just enough to get them to their next ABC/ESPN tv contract where they’ll probably get ~ACC money (since they’ll only likely want a couple games per week from that conference). All together your looking at teams like Texas making close to what Florida/Alabama make (including local content contracts) with teams like Iowa St. getting paid more like ACC members.
I simply cannot see how that is conducive to maintain a healthy conference.
LikeLike
Was it really Fox that bid the Big Twilight? Pac 10 can’t be happy about their “partner” pulling the rug out from under them on the P16.
LikeLike
IMO, Fox backed its horse as long as it could, but once it knew the Pac was out of the race (TAMU going SEC) it made its own play.
They’re still going to get the Pac Network up and on its feet. It just won’t have Texas in its footprint.
LikeLike
didn’t see that comment but wouldn’t be at all surprised. the turmoil in the entire conference landscape allowed the Nebraska to Big Ten portion to go with relatively little fuss and muss. Pac 10 and Big 12ish are taking all the hits……..except from Rick. Delany and company can now work with Nebraska on a smooth transition and bide their time for a bit. Given the money and egos involved and the instability in a couple of conferences it is inevitable that things heat up again in the not to distant future. Its not over. Until then we may have to humor Frank and discuss Lebron a bit.
LikeLike
ok, i’m game: OMG, did you see that twitter report that LeBron is going to play BB in CANADA!?
LikeLike
lol
LikeLike
I saw JD’s PC when Neb was added. He said the BT remains on its original time schedule- re: expansion……basically that BT could now go back to the origiunal timetable….said priority #1 at present was getting Neb. integrated, but BT would monitor the expansion landscape….talked about a “pause” in the action. I certainly didn’t interpret his comments to mean that expansion was to be shut down for a # of years.
LikeLike
PSUGuy,
Good find.
This meshes with everything PBC has said on the Northwestern board. Texas/ND has been the plan A, plan B, and plan C for quite some time. Now Delany takes a step back and sees how the Big 12 progresses and decides whether it´s time to move on from Texas. Whatever the decision, I think Delany realizes the Big 10 has to strike while the iron is hot. The Big 10 is working against a clock, so to speak, and desperately needs a footprint in Texas or the SE before the music stops.
If he decides to move on (which I think he will), the next move – maybe a year down the road – is to destabilize the ACC by taking GTech and Miami. You then look into Maryland and expect the ACC to raid the Big East. If that comes to fruition, the Big East/ND scenario Frank described in his last post could play out.
Next year, at this time, I think we see the Big 10 expand to 16 with Miami, GTech, Maryland and Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Good prediction. GTech & Miami make a lot of sense for the Big10. I think Maryland gets addde only if ND comes along as well.
LikeLike
0 for 3 there boys
LikeLike
That’s ridiculous.
LikeLike
Add Notre Dame to the “winner” column here.
The Fighting Irish get to remain independent, which was their goal during all of this nonsense.
LikeLike
nothing changed for Notre Dame. that is neither a winner or a loser. its just status quo. and if the notion is that this process is over and Notre Dame is free and clear just remember what someone said in the ‘Wizard of Oz’
“Just try and stay out of my way. Just try! I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too!”
LikeLike
Since “Status Quo” was ND’s desired outcome, I’d consider the mere moving of CU and UNL out of the BXII to be a Big W for the Irish.
LikeLike
Does “No mean no” yet? Haven’t heard it yet from Swarbrick. Or did I miss something. If not, would he please put this to rest already!! Silence is not good here. Especially with the TT and OKSt opt out rumblings and the funny numbers of the new Bush League Conference.
LikeLike
I fear we’ll never get any more of a no from the current administration than we have so far.
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox – There’s no reason for the administration to ever give a preemptive unequivocal “NEVER” statement. It would throw red meat to the alumni base, but it doesn’t behoove any school to go on the record in that manner. Enough weird s**t has happened enough over the past 2 decades in conference realignment that you have to keep your options open. In fact, in ND’s position, the perception of having options is important to its leverage (i.e. it can go to NBC and say, “We’ll just join the Big Ten to make more money if you don’t pay us X dollars”).
LikeLike
@ Frank
I concur, and you are right, it is the proper call for ND. My “fear” is mainly for myself and constantly waiting for another shoe to drop a la 1999 until the dawn of the Big Sixteen 🙂 Oh, well, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
And allow me to thank you for hosting us and being our prophet in this. I don’t plan on leaving, but I’ll probably return to lurking more and posting less. Go Big East Hoops.
LikeLike
That also makes them the loser……
LikeLike
“winner” or “loser” depends on your perspective (naturally). “winner” if you value ND independence and think that is long-term best for ND; “loser” if you think the future is in conference membership and that ND will slowly decline if they fail to sign up.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Frank, The Big XII (10) is safe….for now. Nebraska and Colorado left, not only because they feared the conference would dissolve, but also because of finances. I am still skeptical about how this new Big XII TV contract will work until the figures are released, coupled with the Longhorn Sports Network. The Big Ten struggled to get the Big Ten Network on basic cable, and the Big XII will definitely run into more hurdles because of population and coverage.
If this new TV deal doesn’t work out, I can see this same situation presenting itself a few years from now. Texas and/or Notre Dame remain the ultimate goal for the conference. I can see the Big Ten standing pat for now with 12 teams, but we will see what happens in the next round of TV contract negotiations. If the margin for the Big Ten vs the Big XII is as different as it is now, expect this seismic expansion talk to begin again.
LikeLike
Hawkeyes Western Division champs!
LikeLike
added
LikeLike
“Forget it, Frank the Tank – it’s Texas”
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
Thanks for the great forum and insight Frank.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Some thoughts on the birth of the Big Yawn:
With all the pushback from the BCS, networks, cable providers, NCAA, TX politicians, NCAA, outside conferences and schools, and yet to be named others, perhaps TX’s best hand was to settle temporarily. In the next 12 months the governor’s race will be over, the legislature will meet and end for the next 2 years, and Congress will become less interventionist and more predictable. Buy some time and let the heavy work preparing for the massive shift to super conference take place behind the scenes.
Next time there will be only 4 open slots in the P16. Baylor problem solved.
Next time the LSN is up and attached, now non-negotiable.
Why the heck Texas still believes that a solo sports network will be better off in the long-term compared to a share in the Big Ten Network or what would’ve been created in the Pac-10 is beyond me, but DeLoss Dodds is going to get his chance to create his baby.
Ask Florida ($10 million) and the SEC about the value of such networks. And let’s clear something up, the LSN isn’t about getting on basic, it is strictly intended for the sports tier. A few football games (cough, ISU, Baylor, cough), 20% non-athletic selling of the school, nostalgia interviews and footage, and guaranteed broadcast for all the minor sports TX wants on the air.
No good reason why that couldn’t have co-existed with a primary P16 network that would be for basic. Would have slightly reduced the cut to each P10 school, but they’d also have the chance to follow suit. Some jackass NYTimes writer blames TX greed, but what about the P10 schools’ greed? They could have had the P16 if they had compromised on allowing individual schools to have affiliated secondary networks. The SEC does, are they greedy, too?
I’m not thrilled, but I’ll wait to learn more of the facts and reasoning. And who’s to say that 12-school conferences don’t end up as the template for the playoff reformation instead of 16-school super conferences?
Link for the 10am central TX-Bill Powers press conference:
http://all-access.cbssports.com/player.html?code=tex&media=182505
LikeLike
Forgot to add, we’ve learned that:
TX to the Big Tent is dead, almost surely forever. If we go to super conferences then aTm will go SEC. Geography and travel do matter and there just aren’t enough academically eligible schools nearby to package with TX. Lone outposts are unlikely for any super conference.
A conference with nearly all academic peers isn’t as powerful a draw as we thought. $ and total fit matter more. A school with the academic heft of TX thinks its reputation is solid enough that the benefits don’t outweigh the trade offs. Joining with the P10 will suffice if we go to super conferences.
LikeLike
It seems that the only place for Texas is the next 5+years is the big 12 or SEC. PAC and BIG are going to have networks. Those networks would be diminished with a LHN.
I know the BIG will not give any member a special deal. Goes against what the Big is.
PAC probably would do the same. Especially once network is up and running.
Looks like the SEC for Texas if they can’t keep the others in line.
LikeLike
good morning playoffs now
good post but just a couple of comments.
the NY Times reporter you mention was Pete Thamel. his comment was:
Source confirms that Texas asked to be able to keep own local TV and wanted “extra sweetner” financially from revenue sharing at 11th hour. I take the implication from that was some local tv was on the table and subject to the negotiation and at the 11th hour asked for an extra sweetener from revenue sharing. the above and beyond the local network appears to be the genesis of the greed comment. fwiw it is also possible that by the ’11th hour’ Texas was aware of the pending Big 12 deal and threw that in to stall negotaitions and buy time.
you say “a conference with nearly all academic peers isn’t as powerful a draw as we thought.” really? the Texas administrations seemed to be awfully interested. the athletic department and politicians were the opposition. they won. what does that say? Notre Dame is in a similar position. the administration of Notre Dame is very interested in a conference of academic peers and have been since the 90s. it is the alumni fan base who are oppossed.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Tx adm was “awfully interested”. I think our man Powers was blowing OSU Pres. Gee a load of shit with that “Tech problem” comment.
LikeLike
there were a lot of other sources over the last two weeks saying there was a split within Texas with the academic side in favor of the Big Ten but the athletic department favoring the Pac 10. that was more than the Gee’s e-mail.
LikeLike
Name one source other than a blogger on this blog to that effect…..
LikeLike
Actually, I think what we’ve seen is that “a conference with nearly all academic peers” has shown to be quite powerful. The Big Ten was the biggest and wealthiest and just became moreso. It’s also still on the prowl for more.
The only schools that have shown they don’t find it so attractive are those who have a lopsided deal on their own and would have to give up the power they’re used to. For the most part, that’s Texas and Notre Dame. And over time we’ll see how stable those schools are in their current situations.
LikeLike
“A school with the academic heft of TX thinks its reputation is solid enough that the benefits don’t outweigh the trade offs.”
I suspect Texas is a special case in this regard. Perhaps internally to UT academics loses to athletics, but almost certainly with respect to politics. Turning down membership in the CIC is not just about reputation.
LikeLike
1) if I were the BE, I would still kick out ND and split into 2 conferences. I would add Temple, UCF, ECU and Memphis to get to a championship game. This stability might help to keep Pitt, Rutgers etc. in the fold when rhe Big Ten looks to expand again.
2) No new conference will ever have a number in it.
3) I still think that after ND that the Big Ten has its eye on MD and UVA.
4) I still want to know who Frank’s avatar is. Chet Lemon? Oscar Gamble?
LikeLike
Bake McBride?
LikeLike
The ultimatum won’t happen.
Maryland and Va. won’t happen.
BT options are limited to Mo., Kansas, RU, Pitt, Syr., U Conn, GT……
LikeLike
…and ND if BK is a bust……
LikeLike
& Miami. Not sure why you think Maryland won’t happen (I understand that UVA wuold be available only if VTech goes to the SEC).
LikeLike
He’s a shroom. He doesn’t think.
LikeLike
How cute…my very own stalker.
LikeLike
The ACC is not the Big 12. Teams don’t leave the ACC. MD doesn’t hate UNC like Neb. hated and distrusted TX.
LikeLike
It’s Oscar Gamble.
LikeLike
It’s Procter and Gamble.
LikeLike
2) Now new conference will ever have a number in its name.
LikeLike
Someone found this yesterday and it still makes me laugh:
LikeLike
What I find funny about this song…is this truly is the attitude from most people in and from the State of Texas
And some of you are surprised to learn about UofTexas arrogance and need to be in control.
LikeLike
What I find funny about this song…is this truly is the attitude from most people in and from the State of Texas
BS. Maybe you encounter that attitude because you think in simple stereotypes.
LikeLike
fwiw I posted the original video. I lived in Texas for awhile and loved it. I still keep a Texas flag over my desk. The attitude does exist but I think its wrong to take it as aggressive or dismissive of others. its really just an espression of pride and self assurance. nothing wrong with that.
LikeLike
Except when it’s combined with ignorance, as in the case of George Bush.
LikeLike
“pride and self assurance” seems different on the other end. Many times it comes off as arrogant and self-inflated.
Personally I usually find it entertaining.
LikeLike
I often play it up to amuse foreigners.
LikeLike
@ M’roomGod:
Bush the Younger wasn’t ignorant; he was brainless; that is, without brains. Chaney was the president for 8 years.
As for Bush the Elder; maybe he was ignorant.
(on the other hand, i think we’re supposed to avoid politics on this board? so in that vein, all politicians are great, yep yep yep, that’s my story and i’m sticking to it)
LikeLike
Buckeye–I had no problem with George Sr….if anything, I’m a Republican…..I was referring to Jr…..and only as a reflection on TX arrogance….
LikeLike
Yes.
BTW, thanks for posting it, great find.
I view it as 99% tongue-in-cheek, just having some fun. The writer is a Texan from OK. Some others may not realize it, but literally half of Texas are from somewhere else (one of the real secrets of our success.)
It’s all good.
LikeLike
That’s George W. Bush, not Jr.
He’s not the ignorant one.
LikeLike
FWIW: Perlman talks more about the potential penalties … Reply
this morning on KLIN. He said there technically aren’t any “exit penalties”, but there are provisions for paying liquidated damages to remaining schools who might suffer as a result of the exit. Since the Big 12 apparently now is much better off financially AFTER Nebraska left, there really are no liquidated damages for the remaining schools. Therefore his view is Nebraska should not have to pay for any liquidated damages since they don’t exist.
Asked whether a final settlement would wind up in court, Perlman just said he hopes not but we’ll have to see how it works out.
LikeLike
As an aside, Perlman was probably uniquely equipped as a University chancellor for the Big 12 negotiations he was in:
During his law school years, he was editor in chief of the Nebraska Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif, a law honors society.
He joined the NU law faculty in 1967 after spending a year as a Bigelow Teaching Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. He served on the Nebraska law faculty until 1974 when he joined the faculty at the University of Virginia Law School. He returned to Nebraska in 1983 when he accepted the deanship of the Nebraska Law College, a post he held until 1998 when he returned to the professoriate.
His area of legal expertise lies in torts and intellectual property. He is co-author of “Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition” (5th edition, 1998) and co-reporter for the “Restatement of Unfair Competition” (1994). In February 2002, Perlman was named a Life Fellow of the American Bar Foundation.
LikeLike
Perlman is one shart dude. He knows where neb stands on this legally.
LikeLike
I’m sure he’s damn smart, but he’s not exactly the life of the party. He and TO made for an interesting contrast.
LikeLike
Frank, let me echo what everyone is saying. I appreciate your time and effort in educating and informing us of the dynamics of expansion. Indeed, whenever someone brings up adding Oklahoma to the Big Ten I inevitably quote your statement, “Think like a university president and not a sports fan.”
Anyway, like most others, I think the Big Texas is a straw man that will be blown over in a few years. Texas may well become independent if/when some of its sycophants leave. Texs has also made it impossible for itself to be accepted into a new league regardless of the invitation. Why? Two reasons. First it has exposed itself as a diva that wants total control and that will not be acceptable in the Big Ten, Pac Ten, or SEC. Second, TLN. Having its own network will make Texas impossible to work with. If Texas had to join another conference it would have to give up TLN or roll it over into the conference network where the proceeds are shared by all.
Texas is like the kid who was the only child for ten years and then found itself with a younger sibling. It cannot bear the thought of sharing equally.
Finally, when the sycophants, A&M and OU turned down the Pac 10, those in Texas had to smile. I am reminded of the scene in “Animal House” when the new members of a fraternity were being initiated. They were on all fours with pants down being paddled. After each whack they said, “Thank you, sir. May I have another.” That is OU and A&M. The others had no choice but to re-up and Texas knows it.
LikeLike
@Julian,
Don’t kid yourself….Everyone (Big 10, SEC, Pac 10) will still want Texas 5 or even 10 years down the road. They are a lot like the Domers in that regard. Do I like it? Of course not. Would I say no if they came to the Big 10 with hat in hand? Absolutely no way on God’s green earth…If they want in, they’re in.
Even if they get the TLN off the ground, they will still be a welcome addition.
Which is also part of the problem. While the Big 10 had a nice, juicy red apple on the table, Texas knew that it’s own apple can polish up really nice.
LikeLike
okay, so let’s start figuring out who all of these “influential people” are.
FtT linked an article in the post which starts: “a number of influential people inside and outside of college athletics mobilized over the past week to save the Big 12 Conference, stave off the Pac-10’s move to expand to 16 schools and prevent a massive reorganization of college athletics.”
so, who do we think these people are?
NCAA folks? hmm… isn’t the current head of the NCAA the former Chancellor of Washington Univ? who else makes decisions for the NCAA? is there a BB vs. Football split among the decision makers in the NCAA? it seems the BB Tournament would have been hit hard by the dissolution of the BXII. Did Kansas BB save the BigXII?
SEC/Slive? hmm… seems doubtful
ABC network execs? some commentators on this Board have suggested the TV execs are playing a “maximize-our-inventory” game … so, if BXII dies completely, the inventory diminishes because the Kansases/Missouris of CFB go away … it’s an idea
NBC network execs? see above, but add in the ND connection.
CBS network execs? see above, but add in the SEC connection
Fox TV? hmm… didn’t they want to help build the PAC16 network? can see them killing the deal.
Anti-Fox TV players (e.g. ESPN, other networks): plausible to prevent Fox from becoming the super-power of CFB television
ESPN: how much power do they have? what do their execs want?
Politicians: For sure. you know the Kansas US Senators were in full-court press to do something. Who else? the Speaker of the House is from Cal, so she didn’t intervene… who are the power brokers for the schools that were going to be left behind? The Clintons (see below)? The Bushes?
The White House? hmm… only if significant pressure from senators and congressmen in my view… but what power/influence exerted? maybe a phone call from PoTUS is all you need?
Financial People: maybe Knight and/or Pickens didn’t really really like the BXI/Pac10 marriage? who else is “out there”
ND: who are the ND power brokers and are they well connected to TV and/or other crucial players? Did they move to help salvage the BXII to prevent that seismic shift?
Big East: some of the “players” are for sure from the Big East. BXII remaining intact lessens chances of full-fledged free-fall which increases the chances of Big East survival. consider the Big East BB locations near the nations capital and in the NYC market. maybe it’s Georgetown (and its political connections) that saved the BXII?
ACC: hmm… not sure… with tA&M being the object of affection for the SEC, surely that would have lessened any potential expansion pressure on the ACC … so ACC would let it happen? or maybe MD and VATech acted to prevent the freefall with their connections to Wash DC?
Saboteurs: maybe saboteurs from within the P10 and/or B10? Stanford changed its “mind” but couldn’t publicly renege, so they put the Clintons on the task of keeping the BXII up and running?
all fascinating!
thoughts everyone? who are we missing?
LikeLike
re the Fox participation. I’ve posted this before but it makes sense for Fox. Yes they are likely to partner with the Pac 1x for a network. but that deal gives equity participation to the Pac 1x so while still profitable is less attractive than a pure rights deal. the Big 12 deal gives them the content without sacrificng equity. thats a much better deal for Fox. so by doing the Big 12 deal they get essentially the same content as with a Texas in the Pac 1x deal but giving up less equity participation.
LikeLike
hmm.. an interesting thought… but would that cause Fox to move behind the scenes to kill the BXIISouth-to-the-P16 deal? Seems that Fox was in a win-win so i would not see them acting to kill the deal.
but, as with all organizations, Fox is not a solitary entity. so maybe the part of FOX that gets BXII sports was at odds with the part of FOX that puts together networks like the B10 Network? so maybe part of Fox is working to help P16 network while part of Fox is working to prop up the BXII? (all working very subtly of course)
interesting to contemplate…
LikeLike
I think Fox’s first move was the 5 schools to Pac and creating the Pac Network.
When TAMU started pulling toward the SEC (and ABC/ESPN & CBS) and it looked like it could get away with it, Fox (through Fox Sprorts) “saved the day” by offering a de facto league network to the Big12 schools.
In the end, Fox is going to own the college football landscape west of the Missippi and (depending on where/if the BigTen expands) north of the Ohio River / mid-atlantic.
Having TAMU go to the SEC (and the networks they affiliate with) would force the Texas markets to be split and thus would be “non-nominal” for Fox.
LikeLike
Bingo. It wasn’t just Texas recruiting that was threatened by A&M in the SEC–it was the TV money. Texas may be the bell cow, but Fox just wouldn’t reap as much benefit out of a Texas market split between the SEC and Pac 10 as it would one devoted to the Big Whatever.
LikeLike
okay, as I read more about this, i’m inclined to agree and see Fox’s role here as a big one. afterall, it’s FOX that is giving all this extra money and Fox will probably still get a P12 network up and running; so double-win for Fox.
LikeLike
I personally think it was a group of people (probably from most (if not all) of those areas) that didn’t want college football to go to 16 team superconferences for whatever reason (and maybe they all had different reasons).
Maybe ESPN didn’t want another conference creating its own network and creating a trend (the reason that ESPN gave the SEC their record contract (well record at the time) was to prevent it from creating its own network. Maybe it didn’t really want to pay for most the Big 12-lite’s contract so they somehow convinced Fox to pick it up (this way the Pac 10 doesn’t get its own network and ESPN doesn’t have to pay for a crap conference’s contract).
Maybe The NCAA was worried that if these conference went to 16 teams that they may decide to form their own governing body and the NCAA would be regulated to the lower levels of college football.
Maybe their was a group from within the college football ranks that were worried that once all of this happened, that the US government would get involved because all of the other schools not in one of these major 16 team conferences would be getting left out.
Maybe the Big East and ACC thought that this expansion would spill into their conference (which it would’ve) and they felt that if they could stop the Pac 16, then they may not get hit as bad. Maybe the SEC decided their best scenerio was if they didn’t have to expand at all (which was their original preference). And maybe the Big 10 decided it didn’t want the Pac 16 expansion to cause the SEC to start growing its footprint and market.
Whatever it was, it was a group of people that decided that 16 team superconferences were bad for college football and put a stop to it.
LikeLike
interesting final thought. my first reaction was more limited to THIS particular 16 team alignment. but you make a good point; even if the B10 is still mulling expanding, going to 16 somehow seems less likely today than it did on Friday.
there is no real evidence for that feeling; but it seems some relevant and powerful people put the kabash on the P16; seems reasonable to assume those same relevant and powerful people might resist a 16 team B10.
LikeLike
One unanswered question is what happens to B12-1, not yet -2 next year. They will have 11. Do they skip the championship game? Do they petition the NCAA for a one year exception? Or do they rent Northern Illinois from the MAC for a year?
LikeLike
both Colorado and Nebraska will be playing in the Big 12 next year so not an issue.
LikeLike
and the Colo situation is not yet firmed-up. Colo might go as of 2011 or might go as of 2012. so your questions re the CCG apply for 2012.
LikeLike
In 2010, but Nebraska is leaving in 2011, Colorado in 2012.
LikeLike
Would be pretty funny if Nebraska wins the BXII title this year, especially if they play TX for it
LikeLike
Exceprts from Wetzel’s long take:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-big12save061410
…While Scott was making what looked like an aerial victory lap in a Raytheon Hawker 800 twin-engine jet Sunday, an informal, yet influential group had formed to help stop him, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
As the Big 12’s impending death became increasingly apparent last week, a diverse group of leaders across college athletics decided to come to the league’s rescue. Athletic directors, business leaders and television executives all played a part in the league’s 11th-hour attempt to save itself from destruction.
“This is was a potential doomsday,” said one college administrator who offered the Big 12 assistance and sought anonymity for fear of backlash from the Pac-10. “This was moving too quickly. The collateral impact wasn’t being considered. [There was] a great deal of work to be done.”
Some were worried about the long-term stability of college athletics should an era of 16-team super conferences arrive. Others feared the potential wealth and competitive power of Scott’s league. Some just helped for the challenge of it.
With Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe in charge, a furious weekend of phone calls, planning sessions and analysis reports allowed the league to secure a potential television deal, a revenue sharing plan and new sales pitch that proved tempting enough to stop lynchpin Texas from jumping to the Pac-10.
The TV contract, which like some other details hasn’t been formalized, promises Texas and Oklahoma an oversized share of revenue that could reach over $20 million per year, on pace with the industry-best Big Ten. League schools are also free to start their own cable networks which could prove worth up to another $5 million annually for UT and OU, the league’s two most popular teams.
Armed with a strong position in the Big 12, Texas returned to the Pac-10 and asked for a similar deal – the right to its own network (not just part of a Pac-16 channel) and an oversized revenue share, according to a source familiar with the negotiations. Larry Scott turned it down…
…For the Longhorns and Sooners, there was little doubt that the best place in terms of actual football was the Big 12. There was never a reason to leave.
They already dominate, both in terms of on-field victories and in controlling the talent-rich local recruiting turf. The two schools have combined to reach five of the last seven BCS title games. It was almost impossible for the Pac-16 to offer greener grass than that, a point that was repeatedly lobbied to each school’s administration, according to a source…
(Fear of super conferences, being left out, and withdrawal from the NCAA)…That’s what motivated so many powerful people to call the Big 12 offices in Irving, Texas and offer help…
…So the “threat” of the super conference has been stopped; at least for the time being. The underlying problem for college sports remains – these schools have spent themselves broke on huge salaries, extravagant facilities and lavish benefits such as private planes…
…Without a playoff though, this season of minor expansion is but the calm before the storm…
LikeLike
Excerpts, too.
LikeLike
he lost me with ‘Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe in charge’
LikeLike
thanks for the excerpts. looks like a good article that i’ll go read.
LikeLike
i find this the most interesting comment: “This was moving too quickly. The collateral impact wasn’t being considered.”
my sense was/is that the “collateral impact” was being very very considered by the P10 and B10 and the SEC. In many respects, the “collateral impact” was good for those conferences (and therefore, bad for the other conferences).
make no mistake: there is a lot of spin still going on.
LikeLike
hmm… an interesting factual article (not much for detail, but still interesting) until Wetzel starting pontificating and fear-mongering with comments like this:
“If Kansas basketball can almost get wiped out, so can almost any school.”
Kansas BB was never going to disappear! ugh
LikeLike
I like all these “could reach” and “details haven’t been finalized.”
There is no way the Big 12ish is going to get double the amount of cash from their last deal without Nebraska and Colorado. I think a lot of people are making some very outlandish projections.
I have no doubt UT is going to get their cut. TAMU and OU will get healthy raises too. But their cut is coming out of the cut of the other seven schools. Already it’s coming out that the big 3 are keeping all the exit penalties from UNL and CU.
LikeLike
Interesting that after Texas was given $20 million in TV money plus the chance to start its own station that would pay out another $5 million–Texas still went to the Pac-10 to try to get a better offer.
Let’s hear again how Texas’ biggest priority is saving the Big 12.
Their priority is maximizing their cash flow. They’d have dropped teh little eight in an instant if it meant more cash. For now, they stay in the new Big 12. The little eight have been placated for the present, but will fall further than ever behind Texas and Oklahoma in 5, 10 years.
LikeLike
In light of the sizable increases seen by the ACC and Big XII-ish TV contracts… doesn’t this take the luster off of the SEC TV contracts? The SEC may not have been passed or even fully caught up to, but the gap has been closed greatly.
Therefore, I would expect that Slive would be motivated to do everything he can to regain this competitive advantage and, perhaps more importantly, appease his ego. And the only way to do that might be to expand, and thereby re-open the TV contracts.
Even if the SEC expansion is “a couple of stand-up doubles” like Arkansas and South Carolina instead of a “home run” like Penn State, it still (presumably) gives the SEC a chance to increase their TV contract to meet the current perceived value.
Or perhaps they do some horse trading and “encourage” Vanderbilt to look at The Big Ten, so the SEC can add Va Tech and stay at 12, if that is enough to trigger a re-negotiation.
LikeLike
Does anyone know approx. how much the Big Ten will make in TV revenue with addition of Nebraska? The local media here in Oklahoma is spinning this like The Texas Ten came out on top of the Big Ten in this TV revenue debate. I know that is ridiculous but does anyone know any solid estimates? I am so excited about being a part of the Big Ten….I’ve always been a fan of the BIg
LikeLike
don’t know precise numbers. one thing to condider is that the current distribution is not the total earning power for the conference. Fox is being paid back for start up costs. If that was already a sunk cost the payout for each school would reportedly be a couple of million higher.
LikeLike
When the BigTen renogitaites its tv contracts it’ll have 4 (or more possibly) of the top football programs of all time with huge draws (nationally) for each. The payout for that alone should be equal to/more than the SEC contract.
Also consider that Nebraska (based on my observations of tv coverage maps in recent history) delivers not only Nebraska, but the entire great plains (even into states with BCS schools like Kansas, Idaho, etc).
Is that enough to get the BigTen on basic cable in those areas? I don’t know, but I’d think it a good possibility.
LikeLike
I have no idea, but I have no faith in Dan Beebe’s mystery TV contract.
Nebraska is going to help a lot, not so much by adding the NE markets, but by giving us several games a year with high ratings that advertisers will love, and causing Husker fans throughout the country to add the Sports tier or switch to DirecTV so they can see their Huskers year round.
LikeLike
True dat. I’m getting DirectTV installed next week for the sole purpose of accessing the BT network. Gotta study up and get my big ten game right.
LikeLike
Does anyone know approx. how much the Big Ten will make in TV revenue with addition of Nebraska? The local media here in Oklahoma is spinning this like The Texas Ten came out on top of the Big Ten in this TV revenue debate. I know that is ridiculous but does anyone know any solid estimates? I am so excited about being a part of the Big Ten….I’ve always obviously followed the Big 8 and Big 12 with Nebraska; but I’ve also alway admired the pagentry of the Big Ten from afar. More than thrilled to be a part of it! (Sorry for the early submit, got a little trigger happy)
LikeLike
never apologize for an errant click on the “submit button”; it’s always the fault of the “f-ing computer!!!” LOL
btw, what does that say when we have to “submit” to the computer!
LikeLike
It means you’re Iowa State, and the computer is Texas.
LikeLike
LOL… very good.
LikeLike
I would love to see a post with analysis on this. I know there was a post a month or so ago that laid out the 60/40 rule and listed the potential impact of a number of teams.
Now that we know Nebraska is joining is would be very interesting to drill down the numbers — and it could be in the form of worst case, best case and most likely case scenarios.
LikeLike
I really doubt that the B12 has caught the B10 in TV money. The new B12 deal doesn’t kick in until Fall 2012. So they still have two more years of making close to $10M per team. BTN revenues should continue to rise in the next two years, raising each team’s TV revenue. I’ve already read that this coming year is projected to pay each B10 school $1M more than last year.
I imagine in 2012-2013, that Texas and some other big B12 names (OU, A&M?) will be roughly on par with B10 teams. But the BTN will likely inch up each year, then in 2016, B10 will break the bank with a new ABC/ESPN deal.
LikeLike
and add in that this new BXII tv deal is for 18 years (nearly two decades!) and some portion of the money reportedly front-loaded.
so, in 2030, Mizzu and KS are going to be playing football with basically 2010 revenue
wow, talk about being tied in bundle: for two decades, chained to TEX with a flat revenue stream and no chance of local tv.
frankly, Mizzu and KS might as well just join the MWC and be done with it. who wants to watch the slow painful decline for 18 years.
LikeLike
And to compound both of your points, the Big Ten deal will be renegotiated in 2016 and 2026. That means that the Big 12-2 deal has to somehow stay current even though the Big Ten deal will probably increase by 1.5-2x twice over…
LikeLike
yep, MO, KS, KSstate, Iowa State are officially and permanently screwed. They get to be TX’s and OK’s conference cupcakes forever.
Baylor and TxTech may have enough political heft in TX to get some of the Univ of Texas’ money, but they are probably screwed too.
OKLA will be fine (cuz TX needs at least one legitimate “rival” that is recognized nationally).
OKST would be screwed but for Pickens.
A&M will be fine maybe? The PUF is for academics; but Aggies have enough political pull to avoid falling too far behind TX in athletic money.
Whoever said up above that the new BXII was a house built on silt could not have said it better.
LikeLike
Thank you all for your input!
LikeLike
The reaction to the Longhorn Conference from the University of Oklahoma fans, is hugely negative. It seems even more so than the Pac-16 idea which also was hugely negative.
The difference is the anger over our AD Joe Castiglione saying we would go where Texas went. While UT has size, and money, and OU’s association with them in the Big 12 has helped OU publicly admiting that OU had no say has not gone over well.
In fact, I think OU had a lot of say. We were right there with A&M. Sure UT’s final say was more important, but OU had some power.
Even the fans that didn’t like the SEC option, are now saying that maybe that would have been the best for OU to get away from Texas.
As for Frank the Tank’s article he said the Longhorn Conference would be as stable as the Pac-16. That I disagree with. The Pac-16 from OU’s stand point was terrible idea. We were NOT joining the Pac-8, but were joining a new SWC. We wouldn’t be playing in California, and really we didn’t care to be playing there. They were even saying we wouldn’t get to play in THEIR Rose Bowl!!!!
The Pac-16 was a deal for TV contracts, and the Neu-SWC division would have always been seen as 2nd class citizens, never really worthy of the likes of Stanford and Cal. We would have been…..Okies. That word by the way is not a good word. It’s like “white trash” or “N-word”. For many of you this means nothing. But when the dust bowl happened, and many from Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas went west to California, we were treated like or maybe worse than we treat illegal Hispanic immigrants today. And his conference had all the warm fuzzies of those dust bowl days.
so no….the Pac-16 was not really a good option, nor did it seem like a good fit, nor did it look stable.
Does the Big 12 look stable? From an OU perspective it does. 6 of the current 10 have been playing together for over 50 years in the old Big 8. 5 of us go back to the Big 6, and to the Missouri Valley.
Will the new Big 12 be able to stay up with the SEC and the Big 10 financially over the long term? doubtful.
But what are the options? Really? homeless? Ask Iowa St, and Kansas St about their options. Big 10? they only offered to Nebraska. SEC? We’re not sure they offered anyone, even A&M. The Pac-10 who invited us to their home, but wanted us to sleep in their barn?
As an OU fan, I’m ok with the Longhorn Conference. It was the least of several bad choices.
LikeLike
ouch…typos everywhere.
5th paragraph should be: As for Frank the Tank’s article he said the Longhorn Conference WOULD NOT be as stable as the Pac-16. (the NOT is the whole key to everything that comes after!)
LikeLike
I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the Central Valley in California, but a lot of old white people there still speak with a distinct Okie accent.
Maybe you guys should schedule Fresno State a few times.
LikeLike
IMO, OK. blew it big-time by not going with A&M to the SEC. The probably could have gotten OK. St. in as well…I can’t believe the SEC would have passed on A&M and OK because of OK St…..
LikeLike
from what I was hearing the SEC was himming and hawwing over adding anyone. They liked the idea of adding teams in Texas…but weren’t crazy about going past 12 teams.
LikeLike
Rice, Wyoming, Fla Atlantic and UCLA may not cut the mustard next year UT.
Not sure Rice BYU UCLA and Central Florida is the answer in 2011
LikeLike
One by-product of all this is that it may have propelled Maryland into one of the “usual suspects” for the next round of Big Ten expansion, something few could have envisioned as recently as five or six weeks ago. Not that what Maryland offers as an institution to the Big Ten (and vice versa) has changed — but the perception that the university community wouldn’t be interested certainly has, if you look at Terrapin message boards. So what’s happened the past few weeks — and the consciousness raised in College Park — may make Maryland an easier pickup for the Big Ten than originally believed; the ACC isn’t the rock-solid entity it was in the ’70s or ’80s. If the next round of expansion was to 14 members, and Notre Dame still wasn’t interested (or would go in only as #15, with the right to select #16), Maryland would probably be deemed the most desirable partner to Rutgers (which now appears a lock to eventually wind up in the Big Ten).
LikeLike
This is a very good point re: Maryland.
Maryland/Rutgers have shot up to the top of the list. This is exactly how Nebraska became “common knowedge” as the 12th addition as the months passed and everyone talked with a presumption of Nebraska entering the conference. Eventually we could see the same thing happen to Maryland due to the way their name shot up the ranks over the past couple of weeks and entered every discussion.
LikeLike
whether by intention or coincidence Delany has been adept at putting the expansion issue on a steady simmer and then acting when the right opportunity bubbles up.
LikeLike
yeah, very true about how MD has become the fashionable mention of late…
i’m still not sold at all
LikeLike
I sure hope Maryland gets an invite and brings Johns Hopkins with them to the CIC. An extra billion and a half in research every year is a home run for everyone involved.
LikeLike
This is good news. Twelve teams is really the best number for a conference (ten is good too though) and aren’t we really better off with the domers doing their own thing? Who else are we going to complain about like that?
We still might get an 8 team playoff someday, ACC, B10, B12, Pac10, SEC, BEast champs and 2 at larges. It would be great. At this point though, the MW might make for a better automatic than the BEast.
Thanks again Frank!
LikeLike
For all of you predicting the demise of the Texas 10 Conference, Chip thinks otherwise.
TV deal will help Texas, others break the bank
“And while this deal will be remembered for holding rivals like Texas, Texas A&M and OU together. It will also be remembered for two TV networks stepping up and paying a premium dollar to ward off expansion – probably for at least another 15 years.”
There you have. This shotgun marriage is going to last at least 15 years. Chip has spoken! 🙂
LikeLike
Chip better stock up on Preperation H for whenever DeLoss Dodds removes his arm.
LikeLike
Heh in that time we’ll have negotiated twice the Big Ten contracts. Somehow, I think that deal is going to be outdated within 5 years for most of the schools…
LikeLike
my guess is sooner than that; PAC10 renegotiating now for 2012? SEC is up for renegotiation in 2013? ND’s deal with NBC in 2014 (or maybe 2015)? And the ever increasing B10 Network.
LikeLike
Love, love, love the blog Frank. Helps me to obsess.
Texas just created/reformed a super version of the SWC. All they have to do is add TCU and Houston. The roles of SMU, Rice and AR to be played by…ISU, KU, KSU, MU. Stockholm syndrome to kick in – in 3, 2, 1…
And it will be called the “Texas League” (of Justice) w/o irony. I’ll go with Big Xii until TCU and Houston are added. If Texans are anything like their school – they could give a shit what happens outside of Texas. Win or lose.
As a Nebraska fan I am so very happy that NU/UNL joined the Big 10. Thanks for the warm welcome. Looking forward to winning many games.
I just realized – on top of not being able to spell (“N”woledge) – that soon we won’t be able to count.
Heh.
Well there’s always ‘ritin’.
LikeLike
LOL… i’m looking forward to seeing/hearing more of how Huskers mis-spell. So throughout your state, all the Ns on the computer keyboards are the Nebraska “N”?
LikeLike
Standard joke:
Q: What does the ‘N’ stand for on Memorial Stadium (or helmets)?
A: “knowledge”
Also –
Q: What is the third largest ‘city’ on game day?
A: Memorial Stadium
LikeLike
LOL…
sorry, but can’t offer any funny tidbits like that for the buckeyes … I may be out of touch and will leave it to buckeyes still living in central ohio.
but as said: welcome. I have some ‘Bama friends; they have the same passion. Stadiums for Auburn + Alambama + Troy + AL-Birmingham + one more (can’t remember) add up to like 400,000 seats or some such; they are packed on Saturdays, so like 1/5th of Alabama is in a football stadium on Saturdays in the fall.
like you say, Memorial Stadium is the 3rd largest city in Neb. on Saturday.
LikeLike
“A: “knowledge””
A. National Champions.
LikeLike
Part B is not a joke, its the truth!!
LikeLike
Has anyone considered this angle? What if the conference commissioners just played the TV people?
For several months, there was absolute chaos… culminating with… if Utah goes to the Pac 10… the Big 12 losing two teams, the Pac 10 gaining two teams, the MWC staying the same.
BUT… the Big 10 Network and expansion threats caused all conferences to have the leverage to approach TV networks with the (a) why shouldn’t WE try a network; and (b) we need money to keep pace with the Big 10 to stay alive, arguments.
The ACC gets much more than expected. The Big 12 gets much more than expected. The SEC and Big 10 are looking at future paydays. The P10 will get its opportunity. Winner: Conferences. Loser: Networks (unless they still end up making $$$).
The mantra was thinking like a University President. Well, University Presidents do not hate each other. They do not want to crush other University Presidents. They do not want sentiment to be anti-University. They do not want Congress wondering whether Universities deserve tax exempt status. They do not want or need negative attention. They want their school to thrive/improve, but are not driven by a desire to quash “Rival University.”
This talk of “forcing Notre Dame,” “breaking up Conference X,” and penetrating new markets is not consistent with how Universities operate. It is how for-profit businesses operate. It is how warfare is accomplished. It is consistent with athletic competition. It is like the games of Risk and Poker. But it is not how Universities go about doing their ordinary business.
And if you can’t believe that the Universities just played the networks… why think that they were interested in playing each other?
LikeLike
And obviously the Big 10 picking up Nebraska.
LikeLike
The Big XII got a fat new contract? That will work very nicely for the other conferences.
But the threat wouldn’t work unless somebody jumps…CU. And Nebraska was an acceptable loss.
LikeLike
ez,
NO! while the Big 10 and SEC have not paid a price, the Big 12 and Pac 11 have fallen farther behind and the ACC and BE have seen how vulnerable they are.
State Universities are the proverbial “wolf in sheeps clothing” as they have products that are sold “research” and “entertainment” while hiding behind tax exempt status and the goodwill of their citizens. wal mart wolverines are as valuable in the court of public opinion as the folks with the diploma.
LikeLike
All this drama, treachery and manipulation…over TV money per school that’s less than the Yankees pay their third baseman per year.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Question about the Big Ten’s TV deal with Disney. I know it lasts for a while (2016-17, right?) and I’m not sure if there are clauses that would allow for it to be renogitiated given the change in membership. If it isn’t renegotiated, would Nebraska just slide right into the pecking order for games on ABC/ESPN come 2011? Or would there be some sort of limits on Disney choosing their home games given that they weren’t part of the conference when the deal was signed?
Also, I was thinking about a Big Ten championship game. Such a game is obviously not in the TV deal with Disney. So, from 2011-2016 since we are still under the current active deal, the Big Ten could easily “sell” the rights to that game to be featured on the BTN and push the network’s value and enhance negotiation to get the channel wide distribution. Or, assuming that Disney would puch for the rights to that game, as one would expect, that might be a clear opening for the Big Ten to reopen their overall deal with Disney early and either ask for/get more money overall or potentially get other concessions (in particular, I could see them asking for ABC to give up their exclusive windows so that the BTN can carry games in the 3:30 time slot every week).
LikeLike
it has been my assumption that Nebraska would just slip into the pool for ABC/ESPN to select games for their share. I strongly doubt the conference would want to keep their new partner off the network. If anything I would think we would want to advertise it as much as possible.
I would be surprised if the contract with ABC/ESPN didn’t include an option to allow them to preferentially bid for a chanpionship game should one become feasible. As to putting the game on BTN the value of BTN at this stage is not in providing coverage of the big name games but making sure all games for all the teams get broadcast. that may change over time as the BTN gets more national distribution but the value for big games is still ABC/ESPN.
LikeLike
would agree with Hank’s thoughts and add that I read somewhere that the ABC/B10 contracts have, for years, had provisions concerning a B10 CCG. that is, the idea that the B10 would go to 12 teams has been foreseeable for a long time.
LikeLike
The Championship game will probably be up for bidding. The ABC contract in general may be adjusted upwards somewhat for adding Nebraska. We should see a bump, but the big bump will be in 2016.
LikeLike
Morning Folks….
A) Welcome Nebraska! Lost in all the chatter of TU and ND you have been and will continue to be the apple of my eye. Unlike ego driven self centered schools you have been the college sweetheart to me all along. Maybe it is just that we share midwestern values, you have always been the one I wanted to take home to mom, meet your parents, and settle down with. Now this is the reality, and I am a happy old fart indeed!
B) THANK YOU FRANK! I am old enough to remember the Hollerith card and punched tape. As a member of the “internet cow path” crowd your blog has restored my faith in the modern internet. I am taken back to days gone by when early adopters were able to have stimulating debates across the country at rapid speed and unhinged by time / distance. The early days were meant to stimulate debate not sell things or degrade human interaction. [PensfaninLAexile says: … “(certainly far superior to the dreck on the rest of the interweb)” & zeek says: … And even with those whom I’ve had disagreements before in the comments, we’ve actually managed to have an intellectually stimulating discussion on a topic that too often devolves into ESPN-message-box chatter that tends to waste everyone’s time.] If nothing else I have seen a new generation of excellent human traits I admire. GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY! 🙂 In all seriousness I feel honored to have shared this time with all of you, and have enjoyed reading all the new / varied ideas that have occupied far too much of my time lately! I think this blog has been the CIC of expansion debate, and welcome all non Big 10 bloggers as honorary members of such a group.
C) All along this has been a chess match between delany and slive. I will continue to view things going forward this way. My point of locking up the top 10 “brands” still holds true, and here is the current score:
4 Big 10 (net gain 1) – 2 organic + 2 added [tOSU,M,PSU,UNL]
2 SEC (status unchanged) – 2 organic [Bama + 1]
2 Big 12 (net loss 1) – 1 SWC organic + 1 Big 8 organic [TU,OU]
1 Pac 10 (status unchanged) – 1 organic [USC]
1 Ind (status unchanged) – 1 organic [ND]
All and all a very good round for the Big 10! My only concern is if some “cabal” was used to “control” the status quo. If the Big 10 has culpability (and I sincerely hope this is not the case) than we have brought disgrace to our collective houses. All things are born, live, and die – this is the order of the universe – and can not be changed. The more something is held back, the more it will break free to find its natural state. A person of wisdom will see this, and act accordingly.
D) The Longhorn Conference (tLC – where the lowercase t reflects the status of the “lesser 9” members). While 10 > 12 and Big 12 Lite may be clever I think tLC is the name befitting the crime. It stands as daily testament to what greed, control, and arrogance can bring in the end. Nobody won this battle, and TU has bloodied everybody in the process. TAMU shows me that battered wife syndrome is the dynamic of the conference, and should stand as warning for future discussion. I think the BE is safe as they are ALL fighting for survival. My guess is the All Carolina Conference (ACC) is the Big 12 all over again, and time will tell if VT aka A&M or MD aka UNL or BC aka CU are the next to break free. At some point college football should become a case study for undergrads and grad students across the country.
E) Kansas and Class – If I have one feeling of opportunity lost, KU is thy name. We have all agreed that the Big 10 could not admit Kansas State. I will go forward thinking that the class move by delany would have been to offer an invite to KU when they offered UNL. Both have AAU status, similar endowments, midwestern values, and a TOP athletic team. I am full well that football drives the bus, but adding KU has seemed to be a no brainer since the beginning (similar to adding Toronto to the Big 10). Both say the Big 10 values football, but values an internal “heart” that does not involve football more. A school like Toronto would be the slam dunk of establishing the Big 10 as THE standard bearer of core values over the almighty buck (and we get great hockey 😉 ). Kansas could have politely declined (because they could not bring Kansas State) but at least the Big 10 would have done the honorable thing. I also feel the same “family” thing I never got from ND or TU, was in KU and UNL. To separate good from great one must usually diverge from the accepted path.
F) Corporations vs Fans the coming battle. If you are like me and grew up in a sports world far removed from today you will understand. If you are younger, it might be a good time to see through our eyes what we have seen just by living this long. The following article should be required reading of any fan of any sport…. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=091005yankeestickets as this may be the touchstone for our collective future. Make no mistake that college sports are just as corporate as any pro team, so now is the time to hold them to a higher standard before they totally shoot themselves in the foot. As midwestern farming values tell me, one must hold back some of the harvest each season to sow the seeds for the future. This might be “quaint” and “antiquated” thinking, but if sports are to survive they must sow good seeds for future generations. It can not always be about ME at the expense of WE! At some point our legacy is what we leave for future generations to enjoy. Is our legacy a future where family can share sport as a group activity that is affordable, or is it a corporate future devoid of passion and catering to increased revenue streams and maximum profits. Maybe they need to leave a little on the table to grow the future.
G) The Model Partner. From the beginning I have caught flack for saying that TU and ND were NOT for the Big 10. I am not here to gloat, but to repeat that making the best decision often means seeing what something is rather than seeing what we want to see based on what we bring to the situation. For all those who have made fun of the SEC for academics I must say I come away from all this with a sense of respect for them. Maybe they do not have the AAU status we so desire, but we have been the beneficiary of great wealth and power in the past century (ponder if the auto industry had settled in New Orleans over Detroit). All and all, they have done a fine job with what they have to work with. If nothing else they have 2 things in common with the Big 10:
#1 They are fierce in competition
#2 They understand the value of being an american
Lost right now in the swirl of tLC, the thing that stands out most of all is that the value of the whole is more important than the value of the parts. As an american I am a member of a state (micro) and a country (macro) and it is what makes us great. I think it is not coincidence that the 2 strongest conferences “share and share alike” and the weakest have the most “independent” members. This should be the warning to all future expansion discussion. My decision about ND or TU from the start has always been how “independent” schools could fit the Big 10 “collective” model. I said early on I am not that smart, just older, and my life experience told me that no matter the “footprint” or “revenue” the core values never matched. If you choose a partner in marriage or business, it is most important that you are able to travel the road of life as one mind, body, and spirit.
H) Old Guys make the final decisions. Ignore this warning at your peril. I agree that they do not always make good decisions, and often try to hold power long past the good of the rest of the world. it is what it is.
In closing, I think the brakes are on. I am not saying this is a good thing as it has bottled up the natural order to adapt. When things settle down I am looking at you Maryland! As for Big Red welcome to the family….
LikeLike
@Duffman:
That was a powerful and moving post and thank you for taking the time to write all that.
lots of nuggets of wisdom (which I think is about experience and just plain living and is distinct from smarts and learning).
from when do you hale?
i can really only argue with your point about KS. maybe they fit and would be a good partner, but i can’t see how they fit better than Mizzu i think Mizzu got “played” just a bit by Delaney. Thus, morally, Mizzu would get my sympathy offer.
further, with KS you can’t risk that they “politely decline” because what if they don’t?
Plus, if you are seriously seeing this about locking up the top 10 programs, there are only 4 more slots available in the B10. are you going to risk not getting ND or TX in the next round(s) because there is not slot available for the “has-to-come-with” school?
speaking of which, seems that the game of collecting top ten programs is finished, right (at least for a decade or two)?
TX is out and not desirable (and I agree), the SEC schools are not coming; So.Cal. is not joining the B10; that leaves ND; the B10 will not get higher than 5.
You’ve probably expressed your view on ND. but a fit? or not a fit? desirable or not?
LikeLike
egawd… i even read it to proof for typos… that should read: “From where do you hale.” (and that assumes “hale” is the correct spelling for the idea: where are you from? it might be hail, but that’s frozen rain?
LikeLike
BB,
It is okay, i am a terrible speller and my typing skills are just as bad.
Draw a line from Cincinnati to Louisville
Draw a second line from Indy to Lexington
where they intersect, draw a circle with about a 200 – 300 mile radius and that is my home range. I have traveled the full expanse of the US (sans AK and HI) but this is my roots.
LikeLike
Sounds like Madison, Indiana. I haven’t been there since moving to the state four years ago but I hear it’s beautiful.
LikeLike
BB,
I said in a very early post I am in a unique place as I sit near 4 conferences (B 10, BE, SEC, and A 10) so it gives me an ability to see different points of view. It also means I can get in a car and see good basketball in short drives.
LikeLike
Hey man, don’t forget about the Horizon League and the national runner-up Butler Bulldogs! What an amazing run it was to watch for those of us in Indy!
LikeLike
yes, now that you say that I remember your earlier post about where you are located. I’m NWI, so in the heart of the B10, but grew up in Ohio.
well, i’d agree, that gives some good insight on conferences.
LikeLike
Indy Mike,
everybody in Lucas I know were pulling for Butler. the same folks were also all at the boys high school tourney.
Washington!!!!
for me it is like “so many teams, so little time” and as you get older you are following the kids and grandkids and their friends.
🙂
valpo, sloo, and others get harder to get to.
LikeLike
add. great post. I’m thrilled that the B10 will still be the B10.
LikeLike
BB,
my KU argument was from a “jewel” standing.
KU says basketball like UNL says football.
I have said all along I am a basketball guy.
All things being equal between the 3 (Mizzu included) I just do not get the “top program” vibe that KU and UNL give off, my guess is the rest of the country feels this as well. As for the offer, delany would be upfront and say it would not include Kansas State. At that point the ball is in KU’s court so to speak. They go to the Big 10, or they stay with Kansas State. You let them decide what THEY will do.
On locking up top programs, it is also about balance (another reason to invite Kansas). Schools seem to excel at one sport to the demise of another. If every school in a conference is great you bloody each other along the season. If your conference is too weak, nobody watches. Look at the following:
Big 10: IU / MSU in BB – tOSU / michigan / PSU in FB
SEC: UK in basketball – BAMA in football
Pac 10: UCLA in basketball – USC in football
My basic argument was lock down top brands on both sides so the winner in one sport can feed the loser in another. Overall you spread risk by diversification.
ND is not a fit, said this from the beginning, no matter how good the package looks. (my opinion FWIW).
LikeLike
um hmm… would agree with you here as well. ND is not a fit, TX likewise, so B10 ends up with 4 of the top 10 in CFB.
what’s the chart for Bball?
i suppose i could look it up, but (in no particular order)
NC, Duke, Kent’y, KS, UCLA, Indiana, Syr, UCONN … I have about five teams i’d guess for the other two slots…
LikeLike
BB,
I follow men and women (anybody growing up in Indiana or Kentucky gets this) so it is a bit different. I am actually older so I know players and fans so I am a bit biased (I am looking at you X)
for the sake of simplicity, and from fans across the US the support I will look at just mens BB.
The first four (in no order)
IU, UK, UNC, and KU
the fans at these schools understand basketball better than anybody else, and they follow their teams. I had a friend who was in nashville for the SEC tourney (I was not there, so this is secondhand). The arena was SOLD OUT and inside the crowd was 95% UK fans. That is impressive, but my friend said that for every person inside there were 10 – 20 outside in the city. if he is correct, then 100,000 + drove to a town just to be “near” their team in a friggin CONFERENCE tourney game! Kentucky only has about 4 million folks in the whole state, that is impressive.
The 1 coach wonders
MSU, UCLA, Duke, Syracuse
would any be on this list without a single coach. The history of the program is tied to a single coach
The period teams
UC and UL type teams (think UL with Crum – for UC you have to be a little older). They had good coaches, with follow up – huggy bear was not the first coach at UC, and pitino was not what put UL on the map.
The bubble teams (not top in their conference but good solid history)
Maryland, Illinois, Arizona
The catholic and second tier teams
St. Johns, WKU, X, Penn
yeah I am already way past 10, but it is like being at a buffet to me. so many good teams, so many solid choices like Uconn and gtown and etc.
If I were looking at it from a AD / President’s view the best metric is demand in good and bad years, fans that will travel, and “scalper” economics. Which would be the first four + Syracuse + MSU + Utah + etc, teams like stanford and duke just do not seem to travel or have the same fan intensity.
Note: my list is bias to central schools as those are the ones I have seen live the most, NY and CA teams are harder for me to see as much.
Note2: I have never been to the Pit, it is on my bucket list.
LikeLike
Michigan State, Louisville.
(By the way, at what point does MSU get to be mentioned alongside KS, Duke, and ESPECIALLY Syracuse? 6 FF’s out of 11, the most-watched national title game of all time, 2 titles, which is one less than Kansas… Even Duke can’t say it has won national titles under more than one coach.)
It gets harder to rank #’s 11-20. In some order there’d have to be Illinois, NC State, Georgetown, Arizona, Florida, Memphis, Michigan, Ohio State, & Oklahoma State.
LikeLike
FWIW..
The nosebleed bowl is still the top OOC regular season attendance in college basketball (MSU vs UK in MI). Most of the rest of the top 10 are IU vs UK in the old dome in Indy (I have been to many FF, and almost every game between IU and UK in Indy – the IU vs UK games there win HANDS down for crowd and atmosphere).
LikeLike
As a Michigan alum… No. We don’t belong on any top list of basketball programs. Since the Fab Five fallout, TPTB at Michigan simply do not care about having a top basketball program, as long as it stays out of trouble.
LikeLike
“ND is not a fit, said this from the beginning, no matter how good the package looks. (my opinion FWIW).”
I used to think “Notre Dame ought to just join the freaking Big Ten and get it over with!”
Now, not so much. If they want to be independent so badly, and if they would only join the league reluctantly, then you have another Big 12 situation. That’s the last thing the Big Ten needs.
The one school that might be the best true “fit” of all is one that has the least chance of getting in: Pitt.
It’s the only other reasonable candidate WITHIN the Big Ten footprint (no offense to Cincinnati or L’ville) besides ND. The differences, though, are many:
*It fits wonderfully from an institutional and cultural standpoint;
*It carries no prima donna baggage ala ND or UT;
*It provides Penn State not just any ol’ eastern rival, but its most historically fierce, in-state rival;
*It offers a better football program, currently if not historically, than Rutgers, Syracuse, Maryland, and Virginia;
*It has an excellent basketball program to provide good winter TV ratings on the BTN; and
*It seals chances of expansion by the ACC into Pennsylvania.
But it looks like the Big Ten won’t ever get Pitt. I guess that’s good to ACC fans; should the league ever lose a member, that school is a pretty darn good backup!
LikeLike
indy Mike,
I like Pitt, in the early discussions it was about expanding footprint. That is where they lost steam in the expansion discussion.
LikeLike
Duffman,
Overall, you definitely make some good points! Very, very good stuff.
I do have a rebuttal of sorts to some of your assumptions:
1. Your top ten “brand names” may be a tad off. Brand names are not completely synonymous with the top ten leaders in victories, although historic success carries enormous weight. (Just look at Notre Dame.) As a Florida State fan, it pains me to say this, but I think the U of Florida would have to rank ahead of a few of those, including their own conference mate Alabama. Even in Indianapolis (many hundreds of miles from Gainesville) I see Florida gear more often than new BT conference mate Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Penn State. They’ve unfortunately created a tremendous brand name thanks to huge success in football AND basketball.
I also think the ACC deserves some credit for two of the biggest brand names in college football: Florida State and Miami. The difference between that league and the others isn’t so much the brand names at the top; it’s that, other than Virginia Tech, their supporting cast doesn’t carry much national cache, whereas SEC, Pac-10, and Big Ten programs do. In other words, a #9 Georgia Tech vs. #16 Clemson game wouldn’t carry the same level of interest nationally as a #9 Wisconsin vs. #16 Iowa game.
2. I really am not sure where you and others are getting this idea about instability in the ACC.
“My guess is the All Carolina Conference (ACC) is the Big 12 all over again, and time will tell if VT aka A&M or MD aka UNL or BC aka CU are the next to break free. At some point college football should become a case study for undergrads and grad students across the country.”
Virginia Tech is anything but unhappy in the ACC. The school had wanted in the league for 50 years: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1090155/ They’re anything but a resentful A&M-type. Maryland, granted, may have an affinity for Penn State, but it also has one for UVA and its conference rivals dating from its Southern Conference days. Unlike Nebraska, Maryland also hasn’t had to deal with a new Texas-like alpha dog coming in and dominating conference issues. And BC is nothing like CU. Colorado had been quietly interested in the Pac-10 for years and years. They’re the only former Big 8 member that was unequivocally Western and decidedly non-Midwestern. BC, meanwhile, LEFT a primarily northeastern conference to join a league consisting of both small, competitive private schools (Duke, Wake, Miami) and solid, large, but not massive, public schools. (The truth is that it’s not BC who’s unhappy to be in the ACC; it’s old-line ACC fans who are unhappy to have such a northern outpost in their otherwise southern league. If you ask me, they just need to grow up.)
The ACC also was not a shotgun marriage ala the Big 12. When the Big 12 added the Texas schools, they were adding a group of four which had been together for 70+ years. When the ACC added FSU, it was much more like the Big Ten’s addition of Penn State: an independent gladly adopting a group mindset. Even with the Big East 3, they weren’t a bloc like the Texas schools; the schools are an average of 800 miles apart.
My sense is that the only sense of instability in the ACC is that it has inferior revenue due mainly to a lack of BCS bowl success. If the roles were reversed, with the ACC having a network instead, who’s to say that Penn State wouldn’t be rumored for ACC expansion, just as Maryland is for BT expansion?
LikeLike
Indy Mike,
1) I agree about Miami / FSU / UF but when I made the statement about brands. All are more modern, but they are not BAMA. 50 years from now the list will be different just as the biggest game now is not Harvard / Yale or Army / Navy. I was trying not to make the original post even longer so I was showing the value of history on perception. Coke and Pepsi are brands we know, Powerade and G may have this status 50 years from now. We just do not know.
The SEC is unique in that the other schools balance BAMA in history.
look at the top 10
you have pairs..
Michigan vs Ohio State
and singles..
USC
the SEC has an odd mix that has worked for them historically. Right now it is UF, a decade ago it could have been UT, and a decade before it could have been UGA, which is why I said BAMA + 1. Maybe being in the heart of it Alan or Bama can explain it better from an insiders view. I can not.
2) I agree and disagree, look at it 2 ways….
a) the ACC
I think all schools in the conference in terms of academics, football, and basketball. This is where I agree with you
b) the (A)ll (C)arolina (C)onference
This is where I disagree, as schools like UVA and Duke are the “cool, snooty” guys because they are in their own group when compared to the rest. Be it history, wealth, etc.. I get a feeling of deep difference, but I will defer to vincent and others who may have more front line experience. It has nothing to do with bowl revenue, but more social divide between perception.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Posters here have assured me that the SEC would have no interest in taking a Big East school, but I still disagree. The SEC was apparently willing to take a poor football team like Texas A&M in order to get a minor foothold into Texas, so why wouldn’t they consider taking Pitt or Cincy to gain a foothold into the fertile recruiting grounds in PA and Ohio? If the SEC was willing to take two poor academic teams from the small state of Oklahoma, why wouldn’t they consider taking West Virginia, the only big school in its state? It’s clear now that the SEC wants to expand into new, contiguous territory, and it’s also clear that it would be easier for them to steal BE teams than ACC teams. I think that if the Big Ten takes Rutgers and Syracuse, there’s a very good chance the SEC takes Pitt, and a decent chance they also take Cincy or WV, especially if the SEC don’t want to risk breaking open the ACC to allow the Big Ten better access to it.
LikeLike
Doug,
a) UK and tOSU already own the southern ohio, northern kentucky market. UC has no value (an I am a UC alum).
b) While delany may think National, slive may think regional. My guess is the SEC finds greatest value in shared southern culture.
bama and alan is this the case?
LikeLike
I definately think the SEC should be limited to former slave states….makes things more interesting.
LikeLike
shroom,
play nice, now is the time for peace and goodwill
🙂
beside you are an IU guy, make us look good man!
LikeLike
So, Maryland to the SEC then.
LikeLike
Maryland may be too polluted with yankee influence to fit into the SEC. The “soutern lite” ACC is a better fit.
LikeLike
Cincy offers nothing to the football-crazy SEC? Wasn’t Cincy, at the end of the regular season, undefeated and ranked in the top five? And are you telling me that Cincinnati Moeller and several other Cincy high schools offer nothing to recruiters? My Buckeyes have been trying for years to penetrate the Cincy market, with limited success, and they’ve been trying to fight off the SEC for years from raiding Ohio. Give the SEC a foothold in the state, and my Bucks won’t be very happy, considering the warm SEC states hold a lot of appeal to Ohio kids.
LikeLike
1. Weak brand.
2. Already covered partially by Kentucky.
It’s just not an appealing target. If you bring less people to your bowl game than, say, Ole Miss, you’re probably not attractive to the SEC.
LikeLike
richard,
they get the double whammy
UK and tOSO
sort of like UL
UK and IU
when it comes to basketball UL is in the middle, same thing for UC in basketball. In their defense tho both has 2 NC banners in the rafters
🙂
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, Cincinnati sold more tickets to the Sugar Bowl than mighty mighty Florida did.
LikeLike
It wasn’t by accident that the Fiesta Bowl passed up Cincinnati for TCU and Boise State.
Both schools brought more fans to the stadium and the TV than Cincinnati would. And neither is being mentioned for a BCS conference.
LikeLike
Cincy has no practice field and still has a dinky stadium. I don’t think they have the fan support to get a Pitt-esque deal with Paul Brown stadium. Cincy will unfortunately return to their historical level soon enough, I fear.
LikeLike
FLP,
while have fond memories of Nippert it is not top shelf. I agree about Paul Brown, if they could get demand up that is a great place to play. The base is where UC can fit on the following scale:
Rock Bottom
Below 500
Even Money
Above 500
Conference Contender
Top 20
NC Contender
The problem is you have to factor in a second set of variables:
# years consistent record
Stepping Stone vs Final Destination
Fanbase loyalty
To me the biggest problem is once your program gets better you have to worry about a better school hiring your coach before you reach the top of the heap. Keep in your mind that Brown at TU came from UNC and Spurrier at UF came from Duke. Imagine them both in the ACC right now, if they had never left!
LikeLike
1. Not nearly as fertile as Texas.
2. While TAMU is down, they still have a bigger brand, bigger footprint, and better demographics than Cincy or Pitt. On the eastern front, it’s still only the ACC schools that make sense for the SEC.
3. The SEC doesn’t have a strong logical imperative to expand (like the Pac-whatever or the Big10). If TAMU was available, of course they’d take them, but they aren’t driven to go on the warpath; they’d only move in when they smell blood in the water.
LikeLike
Ohio is extremely fertile (a few years ago, U Mich has almost as many Ohio players as Michigan players), and U Texas owns Texas at least as much as tOSU owns Ohio. I’m from Ohio, so I know how crazed the state is. The state of Texas also has Houston, TCU, Tech, Baylor, etc, while Ohio only has tOSU, Cincy and a million small schools. Pennsylvania has mainly Pitt and PSU, and is also a fertile recruiting region. Pitt’s brand and football team are probably as good as A&M’s, as are their academics and research.
My whole point is that if we’re heading toward superconferences, as so many think, and the SEC wants to expand into adjacent new territory, the SEC will almost certainly at least consider moving into the Big East, which is ripe for takeover. And Cincy and Pitt are unlikely candidates for the Big Ten, since they’re already in the BT footprint.
My stated premise was that the BT first takes Syracuse and Rutgers (not stirring the ACC pot), and implied that the SEC might not want to stir that same pot. That being said, if the SEC is now barred from Texas, and they want to keep up with the Big Ten (as they’ve threatened to do), and they want to expand into new and contiguous states (as they’ve apparently shown), what choice do they have but to consider taking BE schools?
LikeLike
Not sure why either conference wouldn’t want to stir the ACC pot. That’s where the attractive targets are in the east. Realistically, only Rutgers is an attractive enough target by itself in the BE to power conferences like the Big10 & SEC. All the other juicy targets are in the ACC.
LikeLike
Doug: This is why I think the next expansion will be very Big East heavy. If Maryland were to accept a B10 invite, they’d go down in history as the guys that killed the ACC. This is different from what happened with Nebraska (B12 inevitably being fucked no matter what happened). I don’t think one of the southern schools (Vtech/FSU) has the same impact leaving as Maryland would. This is also why I think WVU will eventually be in the SEC.
LikeLike
doug,
beyond football and texas, TAMU would be a good get for any conference for the academics. Maybe not the tip top, but still very good. I have a sneaking suspicion, had slive add A&M it would have had a academic value to add to the conference beyond sports.
I was actually ok with TAMU to the Big 10 (sans TU) except for the cultural fit.
LikeLike
Let me edit the end of my last sentence: especially if the SEC doesn’t want to risk breaking open the ACC and allowing the Big Ten to gain better access to the ACC.
LikeLike
What difference would that make, especially since the conferences would be pursuing different prime targets? The Big Ten has no real interest in Virginia Tech (unless it suddenly received AAU status, which won’t happen for a number of years if at all); the SEC certainly knows Maryland has no interest in joining.
If each of those were part of Big Ten/SEC expansion, the ACC would be where the Big 12 was yesterday, and UNC would then have to play Texas.
LikeLike
Some posters here have said that ACC teams like Georgia Tech, Miami, Florida St, North Carolina, etc, are possible candidates for the Big Ten. Other posters believe that the ACC will be very hard for the SEC to penetrate. If the Big Ten stirs the pot by taking Maryland, it makes it easier for the SEC to expand in the ACC, which is clearly not in the best interest of the Big Ten because the SEC is definitely their biggest competitor in terms of conference strength. I think this is why Delany has been so cautious and wants more time; he has to decide which opening East salvo to make, based on what the repercussions might be from the SEC. Delany wants to keep the SEC hemmed in. And yet Delany knows that, for the sake of the BTN, he needs to expand the BT, and that the BT stands more to gain from expansion than the SEC does. Delany has a lot of factors to consider, and this could develop into quite a chess match.
LikeLike
One reason that the Maryland Terp fans have been giving for answering a possible Big Ten call is that they fear raids by the SEC that might collapse or diminish the ACC, so they’d better jump ship while they still can. We’ve seen how the stealing of Nebraska nearly brought down the collapse of a strong (but admittedly divisive) Big 12. Delany doesn’t want to hand the prime ACC teams to the SEC, yet he might risk taking Maryland if he thinks the SEC stands to gain little from it.
LikeLike
I don’t really think the Big Ten fears the SEC at all.
What do we fear? South Carolina/Florida/Georgia consolidation where the SEC already dominates those markets?
As long as the SEC can’t get into Virginia or North Carolina, the Big Ten doesn’t really care.
When we think about it, there are 4 big areas that we want to keep separate from the SEC/Pac-10.
Those are VA/NC, Florida, Texas, California.
Yes, the ACC already has VA/NC and Florida, but they don’t have UF, so that doesn’t really count and the rest of the ACC footprint isn’t as football mad as the Big Ten or SEC or Big 12-2.
The Big Ten will aim squarely at Maryland/Virginia in the next expansion in order to fix the demographics issue.
I think we’ll leave the core of the ACC alone in the 4 NC schools…
LikeLike
This new Big12-ish TV contract looks like they won the Nigerian lottery. I’ll believe it when i’ll see it. The CCG, that’s another pipe dream. Who is gonna vote for that? PAC-10, maybe Big Ten, or you know maybe SEC. They all love Big12-ish and can’t wait to help them, especially after all of this.
LikeLike
perfect
LikeLike
this is an interesting point: what schools (other than a TX) would consider joining this new BXII? Maybe still the BXII is a giant upgrade over the MWC and C-USA and Sunbelt. But seriously getting locked in as TX and OKLA cupcakes for two decades?
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
More
LikeLike
T Boone.
Priceless. Leaves me speechless.
http://ht.ly/1Yyuy
LikeLike
Another question: bowls. I know the most recent round of bowl negotiations just occured, but I would think there’s a reasonable chance for some bowls to drop the Big 12 considering they just lose two teams (one of whom had the sort of massive travelling fanbase that bowls love) and because the Big Ten and Pac-10 have picked up teams.
Maybe the Alamo Bowl or at least the Yankee Bowl would be in play for the Big Ten and maybe the Insight Bowl for the Pac-10.
LikeLike
My analysis of conference winners and losers.
Yet, again, the Big Ten won. In two expansions they have added two of the top ten programs of all time (PSU, UNL). No one else really comes close. The PAC adding Colorado is a collective yawn. The SEC adding Arkansas and USC(e) was good but far, far from great. The ACC expansion seems to have been a net negative. And the B12 actually contracted. Some others may think they have won a battle, but the Big Ten is winning the war. Hard as it is for many of us to admit.
Net change for Rice: zero. 😉
LikeLike
loki,
If you are happy about rice, I am too!
LikeLike
Question for any Utah folks out there, is there a chance Utah will face political pressure to stay in MWC? I understand there is a LOT more money today to make the move to a BCS conference. However Utah is a key factor in the MWC becoming one of the big boys very soon…i.e. BCS automatic qualifyer. Money will follow, maybe not as much as Pac money, but nonetheless it will be substantial.
I probably have less insight into how things work in Utah than just about any place else, so wondering if the Utah to P10 is really a slam dunk or not?
LikeLike
Don’t forget that the P11 may be a little more gun shy now that the P16 didn’t materialize.
LikeLike
If I’m Utah, I’m lobbying the new Big 12 to make sure Brigham Young gets in the revamped conference for that very reason.
LikeLike
Utah genuinely likes the Mountain West, and the rivalry with BYU is one of the more intense ones I’m aware of.
That said, Pac-10 has about double the revenue (abo. $100 million compared to $50 million), and the full BCS share would only add another $13 million or so to the Mountain West side. Plus it’s no sure thing–it will be hotly contested by the current BCS members, and I doubt that Mountain West would be granted an exemption. Moreover, the monetary disparity is probably much greater in a few years when you consider the upcoming Pac-10 TV contract–I don’t think the Mountain West would or should give Utah the kind of revenue they would command in the Pac-10.
So the Mountain West members will not want them to leave, and even some of the fans are not excited about it (I’m not), but from a money perspective, there’s no way they could pass up on an equitable Pac-10 slice. And from a prestige perspective, it’s a no-brainer.
I was a student at Utah through 2004, and the spike of applications following Urban Meyer’s run is what turned Utah into a football school. It would be foolish not to take advantage of that good fortune by permanently upping the school’s prestige.
LikeLike
Utes give notice
http://utah.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094386
Sources close to UteZone indicate that Utah informed the Mountain West Conference Monday of its intentions to leave the conference. When asked about this report, a representative from the Conference could neither confirm nor deny the alleged report. If sources are to be believed then, the deal to invite Utah has already been done, and is merely a formality at this point. All that would remain of course is the announcement from the PAC-10 and a press conference by the University of Utah.
LikeLike
I am sure all of this has been mentioned, but I have to think that, individually at least, Texas is the biggest winner in all of this. Based on the rumor that TX demanded the LTN from the Pac Ten at the eleventh hour, you have to think that TX had no intent of ever joining another conference, and used this whole process just to get what it wanted all along: more control and more money.
From a football perspective, Texas’ machinations (it was far and away the most leaky ship during this) made its road to the NCG much smoother, eliminating both a re-rising power (Nebraska) and a CCG, both potential stumbling blocks. No, I am not saying that TX is scared, but the current landscape of their conference may turn the OU game into a de facto NCG play in game. I am not sure what TX’s OOC schedule looks like, but aside from the home and home with Ohio State, which Mack Brown (if i recall) did not like anyway, I dont remember too many out of conference stumbling blocks for the Horns.
The only potential wrench in all of this could have been A&M. But Texas called, and A&M folded. Hard to believe A&M didn’t see a better opportunity, long-term and otherwise, in the SEC. Perhaps their invite to the SEC was tied to bringing along TX or OU?
Their absolute conviction that joining a conference was a non-starter notwithstanding, I have to think Domers everywhere are breathing a huge sigh of relief. As someone else on here has said, though, might be more of a temporary reprieve than a permanent escape.
LikeLike
my reading, fwiw, of the Thamel tweey was that the LTN was already on the table though perhaps not yet agreed to and an additional sweetner was added at the 11th hour. in all likliehood they threw in something well above at the last minute because the new Big 12 deal was coalescing and they were buying time.
LikeLike
yeah, i suspect that TX and OKLA have made it easier on themselves to get to the NCG.
Howeva! at some point, that may also come to haunt them; the SEC champ gets the pollsters love even if a one-loss. will the same thing start to happen with the B10?
will an undefeated BXII champ be the next Auburn if there are Sec, B10 or P12 undefeateds? As VaTech has learned, a really soft soft SofS will kill your chances to go dancing. (Yes, that is a bball analogy, but you get the point).
LikeLike
Beebe’s email to the Big 12 on 6/1. Not as entertaining as his twitter feed.
Click to access colorado.pdf
LikeLike
So… the Pac-10 has fair weather fans. And Iowa State is “nearly Canada”. Brilliant!
LikeLike
I know it’s not a popular opinion on this blog, but there are plenty of other Big Ten forums that are really questioning the wisdom of adding Nebraska, as I’ve done since Frank originally ranked the Huskers so high in the BTEI.
I’m open minded, but I have a hard time understanding how adding the flagship school of a state with a population under 2 million that is academically borderline (at best) for the conference and has a fading national brand is going to pay its own way to the tune of $20-$25 million in incremental revenue.
If somebody could lay the numbers out I’d appreciate it. Words (great fit, good partner, etc.) are just bouncing off me at this point.
LikeLike
Great points, Mike, I totally agree. I think the Big 10 fans – who seem to make up the majority of the people commenting on this blog – absolutely refuse to admit that the great Jim Delaney could do any wrong, so they’re talking themselves into what a great pick-up Nebraska was. I’m not buying it either.
LikeLike
time will tell. but Delany has a very good track record for the Big Ten and most of us are prepared to give his judgement the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
Add any version of “in JD we trust” to the list of words that just bounce off me now.
How does Nebraska bring $25 million in incremental TV revenue to the conference?
LikeLike
see my second response to you
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s tough to come up with Nebraska adding enough money to the Big Ten cofferes to have their admission make out financially. For starters, there’s the championship game, which will probaly bring in ~$15M (true that would be there for any team that is invited, but the question is whether Nebraska would pay off). Nebraska adds at least some new TV sets to the BTN in their own state which should add a couple of million there. Then you have to figure you can sell the TV rights of Nebraska to the BTN and ESPN/ABC — that’s 7 additional football games a year, plus (at least in theory) some increased in value football games for other Big Ten teams (the games where Nebraska is playing at current Big Ten teams 4 times a year). Given how much the TV rights deals have been in the past, wouldn’t 7 Nebraska home games be worth a number of millions of dollars in rights fees a season. And then we can talk about bowl games, where Nebraska is the type of team that would enable the Big Ten to add a upper tier bowl game, the type that pays out $2-3M per team (say, the Alamo Bowl).
Overall, Nebraska will add enough easily. The question would be if additional teams beyond 12 would make financial sense — and that is where IMHO it gets real dicey. Without Notre Dame or Texas, I don’t think the financials work, which is why staying at 12 teams is fine.
LikeLike
concur with Hank, but also wouldn’t mind seeing some numbers and details on the buy-in, etc.
LikeLike
Well, on the flip side, there are many people like yourself to which the B10 can’t win. If the B10 adds Rutgers and their academics and load of televisions, the country would laugh themselves silly. The B10 adds a top 10 all time football power, and people are questioning the move.
Apparently, the only possible win is to add a PSU: a football power from a large population state. Well, there aren’t any PSUs laying around this time. I guess ND comes close, but ND ain’t ever joining.
Delany may have failed in his dream to shoot for the moon. As a B10 football FAN, I am ecstatic with the outcome, and I don’t care if Delany failed or not. The conference won.
A lot of people think Delany failed, but I never thought the presidents shared the vision, so it was never going to happen.
LikeLike
Agree totally. I think a lot of people, who hate that JD has power he has in college athletics, were going to paint this as a loss for the Big Ten in any situation, save for adding a Texas or a Notre Dame, which, it should be pointed out, NO ONE did.
A “win” depends on your perspective. I look at it more as a fan, and the Big Ten + Nebraska is better in that respect than the Big Ten – Nebraska. From that fan perspective, I would submit that the Big Ten got stronger than any other conference in all of this.
LikeLike
Agreed. We can argue about wins or losses, but the Big Ten is better with Nebraska than without (and likely richer as well). So, this change is a net positive in my book. Could it have been a move that was even more positive? Sure, I’d rather have someone given me a $100 bill over giving me a $20 bill. But I’m not going to complain if I have an extra 20 bucks in my pocket I didn’t have before.
And Notre Dame (especially) and Texas are still out there and who knows what will happen down the road. The important thing IMHO is that Delaney and company didn’t expand for the sake of expanding and brought in inferior schools; they brought in someone who could hold their own and had value.
LikeLike
Nebraska’s a big win, and the only 12th school other than ND or Tx which made much sense. The Big 10 had to get 1 big-time football program out of this expansion…going to 14 with Pitt, RU, and Mo., for example, would have weakened the football brand too much.
LikeLike
Hey, I said I was open minded. I want more than just words though. I just asked for some numbers to show that Nebraska was worth more money to the conference than some of the other candidate schools, especially when you consider that the conference had to compromise on academics to get Nebraska.
LikeLike
and there are a couple of reasons to be excited about Nebraska.
it is one of the top ten brands in college football so just from fan enjoyment perspective they will be a great addition.
on the revenue side. I’ll leave out the championship game as any 12th team would add that. there are two components to the BTN revenue stream. cable fees and advertising revenue. yes Nebraska has a small number of households. a number of the states in the upper plains states near Nebraska have large Nebraska fan interest. they aren’t large numbers of housholds either but it probably increases Nebraska’s household numbers a bit. but the second and very imporant component of the revenue stream is advertising on the network. for that you need to convert households reached to actual viewership numbers. one of the criticisms of Rutgers has been that despite adding a lot of households they don’t convert them to viewers. Nebraska is exactly the opposite. They have a very loyal and invested fanbase. Their conversion rate for households to viewership will likely be among the highest. this will translate into increased advertising rates across the network. that’s the bet. and its the same reason why Nebraska was valuable in network contracts despite the small size of the state.
LikeLike
Also, Neb’s fans will bring MILLIONS of $s into the economies of towns at schools like Ill., IU, Pur, NW. My brother owns a bar in Bloomington, IN, and I can tell you he would be all in favor of UNL to the Big 10…..
LikeLike
Which bar Mushroomgod?
We can swamp his business for days with UNL fans around an IU game.
LikeLike
Kilroy’s
LikeLike
@Mike B – Team #12 paying for itself has a fairly low bar to cross because it gets the benefit of the conference championship game boost. Most believe that the Big Ten Championship Game is going to garner close to SEC figures, which is about $15 million per year. Nebraska only has 700,000 households, but the flip side to that is that the Big Ten Network is going to get a massive rate for every single one of them. Note that the .70 per sub per month rate is an average across the Big Ten footprint – markets that have stronger fan support charge higher rates. It’s not a stretch to say that the state of Nebraska might garner the highest market subscriber rate of them all. If the Big Ten Network can get $1.00 per sub per month in Nebraska, that’s an extra $8.4 million in subscriber fees per year immediately. My understanding is that Nebraska has such rabid fans that the BTN can actually get even higher than that. We’re not even getting into the anticipated increase in the national ABC/ESPN contract down the road – if a blown up Big 12 can get $14 million – 17 million per team, then a Big Ten contract with 4 huge national names and great markets for the second tier teams is going to garner a massive amount.
Think of it this way: there were 2 Big 12 teams that killed the prospect of the Big 12 network several years ago because they believed that they could start their own profitable networks: Texas and Nebraska. There’s a good reason for that. While Texas has the sheer households, Nebraska could’ve started a lucrative network even with a small population base because that market is willing to pay ESPN-type sub fees for a channel that shows their games.
LikeLike
Add to that the higher ratings on the BTN when a UNL game bumps a network game down a notch.
LikeLike
@Frank Thanks for the response. However, I have to challenge the lawyer on his incremental economic analysis. Since adding ANY 12th team would have brought a championship game (name any of your usual suspects), the CCG money cannot be used in an incremental analysis of adding Nebraska over the other candidate schools.
I also have to challenge your analysis of the per sub rate. NJ has five times the number of households that Nebraska has. Even if Rutgers could only draw $0.40 per subscriber, Nebraska would have to pull $2.00 per sub to equal the revenue, double what you submit Nebraska might garner.
With regard to future negotiations with networks, I can see how that might be enhanced, but it’s pretty speculative to put numbers on exactly what Nebraska might bring, especially given that the Big Ten would be due for big increase anyway.
I see Nebraska as a line drive single that the outfielder cut off before it could get to the gap. I just don’t see the “stand up double” that so many seem to talk about, much less the HR that was Penn St.
(Also I note that you made no comment regarding academics)
LikeLike
its not just subscriber fees. its advertising on the network. that may be the even bigger revenue number long term. and the high Nebraska viewership numbers would have a big impact.
LikeLike
Line drive single? Huh? I would call Nebraska more like a triple — with academics and a smallish home market keeping it from being a home run. But it’s far better to have a large and loyal fan base in a small market than have a large market but limited control of that populace (cf Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt). Nebraska is worth a lot more than the popluation of their state would indicate at first glace based on how their large fan base will watch TV (rights fees, subscription fees and advertising/sponsorship money) and travel (bowl agreements). There’s no guarantee that, for example, Rutgers would have been able to get the BTN on basic cable even in NJ (PSU, a far more popular school, wasn’t able to get the BTN on basic cable in Philadelphia, for example).
LikeLike
Great point about bowl $. Neb adds another huge traveling fan base, ala OSU, Wis., Iowa…..
LikeLike
Not to mention it is a homerun with it’s “fit” into the Big Ten.
The other Homeruns (ND & UT) are singles when it comes to fit.
LikeLike
If you go only by state population logic, I can see the point.
However, then Notre Dame isn’t a very attractive option either. Of course, ND draws Catholics around the country. And it draws fans simply because of the success its had. People like winners.
Nebraska, too, has a similarly larger draw than the population of its state would suggest. Nebraska has a population of 1.8 million, yes, but they’d pay almost anything to watch their team. So those folks are more valuable than 1.8 million in, say, Nevada or Washington State.
Plus football is the only game in town across much of the prairies. You can add in 1.4 from the Dakotas. There is no competition there. My 84 year old aunt in Sioux Falls doesn’t miss a game. Including the Dakotas, now the population is up to 3.2 million.
Plus they’d draw fans in western Iowa, Missouri and Minnesota, (all of which are quite close to Lincoln, which isn’t far from the border of these states). Then add in much of Wyoming, eastern Colorado and Montana, each of which also have a Nebraska following. I’m sure the Big Ten has done a more precise analysis, but the regional footprint for the Nebraska football team, then, is probably closer to 4.5 to 5 million.
That’s not to mention very passionate alumni scattered across large cities like Denver, KC, St. Louis, Phoenix, Dallas, etc. And those who simply like Nebraska because it’s a perennial winner.
The Big Ten didn’t bother to go with Missouri with its 6 million people or Kansas with just under 3 million and a top-flight basketball team for a reason. Nebraska football is simply more valuable than either. In fact, the only candidate schools that are of greater value would be Texas and Notre Dame.
Nebraska is a slam dunk as far as I’m concerned.
LikeLike
“Nebraska football is simply more valuable than either (Kansas or Missouri).” Words aren’t enough. Numbers please.
Basic cable in Wyoming and the Dakotas is not a serious argument.
LikeLike
The argument is basic cable at pretty high rates across a huge swath of land that adds up to perhaps 5 million or more people.
If this point is incorrect, why owuld the Big Ten turn its nose at Missouri with 6 million people? Or Kansas with a top-ranked basketball program? Do you honestly think the Big Ten didn’t do a complete analysis on Nebraska’s regional and national appeal before inviting them?
LikeLike
There is value on national perception. If the Big Ten is seen as a powerhouse conference, all of the teams will get more respect, which will improve bowl positions, poll positions, and TV value (base on ratings). Nebraska is one of the few traditional college football powerhouses. The Big Ten now has four of them. This addition was a HR all the way. Forget about the small population and concentrate on the overall enhancement of the conference’s image.
LikeLike
“Nebraska has a population of 1.8 million, yes, but they’d pay almost anything to watch their team.”
To further make your point, if they’ll pay $30 PPV to watch a home game against Louisiana-Lafayette, they’ll pay anything. And yes, that was the actual price for PPV for that game.
LikeLike
To add to what Frank said about Nebraska, they’re also the force multiplier to end all force multipliers. There are relocated Nebraska grads and fans all over the country, which is part of why they travel so well. On top of this they’re rabid about their Huskers and they’re rabid in a Toledo kind of way. This means that adding Nebraska actually makes it easier to take a school like Georgia Tech who can be argued as not being able to even deliver the Atlanta market, yet when combined with the sizable number of Big Ten and Nebraska Alumni, brings you much closer to the needed “critical mass” to coerce the cable companies during the negotiations.
Another point for Nebraska from a fan standpoint is that they’re effectively the team of the great plains, ergo you gain not just Nebraska but also the Dakotas and portions of the surrounding states.
LikeLike
@ Frank
While I agree that the logic makes perfect sense for the Big Ten to expect a massive hike in their contract with ABC/ESPN based on what the new Big 12 may get, logic could also indicate that maybe they shouldn’t expect to. After all, ABC/ESPN execs seem to be against super conferences and they certainly know that the moment they sign that deal with the Big Ten, creating another massive gap in revenues, they will likely put this conference expansion ball into motion once again.
LikeLike
But if ABC/ESPN wants to lowball the Big Ten, they run the risk of losing the Big Ten to Fox… which is a worst case scenario since ESPN is not only losing the top three games each week, but now Fox is let into the club on Saturday afternoons. I’m sure ESPN does not want to compete each week with the CBS/SEC Game of the week AND the Big Ten game of the week.
ESPN is not going to let Fox get the broadcast rights to Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, and Penn State on the cheap.
LikeLike
The sum is greater than the parts.
LikeLike
It is a pet peeve of mine to see this phrase misused. Of course a sum is greater than any given constituent part. That is the nature of summation. The phrase is supposed to be that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, implying that there is synergy created by uniting parts. It is a meaningful phrase because our brains think that summation is the default way of estimating the result of a combination. Saying that the combination exceeds those expectations is precisely the point of the phrase.
LikeLike
I apologize in advance for the pedantic nature of my reply. I know I can be annoying and I am sorry.
LikeLike
You’re no Harvey Perlman, that’s for sure.
LikeLike
Actually, my understanding is that’s it’s kind of a Yogi-ism. It’s too easy (pedestrian) to say the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Saying the sum is greater than the parts is meant to imply some level of counterintuitiveness. That’s why I stated it without further comment; kind of a tongue in cheek remark. Hope that sits better with you.
LikeLike
Sure Nebraska is not Texas, then again who is all considered. Sure Nebraska is not ND but it has a strong fan base while not as large. Sure Nebraska (1,783,432) is not Rutgers with a potential population of (NJ 8,682,661 + 19,490,297 NY) and it’s not Illinois with 12,901,563. You do paint the acquisition as being bleak which it definitely is not. There are lists of state schools regardless population that have never reached the heights and most likely never will in college football of a Nebraska.
About it being academically borderline? Well things will change. If you are know by the company you keep and Nebraska will not want to be known as the Big Ten +1 and Nebraska. No matter how many football games you win, I don’t think Nebraska wants to occupy the same academic space it does now in 15 years. I believe they have all the resources and encouragement they need to upgrade.
NB will also be a team player who will not rock the boat. if they are not a fit already they soon will be.
LikeLike
I said I was open minded, and wanted to see how the aquisition paid for itself over and above other candidates. I also said I prefered numbers not words. If the case is that clear, it ought to be easy to make.
You didn’t make it.
LikeLike
Mike:
Speaking for myself, Nebraska is a clear winner. However, it is certainly an intuitive feel more than a conclusion based on numbers.
Just like I would believe the Gren Bay Packers would have a greater value than, say, the Buffalo Bills or Baltimore Ravens, even though the population base of Green Bay is smaller.
You want numbers, but few of us have access to the demographic and TV numbers the Big Ten would. From this board, maybe Patrick could come closest to providing the “numbers” you seek. Or you could consider the analysis Forbes has done. http://www.sbnation.com/2009/12/23/1217848/Most-Valuable-College-Football-Teams, suggesting Nebraska is the fourth most valuable college football team, #3 if you go by profit.
However, if that’s not good enough, instead of demanding numbers from a group of interested laypersons, maybe you should do the analysis, yourself.
Take some Big Ten candidate schools–Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Miami, etc.
Figure out the number of people who follow the team (above and beyond state numbers, but actual fans who will watch their team), assess the television market for each school, including the cable and satellite rates that they could demand, factor in the expected viewership (across the country but outside the footprint) that is interested in the game from the respective brand of the schools and add in who would buy the TV package on an a la carte basis, come up with a number that those people could be charged, and do a comparison of the various brands.
Remember we want numbers not words.
When you’re done, we’ll need to work in the academic angle–what is the school worth in terms of academic brand value, and research dollars.
Of course, the Big Ten has likely spent huge sums of money doing this very sort of assessment. Maybe they’ve done so because this analysis isn’t quite so easy to do as you suggest.
However, if you think complex financial analyses are so easy to produce, this project should be no problem for you and you can prove to us that the other candidate schools are, in fact, of greater value than Nebraska.
LikeLike
DD,
thanks for the link. earlier folks were wondering about the SEC adding Arkansas and South Carolina. Seems pretty smart as both are in the top 20 most valuable football programs in the country. somebody did their homework.
LikeLike
UNL was introduced on Friday. How is this info available yet. Unless JD is willing to release his findings, we cannot know at this time.
The fans on here feel like it is a HR and I tend to agree.
LikeLike
It’s still a football brand name, has excellent fan support with a good all-around athletic program, is academically okay (a bit below Big Ten standards, but still above Missouri) and making a legitimate effort to boost its research.
You have to view the ultimate collective expansion from a Big Ten perspective, and that chapter has yet to be written. It’s probably why Delany’s remaining new members will come from the east or south and, although not quite as strong in football as Nebraska (outside of Notre Dame, if it comes), they will be at least as strong or stronger than UNL in all-around athletics, academics and market size. We will eventually see whom those institutions are. Then you can grade how expansion turned out.
Delany at least got one of the football “big three” without having to compromise conference ideals (something Texas tried to foist).
LikeLike
Vincent, Delaney clearly stated that they are looking at no other Big IIX schools. I believe him if he had his finger crossed on Texas. I do believe he is following the script which by now we all have an idea of.
1) Increased viewership 2) strong football program/history 3)strongest academic programs 4)Eastern/Southern expansion. None of this in any order. Picking up a Texas and a Notre dame is a wild card acquisition they will take if their requirements do not hurt the conference.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think it’s pretty clear that the next expansion will include ACC schools. That’s the most prime part of the sun belt for the Big Ten to pursue.
I think the Big Ten is comfortable keeping the Texas Ten as a neutral zone in between the Pac-10 and SEC.
LikeLike
Forgive me for using words instead of numbers to explain why the Big Ten took Nebraska, but I truly believe (and may be completely delusional, who knows?) that Nebraska fits what the Big Ten is hoping to accomplish.
While I don’t think Nebraska will cost any of the current members any money given the CCG, in-state revenue, leverage for upcoming contracts, possible out of state revenue etc., I don’t think Nebraska is as big of a money-maker at this point as some of the other options in more populous states.
What the Big Ten is in the process of doing instead is improving their brand first and foremost. All the expansion speculation has garnered the conference with exceeding academic and financial praise. They’re now attempting (at the opportune time) to unseat the SEC – who’s in rebuilding mode this year as the top football conference according to public opinion. The SEC has developed their brand as the best football conference with the most rabid fan-bases. If they have a poor or mediocre showing nationally this year in bowl and OOC games while the Big Ten does the opposite, the Big Ten will go into 2011 with more respect, money, AND athletic and academic prestige than anyone else. They are priming whatever markets they pursue next so they can have leverage for their next cable contract negotiations for the BTN. If you don’t understand my explanation, consider this:
The Big Ten needed another big name to get more money from NYC/New Jersey for when they presumably grab Rutgers next. It would be foolish to try to infiltrate a market when general perception is that Big Ten football is big, slow, boring, old-fashioned etc. Instead, they worked/are working on their brand name, lose no money in the process, and will invite Rutgers and hopefully Maryland after this upcoming football season ends (one of the most dominant Big Tens of the last 5-10 years, and maybe the best UNL team since the early 2000s).
After this season when they invite Rutgers, they’ll go into cable contract negotiations to get the BTN on in NY and NJ, and they’ll certainly leverage UNL-RU, UofM-RU, OSU-RU, and PSU-RU – especially because several years these games might not make the cut for ESPN or ABC. With the Big Ten alumni base on the East Coast, many high profile games for RU that are relegated to the BTN, and an improved football brand, the Big Ten could increase their $0.40/household (hypothetical) in Jersey currently to $0.60 per household in Jersey and $0.30 per household in NY State.
LikeLike
Adding. Thanks, Frank.
LikeLike
Loved this blog over the last several months. I’ve spent more time on here than preparing for trial.
Hope you all enjoy the upcoming season. I know my team (Mich) needs a great year.
Frank – you’re the man. Frank the Tank is the best use of the internet since porn.
Can’t be happier about how this all worked out. In the end, I think the B12ish revenues will not keep pace and that’s a win in my book.
LikeLike
Dan Beebe: Texas Tech has not formally committed to 10-team Big 12 conference yet.
lol
LikeLike
Their Board of Regents meeting is still scheduled as well, wonder if they’re trying to stage a mini-revolt to at least improve the new revenue sharing. They’re definitely getting screwed compared to what they would have gotten in the PAC and Texas essentially announced their “acceptance” of the new deal apparently without consulting them. Dodds all but told them they were going to get permanent second class citizen status despite having some of the higher rated games in the Big 12 last year.
LikeLike
I also have spent more time at this site than doing my job and it has been great fun. As a Mizzou alum, I can tell you that the buzz around Columbia is what the f… are these clowns doing? The Gov made stupid comments, the athletic director made stupid comments, and Mizzou got played by the Big 10 as being a wingman so they could go after the pretty girl.
Mizzou is lucky and fortunate that things turned out the way they did. The Big 12 is stronger now, especially in basketball becuause Colorado and Nebraska were boat anchors. Football took a 10% hit in league value by losing Neb, but hey, BYU may make that up. I’d go after them for neew markets and MAYBE UNLV or New Mexico, bit emerging schools with decent athletic program in major TV market of Las Vegas/Albuquerque and Salt Lake City.
I was hoping Mizzou would end up in the SEC. Would love to see those teams come through Columbia. But, getting whacked by Texas and OU every year is painful enough.
Long live the Big 12. Now, we get to watch what Notre Dame wants to do.
LikeLike
Doogie–I’ve advoated for Mo. on this board…but I can’t believe you’re happy with this result. Mo and the rest of the old B12 North are now TX’s little buddies…..I saw one Mo. poster desribe it as a hostage situation, and he’s not far off….
It would be interesting to know exactly what was communicated to Mo. concerning BT intentions….your adm. has been pretty quiet since Neb. was added, so they mat realize they simply overplayed their hand.
As to Neb. bball, I’d take Neb’s bball future over that of BYU’s. So you may be adding another anchor there…..
LikeLike
My opinion of Texas Tech would change drasitcally if they grew a pair and rejected it. Let’s be honest, though, that just isn’t goin to happen.
LikeLike
2 days ago the Big 12 was dead.
Never say never.
LikeLike
Beebe also apparently has admitted they have no new deal, just “promises”. I’d be very leary of this thing if I were one of the non-Texas schools. Tech has a big reason to be concerned. If this thing doesn’t happen now and CU/Utah get invites then if it goes down a few years later they are likely the school left on the outside looking in unless one of the teams swings an SEC invite.
LikeLike
The BCS contract is up after 2014. So they’ll start renegotiating in what, 2012? Even if for nothing but leverage, the super conference threat will return no later than the start of those negotiations.
It does appear that the super conference and its potential ramifications had some big blowback here, at minimum to buy time to sort through those issues. I’m sensing that the threat of political intervention was made more at the national than state level.
LikeLike
Per the TX news conference, Deloss Dodds said ABC/ESPN “Were very helpful.”
ESPN contract still runs through 2016, but same $ even with 2 teams leaving. Thus that is a 20% average pay increase for each remaining school.
Fox contract will be renegotiated in 2012.
My reading between the lines is that despite whatever length is reported, they’ll have out clauses that basically will sync the Fox agreement to the ESPN 2016 cutoff.
I also get the sense that there is more immediate added value. Not yet stated, but perhaps more guaranteed appearances for conference teams, time slot and coverage split improvements, etc. Probably beginning this year.
FWIW, currently the B12 has 48 conference games, by going round robin the Big Yawn will have 45.
Adding 2 teams and a conf title game isn’t necessarily being sought, but they aren’t off the table, either.
You really wouldn’t want to run into President Powers in a back alley. His voice alone could whip most bow-tied chancellors butts. Don’t let the Berkeley resume fool ya, he and Dodds are straight out of Giant and Hellfighters. No Conference for Old Men.
LikeLike
Love the Hellfighters reference! Raise your hand if you ever tried using firecrackers to put out a small leaf fire after watching Hellfighters. (Under the right conditions, it works)
LikeLike
Markets and Brands and Competition, Oh My!!!
If you’re wondering what’s happens next… past is prologue. As Duffman ably points out, the Big Ten now houses 4 of the top 10 all time college football brands and has only expanded when it can pick off another. How can you top Penn State and Nebraska in our decades long quest for dominance?
To all of you claiming this is over…REALLY? Have you not been paying attention? It takes time. Yet, we know where the next targets lie: in the constellation of Brands, Markets, Money and Competition.
If the BTN represents the vehicle for our future success, we will pursue getting on the first tier of the best markets (NY, DC, FL, NE, TX, LA/SF) through expansion or collaboration. Thus, scenarios such as expanding to include Miami/UF, UVa/MD, UT/A&M, Rutgers/UConn/Syr/BC will be considered (different than saying it will be done; after all we only have 4 slots). Scenarios such as packaging the BTN with a PTN for joint national distribution will be considered. Owning the rights to others will be considered because we’ll have the money to do so. And all of the remaining top 10 brands will be looked at, especially ND, who alone strengthens our claim of being a nat’l conference (not in composition but in scope, footprint and desirability). At the height of UNL/OK, who’d have thought conditions would have changed that would have allowed us to pick up that brand? Things change in time. ND, UT, FL will always be under analysis because they’re who they are. It’s not a surprise to see ND resist or UT revert to their inherent Alpha-dog tendencies and resist; that’s what makes them great. The whole ‘Screw You, We’re Texas’ is more an affirmation of that culture than the Screw You implies; it’s part of the Lone-Starness of a former independent country. Well, we have a lot of Screw You, We’re the Big Ten in us; it’s just our Midwestern sensibilities won’t let us make a video about it.
Where we are now is slowing things down to get the maximal bang for the buck. UNL is a wonderful brand and needs time to be appreciated and incorporated in a way that maximizes it’s value to us and us to them. I believe this is best done without the clutter of 4 others all at once. UM is in the football doghouse. This is a problem and cannot stand. Thus, our short term priorities must be competitive dominance in our selected venues. It does us no good to have UNL, MI, PSU and tOSU on board if they are relics of their former selves. We need to continue the thrilling success shown in last year’s bowl season, and our Big Dogs must reaffirm themselves as such. It is also thrilling to our middle tier do so well, having bench strength is the SEC’s claim to fame and enables them to whine enough to force 1 & 2 loss teams into the NC conversation. You can’t win 4 straight if you’re not playing in the game. A big part of the overall barometer for our on-field success is us crushing OOC competition. Otherwise, we’re just a bunch of 50 yr-old trophies. This is one reason why the money from the BTN is so important. If you have it, you can invest in the facilities and recruitment that translate into wins.
Delany’s study will be continued for another 6 months. Expect something big (more brands, more markets, better competition) to be the result of the study. All will be done w/o compromising the academic reputation and while making a ton of money. I love the Big Ten! I think I’ll write a check to NU now…
Frank and the incredibly toll free, intellectually powerful participants in this joyride, Thank you (and thanks for putting up w/my long-winded rants). I can’t wait for what’s next.
LikeLike
8 more slots. 20’s the endgame for the Big10, not 16.
First, though, add Miami+GT/FSU, Maryland, & ND.
The pods even split up somewhat nicely:
East
PSU
Maryland
Miami
FSU/GTech
MidEast
Michigan
MSU
OSU
ND
MidWest
IU
PU
NU
UofI
West
Minn
UNL
Iowa
Wisconsin
You could even have a 7 game regular season (with non-conf Big10 games, so Minnesota vs. Michigan, Illinois/NU vs. Wisconsin/Iowa, and maybe OSU vs. PSU annually.
LikeLike
And how do you see that happening without anyone else at over 12 (and without getting the Feds involved)? And I like your East grouping, although I’d put UVa in there somewhere…
LikeLike
UVa becomes available only if VTech heads to the SEC.
LikeLike
And bypass NYMetro for Atlanta? Hmmmm.
LikeLike
Few tidbits from the Texas news coference (using the link which someone else posted):
Powers and Dodds both looked very tired.
Plonsky, Dodds and Powers all referred to their conference as the Big 10 at least once. Someone asked about the conference names of B10 and B12 and Dodds laughed and said, “We’ll let the Big 10 take leadership on that.”
Repeatedly emphasived they were committed to a TEN (Powers emphasis-not mine) team conference. Never heard any question about expanding.
Powers said the only tie to conference was for a public statement of committment to the long term of the Big 12 by the Presidents and that there was always transparency and a lot of trust between the Presidents. As Frank says, think like a president. Presidents publically committing really is pretty binding (at least on that President), although I’m sure many on here will scoff at that.
TV deal is not signed. All questions on contract were referred to B12 who did the negotiations. Said B12 schools had been very successful in their market in generating partnerships, i.e. B12 is valuable to TV because local advertising is good.
Texas committed before A&M made their final decision.
Dodds thanked ABC for their help. There was no reduction in the ABC contract. (ABC the network that worked to stop P16?).
Powers very gracious towards P10 and Larry Scott-“…a great commissioner.” Said there was no one factor. Student travel was considered and was a big concern of B12 6 as well as P10. One problem was anything that minimized travel tended to reduce intra-division play and all you had was 2 conferences linked by a TV contract.
Powers said nothing negative about UNL or CU, just that they made the decisions they thought were best for their university as they should have.
Dodds was asked about LSN and possible creation of B12N and Pearlman’s comments. He was very emphatic. Some B12 schools had concerns when it was discussed in the past, but Nebraska was TOTALLY aligned with Texas on that.
LikeLike
BTW, Plonsky was known to be a powerful player in Texas athletics. It was clear she was doing a lot of the legwork in all of this.
Dodds also made a comment he could make a call to Houston, then call to Dallas and the person in Dallas had already heard about the Houston call. Made a joke mentioning Chris Brown about that point (who was in the audience).
LikeLike
Dodds was asked about LSN and possible creation of B12N and Pearlman’s comments. He was very emphatic. Some B12 schools had concerns when it was discussed in the past, but Nebraska was TOTALLY aligned with Texas on that.
Yet every time he mentioned NE’s not having a problem with the LSN he and Powers added the qualifier, “At the time.”
LikeLike
One further comment. They stated the TV execs really valued the Central time zone.
LikeLike
Indeed. Thanks for the good summary.
LikeLike
I don’t think what the Pac 16 was talking about doing from a scheduling standpoint would have worked with the networks. They wanted the “Eastern Division” to only use two time slots, and save the later slot for the Western Division. The Central Time Zone allows for three consecutive four-hour slots, and with 10 CTZ schools, you can use them all each week.
LikeLike
I’m sure they still have rights to the Big 8. Maybe they can do something tricky with that logo. Then again it would seem like they are resurrecting something long dead. Whatever logo they use I expect to see some longhorns superimposed. :- )
LikeLike
Pingback: The Buckeye Battle Cry | Final Thoughts on Expansion… For Now
So…just want to see if we all agree that that there is no way Scott would roll the dice on a Tech invite right? This was posted on the Tech Scout board.
“In order for Kent Hance to “stick it” to the B12 today he’s got to have somewhere to land. Reports are that he may just have a place to land”
and
“Am told Tech BOR mtg not a rubber-stamp for B12 agreement. Developing.”
Apparently tweets from Ryan Hyatt, not sure who that is…
LikeLike
TTech would be a better pickup than Utah for the Pac10/11/12 from an economic standpoint.
Ironic if the school that so many people here were sure would be rejected by the Pac10 would be the only Texas school to join. For the record, I always thought the Pac10 would be willing to take TTech to get Texas.
LikeLike
Love the Drama. But what r the chances Tech Bolts?
Tech to the SEC and someone wake Frank up.
LikeLike
I don’t for the life of me understand why A&M did not bolt and leave (for the SEC)this unfinished business behind. The whole thing seems so dysfunctional. Like grown kids not wanting to move out of mom and dad’s house even though they can economically..
LikeLike
Perfect. If Tech blows up the Big Yawn aTm can still go SEC and TX to P16. No more Tech problem!
LikeLike
Not sure if there’s any credence to this…but that certainly would solve the “Tech” problem. It seems like Tech might be slightly more attractive (even all by itself) than Utah. Obviously it’s an academic slouch for the PAC10, but it would offer the PAC10 a share of the Texas market. Of the three schools that the state of Texas cares most about, TTech is the lowliest. If they had a good home, screw the rest of the Big 12. AM and UT can go where the money is…and if they still despise money and prestige (Big 10/SEC), then they can be the Big 9.
LikeLike
day 10 of Izzo watch. a fretful nation ponders.
LikeLike
Does he really want to coach a team without Lebran? One word for him. Chicago!
Mmmma Numba 23ah!
LikeLike
Frank:
I’d like to echo the thoughts of everyone here and thank you for becoming the de facto home for realignment-obsessed nerds everywhere. And I’m actually quite curious to see what tricks you might have up your sleeve to at least retain a portion of this traffic you have developed over the past few months. I know I plan on revisiting. Good luck! 🙂
LikeLike
Why is everyone burying a horse that ain’t dead? This ain’t over, folks.
LikeLike
its pretty clearly going on a slower simmer
LikeLike
The West was just the prelims. The East is the real battle.
LikeLike
Yeah, but now the Big Ten holds almost all of the cards as to when to strike on the Big East and ACC. Thus, I think Delany wants to integrate Nebraska before launching something…
LikeLike
If, instead of taking Syracuse and Rutgers, the Big Ten leads off by taking Rutgers and Maryland, they’d be stirring two pots (and seemingly not picking on the BE and coercing Notre Dame), and the SEC might be more inclined to counter with Virginia Tech and Pitt, or two ACC schools. Florida, because of recruiting, apparently doesn’t want Miami or Florida State in the SEC, and I think that the SEC, all things being equal, would rather stake out fresh turf.
LikeLike
Of course this assumes that any ACC team would want to join the SEC, which might be doubtful.
LikeLike
Pitt’s fanbase would be too small for the SEC. Not to mention that PA is not a former slave state, and would not therefore fit with soutern culture.
LikeLike
I agree it has been great Frank! I just decided to go ahead and get my season tickets renewed for Fighting Illini football!
For all of you who liked to post the ‘Were from texas, screw you” song. I remembered not to long ago a different song…..
Warning…. liberal use of the f-bomb 😉
LikeLike
lol…that’s perfect!
LikeLike
College football is better off because greed is good-Michigan blog:
http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/6/15/1518934/greed-is-good-how-greed-almost
LikeLike
good post as well….
http://www.mrsec.com/2010/06/who-controls-college-sports/
courtesy mrsec
LikeLike
Wow
LikeLike
Nebraska’s impact is likely to be aroudn $60 million ($20 million more than necessary to ensure all teams continue to make the same amount they made in the past). I went back to the initial analysis on this blog about the financial impact of Nebraska to do this.
It estimated increase of $54 million in Revenue. Note that a team needs to generate $39 million to ensure that all other schools make the same amount of money. This is based on a $.36/month subscription rate on Nebraska’s TV sets. As Frank suggested above it is likely to be at least 3 times that amount — hell, fans had to pay $40/game for 3 PPV games last fall. If you increase the subscription rate to $1/month per subscriper then the Total Added Revenue Estimate = $60 million.
This does not include the impact of a Big Ten championship as that cannot be solely attributed to Nebraska. It would break down as follows (updateding the analysis)
Cable Carry Increase ($10.8): 900,000 new households (Patrick guessed 1.2 million) @ $1/month – $10.8 million
Cable Ad Increase New Market ($16.9)
Es. Increase in Current Footprint ($21.9)
Est. Added Revenue Increased Games BTN ($10)
TOTAL Added Revenue Estimate – $60 Million
Plus, The $100 million dollar ABC/ESPN deal can’t be negotiated for a few years. That would have gone up without Nebraska and adding Nebraska will make it go up even more.
So yes, Texas or Notre Dame would have added more revenue than Nebraska but no one can say that adding Nebraska is bad for revenue. Before adding in the impact of a Big Ten Championship game and future increases in ABC/ESPN Contracts Nebraska should increase eveyone’s revenues by a couple million dollars while also giving increased competition and a top historical power in college football. And while the academics aren’t up to par with the Big Ten yet, they are one of the most attractice academic candidates when you look at who is avaialble coupled with their new focus on research (including their $1 billion Research and Innovation Campus).
I know I’m biased but I refuse to agree with people who say Nebraska was a bad addition.
LikeLike
Sorry for the typos – I should be billing clients but this is more interesting.
LikeLike
Dude, I think I’m the king of typos here. Don’t make me feel bad by apologizing.
LikeLike
Excellent post.
LikeLike
#1 I get the first one:
Cable Carry Increase ($10.8): 900,000 new households (Patrick guessed 1.2 million) @ $1/month – $10.8 million
#2 But these are all very speculative:
Cable Ad Increase New Market ($16.9)
Es. Increase in Current Footprint ($21.9)
Est. Added Revenue Increased Games BTN ($10)
TOTAL Added Revenue Estimate – $60 Million
#3 Run the same figures for a Syracuse/Rutgers combination:
Note: the 2000 census showed Nebraska with 667k households, not 900k.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/31000.html
But I will use the 2000 census figures anyway.
Cable Carry Increase: 11,000,000 new households (per 2000 census) times 32% market penetration (rather than 100%) = 3,520,000 new households @ $.70/month (rather than $1)= $29.6 million
#4 If the ratio of subscriber revenue to total revenue is 10.8/60.0 for Nebraska, let’s assume it is 1/2 that for Syracuse/Rutgers… 10/30. Even multiplying the aforementioned number by 3, you still get nearly $90M.
So… using very conservative numbers, Syracuse and Rutgers could combine to net the Big 10 twice what it would cost to pay Syracuse/Rutgers.
And if they delivered their markets with a greater than 32% penetration at the 70 cents a market… you do the math.
LikeLike
Nice work EZ. As Patrick said yesterday, the BTN has a ton of upside available yet to better “maximize” and leverage the financial windfall that awaits them beyond Nebraska. This can’t be the the end of expansion if Delany is going to be “Sainted” properly and praised as “Expansion God”. It’s too early for that yet.
LikeLike
I still think the ACC is missing the boat on this. They need to snag Syracuse, UConn, Pitt, and WVU/Rutgers. That, coupled with Virginia, MD, Va Tech, and BC would be Joe Paterno’s dream.
All those markets would be $$$$.
If anyone leaves for anywhere, still have other schools to choose from.
You are either predator or prey. If you stop being a predator, you starting being the prey.
LikeLike
I totally agree and posted same idea of ACC picking up NY Metro, Pitt/WVU, NY State, yesterday. Combine that with existing ACC markets and you have Boston to Miami markets locked up. I think Swofford and Co. should seriously do this. Delany won’t. Or at least he will be slow to pull the trigger. Now is the time for the ACC to move.
LikeLike
Thanks MH, and I recall Patrick’s work from earlier, although it came at a time I was very busy and wasn’t following the blog as closely. This is the kind of analysis I was looking for.
A couple of things (using my skeptical economic analysis eye),
Additional BTN games (as with CCG) would come no matter who was added.
Many other candidates would have brought better Cable Carry #’s
I don’t recall what the “increase in footprint” number was. Is that advertising, too? If so, that’s saying that Nebraska is worth about $40 M/yr in incremental advertising ($5 M per Big Ten game). Unless Nebraska fan buys a lot of Barbasol, I’m very skeptical of those numbers. Is that BTN only? Wouldn’t Fox get half of that?
As I’ve noted here several times, I continue to question Nebraska’s national draw, and thus its advertising value. Two years ago, when Penn St.-Illinois went head to head with Nebraska-Virginia Tech (two of the more rabid fan bases in the country), ABC carried PSU-UofI in 70% of the households.
http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=1589406
LikeLike
Thanks much for your informative post.
LikeLike
Frank, I’m a first-time poster on this blog and a lifetime Husker fan but I want to say thank you for everything you’ve done with this blog. As this whole thing went on and it was evident that UNL was going to be in contention for the Big 10 spot, this became a great place for me to check out your insights – and your discussion.
See you down the road. Go Big Red!
LikeLike
I have TV related questions for anyone who may be in the know (Patrick?) as I know there are many from all walks that have been visiting FtT. I know I am one of the handful of Pac followers in a largely B10 crowd here so my concern/worries lie in the west…
What is the most likely network to provide/negotiate with the Pac for their new nat’l TV deal?
I ask because it would seem to me that ESPN has a large sum already vested in the B10, SEC, and now ACC. So they may be maxed out, as well as with space – unless ESPN 4 is on tap. If Fox/FSN is who saved the B12minus2, would they have any other money to float around – they also run MLB? That leaves NBC who pimps ND, TNT/TBS who push the NBA, and uhhh, the Food Network???
Live sporting events still produce that higest rating that should attract advertisres but (I know Frank brought this up in a long last thread) who has money and space left? I can only assume that Scott is going to have to get creative as far as tiering packages (similar to CBS/SEC) with two networks as I am not sure their is one network ready to pony up $150m per – although that total number should still be the goal. Maybe ESPN gets choice of first 2 games (1 Thurs, 1 Sat?), and another unnamed network, gets choice of next 2, while a PTN takes the remaining 2. Just spitballing but looking for ideas….and for someone to tell me its going to be ok (lol).
LikeLike
definitely Fox.
as far as Fox having money floating around it is not huge money. if you use the BTN model Fox provides the expertise and funding to set up the network and are then as the revenue comes in the conference pays for their equity stake out of the revenues. The Big Ten is in effect still buying in. So the upfront money commitment from Fox is not that big and then they just share in the revenue stream based on actual operating results.
LikeLike
The question is, do they offer the Pac 10 the same deal? Do they get 51% ownership now that FOX knows the model works? Also you are talking CA viewers that are not quite as rabid as other conferences.
LikeLike
I think they do. 51% for the content provider sp he can control editorial issues important to the conference. I doubt a conference would agree to their name association without that editorial power.
LikeLike
Its true that CA residents are not as rabid – as a whole.
But that is irrelevant to subscription though – if you get on basic cable, the PTN is receiving income whether they watch or not.
There is still a good percentage of them that care though – and where you may need a higher percentage of another markets viewers to make advertising attractive – that percentage is smaller in an area w/ a population base of CA. Example – if every eye ball in Nebraska was watching their game (and their fan base is rabid enough to have that possible) that would be proportionate to roughly 8% of SoCal alone watching a USC or UCLA game. 8% market doesn’t sound like too outlandish of a target.
LikeLike
@Hank – Thanks but my question was more so geared at a Nat’l TV contract more than a PTN. Was just curious to know what Nat’l distrubution networks (vs regionalized FSN) may be available to provide the dollars the Pac needs to keep up with the Joneses so to speak (and in this case – the Joneses are only the ACC).
LikeLike
Just in case there was any doubt about who runs the new league:
Unbelievable. The five “leftovers” (KU, KSU, ISU, BU, Mizzou) agreed to sign over their share of CU/NU’s buyout money to UT/OU/A&M.-Mandel
LikeLike
LikeLike
What choice did anyone have?
If those schools didn’t offer it, then they would not have protected their own interests.
If the schools taking the offer did not require it, they would be turning away money and turning away an opportunity to make even more money in a new conference.
This satisfied everyone’s needs.
LikeLike
Maybe they know there won´t be any buyout money? Perlman sounds pretty sure that this won´t be an issue, since the Big 12 came out on top, from a financial standpoint.
LikeLike
Perhaps it is a way to shift the inevitable legal fees onto those 3 teams, too. So fighting NE won’t cost the rest of the conference, but they won’t benefit if the conference wins the case.
LikeLike
Sounds like you hit it. BTW, Beebe was quoted as saying Powers said he would decline the offer.
LikeLike
completely ridiculous. and this is from “peer institutions” cooperating together to build a conference.
LikeLike
Who said anything about peers?
LikeLike
Solid foundation to rebuild a conference.
LikeLike
For the conspiracy minded, could this all be a show to get past short-term TX politics and simply buy more negotiating, adjusting time for all the conferences?
I could see this playing out where next year a contract still has not been agreed to. TX and aTm declare that the promised contract $’s weren’t subsequently put to paper by Fox, so they have no choice but to re-examine their options.
LikeLike
It is pretty evident that there isn’t any long-term stability in the Big 12-2 yet.
LikeLike
Here’s is what Dan Beebe supposedly sent to the Big 12 schools arguing for preserving the conference. I’ll be honest – pretty much all of the commenters here could have made more substantive arguments than this guy. It worked, somehow:
Click to access colorado.pdf
LikeLike
What in the #@$% was that?
Seriously.
It sounds like it was written by a college newspaper writer with about as much thought, analysis, and information as the same.
LikeLike
If we stay at 12 for awhile, how would you divide the divisions.
I think it is a safe bet that the “big 4” will be divided 2 and 2.
My impression as a UM fan is that UM and tOSU would prefer to be in the same division if this happens. (Why would tOSU object???).
Of the remaining 8 teams, Wisconsin and Iowa have been playing at a higher level than the others. I think they have to be split in order to maintain competitive balance.
Iowa would probably be put with Nebraska.
Michigan State would be put with Michigan.
So the division alignment would probably start this way:
DIVISION A
Ohio State
Michigan
Wisconsin
Michigan State
plus 2 more (Illinois & Northwestern??)
DIVISION B
Penn State
Nebraska
Iowa
plus 3 more (Indiana, Purdue, and Minnesota??)
How do you think the Big Ten would slot the final five teams?
Do you agree with my assumptions on the positioning of the first seven teams?
LikeLike
In any split we here on the banks of gitchigoomie must have
1)Wisconsin
2) Illinois
3) Minnesota
Some would swap Iowa for Minnesota but over the years these have been some very good games for TheNU.
LikeLike
no, I disagree. I like the east west divide. Besides although Michigan WAS awesome, Wisconsin has the second best win record over the last ten years, second to OSU. I would like to see east west divisions. helps with travel, and gets border rivalries.
osu
mich
psu
purdue
indi
etc
wis
neb
minn
iowa
ill
etc
LikeLike
I like the east-west division best myself, because of the geography and the rivalries.
The point of my post was not to advocate any particular outcome, but to predict what the Big Ten actually will do.
I will be shocked if the Big Ten puts tOSU, UM, and Penn St in the same division. The Big Ten wants to maximize the chances for two of the big four meeting in the conference championship game. This is the basis for JD’s statement that “competitive balance” would be priority one.
LikeLike
If they intended to make the obvious east-west split, he would not have made a point of emphasizing “competitive balance” over rivalries and geography.
To be clear, I agree that Wisconsin has been better than Michigan over the past two or three years, but the decision to split the “big four” really has more to do with brand names and ratings than with actually success on the field.
(Also, you’re all making a mistake if you assume that Michigan’s successful run is over for good. The program will come back.)
LikeLike
The problem with “competitive balance” is that if you put Neb and PSU in the same division, it really starts to get hard to fit the other teams in without losing rivalry games.
LikeLike
If you buy the premise that Mich and OSU must be in the same division (so that they can’t play twice in a row at the end of the year) then a pure geographic split makes a lot of sense, except that Mich-OSU-PSU would all be in the East. A more balanced look might be Mich-MSU-OSU-Wis-Ill-NW and Neb-PSU-Iow-Min-Pur-Ind, but that’s pretty jumbled and eliminates Wisconsin’s rivalry games. Other combos are possible but they involve breaking up Ind-Pur, Mich-MSU, or Ill-NW. Maybe pure geography will win out.
LikeLike
I hope so. As a UM fan, I would prefer to have OSU and PSU in the same division. Those are fun games.
I think Wisconsin is the team that is most likely to get screwed out of its rivalries if the Big Ten decides to put PSU with Nebraska opposite UM-tOSU. Iowa will be put with Nebraska to create an exciting new rivalry. If you add Wisconsin to that mix, then the divisions are going to be very lopsided. Ohio State would be able to waltz into the CCG every year (until Michigan rights the ship).
LikeLike
@Paul – not a bad idea here.
LikeLike
I mean here.
http://omaha.com/article/20100614/SPORTS/706149853#chatelain-east-west-split-could-work-well-in-big-ten
LikeLike
I really hope they do it that way, but I am afraid they are going to put Penn State with Nebraska in order to split the “big four,” which will disrupt the natural rivalries.
Maybe a silver lining of Michigan being so down lately is that it will increase the likelihood of a straight east-west split. In other words, if people believe that Michigan is no longer going to be any good, then PSU/OSU balances nicely with NEB/IOWA/WIS.
LikeLike
Q for Iowa fans: who do you consider to be a bigger rival – Minnesota or Wisconsin?
LikeLike
@jokewood
I definitely consider Wisconsin a bigger rival. Our programs are mirror images, both in style and success, and always battle over the same recruits. Their friggin coach is an Iowa grad/former player. Alvarez coached under Fry at Iowa for many years. I always view the Iowa-Wisky game as the battle for second tier supremacy. The all time series record is something like 41-40-2.
Minnesota hasn’t been a competitive series for quite a while. Playing for Floyd of Rosedale is the best part of it, and taking over their stadium.
Hawkeye fans tear down the Metrodome goal posts after winning the 2002 B10 title:
LikeLike
I would agree, but their is too much respect there. I like Iowa fans, they are generally just like Wisconsin fans, down to earth middle class people. Minnesota fans tend to be more toward the Michigan type fans. Always think they are better yet haven’t done anything in a while. Iowa and Wisconsin are mirrors of eachother, but its hard to have rivals without angst. And to me, a Wisconsin guy, there is no angst with Iowa. I like them. I hate Minnesota and their fans though.
LikeLike
It’s hard for me to say because I’m the son of a UW prof who grew up a Badger fan and switched my allegiance when I enrolled at the U of I. For me, I hate the Gophers from both ends and I still cheer for the UW in hockey and when they aren’t playing the Hawks. And while the game against the Gophers has been a protected rivalry for us, there have been years we don’t play the Badgers.
But Minnesota has just been so mediocre since the 1960s it’s hard to really get worked up about it. It also seems like we compete for recruits a lot more with the Badgers than with the Gophers.
LikeLike
Assuming “competitive balance” (or rather, brand name marketing) is key for maximizing income, the big four will be split evenly, but I think it more likely to be along these lines:
NW DIVISION:
Michigan (w/Ohio St)
Michigan St (w/Purdue)
Wisconsin (w/Illinois)
Minnesota (w/Northwestern)
Iowa (w/Indiana)
Nebraska (w/Penn St)
SE DIVISION:
Penn St
Ohio St
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
Illinois
Five division games; one protected matchup; and 2 or 3 (corresponding with 8 or 9 conference tilts) interdivisional contests.
Probably more balance in the NW, but more power today at the top of the SE. By the time things shift, we’ll be working out how to fit in the newcomers in a 14/16 team league.
Does having the big dogs playing each other attract enough eyeballs to compensate for the dog-eat-dog carnage that’s left behind? Looking at the SEC model, it seems the top dog’s status at the end of any given year elevates the entire conference. How’s that for a win-win?
As an aside, I have to echo the thanks to Frank and ALL THE REST OF YOU for making this an intelligent, informative, and interesting read over the last few months. Whether things subside soon or not, former lurkers like me and contributers like you will surely know where to get our fix when the time comes.
GO BUCKY!
LikeLike
That is balanced towards OSU/PSU. Don’t you think?
LikeLike
If you mean OSU/PSU are in the lightweight division, I agree.
LikeLike
See this guy’s poorly woven spin on a failed SEC expansion.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/406394-college-football-expansion-final-the-sec-saves-the-ncaa
LikeLike
People have mentioned TT perhaps balking. There are rumors that Okie St also seems to be signaling they won’t approve. Does anyone know more details (especially as neither school can really say “no” unless they have the leverage of taking another option).
Could the Pac Ten or SEC possibly see this as an improvement over their current position?
LikeLike
There is enough stuff floating around out there about the Big 12 arrangements that it seems someone could get these schools “at a reduced price”. In other words, give them an equal voice, less than a 100% revenue share that would match approximately what Texas is giving them (but probably with more certainty) and ratchet it up over time. You may be able to get them without ever giving a share equal to other conference members.
LikeLike
Boone Pickens (link above) doesn’t care about Missouri, and he is the de facto president of OSU. OSU isn’t a candidate for not signing on. It would be interesting to see if this goes into overtime should Slive, the SEC and CBS hold an opposite opinion of Missouri and what bringing them in might have to offer. Missouri would jump at the SEC rather than embark on some humiliating crawl back to the Big 12.
Just saying, it’s not over until Kate Smith starts belting it out.
And to PN, Hopkins and the other Texas posters, my sincere congratulations to Texas and I hope everything works out for the best for them and everyone involved. Texas will chart their own course, just as Nebraska has, and any real animosity over all this is overdone.
LikeLike
I’d find it funny if A&M and Oklahoma rolled over to follow Texas, but Texas Tech and Oklahoma St stand up to them. Of course, you can make the argument that OU and A&M benefit as much from the new Big 12 deal as Texas does, while Tech and OSU would be with the “have not” folks.
LikeLike
I know Tech and State definitely fancy themselves to be in a higher class than at least Kansas State, Baylor and Iowa State at least
LikeLike
The TX legislature has a hearing tomorrow on higher education and conference affiliation. This may be some good Kabuki Theater in preparation for it.
Though if I were betting money I’d still bet the B12-2 lasts at least a year.
If it does, I vote for the suggested name from another blog:
The Pure Prairie League
LikeLike
How about “Bush League”.
LikeLike
Just posted below before I saw this. The rumor is Tech, oSu and Houston are talking to the MWC.
LikeLike
Assuming Utah to the Pac…MWC is at 12, Pac at 12, and Longhorn Conference at 8?
LikeLike
@Frank – Do you get the feel that this is all done for now? Is there still pressure on ND by the Big East? Will the rest of the Big Ten’s expansion study time expire queitly?
LikeLike
I can answer this one. Stick a fork in this idea. It is dead unless Texas is willing to risk a battle against ABC/ESPN. I was surprised that Texas (and the rest of Big Twelve) agreed not to bolt for a decade in order to receive the ABC/ESPN and Fox Premium. There is no pressure on ND. In fact, ND is now more valuable than ever for the next five or so years with Texas off the table — and every conference in trouble has a direct dial number to ABC/ESPN until an orderly process is established and controlled by the corporations (not the conferences) that write the checks.
LikeLike
did You Know?
Just read Paul Taglibues daughter is married to Senator Jay Rockefellers son.
Big East has some pull in Washington.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/23214/expansion-whats-next-for-the-big-east
LikeLike
Did the latest MWC rumor get posted? Some say they’re trying to do a deal with oSu, Tech, and Houston.
LikeLike
Sounds like posturing, nothing substantive. They are easily replaced with TCU, BYU, and Louisville. SMU waiving its “Pick me” hand.
OTOH, if they go through with it that opens the door for KS, OU, TX, and perhaps Baylor or SMU to the P16, aTm to the SEC.
Not counting on it, though.
LikeLike
The rumors contain this nugget about WHY oSu and TT want out so badly:
“—————————————————–
Penalty money:
OU, Texas and A&M receive 5.3 million
TT and oSu receive 2 million
no one else gets any
TV contract:
OU, Texas and A&M get 20 million no matter what
The rest is split among the rest no matter what the actual contract is
—————————————————–
LikeLike
Just read B12 considering new name.
Bush League fits, quoted from above.
How about from a movie theme:
A league of their own
“Major League” Part V
The Cowboys
A Fist Full of Dollars
Circus World
They Were Expendable (John Wayne)
Too many more to list….but fun.
LikeLike
The Good The Bad and The Ugly?
LikeLike
“Honey I Shrunk the Kids”
LikeLike
“TV contract:
OU, Texas and A&M get 20 million no matter what
The rest is split among the rest no matter what the actual contract is”
If this part is correct, then IMHO there is no way the conference lasts beyond 5 years or so (probably not even that). I’m skeptical about the revenue numbers to begin with and all this will do is ensure that the non UT/A&M/OU schools get totally screwed in terms of TV money, possibly even worse than they are now. In that case, why not join the MWC or C-USA or the Big East or whomever else will take you — and a number of the schools like Kansas, Missouri, and Texas Tech wouldn’t have any problems finding somewhere decent to land that could be better than this Longhorn Conference.
LikeLike
Seen several sources, including Powers and Beebe state that nothing has changed from 3 months ago. Haven’t seen anything indicating anything different. I believe this is just more internet rumour from misinterpretation of the news.
B12 deal is 50% TV money shared, 50% by appearances. Schools own their own tertiary rights.
Estimates of $14 million for Baylor and $20 for UT/OU are consistent with last year when UT/OU got around $10 million and Baylor got $7 million.
Left behind 5 did offer CU/UNL exit fees. Beebe said Powers said he didn’t plan to accept it and it was not a factor in the decision.
LikeLike
If all of the little people in the Longhorn Conference refused to play ball, then there would be no Longhorn Conference.
This would send aTm and maybe more teams to the SEC.
If this triggered another round of expansion to a 4×16 world, pure numbers dictate that most of the little people of the Longhorn Conference would be able to find spots in one of the four super-conferences. There are only so many BCS teams to go around.
The bold move for Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, and Texas Tech would be to exercise the only leverage they have and refuse to play ball according to Texas’ rules.
LikeLike
That could create a CCG game and and outside shot to give them enough to go from conditional BCS berth to automatic even losing Utah (with Boise St in). They’d have two in Texas. Any chance this could par approximately what the Big 12 in the short-run? It could be viewed as having more upside than the “likely” Big 12 deal.
LikeLike
Getting this third hand, at best, so take it with a large grain of salt:
“Just got word out of UNM that the commissioner of the MWC, Craig Thompson, has been calling MWC schools asking if they’d agree to do this.
-Get OSU and Tech
We would be guaranteed the same amount of revenue we make in the Big 12.
Utah is gone and MWC would seek to add Houston.
Then OSU and Tech every year would play TCU at home and Houston on the road and flip flopped the next year. This would ensure OSU and Tech a game either in Dallas or Houston every year.
OSU and Tech would jump in 2011 so the previous 4 years would count towards the MWC BCS credits. This would put the MWC at auto-qualifier status.
ESPN has also agreed to step up with a decent TV contract. This would mean all OSU and Tech games would be on TV either ESPN, VS, CBSCS, or the Mountain network.
Seems like a great offer that Tech and us will most likely use as leverage.”
LikeLike
Angling for a bigger piece of the pie? Be somewhat negligent not to do so.
LikeLike
So… unequal revenue sharing is okay if you are on the receiving end, but if it is Texas/A&M/OU on the receiving end… that is unfair?
LikeLike
Well, duh.
LikeLike
richard,
i gotta second that.
Duh!
LikeLike
If that’s the case, it means the Bristol behemoth (or “the mothership,” as Dan Patrick likes to say) wasn’t behind quelling the rebellion at all, as some of us initially thought.
Assume Texas Tech and Okie State go through with this, shrinking the Big 12 to the Big 8 again. Does UT change its mind on expansion, perhaps trying to pick off Mountain West teams in tit-for-tat? This could get fun.
LikeLike
vincent,
TT & oSu go
then A&M goes
what happens next?
as at that point you are at 7 and that is a terrible number for a conference.
LikeLike
link?
LikeLike
It was cut n pasted onto another board. Trying to find the source right now.
LikeLike
Cool…I really want to cross post this.
This is pretty big
LikeLike
Stay classy Missouri…
“EFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon says the Big 12 will be a stronger basketball conference without Colorado and Nebraska.
Nixon on Tuesday called the departing universities “the two weakest basketball programs” in the Big 12. ”
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5288859
LikeLike
well he has a point there………Neb’s never won an NCAA tourney game…..
LikeLike
We’ll always have February 6th, 1982.
LikeLike
shroom,
not totally true, the Husker women made it to the sweet 16 this past season. it is pretty lame call by nixion, but for being the rat of the former big 12, probably trying to get the spotlight off the role they played in the coup.
LikeLike
We have a basketball program. Cool, when did we get that?
LikeLike
That’s amusing, considering NU’s basketball team knocked Mizzou out of the Big12 Tourney a few months ago.
LikeLike
Hmmmm…. this would be an interesting way for Tech and OSU to be shaken free from the Texas, A&M, and OU, eh? Is the Pac 16 still alive after all?
Would the Big 10 take OU if it meant getting Texas and A&M?
LikeLike
Imagine that:
West:
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Texas
A&M
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
East:
OSU
MSU
UM
PSU
Indiana
Illinois
Northwestern
Purdue
Spot saved for Notre Dame in the West.
If not, grab Missouri (who would, I suppose, be able to stomach having Nebraska’s basketball team around again). Or an Eastern school and slide NW and Illinois to the West.
LikeLike
With Wisconsin coming East. Oops.
LikeLike
Nope, I think the Big10’s had enough of the Texas shenanigans. Could mean a move to the SEC (which would be fine if it shakes up the ACC).
LikeLike
More info. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/406551-hold-everything-texas-tech-oklahoma-state-not-signing-new-big-12-deal
LikeLike
Would make sense. Texas and Oklahoma ensure that Tech and OSU find suitable homes BEFORE bolting.
LikeLike
Thanks for the great blog, Frank. As a Husker fan, for me, this site will always be associated with the most interesting and exciting non-baseball-related May and June in my school’s history. I’ll be a regular reader from now on.
Ponce
Brooklyn, NY
LikeLike
The plot thickens. More numbers and some surprises:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/140047
Sounds like FSN is asking for the same control of TV rights that the P10 was.
LikeLike
Playoffs & Frank,
we discussed this point here.. maybe someone of “influence” got the message and all this happened! From your link I note….
“DEFENDING HIS TURF: SI.com’s Andy Staples reports Beebe on June 1 sent an e-mail to presidents of the Big 12’s member schools, predicting that a “network would pay more to televise Big 12 football games.” Beebe in a white paper attached in the e-mail said, “Conversations with Fox indicate their bullishness about competing in the future for our rights, and they have already made overtures about their willingness to pay exponentially higher rights fees than those in our current agreements. A primary driver of higher rights fees are competitors for the rights and all information is that there are more serious bidders about to enter the marketplace.” He also warned that the move to “superconferences in a blatant cash-grab would have invited ‘more governmental, legal and public scrutiny’ and could have resulted in athletic programs losing their tax-exempt status and possibly the payment of athletes for their services” (SI.com, 6/15).”
As I pointed out before, the the LAST sentence in the WHOLE article may be the most telling in everything that happened yesterday!
” He also warned that the move to “superconferences in a blatant cash-grab would have invited ‘more governmental, legal and public scrutiny’ and could have resulted in athletic programs losing their tax-exempt status and possibly the payment of athletes for their services”
Sorry, do not know how to get it in a different color with wordpress, but “tax exempt” may have drawn some water with somebody HIGH up to make the 0% deal (am Beebe) become the 100% deal (pm Beebe). if so Frank, we all go in on a book deal!
😉
LikeLike
OK, here’s the deal on the splitting of the B12 exit fees. $20 million, split 10 ways = $2m per share. TT and OK St get their $2m each. KS, KSU, ISU, MO, and Bay each offered their $2m to TX, OU, and aTm as incentive to stay in the conference. So $10m/3 ways = $3.3m. $3.3 + $2m = $5.3m per school for TX, OU, aTm.
LikeLike
And the rest are still screwed. Because the rich get richer. This still stinks to me. The rest of these guys are still the sold for a cigarette league.
LikeLike
Seriously…..just stripping away university manhood one step at a time.
Wow…I know they probably needed to concede to UT but this is just bad, perception wise – on both sides.
LikeLike
Needed to concede to UT to save their manhood? Two options look a lot better to me now and I am not a resident of Kansas, Iowa or Missouri.
1) Big East 2) Mountain West and for Iowa State a 3rd The Mid America Conference. There are plenty of real men playing in these conferences.
LikeLike
I’m an OU guy. And i have to say this deal really stinks.
I’ve said OU didn’t really have any good choices, but the more I see of this deal, it’s no where close to being good for the conference, which ultimately is not going to be good for Oklahoma.
LikeLike
I would still make an indipent play for the Pac 10. Secretly. you got nothing to lose. It would be big upgrade over Utah.
LikeLike
@STVinIll-I’d beg the SEC to take us and our little sister
LikeLike
having beaten them up in the schoolyard and taken their lunch money Texas notice their book bags and took them too and gave them all wedgies.
LikeLike
hehe……this is pretty sad to see….this league might not last a year….
LikeLike
Rittenberg on Expansion
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/13218/whats-next-for-the-big-ten-in-expansion
LikeLike
“Delany leaves the Big East alone. Maybe he doesn’t. But to assume one of the most powerful and ambitious figures in college athletics is finished would be foolish. Delany devotes more than half of his time to the expansion issue.”
LikeLike
What else is there? Counting money? 🙂
LikeLike
He needs to prove it now. Up until now he has benefited from the luck of the draw.
LikeLike
On the Nebraska numbers thing….
I may or may not be helpful here, but I will offer the following..
a) I have never lived in Nebraska
b) I did not attend Nebraska for college
c) I have not attended a (live) Nebraska football game outside of Bowl Games – I have seen them play live in Bowls, but later in life.
All this said I watch Nebraska play football on TV, I have a feeling I am not alone. In my youth I lived for awhile in Arkansas, and would listen to the radio and watch tv. The big deal was OU and UNL, and I chose Big Red because I liked watching them play more. Maybe there are more people like me in making the Nebraska numbers work. A “phantom” population that watches a particular team when there is no demographic support to indicate they would.
If Nebraska (the state) has a 600,000 population footprint for the BTN is it impossible to imagine that they may have another 100,000 outside the state? What if this number is 600,000? I do not know what the actual numbers are, but my guess it is greater than the state by itself. We are a mobile society now, and I would put good money that there is “footprint” bleed across the US as a whole, especially for historic top tier teams like Nebraska.
LikeLike
Exactly. Nebraska would drive ratings — which in turn will directly (and positively) impact advertising revenue, bowl berths, and TV rights deals — far more than any of the typical Big East suspects. No one is arguing that Nebraska is as big a get as Notre Dame or Texas would have been, but they are still huge because that fan base is out there and not just within their state borders.
LikeLike
And what football fan is not going to tune in to watch Penn State-Nebraska go at it late November? These games are going to get HUGE ratings.
LikeLike
How does the BTN derive a profit from out-of-footprint BTN watchers?
Also… isn’t it a little naive to assume that 100% of households will sign up for the B10. Do 100% of households even have cable?
ALSO… is the goal to gouge Nebraska residents by making them pay extra $$$ for the BTN because they are good fans? Is the goal going to be $2/mo…. and then the battle will be on…. finding the happy medium that gets it on TV?
As a general football fan, but tempered by my responsibilities as an adult, I can’t say that 8-2 Nebraska vs. 7-3 Iowa is a must-watch game. 12-0 Nebraska vs. 12-0 Ohio St. certainly would be though.
I disagree with those who say the BT has to do something else to be a home run. I disagree with those who say the BT already hit a home run.
Everyone relax… it’s a solid, smart add.
LikeLike
“Do 100% of households even have cable?”
Well, that or satellite. Paved streets, indoor toilets, the whole nine yards. 😉
LikeLike
Around here, cable is as much a necessity as indoor plumbing. You don’t invest in Plasma or any time of expensive TV and many do, not have cable. And everybody has it. Now about the cable, some just steal it.
LikeLike
Wow. Nebraska has come a long way. 🙂
In all seriousness, I know one person that only gets the most basic of basic cable. Basically higher quality local TV (15 channels), coupled with cable Internet. If she watches TV, it is for Oprah or 20/20.
In this Internet age, I can go days without watching any of my 200+ channels too. And often there is STILL nothing on.
And then there are all the people who are too poor for TV.
So maybe its 99% or 95% or 92%. But we know it isn’t 100%.
LikeLike
True. You can find people here who don’t care about Nebraska football either. It’s like running into a yeti, but it happens. 😉
LikeLike
ez,
We are a mobile society.
How many former Nebraska transplants now live in the BTN footprint that will add BTN to Nebraska? I do not know, but somebody in the media business may see how this works better than I do.
LikeLike
Duffman I had similar thoughts on this same issue. But I left it alone because I have no idea of what that phantom number may be. Outside of a hand full of teams I suspect that that number falls within a percentage of the state’s total population. For Nebraska, that would not be the kind of big bump were looking for. Then again I said outside of a handful of teams some have considerably more than their states population. Who knows? I can’t fault the acquisition. I used to like watching the orange bowl growing up. I used to be a lot of Nebraska or OU. Just like many watch the Rose Bowl which was at one time a lot of Michigan or Ohio State.
LikeLike
Can’t put a number on those out of state Nebraska fans, but I am one. Lived in Denver and there were 200-300 folks at local watch parties. Now live in Austin and I have seen as many as 400-500 at a local watch party.
My neighborhood of 119 homes has 4 households from Nebraska. I will see a husker sticker on a car at least every 3rd trip I take around town.
LikeLike
I don’t know if this idea has ever come up before: Would the addition of Army and/or Navy (in the contiguous states of NY & MD) give the BTN access to the WORLDWIDE Armed Forces Network? Are there $$$ there?
LikeLike
But all those guys are from somewhere else. Mich, TX,CA,GA, Ohio, IL, NY. I think if there is a major program in the state they came from or now call home, thats the one they support. 99% of the grunts spend NO time at Annapolis or Andover.
LikeLike
BM,
Good point I asked this along time ago, but did not get an answer so I do not know what to tell you. Patrick might have an answer here.
LikeLike
I think Navy makes some sense in a unique way and if and only if were tied to ND’s entry. They seem to have a better following than Army and could help pull numbers. I know they don’t fit the AAU mold. One other problem is that these are TINY schools. That said, they are certainly unique creatures.
LikeLike
Oh. And for what it’s worth. Navy waxed Missou at a bowl last year.
I really think they add some unique value that others don’t. If B10 is dying to get to 16 teams, tie Navy with ND, Maryland and Pitt and I think you’d have a pretty nice east coast presence to go with PSU that makes sense with the current 12 and doesn’t unduly threaten the current powerhouses. It makes more sense than Rutgers or Syracuse, NC and really even GT, that’s for sure.
LikeLike
That certainly would make Maryland vs. Navy a real rivalry (as of now, they only play once every few years in football), but Navy really doesn’t bring enough in other sports (with the possible exception of lacrosse) and is too different an institution to fit in a BCS conference. That’s probably why Air Force likely wouldn’t be part of a 12-team Big 12 (gee, that seems weird to say), even though it’s currently in the Mountain West.
P.S. Part of me would just love for TTech and Okie State to show the gumption Texas A&M didn’t, go to the Mountain West, and send the Austin house of cards tumbling to the ground.
LikeLike
Beebe to have presser live…um 5 minutes ago.
http://www.big12sports.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10410&catid=0
@ChrisLevel on twitter: “If Beebe is having a press conference at 2:30pm he won’t have anything definitive from Texas Tech’s end to report.”
LikeLike
This guy makes $600k a year?
He’s a dip-$**T
LikeLike
Mega-conferences will “Disenfranchise” schools?
Beebe’s doing a good job of disenfranchising most of the schools in his conference. It’s called a poll tax.
LikeLike
having no Conference championship will help get the conference two BCS bids?
Wow…he was full of something. I’ve had been told less lies in a strip club.
LikeLike
What he’s saying is OU and Texas can run this League. One can get one loss, and the other none. He’s banking on that I guess.
LikeLike
The only people who believe the lies Beebe sold are the media and everyone who believes that the Big 12 will still be together in 2013.
LikeLike
“2:55pm CDT: Dan Beebe’s press conference comes to an end just before 3pm local time, lasting only about 15 minutes but did not address Texas Tech or Oklahoma State by name.
I have heard that Oklahoma State has said that they are committed to the Big 12 but that Texas Tech is still very much on the fence.
What happens at this point is anyone’s guess but we’ll have to wait and see how Texas Tech handles this. We may not know there position until we hear an official announcement from the school and their officials.”
LikeLike
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Buyer’s remorse is the feeling of regret after a purchase. It is frequently associated with the purchase of higher value items such as a car or house or University. (okay, I added University)
DOES THE PAC 10 HAVE BUYERS REMORSE REGARDING CU?
I think they might. The Pac 10 has another mouth to feed, yet CU’s sports programs are not doing well, the athletic department is running a large deficit. The stadium doesn’t sell out, it’s in a pro-sports town and now the Pac 11 is sitting at an odd number with no real high profile target to fill spot #12 (although they could sit at 11 like the Big Ten did for 20 years). CU would have been a great pick up if the other Big XII schools came along, but they didn’t.
How did this happen?
The Pac had a nice master plan to pick up UT, but they invited the Buffalo’s early to keep out Baylor. If Baylor’s name never came up I don’t think the Pac 10 wouldn’t have given CU an early entry into the Pac. The only reason that CU got the early invitation was to block TU’s request for Baylor.
All these negotiations have key leanings. One of the big insights here (among many others) is that you never invite a school unless the invite stands on its own terms. So, inviting schools like Syracuse, BC, or Pitt to entice or force ND is never a good idea. By the same token, inviting schools (Mizzou, Rutgers) to “break up a conference” is not a good idea.
One more thing that was never addressed…..if the six schools joined the Pac 10 (UT, TECH, A&M, OU, OSU, CU) and say three years later UT left to become independent or join a different conference, ….would the Pac 10 be stuck with Texas Tech and OSU in perpetuity?!
You can see how ugly, this could have gotten for the Pac 10 five years down the road, “Yo, you Red Raiders and Cowboys, were kicking you out because the Horns jumped ship.”
LikeLike
Really, the CU AD is running a large deficit? Do you have a public link to these numbers or are you simply basing this argument off of not firing Hawkins. Fact is in the Big 12 A&M’s AD is in considerably more debt than we are, and everything I’ve seen is that the AD actually operated in the black last year. Also the stadium may not have continuous runs of sellouts but the average stadium attendance numbers are relatively close to capacity, and until Hawkins debacle last year season ticket sales were up year over year. I’ll give you the sports programs aren’t so dominant right now, though the BBall team has a likely lottery pick player on the team and we’re projected as a likely tourney team next year. I’m not trying to be defensive but comments like these start to get old when you see them repeated over and over again by people who don’t really have any real knowledge on the situation at CU beyond sound bites.
LikeLike
Super D,
The crux of the problem is that CU doesn’t add much to the Pac 10 as a one school addition. From CU’s perspective the invitation was “heavens sent” and thus was accepted immediately, it got CU out of a bad position with the XII and hopefully, helps to revive lagging programs. But, my argument is that a one team CU addition doesn’t help the Pac very much and actually puts them at a disadvantage.
I don’t have personal insight to the CU athletic department. I’m exposing what I’ve read both on this site and others about recent troubles with the coach and budget and sales. Am I totally wrong on this?
Of course athletic programs change (see Michigan’s 2009 ranking in BT). But, again my argument is that you don’t add a school into a conference to block another school (Baylor) or to “force” another school to come in.
Honestly, do you think that the Pac 10 would have invited CU knowing that none of the other Big XII were going to join?
LikeLike
Hey Hawk maybe CU and Utah was there plan B.
So they grabbed CU early knowing it would block Baylor for Big 12 deal.
knowing if it falls apart they have plan B covered as well.
CU and Utah were talked about a lot before all this went down.
LikeLike
I mean as a plan b goes Salt Lake and Denver are perfectly fine. Especially if you are going to have your own Network.
Salt Lake held an olympics at one time. Denver is Denver.
Seems perfectly fine to me.
LikeLike
Wilkarm 1,
I agree plan “B” for the Pac always was Utah and CU. Maybe I’m being too hard on the Pac 10. After all they never had too many choice of teams to add in expansion (unlike BT and SEC that have some good expansion targets).
The Pac was aggressive with the XII south offer, I can’t fault them for making an aggressive move because it looks like the situation called for it.
If the Pac 10 is happy with CU and UT, then great. But the BT’s #11 and #12 were Penn State and Nebraska, no comparison there.
I still think if the Pac had it over to do …. they’d have waited to invite CU. The Pac got caught up in the chase, and now they can’t step away from the alter.
LikeLike
A question for everyone. Let’s say that Delany determines that he has a shot at being the only superconference, and thus the only national game in town, enabling him to command whatever TV bucks he wants. Does he pull the trigger?
Here’s how it might happen. Let’s say he determines that the Big 12, after adding BYU and Air Force, and the Pac-10, after adding Utah, don’t have any viable expansion options and aren’t likely to merge. Let’s also say he determines that, as long as he doesn’t raid the ACC, it’s too stable for the SEC to raid, and those two conferences won’t merge. Let’s say he also realizes that in making this move, the Big Ten would contain the biggest schools in 12 states that comprise 100 million people, rendering him enough political clout to over-ride any Congressional vetoes. Would you, in Delany’s shoes, pull the trigger in adding six schools(assuming the schools would join): Missouri, Kansas, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt? The SEC, under this scenario, couldn’t raid the ACC, so they could realistically only counter by adding Cincy and WV, assuming Texas still isn’t interested. The ACC would be virtually hand-cuffed, the Big East defunct, the Big 12 down again by losing Kansas and Missouri. The Big Ten would be gambling, reaching for the stars in hopes of dominating the TV money. Would this be worth the risk?
LikeLike
No. None of those schools besides ND actually brings in more money to the current member schools (though Rutgers & Mizzou cuold at least pay for themselves).
There’s a reason why the ACC & Big10 haven’t raided the BE before now.
LikeLike
It is debatable whether Rutgers would only pay for themselves. There are just as good arguments that they would more than pay for themselves alone and with Syracuse and the Penumbra effect of the rest of the Big Ten provide a windfall.
LikeLike
Syracuse would pay for itself.
LikeLike
Sorry, I agree SU pays for itself as well and together RU/SU would provide big numbers given the pops of NJ and upstate NY state alone. Include NYC, LI, and Westchester and the numbers could get scary good. But you know, you have been around here since December and have seen all the cable TV analysis. this number crunching falls on deaf ears around here.
LikeLike
I just checked… the 12 counties that made up the area between Rochester, Syracuse, and Watertown represent a population of 2.1M and 818 households in 2000. So, excluding Buffalo and Albany, and about 45 other upstate NY counties, and all of NYC and Long Island, that’s still a greater population than Nebraska.
I also think that you could get the BTN on every cable station in upstate NY based on Syracuse. Enough fans sprinkled in to justify it. You may not have 20,000 alums picketing the cable companies… but you will have a lot of alums and fans (the Syracuse equivalent to Walmart Wolverines) making a lot of noise.
If you do Rutgers and Syracuse, you’ll get access to nearly 30 million people. The numbers are just off the chart.
If the Big East is not thinking network, then they deserve to lose their conference.
LikeLike
The idea, though, is that if you become the biggest network, over-shadowing everyone else, that, when people choose one network to add to their package, it’s liable to be yours. Why pay for a network that covers 12 teams when, for the same price, you can get a more established network that covers 18 teams? The Big Ten might, like ESPN, become a national sports TV power, and that national audience would more than pay for the smaller schools you’d be adding. Do Indiana, Northwestern and Purdue pay for themselves now? Are you really going to make it if the only three teams in your league are Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan?
LikeLike
Do beach volleyball, bowling, poker tournaments, etc. TV shows pay their way on ESPN? No, but because of the sheer volume of sports shows that ESPN carries, they are THE national sports TV network.
LikeLike
Nice to see all this objective reporting on CFB Live…let the sucking up to Texas and the Big 12 begin, nope can’t tell who is one of the backers behind this deal at all.
LikeLike
All, thanks for an interesting read. I guess I will be leaving for a while until re-alignment emerges as a serious issue – and not a speculative game – in a few years.
I will add my winners and losers, Frank’s list needs modification.
Let me add a few winners and losers:
Winners
1. ABC/ESPN have demonstrated their willingess to pay for the right to control how re-alignment will evolve (not Jim Delaney) and they have much more discretionary dollars than JD.
2. ND — avoided a rapid, seismic change that could have encouraged weak-minded administrators at ND to prematurely join a conference; with Texas off the table and Fox out-maneuvered, ND has become an even more valuable short-term “property” that now has more allies if the Big East is “attacked” by the mighty Big Ten war machine and ND finally bought time to ensure that it is a major player in the network- (not conference-)dominated process that will lead to a playoff.
3. Those who want to increase the “Midwest” perception of the Big Ten. Nebraska fits: rural, agrarian, conservative, with a largely homogenous population. I don’t know how this will help the 100,000 freshman who wander on campus in the Big Ten in August but that never was an important consideration.
Losers
1. Jim Delany. It was during the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg when Maj. General Hood was approximately fifteen minutes too late in seizing on the opportunity at Little Round Top. The opportunity had not arisen on Day One and by Day Three the battle had changed. General Lee thought that the The Army of Northern Virginia would have other chances — but they never did. It was the window of opportunity on the second day that ultimately mattered. Jim Delany and the Big Ten almost had created a chain of uncoordinated events which would have led to a radical re-alignment before the people who create the most value and write the checks could re-establish control. Apparently, over the weekend they descended on Austin, TX and regained control. The opportunity has passed — and instead of a t-shirt, you received Nebraska as a momento of the event.
2. Those who wanted a playoff sooner rather than later. Paradoxically, in showing so nakedly and unabashedly the role of money in this re-alignment play rather than using a different figleaf (Big Ten, Texas, and the “powers who convinced Texas to stay in the Big Twelve”), the other powers – the politicians at the national level — have been given advance warning on how the line of attack will be executed (4 16 team superconferences with 2 automatic bids per conference). You can read how the potential losers were already reaching out to Senate sub-committees. Now the conglomerates and the politicians are far more likely to “broker” the process in the future (and I might add, ND will not be hurt in that process, at all). I think this will take more time, rather than less.
Anyway, take care every one. Go Irish!!!
LikeLike
Why would Delany want to see Texas combined to both the SEC and Pac-10 footprints?
The Pac-16 with A&M works in your scenario. The SEC getting A&M would have put the Big Ten squarely behind both.
The Big Ten wins as long as California, Texas, and Florida remain in separate conferences.
All we have to do is bide our time to get to the Virginia/NC region, which is as big a demographics region as the other 3 major states…
LikeLike
I agree that Delany lost the day.
LikeLike
To the extent that not landing Texas and/or ND is considered a complete loss, sure, Delaney lost, as did every single other player in the expansion process. While I’m sure that JD would have grabbed ND and TX if it were possible, I don’t think any of us would have said, when the BT announced expansion plans, that either of the two, much less both of them, was a really significant possibility. How you can include JD as a loser without including Scott/Pac-10 also shows, to me at least, that the judging criteria isnt exactly balanced.
The Big Ten picked up Nebraska, making the league better than it was (at the very least from a football standpoint) before making that pick up. I view that as a victory. That he didn’t panic and end up just tossing out invites is reassuring more than it is frightening or disheartening.
I am not entirely sure ND is a big winner here, either. Sure they get to keep their independence…for now, but when expansion comes around again and we look back on this period, it could be seen as the first indication(as opposed to prior BT expansion efforts involving them) that ND, under the right set of circumstances, can be gained.
LikeLike
Delany and the Big Ten picks up the 4th most valuable NCAA football team, one of the winningest programs in history, the opportunity for a lucrative championship game and another big draw for the BTN and national networks. Yet Delany is a loser.
The Big Ten hasn’t yet turned its attention to the conferences to the east, (one of which houses Notre Dame and is not overly stable), yet Notre Dame is already declared a winner.
Ah, to look at the world through Irish-colored glasses.
LikeLike
I’d buy a Delaney win more except that it goes against what he said he was looking for in an expansion team. UNL is the new weakest Academic school in the Big Ten + 2. Nebraska’s demographic future are looking the same as the rest of the conference. Nor is UNL the sun belt team that the B10+2 was discussing during the conference meetings.
In 1999, the Big Ten lost because they made it ND or bust and got busted. In 2010 they made it about demographics, cable money, and academics. The only saving grace is that this time around, they didn’t name a specific team.
That, and UNL’s objectively a great pick-up for the conference.
LikeLike
I’d agree UNL is likely the weakest academic school in the Big Ten. Not that it’s a bad school, mind you.
And I’d agree that the demographics of its state / region are not as attractive as, say, Texas or Florida.
However, the strengths of the addition are clear enough.
Like Notre Dame, it has a larger following than a superficial look at its geography would suggest.
As evidence, despite its supposedly terrible demographics and its difficulties in what has been a low-earning conference, Nebraska is a very valuable brand in its own right. According to December’s Forbes, Nebraska is worth more than Ohio State or Florida and out-earned Notre Dame. How is that not a home run addition to the conference?
Additionally, the existence of a BTN means that Nebraska begins earning money for the Big Ten immediately (broadcasts of old games), and even more in a year. More still when the next contracts are negotiated (because I’ll guarantee TV execs know the value of Nebraska even if Rich and Mike don’t.)
Beyond this, adding Nebraska allows for a championship game and another $15 million or so per year.
Nebraska also balances out the conference a fair bit, east to west.
It’s a contributor to the other universities at a graduate level.
And the school won’t likely be a pain in the ass to live with like it appears Texas might have been.
It even has convenient geography for travel and a shared time zone.
Yes, Delany sure botched that campaign. As pointless and painful an outcome as Pickett’s Charge, if we’re to use Gettysburg as our analogy.
(Robert E. Lee is an ancestor of mine, and BTW, Gettysburg is a great trip, to any of you who have never stood on those grounds.)
However, for those who don’t see this addition as a big win like the Big Ten, Forbes, or I do, this expansion business is not yet complete. This is likely just the first move. Let’s see how the demographics of future additions play out over the next while, because I think the Big Ten has eyes for some bigger markets. And I don’t think it’s going to multiple years for this to come to pass. (In fact, I think the Big Ten will like the fact that fewer eyes will be on them as they explore the next round.)
As for Notre Dame, I’ve said I don’t think they’re the best fit for the Big Ten. And in any event, I genuinely think they can survive as an independent.
However, even if Notre Dame never joins the Big Ten, they may still be affected by future Big Ten expansion, (or secondarily by other conferences in reponse), even if they remain independent. So I wouldn’t be 100% convinced they’ve “won” anything, except for a bit of a reprieve while the Big Ten turns its attention to the east.
Besides, maybe the Big Ten doesn’t represent the South in Rich’s analogy. After all, the Big Ten is, quite literally, the North.
Maybe a better analogy for the North would be Ulysses S. Grant. (An Ohio boy, after all. You can visit his house, too, in Southern Ohio.)
Perhaps, like Grant, the Big Ten started in the Western Theater, capturing Lincoln (as long as we’re using the Civil War analogy, one can’t help but note the significance of the name).
So after his successes in the so called Western Theater, where did Grant go next?
Again, one can’t help but notice it was to the Washington DC and northern Virginia area.
Hmmm….
LikeLike
Frank, thanks for everything. An interesting point that I havn’t seen people make is that because the Big 10 got greedy by not taking Missouri, (if you buy that the Big 10 never wanted anything to do with Mizzou) they were unable to break up the Big 12. Regardless of how little Mizzou brings to the table for the Texas schools in the Big 12 don’y you think that it would have been impossible for the Big 12 to stay together with only 9 teams?
LikeLike
Have been thinking about Big Ten divisional split, and this is what I came up with:
Each team is listed above/below their cross-division protected rivalry –
Division A: OSU – UM – Wisc – Minn – NW – Pur
Division 1: Ill – MSU – Iowa – Neb – PSU – Ind
Criteria 1 – Competitive Balance
Tier 1 Teams – OSU, Mich, PSU, Neb – each div. has 2
Tier 2 Teams – Iowa, Wisconsin – each div. has 1
Tier 3 Teams – Ill, NW, Ind, Pur, Minn, MSU – each div. has 3
Criteria 2 – Maintaining Rivalries (I consulted Rittenberg’s “Which Big Ten Rivalries are worth saving” – http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/13184/which-big-ten-rivalries-are-worth-saving
“Hands Off!”
Michigan – Ohio State (saved, in division)
Michigan – Michigan State (saved, rival)
Minnesota – Wisconsin (saved, in division)
Indiana – Purdue (saved, rival)
Minnesota – Iowa (lost)
Wisconsin – Iowa (saved, rival)
“Handle With Care”
Ohio State – Penn State (lost, can meet in CCG tho)
Illinois – Ohio State (saved, rival)
Michigan – Minnesota (saved, in division)
Iowa – Penn State (saved, in division)
“Expendable”
Michigan State – Penn State (saved, in division)
Illinois – Northwestern (lost)
Indiana – Illinois (saved, in division)
Penn State – Michigan (lost, can meet in CCG tho)
Minnesota – Penn State (lost)
Wisconsin – Michigan (saved, in division)
Purdue – Illinois (lost)
Northwestern – Iowa (lost)
Purdue – Northwestern (saved, in division)
Michigan State – Indiana (saved, in division)
“Suggested Nebraska Rivalries”
Nebraska – Iowa (established, in division)
Nebraska – Wisconsin (not established)
Nebraska – Minnesota (established, rival)
Nebraska – Penn State (established, in division)
I know these divisions aren’t perfect, but its the best I could come up with.
The Minn-Wisc-Iowa rivalry was hardest to deal with, but I could find away around losing some of it without putting Wisc-Iowa in the same division (creating competitive unbalance).
Thoughts?
LikeLike
Keeping a cross division rival and an eight game schedule gums up the works a bit because it doesn’t allow the easy every-other-year trade off of non-division teams.
I think your divisions are fair. You could switch MSU and Purdue to save a few more rivalries.
LikeLike
I don’t know why people have abandoned the variable division idea. Even with 12, it still helps maintain better conference rotation. It divides really nicely from a rivalry and a balance perspective.
Ohio State
Michigan
MSU
Penn State
Purdue
Indiana
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Illinois
Northwestern
This saves all the rivalries and has relatively good balance.
LikeLike
M,
It depends on what you think the future will be.
if 12 is your long term number, you want PSU and UNL on one side and Michigan and tOSU on the other.
if 16 is your long term number, you want a “brand” in each
PSU+3
tOSU+3
M+3
UNL+3
LikeLike
Tech officials have made it official. They are going to take the Huck Finn blood oath to be a continuing member of the Big 12-Lite.
LikeLike
Already hitting mainstream media..
The Longhorn Conference and the Pac 10+1+? are already drawing heat for the future “weakness” of their football schedules going forward. Did delany just reverse the Big 10 vs Big 12 debate in this week. Are we now the #2 behind the SEC in perception in one week, with not a single game played. WOW!
LikeLike
Yeah, the Big 12 took a big hit in perception with the loss of Nebraska.
Now the SEC and Big Ten will be way ahead of the pack followed in the distance by the Pac-11 and Big 12-2 and the ACC.
LikeLike
And you’re right that after the past 4 years especially, the Big Ten has often been placed behind the Big 12 in terms of conference strength. Those days are done.
LikeLike
Michigan getting its act together would help that a lot
LikeLike
workin’ on it.
LikeLike
we’re (voluntarily and with no QC staffers present) workin’ on it!
LikeLike
No worries, we plan on bringing the Big Twelve Championship with us.
LikeLike
I think most Big Ten fans will be rooting for Nebraska to bring it home with them, so you guys will have most of the north cheering for you this year.
LikeLike
2010 schedule looks good.
Give Locker a thump in WA.
Then watch out for NEB.
LikeLike
you’ll have a whole conference rooting for you
LikeLike
zeek,
they are talking on ESPN about the Pac ?? as well as they now have 1 “brand” vs 3 “brands” they would have with TU & OU. With USC out of commission it will only diminish the strength of the Pac ?? in the broad public eye. Preseason rankings are mostly just perception just ask 2004 (?) auburn.
LikeLike
Questions for you Big Ten guys since we are new the the Big Ten network and how it works. What is the usual breakdown of games. ABC/ESPN choses (?) games per week, FOX gets next round and then whatever is leftover the Big Ten network takes? How many games a week can Disney and Fox take?
As a side note I tried to find the Big Ten Network on Dish yesterday and it does not even show up anywhere. Email response I got back was that I could get it by adding a $7 a month sports tier.
I am doing my best to mobilize husker nation to start making some calls – emails to dish to have it added to a top 100 or 150 plan. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. I know there are Big Ten fans and alum outside Big Ten state footprints that would hop on board with generating movement here.
How do we best bombard Dish and Directv (assuming the same situation) to move these off of a sports tier and onto at top 100-150 type of plan?
LikeLike
Threaten to switch cable/satellite companies if they don’t carry it. I’m pretty sure its on DirectTV on the basic tier anywhere in the country.
LikeLike
Michigan Fan in TN with Direct TV.
LikeLike
sorry no special tier pricing.
LikeLike
DirecTV has it on basic.
I have a vague recollection of how games are allocated but want to double check. I’ll post if no one else does.
LikeLike
Direct TV has about 3 Big Ten Channels going on Sat.
Two for sure.
LikeLike
Looking forward to that. I now have DirecTV (which I needed once I moved, since the cable system here doesn’t carry MASN and I’m an avid Nats fan) and have been very impressed with the BTN. Huskers fans will love it, and not just for football, either.
LikeLike
Up to 41 games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2. Up to 17 games on ABC, up to 25 on ESPN/ESPN 2, and the rest should be on BTN.
Basketball is around 60 on ABC/ESPN, the rest on BTN.
LikeLike
right but there is an alternating pattern, I believe, by which ABC gets to select which game it will air.
also as willarm1 indicades DirecTV and many cable stations have overflow channels so that when there are multiple games on at the same time they all get aired.
LikeLike
Remember I’m from Nebraska, the basketball part doesn’t matter, lol.
LikeLike
The Big Ten Network is standard on the 120+ and higher tiers on Dish Network. Channel 439 on their website.
LikeLike
So of the 17 ABC and 24-25 on ESPN…
Almost always a 2:30 ABC game. Occasional Saturday night game. ESPN & ESPN2 11am games are nearly always B10. The typical Nebraska season will have a couple non-conf cupcakes and one BT game on the BTN. I think the rule is that the BTN gets at least one BT game for each team on the BTN. The “biggest” BTN game last year may have been Iowa-MSU 6pm Saturday night game. Usually its the least appealing games of the week.
LikeLike
Last year’s Hawkeye schedule for comparision:
BTN: Ark St., UNI, at MSU
ESPN: at Wisky, Indiana, NW, Minn
ABC: Ariz, Michigan, at PSU, at OSU
FSN: at ISU
LikeLike
The BTN actually is guaranteed at least two games from every conference member, and one of those has to be a conference game.
ABC always gets first choice of games, ESPN/ESPN2 gets second choice and the BTN gets third choice, but on certain weekends the BTN jumps ESPN for second.
LikeLike
ABC/ESPN is probably going to shift regional coverage in Nebraska to something similar to other locations in the Big Ten, as opposed to the current B12-centric regional coverage I assume currently occurs in Nebraska.
*Note* – Unlike the B12, Fox and FSN do not carry Big Ten games.
Here’s how ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/BTN works in Chicago.
There are three time slots: 11 AM, 2:30 PM, and 7 PM.
There is almost always a Big Ten game on in each time slots on the ABC/ESPN family, but if there are no “sexy” games the channel may be ESPN2. Depending on the matchups, there can be 2 or even 3 games on at one time (one on ABC, one on ESPN, one on ESPN 2).
The BTN picks up whatever is left over. Depending on the number of games in each time slots, and the “sexiness” of the matchups, a variety of things can occur:
No game on BTN – all the Big Ten games during that time slot made regional ABC/ESPN/ESPN2
One game on BTN – every Big Ten game during the time slot was picked up by ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 except for the one on BTN, that game is shown across BTN territory
Multiple games on BTN – ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 picked less than the total number of Big Ten games in that time slot, which game being shown on BTN depends on your location. For example, if a Nebraska game falls to the BTN (unlikely), and there are multiple games for the BTN to show, the BTN in Nebraska will show the Huskers game. So, in Nebraska you will never miss a Huskers game on TV.
I think this is the kind of info you were looking for.
LikeLike
Note –
This is for cable. Cable only gets “one” BTN, and therefore can only show one game at a time.
For satellite/DirectTV, if you get BTN you get all the different “feeds”. So you can watch any game. Basically “BTN-1”, “BTN-2”, etc.
And as greg said, almost all of the time ESPN and ESPN2 will both have a Big Ten game, and at least one game each Saturday will be on ABC.
LikeLike
Cable (comcast in Chi) can also have more than 1 game at a time. They usually show different games on the HD BTN and the regular BTN, and I think I remember one weekend last year where they somehow showed 3 games at one time. Some other channel picked up the BTN feed of the extra game.
LikeLike
This isn’t necessarily true. Many cable providers have BTN overflow channels just like DirecTV. I’m in DC, and Comcast has 3 BTN overflow channels. Granted they’re not in HD, but they’re there.
LikeLike
I have something like 4 or 5 overflow BTN channels and I have Comcast. Only the main one has a corresponding HD channel though.
LikeLike
Huskerhydes
re game allocation.
ABC/ESPN take 3 games each week. two in the noon slot and one for the late slot. two wweks a year BTN actual gets the second choice which is how Michigan Michigan State got on BTN last year. but most weeks the three premier matchups in the conference will be on ABC or ESPN.
LikeLike
For Dish Network, you can get the Sports Pack for $6 or $7 per month, which includes the BTN and a lot more, like local Fox, ESPNU, NFL, NBA, etc. Something like 60 or 70 channels, though you can’t actually get all of them all the time.
LikeLike
The cool thing about DirecTV is that you’ll get all the games on the Big Ten Network. With cable, there will be regional broadcasts when games start at the same time. Assuming you’re in Nebraska, that won’t be a problem as you’ll always get the Husker game. But sometimes it’s nice to switch over to the MSU/Purdue game (for example) during commercials and half time, or if the Huskers play later and your local cable company picked the Illinois/Wisconsin game and you wanted to watch Penn State/Indiana (for example).
DirecTV makes the B10 network available on all tiers. With Dish Network, it’s available in the Big Ten footprint on most tiers, but you have to add it with the Sports Pack to get it outside the footprint. I’m going to assume that Dish Network will include it with most packages in Nebraska, but that has to be negotiated, and as we all know, sometimes those negotiations aren’t smooth.
I’m going to figure that every cable system in the state will add the Big Ten Network or risk losing customers to DirecTV. But I also bet they are going to add it as late as possible. So call them up and tell them that you want the Big Ten Network added or you’re calling DirecTV!
Those who lived through the first season of the Big Ten Network know that it’s not as easy as just adding it. The cable companies are going to fight the rates tooth and nail. So pressuring them helps.
Don’t forget, it’s not just football. You’ll also see Basketball games (mens and women’s), wrestling, baseball, softball, even golf and swimming. They even get some hockey games, although the B10 doesn’t sponsor hockey. Maybe they’ll get a UM/UNO game? Then there is campus programming where the professors get their say about what they’re doing as well.
So what I’m saying is that it’s really cool and you’re going to love it.
LikeLike
@Josh – I wholeheartedly endorse DirecTV (not just for the Big Ten Network, but for overall customer service). I’ll never willingly pay for Comcast ever again.
LikeLike
Thanks, thats what I was looking for but I have a couple more questions.
Is this just for the conference schedule or does it apply to out of conference games also?
I assume that pretty much every game by Big Ten teams was televised last year then??
LikeLike
You get some, but not all, OOC games, and you get all conference games (except that the big games are often on the other networks, like ESPN, ESPN 2 and ABC). There are four BTN channels altogether, so at times you can be watching several games at once.
LikeLike
I believe the first day of the Big Ten Network, one of its games was Appalachian State at Michigan.
But DirecTV is great, and certainly puts the whammy on cable systems once a product it doesn’t carry becomes good. Here in southern Virginia where I just moved, Comcast doesn’t carry MASN. Thanks to Stephen Strasburg, I bet that will change come 2011.
LikeLike
All football games played in a Big10 stadium are broadcast broadcast in the ESPN family (including ABC) or the BTN.
LikeLike
and do not underestimate the importance of tv exposure to the non-CFB and non-BBall sports.
i know you were asking about football, but remember that your baseball and softball and wrestling teams will get on the BTN as well. not big audiences, but how wonderful for those into the sports and for the athletes themselves; used to be only the football players got on tv;
and then there are the features that run an hour about each school and what’s going on with them
and then the student produced programming that journalism schools, art departments, film and design departments, etc. All that has a place since the BTN is university owned 51% anyway.
LikeLike
geez, sorry that sounds like an ad brochure for the BTN.
LikeLike
Sorry. I did get carried away. But it’s a big perk. And it’s great to not have to watch Sportscenter to get highlights.
LikeLike
All for seeing that, but my primary questions were just regarding football and how much we will get too see. I have had to spend $30 x 3 games the last couple of years.
Actually will love to see Penn State – NU volleyball games.
LikeLike
All the Husker football games will be on ABC, ESPN or the Big Ten Network.
LikeLike
Actually, let me amend that. If you play a school (like a Big 12 school) on the road, they would, of course, control the TV rights. But the game wouldn’t be on PPV.
LikeLike
Well, it could be. But that would because of the other conference’s crappy TV deal.
LikeLike
So if you look at the 2011 non-conference schedule, the game you need to worry about is @ Wyoming 9/24/11. That game will undoubtedly be on the MWC’s network, The Mountain, but I think only DirectTV carries that channel.
LikeLike
The TV contract with Disney and the BTN does not differentiate between conference and non-conference games (except for the rule that all teams have to have at least one conference game on the BTN). All Big Ten home games, of either sort, are carried on either Disney or the BTN.
LikeLike
AS lot of people are commenting on this and most of the info is correct, but it’s a little confusing so I’ll try to simplify it. Keep in mind this all applies only to Big Ten home games, as any non-conference away games would be governed by the TV contract of the hosting team. And, obviously, this is just football.
1. ABC gets first choice every week. They always have a Big Ten game in the 3:30 ET slot. Assuming the 3:30 ABC slot is regional coverage (which it practically always is), the Big Ten game is carried in “outer markets” (i.e. *everywhere* that doesn’t get the Big Ten on ABC) on ESPN or ESPN2. That makes every afternoon Big Ten game on ABC a de facto national broadcast.
2. Some weeks ABC also has a Big Ten game at 8pm ET. This can be national or regional. If it is regional broadcast, it is carried on ESPN Gameplan elsewhere, not on ESPN or ESPN2.
2a. The Big Ten does not allow nighttime games in November, on any network. (Well, technically, they allow them if the stadium is enclosed, but that doesn’t apply now with Minnesota moving to an open air facility)
2b. Interestingly, the Big Ten stipulates that all night games must be announced and set prior to the season. We already know all the night games for the Big Ten for the 2010 season.
2c. The tOSU/Michigan game is typically carried nationally at 12pm ET and is followed by a usual Big Ten game in the regional 3:30pm ET spot. The UM/tOSU game basically functions like a national primetime broadcast, except in the afternoon.
3. ESPN and ESPN2 get the next choices. Virtually every week (if not every single week), Disney carries at least Big Ten games. Usually it’s a game each on ESPN and ESPN2 at 12pm ET and 1 ABC game at 3:30pm ET, but if ABC has a night game in addition to the afternoon one, it might only carry one game on ESPN/ESPN2. Occasionally, Big Ten games can appear on ESPN or ESPN2 in other timeslots, sometimes at 3:30pm (see the USC/Minnesota game this year) or 8pm (see Wisconsin/Ohio State this year).
3a. 1-2 Big Ten games a year will appear live on ESPN Classic. No Big Ten games can appear on ESPNU.
4. The Big Ten Network gets all the remaining games. Typically, these are carried in the 12pm ET window. They are “overflow” channels to carry more than one game at a time. Most providers that carry the BTN also have the overflow channels (some cable companies do not have the overflow channels). Games can also be carried at night, if there is no ABC game in primetime — typically, if games are on in primetime, there is only 1 or 2 in that slot with most other games that day in the 12pm ET slot.
4a. ABC/Disney has exclusive rights to their timeslots, so the BTN cannot carry games in the 3:30pm slot. The BTN also does not carry games in primetime if ABC has a Big Ten game then. ESPN/ESPN2 broadcasts do not have such exclusivity.
4b. Typically, the order of choosing games is ABC then ESPN then ESPN2 then BTN. 3 weekends a year, the BTN gets priority over ESPN (i.e. gets to pick second after ABC). 3 other weekends a year, the BTN gets priority over ESPN2 (i.e. gets to pick third after ESPN and ABC).
4c. All Big Ten home games not picked by other networks are carried by the BTN. That means all Big Ten home games are carried on television. The only Big Ten football games not on some sort of TV are the occasional non broadcasted out of conference away game.
4d. All Big Ten teams are obligated to appear on the BTN at least 2 times a season and at least one of those games must be a conference game.
5. As previously stated, all primetime Big Ten games are set in advance of the season. So are the first 3 weeks of the season. So are the start times for every Big Ten homecoming game. Sometimes for these things, the kickoff times are set but not the exact network. All other games are chosen 2 weeks in advance (with a few picked 1 week in advance).
6. No television partner can move games to other days other than Saturdays. ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 only carry Big Ten games on Saturday. Rarely, Big Ten teams will choose to move games for their own purposes (tOSU and Indiana are opening the season on a Thur in 2010 on the BTN; Indiana did the same last season and opened on Thur on the BTN), but they are not obligated to do so.
It’s unclear how Thanksgiving weekend will be treated though, as 2010 is the first year in quite some time that the Big Ten will have conference games that weekend. Some games might be on Thur or Fri that weekend, I guess.
I think this covers just about everything.
LikeLike
@SideshowBob
Excellent in-depth summary of B10 TV coverage.
LikeLike
Awesome, Thanks
LikeLike
Well I’ve officially given up on Texas playing any further role in this little ballet. I’ve unfollowed ChipBrownOB. He will not be missed.
LikeLike
This expansion is really going to help the Big Ten perception on the field.
Just take last years bowls.
OSU-Iowa BCS wins
PSU- Capital One Win
Wisconsin Champs win
Northwestern Outback loss—Plug in Nebraska or PSU—win
Then NW plays Tex Tech judging by their game against Auburn NW win.
MSU plays Iowa State- I like MSU
Minnesota plays blah blah in motor city – win?
That is with a down U of M.
I like the way The Big Ten is heading. The Depth of an extra power will do wonders for our overall product.
LikeLike
It will also do wonders because there will be a clear delineation of conferences that will reinforce the general east coast media bias/sports writer bias.
The argument for whether the Big Ten or Big 12 is stronger has placed them both squarely behind the SEC in perception.
With USC in the gutter and the Big Ten getting an up and coming Nebraska as well as the Big 12-2 situation, there will be two separate tiers: Big Ten/SEC and then everyone else distantly behind…
That alone will do wonders for conference strength perception as well as the perception of individual teams.
LikeLike
I really, really wish I could agree with this. Though the Big Ten’s depth might get more of a nod now, I still think that an undefeated Texas (or even Oklahoma) in the Big-whatever-their-conference-is-called is going to be viewed more favorably than an undefeated BT team. The only way that reverses is continued bowl success like last year, including an even higher profile win, and/or TX/OU getting to a similarly large game and just getting waxed.
Fair or not, i think most people tend to analyze conference strength at the top and not in terms of depth. Last year is a good example – the SEC had two really good teams, and then it dropped off significantly. Yet, if you asked someone who the top conference was, first instinct is to say SEC…not because of the entire league, but because of the top.
Bottom line, perception of the BT won’t change simply by adding Nebraska, in my opinion.
LikeLike
As a non Big Ten fan, I say it improves the Big 10’s image to me.
LikeLike
Believe me, i would like nothing more than to be dead wrong 🙂
LikeLike
I think about every analyst talks about the depth of the SEC.
Which has been questioned of late because of the recent dominance of Alabama and Florida.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/23203/catching-the-gators-and-the-tide
Nebraska adds quality to tier depth that will lead to better bowl records and match ups for that matter.
LikeLike
Top tier depth.
LikeLike
Of course, Oklahoma constantly getting killed in bowl games — especially high profile BCS ones — oddly hasn’t seemed to have hurt the Big 12’s rep much.
LikeLike
From OU’s presser with AD Joe Castiglione:
“The U of O stands on its own. We make our own decisions. We choose what’s best for us. No one else.”
(when asked about the perception that Texas was calling the shots)
Castiglione: When asked about playing Nebraska out of conf., “Given our current schedule, I don’t see a place for them for 10-12 years.” OU has FSU, Notre Dame, Tenn., Ohio State, LSU home and homes lined up leading to 2020.
“Going back for a month, there have been discussions with our commissioner and Fox.”
from http://twitter.com/Jake_Trotter with the Daily Oklahoman
LikeLike
“We make our own decisions.”
Does anyone really believe any of this?
Only A&M really seemed to be trying to make its own decisions but was brought back to heel by Powers and Dodds.
There were only three major players in all of this from the schools and they were Powers/Dodds and that A&M regent who really wanted the SEC.
OU was going to copy any decision that UT made…
LikeLike
zeek,
OU is so far up the back side of Bevo they can watch his stomach work!
new motto!
The Longhorn Conference – where mediocre is a step in the right direction!
BTW, is it just me or is anybody else getting tired of the clip of Bevo chewing his cud and drooling, at least the Big 10 has some cool mascots.
LikeLike
The Nebraska-OU game really faded away after the Big 12 was formed, but it is still sad to see it completely disappear. It always seemed to be a great, high stakes game between two programs that respected one another.
LikeLike
very much so. OU-Nebraska was a rivalry like no other I’ve seen. We truly respected each other.
From OU’s end, I guess we just couldn’t work in Nebraska into one of our 3 non-conference games.
Can’t get too top heavy you know when we are playing power houses like Iowa State, and Baylor every year now.
LikeLike
Would love to see it continue, but it has lost all it’s shine since OU decided the didn’t want to play us every year when the big 12 started.
Can’t say I blame you at the time, NU had just come off back to back MNC’s and you guys were down. Then you make a comeback and we have the forgotten Peterson/Callahan years.
I say we just both go ahead and play some great football this year and meet undefeated in the championship game.
I could not think of a note setting to end the series on.
Then when we whup ya, we can talk about the real reason you don’t want to schedule us OOC. LOL
LikeLike
Sorry Redhawk, I just don’t agree with the statement that OU stands on its own. This has looked very bad on OU and aTm (maybe even worse on aTm since they actually had the key to their freedom and decide to go back into bondage) and every other UT lapdog that makes up the Big 12-lite. The only place that the Big 12-lite teams stand is at UT’s feet. The more stipulations that come out about this new/revived conference, the more disgusting and pitiful it looks. The extent to which everyone has bent down to UT is nothing more than an appearance of cowardice and servitude. This was your one chance to bring UT down a notch, but instead you knelt down so that UT could use your backs as a ladder to climb higher.
Sorry for the rant, but the more I see the stipulations come out, the more disgusted it makes me so I figured I’d vent (actually I didn’t intend to rant like this, but the more I wrote the more I vented). I know that I really don’t have a dog in the Big 12 fight, but I am a college football fan to the core and to see this happen really does irk me. Again, sorry for the rant.
LikeLike
For everyone…and it’s a lot…that say “OU should have shown up Texas” What EXACTLY do you propose?
Go the Pac 10? That was a Texas deal and OU would have been following Texas…so that’s not stand up to Texas
Go to the SEC? Was that offered? Was Okla St offered by the SEC? I’ve seen nothing where the SEC was a REAL option for OU. Talks…yes…but a real offer????
Kick UT out of the Big 12?..which would end any and all TV contracts, and thus the Big 12.
And OU really benefits from this current set-up. Almost as much as UT. Personally I think a conference as a fraternity where it should be one for all and all for one.
If you agree…are you saying OU should have said “We don’t want extra money…give it to Iowa St!!!”? (who I assume will make more money in the Longhorn Conference then they would have made in the Mid-American Conference)
Seriously….what would you have OU do?
LikeLike
I agree that OU made the best decision for themselves going this route. This is also a huge battle for recruiting also and that RRR plays a big part in that. OU got a great deal out of it.
They are not the ones going back to thier fans and BoR’s saying well at least we didn’t have to go down on UT to keep them around – we just had to bend over and take it up the, well you get the point.
LikeLike
Redhawk, all I’m saying is that OU should’ve at least challenged them at some point thoughout this whole process. And there were many opportunities where they could’ve challenged them.
They could’ve stepped in when UT was giving Nebraska and Mizzou deadlines when they themselves were talking with other conferences. If OU would’ve told UT that they didn’t want any part of a revived Big 12-lite conference in which UT gets everything it wants (including its own tv network) and that it would rather stay the course with the Pac 10 instead of seeing UT’s power increase, and if it maybe could’ve convinced the other 4 Big 12 South schools to do the same (which I think OK St and TT would’ve gone been on OU’s side), then UT wouldn’t have been able to broker this new Big 12-lite conference (forcing UT to the Pac 10 would’ve leveled off their power because the Pac 10 was only willing to bend over so far for them (which was further than I expected them to do)). But because OU didn’t even challenge UT’s power plays (and there many power plays that UT pulled) throughout this whole process (and OU was the one school that could’ve pulled back the reigns on UT), UT now has distanced itself from the rest of the conference with no formidable school to balance the power.
It just seems to me (and I may be wrong on my whole thought process on this subject, which wouldn’t be the first time) that if OU would’ve stood up to UT at some point and become a counter balance, then UT may not have been constantly trying to broker all of these deals that were all to their advantage and could’ve limited UT’s power growth that they gained.
LikeLike
I am extremely dissappointed that A&M did not pull the trigger on the SEC deal, but from what I’ve read today, there were some very powerful sources (nationally powerful, not parochial state legislators as in 1994) that very much wanted the Big XII to stick around, at least for a while longer. The money that is being paid by Fox, and the reduction in money that ABC has agreed to, is purely based upon the power brokers’ collective desire not to see conference realignment Armageddon actually come about. While I wish A&M would have given all the powers that be the collective finger, you rarely see anyone do that, least of all government employees, and political appointees.
LikeLike
ATTENTION ALL BUCKEYE FANS!
SAVE the DATES:
09.17.2016 – tOSU vs OU @ OU
09.16.2017 – tOSU vs OU @ tOSU
Defend your new Big Red brothers and open up a can of whoop a$$ on them on that date! It would be funny if everybody in the tOSU fan base wore “burnt orange” as they will be playing the Longhorn Conference that day!
LikeLike
DRD,
I have a solution, have the OU fans let tOSU switch games with Big Red on the above listed dates. OU and UNL get to go back to the old Big 8 days, and shows it is not second fiddle to TU. Is this a possibility?
LikeLike
You should probably twitter Chip Brown on that. 😉
LikeLike
I’d love it. I’d love for the Nebraska game to be yearly. I also don’t see why it can’t be done. Our conference schedule is pretty damn easy in my opinion so we need a beefier NonCon schedule
LikeLike
Izzo staying
LikeLike
hank,
link or source?
LikeLike
I hope so…
http://noise.typepad.com/hey_joe/2010/06/lets-all-panic-together.html
LikeLike
I know people are rushing to judge Nebraska’s addition in terms of BTN $ value and CCG $ value.
But the main point of Nebraska’s addition was the TV contract that comes up in 2016.
A play like Texas or Notre Dame was more of a play at both the BTN and the TV contract. Obviously, other players like Maryland/UVA/Rutgers are more of BTN plays than TV contract plays.
Thus, the true value of Nebraska will not be unlocked until 2016 when Delany walks into the room with a 4th traditional power and demands a big increase in the TV contract, and he gets an extra 10-15% (over what he would have gotten) because Nebraska is in the group.
Yes, Nebraska does bring its own BTN value inside and outside the footprint including upgrading the value of the Big Ten games that it is involved in, but still the true value of Nebraska is going to be found in the TV contract and not the BTN numbers…
LikeLike
Nebraska is a top tier brand. it can’t help but be a value in network negotiations when you have 4 of the perrenial brand names.
LikeLike
SIAP: Just saw this article posted on another board. Apparently the Omaha World Herald did an IRS search and came up with the distribution numbers on the Big 12 payout from last year to provide more up-to-date numbers over the oft-posted ones from 2007/2008. It helps explain why Nebraska may have changed their position on the revenue sharing issue:
1. Oklahoma, $12.2 million
2. Texas, $11.8 million
3. Kansas, $11.5 million
4. Missouri, $10.4 million
5. Texas A&M, $10.2 million
6. Oklahoma State, $10.0 million
7. Colorado, $9.77 million
8. Nebraska, $9.73 million
9. Texas Tech, $9.2 million
10. Baylor, $9.1 million
11. Iowa State, $8.9 million
12. Kansas State, $8.4 million
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100613/BIGRED/706139829/-1#nebraska-drops-to-eighth-in-big-12-revenue
Kind of makes you wonder why Mizzou was bitching so much over this issue, though apparently they were up considerably over the previous year.
LikeLike
Nebraska had some progress they had to show last year, so you really can’t blame the TV networks for not picking them up early on.
LikeLike
3.57 is what we care about; the $ Nebraska got from the Big 12 don’t mean anywhere near as much…
LikeLike
The three PPV games that NU had last year hurt Nebraska in the appearance pool.
LikeLike
These aren’t last year’s numbers. They are two years ago, where Nebraska had SIX PPV games. That is why Nebraska is so low on that list.
LikeLike
4th most valueable College football franchise (according to Forbes).
8th in it’s own conference in tv revenue.
I wonder if they made up the $2.5 million difference in PPV sales?
LikeLike
Everyone remember the report from Sports Radio 810 WHB report, from just over a month ago? Wow, a lot has changed in just a few weeks.
I bring it up because I recall seeing several threads from Missouri fans on the Rutgers board, and vice versa, in the vein of “Can’t wait to play you in the Big Ten!”. It is somewhat tragic for those fans who got their hopes up over an article posted from “Sports Radio 810”. In the case of Rutgers, they are still convinced that they’re the next to be called by the Big Ten. (They might be, but it isn’t a given.)
LikeLike
I’m almost certain that Rutgers is the most likely school to get paired up with Notre Dame in a move to 14.
That said, I don’t know how quickly Delany will move on expansion now that he has Nebraska and the Big 12-2 seems like a relatively stable powder keg (as stable as one can be I suppose).
Perhaps he moves on Rutgers/Maryland in the next year, but I doubt it.
I would prefer a move on Maryland/UVA/VaTech if possible, but who knows what we’ll see. Either way, we do need to get into the sun belt and the VA/NC area is the area worth targeting…
LikeLike
Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia Tech would be my top three…
LikeLike
My question about GaTech has always been whether we can really make Georgia a part of the Big Ten footprint.
The thing is, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina are clean footprints that can be grabbed away from the SEC and ACC if the schools are taken.
How exactly will Georgia Tech work? Is it similar to taking Pitt vis-a-vis Penn State in terms of its pull versus UGa.
LikeLike
Yes, Georgia Tech is a stretch. But, I like the fact that it is in the heart of SEC, there are a lot of Big Ten alums in Atlanta, and Georgia Tech fans seem pretty receptive of moving to the Big Ten (from what I’ve read on their message boards).
LikeLike
I think that’s a perfect analogy zeek.
GT is to GA what Pitt is to PA.
LikeLike
Zeek, you keep pushing the Sunbelt and ACC before NY Metro. You know the numbers. With Syracuse and Rutgers you tap into 25 million person market. Of course there is debate on the varying degrees of penetration you would get but NJ is 9 million pop and NY State minus NYC and Westchester/LI is 7 million pop. Why in the world would you suggest passing on this market? With RU/SU and the Penumbra effect of the Big Ten on the big stage of NY the money would be scary good.
LikeLike
I’d rather see Syracuse end up in the A.C.C., but the numbers for the Big 10 make absolute sense for landing Syracuse/Rutgers.
The Big 10 would be wise, however, to wait a few years before jumping. Syracuse and Rutgers still have some other warts that the remaining Big 10 schools would like to address.
LikeLike
address = see addressed.
Sorry.
LikeLike
Notre Dame and Penn State are all you need for the NY market. You can add Rutgers to get games near NYC.
I’m talking more about recruiting/setting up for the future.
Planting tentacles in Maryland/Va is the best way to get a handle on east coast recruiting in the mid-atlantic. That’s a place where OSU/Michigan/Nebraska/Penn State have been aiming in terms of recruits, so it would be incredibly helpful to have tentacles there.
Getting TV markets is a part of that too, since you want to aim at D.C.
I don’t see what adding Syracuse in the middle of NY does that Notre Dame alone or with Rutgers doesn’t already do…
Syracuse/Conn/Pitt is best to help the ACC to get back to 12…
LikeLike
Zeek, besides the alum, PSU has very, very little pull in NYC. They might as well be in Arkansas. I mean … Philly is a quick(ish) train ride away, and NYers want nothing to do with that place. And that’s Philly!
Same goes for Rutgers–even worse. Nobody cares about Rutgers besides the alum. I don’t see that changing until Rutgers is competing for a title.
Syracuse *does* have some pull in NYC (at least in basketball). And that’s with an existing “home” team (St. Johns). SU fans pretty much takes over MSG. I still say you need host teams to take NYC.
And I think being in the middle of NY can be a positive. They are the only game in town–no distractions from pro-teams. I think the more time that passes for the next expansion, the more likely SU is to get an invite. Gives them more time to erase the bad rep the last football coach left.
LikeLike
My view without any valuable insight was ND could basically carry NY by itself. (ND + Big Ten Alumni)
But without ND we would need Rutgers and Syracuse to carry NY market.
LikeLike
I’ve been thinking for a while that the optimal expansion would be any of the following possibilities:
ND/Rutgers/Maryland/UVA
ND/Rutgers/Maryland/VaTech
ND/Maryland/UVA/VaTech
Yes, I know VaTech is not AAU, but it’s not Texas Tech, they post respectable research numbers and are typically ranked near Big Ten institutions; I don’t think that the presidents would have an issue with taking Virginia Tech if it meant Maryland/UVA come along or if UVA said no and they wanted a replacement to target the D.C./Va markets…
And I would hope that the ACC would be able to reload with Syracuse/Conn/Pitt in order to stave off an SEC attack.
That would be the best way to position the Big Ten for the future in my opinion in terms of recruiting/population trends/TV markets…
LikeLike
I guess Syracuse is a replacement for ND if ND says it won’t ever join? That’s my best take on Syracuse -> Big Ten.
LikeLike
I like it Zeek.
Of course with my NY theory.
Rutgers Syracuse Maryland UVa Without ND
ND, Pitt, Maryland, UVA
Is my preferred conference.
I just think the Pitt product on the field B-Ball and Football and strong Research is hard to pass up.
I know I’m in the minority.
LikeLike
You may be in the minority on that, but Pitt. is a perfect fit in every way except new markets, so it’s not a bad choice in any respect. If Delany thinks that it creates compelling enough matchups then it may happen but his focus is likely to be on getting to Virginia however he can…
LikeLike
Er NJ, I meant if it was Pitt. v Rutgers.
LikeLike
Agree with the Pitt/ND or Syracuse/Rutgers thing. If you can get ND, you can afford Pitt.
I don’t see ND signing up though. I really don’t.
And why wouldn’t a conference just let them be team 17 and find an 18th? To protect the precious 4-team pods? Heck no.
LikeLike
Show me one shred of evidence that either Rutgers or Syracuse bring New York City. If that were the case they would have a huge TV contract themselves. The fact is Rutgers has been around for over 200 years in the biggest market in the world and no one knows they exist. Most New Yorkers have no more interest in Rutgers than Iowa St. They are a pro-sports market, period. Syracuse is also a non-starter for revenue.
ND bring FAR more of NY than either of those two third-stringers and even they would barely scratch the surface in NYC.
Zeeks obsession with these yawner schools like Virginia is equally as bizarre. I can understand Maryland but without ND I don’t believe they are coming. If you’re going to look to the ACC look to North Carolina, Miami and Georgia Tech.
If the SEC isn’t willing to fight us for them we shouldn’t be interested.
LikeLike
So wait, your solution is UNC, Miami, GaTech?
None of those makes sense. UNC won’t leave its fiefdom without Duke/NC State firmly in tow.
Miami can barely put people into Dolphin/Sun Life Stadium and wouldn’t do anything for the BTN footprint since it doesn’t have an intense following like Nebraska; its footprint is virtually an island. Yes, it makes a blip nationally when it’s in the race, but we’re looking for BTN additions and population footprint.
GaTech brings Georgia as much as Pitt. brings Pennsylvania.
I want to put down flags in the mid-atlantic for recruiting in an area where the SEC doesn’t dominate 90% of the territory.
ACC territory is much more convertible into Big Ten territory than a strategy of getting distant 2nd or 3rd most popular teams in Florida or Georgia…
D.C. is less of a sports town that NYC even though it is admittedly a sports town.
LikeLike
You don’t need Syracuse or Rutgers to carry NY.
You need them to make NY and NJ “BigTen Country” and force the $.35 profit per tv household cable carry rate for the 30 million (yes thats more than Texas) people who live in those two states.
Just like you pay your cable company for Oxygen, Life, etc whether you watch them or not having those schools puts the BTN on the same tier as ESPN (potentially) and thus gets you that aforementioned $.36 per tv profit.
You’re looking at close to $5 million. Per month.
That’s $60 million per year.
Off cable tv carry rates alone (keep adding for advertising, national tv contract, etc).
And since PSU, OSU, UoM send a lot of grads to the mid-atlantic you have built in alumni base to come and help fill stadiums.
Let the rest of the conferences fight, and choke, on the Texas’ of the world. The BigTen can add solid members that make money and ensure stability.
Who cares if they aren’t sexy.
PS – The same arguments go for MD and VA.
LikeLike
Er, that should read pro-sports at the end…
LikeLike
What kind of evidence are you looking for? An affidavit from my television? Do you want me to zoom off to the parallel universe where Joe Paterno’s conference is and get some ratings?
You forget that the Big East has been woefully mismanaged for a long time. The fact that the powers that be chose to be prey, rather than predators, is a fatal flaw.
LikeLike
I don’t know where you are from Great State, but I don’t think it is NY Metro. I have lived here 45 years. I think I know the market pretty well. Get NYC out of your head. That is gravy. NJ is 9 million people. For SU Up-State NY is 7 million. NYC is the 5 very Urban boroughs. Ever been there. Long Island and Westchester are suburbs. NYC+LI+Westhester is 12 million. Without NYC and LI/Westchester it is 16 Million. got that?
The initial market is NJ for RU cable and Upstate for SU cable. Whatever you get at low .10 a month in NYC LI/Westch is gravy at first. With the rest of the Big Ten providing the Penumbra effect the whole market potential is huge.
In addition, the NY Metro market (that is what I call NJ/UpState/NYC/LI/Westch) is NOT only a pro market. They are a BIG TIME SPORTS market that loves the Big time. The big stage. Winners. If you are not from here how would you know? You don’t.
Also, ND would not deliver the whole market either alone. It’s the whole package of the BTN. To say they would means you don’t know the market.
BTW: Willarm1: RU beat Pitt 4 out of the last 5 years and 4 in a row until last year so the Football product right now is pretty equal.
Jeepers: You and I have disagreed on this for months. You are an SU grad and I am an RU grad and football alum. You know better than to say nobody cares about RU in NJ. You live there. You know they fill the 52k stadium every home game. You know there is a large following in NJ. To say there is not is disingenuous. You know better.
Zeek: PSU and ND will absolutely NOT carry NY. You have to be kidding me. Together with RU or with RU and SU along with the rest of the Big Ten yes. You just don’t know the market well enough or you wouldn’t say that. You know better than that. Come on.
EZ: I think SU and RU are ready now for the Big Ten. However, I too would have no problem with them both in the ACC. Actually I am coming around now to prefer that.
LikeLike
PSUGuy, you nailed it. Folks here just don’t get the fact that nobody is going to carry or deliver 25 million people. It is the whole package of the great Big Ten product. You, me, EZ, and others have been saying it for months. You know the market here better than most. You get it.
LikeLike
Sure, Notre Dame is the belle of the ball, but your chances of landing it are slim, whether you like it or not. Get SU, Rutgers and Maryland for the New York and D.C. markets, then give ND a take-it-or-leave-it offer. If ND says no, bring in Pittsburgh or Virginia. Even if you don’t get ND, you’ve brought four good institutions whose academics, values and athletics blend in well with the Big Ten and who bring in key markets along the eastern seaboard (SU, RU, PSU and UMd give you the four BCS programs in the NY-to-DC corridor). Okay, none of the newcomers would be ND, but you’ve already got your football “home run” in UNL; now assure yourself some doubles and triples with schools that complement some of Nebraska’s weaker points.
LikeLike
Rick
I would say that the Big 10 does not need to make any moves for a few years now. And really shouldn’t.
Rutgers football history started 100+ years ago, but Rutgers cannot offer any stats that are not based on the past 5 years. It happened to coincide with Syracuse’s fall too. The Big 10 has a right to be skeptical that this is not just an anomaly.
Meanwhile, Syracuse football needs to get its act together. It will take a few years for the stink of Greg Robinson to wear off, but by 2015. Also, it couldn’t hurt Syracuse to ramp up the research a bit.
I think the Big 10 will have a good idea as to whether these programs are ready to add name value in addition to markets.
Also, as long as ND/Pitt are viable options… I think that it is hard for anyone to decide what to do.
With so many options, the status quo may be preferable to picking 2-4 out of the possibilities.
LikeLike
Rick
Rutgers has had 2, 10 win seasons in the last 100 years. In the last ten years, Rutgers Football is 58-62, and this is considered the glory days of their football program. Rutgers Basketball is 137-158 over the same ten year period.
Pitt basketball under Jamie and Ben is 264-79 in the past ten years, while the Pitt Panther Football team is 74-49 during the same time period. That is a two sport winning percentage of .725. Hell Texas has a .763 two sport winning percentage.
Rutgers has the butts for seats but they are not that attractive in terms of product.
LikeLike
Willarm1: grant you Pitt hoops is head and shoulders far better than RU hoops. However, since 2005 the RU Football team has equaled Pitt record wise and beat them 4 of those 5 years. 2000-2004 Greg Schiano was cleaning up the mess of the previous 5 years. Including those complete rebuilding years in your analysis is misleading. Where both programs are now is what matters and they are pretty damn equal. For that to be the case for RU after looking into the abyss during the Terry Shea years is quite an achievement. The trend is rising. Steady growth. 5 straight bowls, 4 wins. 4 of 5 wins against Pitt. The Football product is equal. You can’t spin that. Throughout their histories Pitt has a better brand and tradition. Over the last 5 years they do not.
LikeLike
Just for the record, I believe Pitt should be a Big Ten member as soon as possible. I think they would be a great addition. I just get sick and tired of blanket statements about Pitts football product being superior right now when it is not. They are very good. So is Rutgers right now. And Syracuse will be very soon as well. They are on the right track too. Marrone is building a program again just like Schiano did and Wanny did. I don’t want this to be a pissing match RU v Pitt. It’s not. Just want the facts to be presented properly and in context that’s all. I am a very big Pitt fan yet RU alum. Weird.
LikeLike
Nono, Rick. I think I sometimes write without enough fluff, thinking people will just get my meaning. I meant nobody cares about Rutgers in *NYC*. ;D (I live in NYC, not Jersey, but originally from Jersey). I think we have the same vision, just naturally leaning more towards our own alma maters.
I believe that to take NYC you have to turn it into Big Ten country. You must make the Big Ten a north conference, not just a Midwest conference. Now, I understand how some people might not like that idea, and I can understand that, but I think it’s just the truth. I really like my idea of having RU play at Meadowlands and SU at Yankee stadium. And specifically with that configuration. Take advantage of the NY vs. NJ angle.
If it were up to me, I’d add SU, RU, Pitt, and ND. If I couldn’t get ND, I’d take Maryland or UConn. But I just can’t see Maryland joining. It looks like JD is letting other people do the dirty work and sneaking in for his picks so he doesn’t look like the bad guy. If that’s true, how is he going to get Maryland without someone making a move first? Sounds like a long wait ahead.
BTW, has anyone used this analogy? ND is Moby Dick and JD is Ahab? I bet no matter how much evidence is presented that ND is a bad fit for the B10, JD will always chase them. ND declining the B10 has, and always will be, a blemish on an otherwise stellar reputation.
It’ll never happen, but when ND joins the B10, I’d love if they hire poet laureates to write the acceptance speeches. JD something like: “On behalf of the B10, I’d like to apologize for the anti-catholic injustices of the past. Blah blah blah. Yadda yadda yadda. Now things are as they always should have been.” JS: “You guys are rad. ❤ yooooou."
I'm also almost preferring the ACC. Baby momma drama up in this Big Ten piece. Though with SU I think it would have to be 100% clear that they weren't going to the B10 after what happened with VTech and the ACC. The ACC might have been dicks with their raid, but at least they were honest about how they were gonna screw you.
LikeLike
Rick and Jeepers you both make great points.
Jeepers your post made me think of something Rittenberg wrote on his Big Ten blog.
He said Delanys comments about the sun-belt didn’t mean we needed to go there, but that we needed to get a stronger grip in our own backyard so to speak.
Rick made a great point that no one school will bring ny and the surrounding areas.
But since the area is such a home run in terms of BTN, saturating that market with teams would bring homes from Upstate SU, ( I would love The Cuse, since I lived up there for a number of years)
NJ, Rutgers
And the City: ND, Big Ten Alumni Base, coupled with SU and Rutgers.
Not sure this blows my skirt up as much.
But.
Rick and more so Sheano (good god nice spelling) has convinced me that Rutgers will not tank in the Big Ten, Football wise.
( I like it because top notch B-Ball is addressed with Pitt and Syracuse. Delany played B-Ball at NC.)
Now if what Rittenberg said is true. he did write this while being at the meetings in chicago.
Read number 3 on his list.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/12551/five-lessons-about-big-ten-expansion-study#more
Your 16 team conference of SU (maybe BC mgoblue story) Rutgers, Pitt and ND. fit that mold perfectly.
Making the north Big Ten Country. I must say I like that strategy. And it is much simpler than trying to raid the ACC.
I think it only works with ND. If not stay at 12.
Thanks for the posts Jeep and Rick
LikeLike
I’m with you Jeepers, i think we are thinking the same way. I def think Delay is Ahab. I also have this feeling that Swofford of the ACC is a little sharper or at least better player than Delany is. I think we may be surprised by an ACC preemptive strike at the BE again before Delay “integrates” Nebraska and finishes his studies. I also think they (ACC) acts preemptively to protect against Slive and the SEC and their eventual raid. All this while Delany ponders. Waits. Thinks. Soaks up the praise and adoration while the real players out play him again. What drama.
I think the only game I will get to this year is the Rutgers v. Cuse game in November at Rutgers Stadium. Oh what a bloodly mess that will be. Ha!!
LikeLike
On a slightly different topic:
I would not be surprised at all if Tagliabue and the Big East and Swofford and the ACC are talking about some sort of joint venture Cable Network that combines the two leagues in TV programming and cross-scheduling to a greater degree in Football and Basketball. Include ND in the mix for programming and revenue sharing and you might have a pretty good Cable Network that spans Boston to Florida, out to Ohio and Kentucky, and the National appeal of ND. Major markets of Boston, NY, DC/VA, the Carolinas, Atlanta, and Florida. If Tags is worth his salt and can leverage connections combined with the savvy business sense of Swofford they just might be able to put it together. Lock down the East Coast. No defections. No chance of the SEC or Big Ten waltzing in and plucking who they want. Too much money made by members to be tempted. They just might be smarter and more aggressive than Delany.
LikeLike
@Rick Yes. Doesn’t mean anything to these B10 people (yet), but I have a feeling Schiano and Marrone are going to have some nasty, nasty battles in the future. Going to be fun. I’m looking forward to the Rutgers game because it should be very telling on what kind of future Marrone will have. SU can’t surprise RU this time around.
LikeLike
Jeepers: check out the population numbers I just posted. NY State and NJ equals 28 million. NY Metro (No. Jersey, NYC, LI/ Westchester) alone is 18 million.
UpState NY is 7 million. So. Jersey @ 3 million.
Good Grief.
LikeLike
Wait a second, the little sisters of the Big 12 went along with this idea to save the Big 12-lite? SERIOUSLY? Shame on those schools for prostituting themselves to the altar of the big three, and shame on the big three for going along with it. The rich just got richer, and this masking-tape fix will fall apart soon enough. This isn’t a conference, this is the high school cafeteria, outcasts trying to sit next to the popular kids. What a joke.
http://www.themercury.com/K-StateSports/article.aspx?articleId=09acd94e050044948782d1484873953d
In an act to save the Big 12, Kansas State, Kansas, Baylor, Missouri and Iowa State were willing to sacrifice the penalty money for themselves and give it to Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma to try and persuade the three South schools from bolting to another league.
“Those five institutions were looking at a possibly very difficult future looking at probably significantly less revenue possibilities,” Beebe said frankly. “They came together and wanted to make sure that they looked at the media evaluations we had going forward and those didn’t look very good without Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma.
“Those five institutions in their judgment decided as they looked at the future media value, they wanted to ensure that those institutions stayed with them. If necessary and I totally anticipate when we do our future media deal it won’t be, but if necessary, use some of the distribution that they might get from departing members to make sure that Texas A&M Oklahoma and Texas were induced to stay with them in the conference.”
LikeLike
What choice did they have? They are unwanted by the Three major conferences surrounding them. I don’t know if aside from Mizzou or KU they would be acceptable to the MWC.
LikeLike
They get $17 million (even the poor kids) in the Big 12. They Could have gone to the Mountain West, who right now, pay about $2 million per school.
Did the Big 10 or the Pac 10 or the SEC offer membership to Kansas? Missouri? Kansas St?
LikeLike
The Big East could have been a legitimate option, especially for Kansas, if Kansas, Missouri, K-State, and Iowa State had moved much more quickly with a contingency plan as early as February when the Big Ten contacted Texas.
Instead, Missouri wanted to woo the Big Ten and Kansas did practically NOTHING until last week.
LikeLike
Ok…go to the Big East…and their $ 5 million dollar per year pay out.
Which is better than $13-17 Million dollars how exactly?
LikeLike
Another “feature” of this projected contract, which is not an actual contract at this point from PN’s link above:
“These rights include radio, local media, third-tier TV rights, corporate sponsorships, and in-stadium and arena signage.”
You’re taking the money a school currently keeps for themselves to arrive at these numbers. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
To Redhawk (above) What choice Oklahoma has is to not sign onto this ponzi scheme and demand better terms for everyone. You’re Oklahoma, for crap’s sake. You think you’re not going to land on your feet somewhere?
LikeLike
The only explanation I have for Oklahoma (and perhaps Texas A&M as well) acting as meekly as Iowa State or Baylor is that UT said, “If you leave us, we’ll never play you in football again.” No RRSO for OU would be a cultural dagger to Soonerland, just as losing the season finale against UT would cripple Aggie country. (Though if those two schools got together for a rivalry of their own, the college football equivalent of the First Wives Club…)
LikeLike
This is going to go over like gangbusters with local advertisers that schools have long relationships with now have Fox taking their cut as the middleman. Radio rights are handed over to Fox for renegotiation? Tennessee Ernie Ford singing Sixteen Tons, and the two haves are the company store.
LikeLike
This is reminiscent of the days when the Southwest Conference had its own radio network, and I believe the schools (at least the ones in Texas) controlled it collectively. (I believe Humble Oil was the primary sponsor; if I’m wrong, I hope some longtime Texans can correct me.)
LikeLike
Could the other 9 schools in the Big 12-lite band together, disassociate with UT, and call UT’s bluff? Could they do it without making Oklahoma their new Texas?
LikeLike
and keep the Fox/ESPN TV deal?
LikeLike
Vincent, the thing is that OU didn’t have to go to a different conference than UT, all they had to do was demand that all of the schools get together and have a say so to what this new tv contract and conference as a whole (or at least UT’s power in the deal) would look like. From the way things appear (and I know appearances can be deceiving), UT was running around talking to the Pac 10 and Big 12 on the behalf of the other schools with little regard to their input (again that may not be the case, but that is how it appears). The conference needed a counter balance and OU was the best school to fit that need. Heck, if they would’ve told UT that they preferred the Pac 10 and didn’t want to revive a Big 12-lite conferene in which UT was the supreme ruler, don’t you think that TT and OK St would’ve followed (and UT would not have wanted a big 12-lite conference without the Texas and Oklahoma schools).
All they had to do was tell UT to take a chill and to let them in on the decision making process and I think the other schools would’ve backed them on it (and UT was not going anywhere without the other schools). But now UT has brokered a deal that gives them an even greater advantage over all the other schools in the Big 12-lite.
LikeLike
can I point out that under the current uneven system OU actually made more money from the Big 12 than Texas did?
The truth is the uneven system helps OU too.
Unless you are saying OU should have fought for the little guy…which is another argument.
LikeLike
The key phrase is “under the current system”. Do you honestly believe that with continue to be the case?
LikeLike
A Bamatab – From what I’ve seen nothing really changes under the new system, but guarantees for OU, UT, and aTm to make $20 million each.
The only difference is the UT is foretasted to make more money off their network, than OU would off theirs.
LikeLike
Redhawk, what exactly has anyone seen in regards to the tv deal? The only thing anyone has revealed is what it projects to be, and even those projections are vague at best. Surely everyone won’t agree to exit penalties until the new contract is actually drawn up, signed, and official.
LikeLike
@Bamatab- seems every fan has seen the new contract, and it apparently has UT making $50 million per year, and no one else is getting anything.
You are right, nothing has been signed. It looks right now that Fox/ESPN where throwing out ball park numbers.
Yeah, that’s pretty iffy.
So….do you think the Big 12 should have said to hell with it all and gone their separate ways, and all the teams would be just as well off as their are now?
LikeLike
If I was a school in UT, OU, and aTm’s postion, I’d feel a whole lot more secure in another conference. This conference just seems like it is a house of cards. The money distibution is still too heavliy lopsided, UT seemingly wields way too much power, the level of competition now seems to rival the Big East, and this purposed tv contract seems like a bunch of smoke and mirrors. If I was one of those schools, I’d prefer stability, which I just don’t see this conference offering.
LikeLike
The Big 12..and the Big 8 before has always kept local radio, and in-stadium and corporate sponsorship.
In fact, I don’t know any league college or pro that share in-stadium signage.
Could OU go somewhere? WHERE???????
the SEC? NO texas and No Okla. St.
The Pac-10? really do you think OU is a california school
The big 10 wasn’t offering
The deal for the conference is equal for OU as it is for Texas. The only difference is their network maybe more than ours.
I guess, cable is going to pay a ton for UT women’s softball.
LikeLike
Radio? You sure? Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but those negotiations have always been between Nebraska and state radio outlets.
OU should probably figure out the where part soon. They’re setting themselves up to be the last one to turn out the lights if Texas decides to go independent, which is the real danger here for the remainder of the Big 12, prolonging the inevitable.
LikeLike
I think RedHawk just worded it poorly that in the Big8/B12, teams always kept local radio, signage, etc.
LikeLike
And now Fox gets that. Brilliant Beebe.
LikeLike
@eapg Why do you assume if Fox gets it as a package, it would be less then what the individual schools are bringing in now?
LikeLike
Just have to see how the numbers turn out in real life and not Dan Beebe’s boiler room. Again, there is no contract at this point, so we’re debating nothing.
LikeLike
Why shouldn’t they have PUBLICLY had talks with the SEC? This, along with aTm, might’ve caused UT to reconsider the SEC. And even if UT wouldn’t have come along, I’m not 100% sure that the SEC wouldn’t have taken OK St if it could’ve also gotten OU and aTm out of it? The fact that the only public statement that OU made was “we will follow UT” gives a very bad public image. All I’m saying is that OU should’ve made a public show of power during this process, even if it intended to follow UT.
I hope I’m not piling on too much about this. If I am I apologize. I guess I’m just frustrated that we almost had some real change that I believe would’ve created a more competitive Pac 16, would’ve expanded the SEC’s footprint and tv markets, helped the Big 10 continue to expand to 16 teams, and cut some of the dead weight from the Big 12 and the Big East. Yet all we got was a weakened Big 12-lite conference in which UT appears to have strengthed it’s power over the conference, a weak Pac 10 that doesn;t have any real option to expand beyond adding Utah, cut the SEC out of expanding West, and slowed the Big 10 down on their expansion plans.
Again, I’m sorry if I’m piling on and I’ll try and move on from the subject (I do reserve the right to respond to an interest thread on the subject though if I can’t pass it up :))
LikeLike
so you wanted OU to break up the big 12 by going to the SEC?
OU wasn’t going to the SEC with out Okla. St. If OSU was a non-starter with the SEC than OU wasn’t going to go with out ’em
I think you are missing OU’s position. OU made out in all this too. OU is making money. Our Athletic Dept actually gave money to the university last year. We have a reason to keep the status quo, cause it’s been good for OU.
OU also values it’s Big 8 ties. We miss Nebraska. Losing them as a rival really has been heavy on us, and we don’t want to lose OSU and Texas, nor do we want to lose Kstate (where our football coach got his break, and our Def. Coordinator went to school) or Kansas who we’ve played since before the turn of the last century, or any of the others.
So…you are really upset that we didn’t make a great spectacle of all this? Ok…sorry to disappoint.
LikeLike
I’m not upset that you didn’t make a spectacle out of this situation. I’m upset that there was actually a real chance to better a lot of conferences and the competition within the top conferences. But instead we are left with the SEC & Big 10 and bunch of weak one and two team conferences. I just don’t see a whole lot of competition within conferences outside of the SEC and Big 10 now and I was hoping that wouldn’t be the case.
LikeLike
Sorry, but way off topic: to the NDers or other catholics: I was just watching Lady Gaga’s video “Alejandro.”
In the video, the faux nun eats her rosary beads. what is the significance of this? what does the rosary symbolize? Wikipedia didn’t seem to enlighten on the symbolism (if any).
LikeLike
Really? Wikipedia didn’t help?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosary
The term denotes both a set of prayer beads and the devotional prayer itself, which combines vocal (or silent) prayer and meditation. The prayers consist of repeated sequences of the Lord’s Prayer followed by ten prayings of the Hail Mary and a single praying of “Glory Be to the Father” and is sometimes accompanied by the Fatima Prayer; each of these sequences is known as a decade. The praying of each decade is accompanied by meditation on one of the Mysteries of the Rosary, which are events in the lives of Jesus Christ and his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosary#Rosary_beads
The rosary provides a physical method of keeping track of the number of Hail Marys said. The fingers are moved along the beads as the prayers are recited. By not having to keep track of the count mentally, the mind is more able to meditate on the mysteries. A five decade rosary contains five groups of ten beads (a decade), with additional large beads before each decade. The Hail Mary is said on the ten beads within a decade, while the Our Father is said on the large bead before each decade.
The rosary is a tool for prayer. Lady Gaga probably did it for shock value. Eating a rosary is such a Gaga thing to do.
LikeLike
Gaga’s trying to be “provacative” by using holy objects in a less than sacred manner. It is gratuitous sacrilege, nothing more.
LikeLike
She’s a pig.
FLP: any inside word yet on whether the big “no means no” statement from Swarbrick will be forthcoming? The silence is killing me. What is going on?
LikeLike
@ Rick
No, and like Frank I doubt such a statement ever will. And again like Frank I don’t think it should. I doubt it would help. I think that Monk gave the Big Ten the biggest “No” possible in ’99, and a decade later the Big Ten is still trying to capture us.
LikeLike
Why do the entertainers always like to piss off the Catholics?
LikeLike
I know religious views are not founded on logic, but to a non-religious person like myself, it’s an interesting perspective that eating the flesh and blood of one’s god (whether figuratively or literally, depending upon one’s denomination) is not only acceptable, but a sacrament. But eating prayer beads is considered sacrilege.
LikeLike
It’s likely her equivalent of Madonna’s “Like A Prayer.” Though in terms of artistry, she is to Maddy what Jayne Mansfield was to Marilyn Monroe (a more outrageous version of the original).
LikeLike
two sec links
http://www.thestate.com/2010/06/15/1332853/big-12-survives-for-now.html
about future sec expansion, from USC academic
http://www.govolsxtra.com/news/2010/jun/14/texas-wont-be-stepping-on-sec-toes/
tennessee side of last few days
from mrsec
LikeLike
with all the lawyers on here how could this work legally?
if the Longhorn Conference has 10 members (maybe plus 2 with CU and NUL if they are still “voting” members. This means a simple majority is 6 or 7. What stops the “little” 9 (+ maybe CU and NU) from voting TU out of the conference? or TU & OU out of the conference? just curious?
LikeLike
They could vote UT out in theory, but they’re all 100% whipped at this point other than CU/UNL…
LikeLike
Whipped?
Ok…let’s vote UT out. Do you think the Fox/ESPN deal is still on the table now? The Big 12..may now have grown pairs….but they are now equal to the Mtn West conference.
And…OU makes out in all of this. OU got bought off. The only difference from OU and UT is the difference in the value of their own networks.
Should OU have fought harder for Iowa State?
LikeLike
Er, I meant in theory, not in reality.
In reality, the other 5 were desperate, and OU didn’t want to be frozen out of UT games, etc.
I get all of that, I just meant that legally they could kick UT out, just like they could vote for equal revenue sharing.
Yes, the problem with the Big 12-2 from an egalitarian point of view is that you have one state that dominates the footprint with one school that dominates that state. The rest is flyover country and they have to give Texas what it wants in order to survive.
Anyways, I didn’t mean “whipped” in a bad way, I just mean they’re doing what they need to survive.
We’d all like conferences where the teams are more equal in terms of footprint, but these schools don’t have a choice in most cases.
Even OU which does have a choice, doesn’t want to lose its edge on its recruiting grounds, etc.
LikeLike
The little 5 were really out of options. I don’t see how you can criticize them for accepting a weak $14M from B12 instead of $2M from MWC or $5M if the Big East miraculously scooped them up. ISU was in dire straits just a few days ago.
LikeLike
Yeah, I didn’t mean to criticize at all. I used the wrong word to describe it.
They were all at risk, including Kansas even with its top 5 all time program, of being relegated to a conference that would make significantly less money.
I am glad that ISU/KU/KSU/Mizz/Baylor got saved from that kind of result.
LikeLike
No…. you have seen how this works.
TEXAS – “We propose that the Big 12 Championship game is held in Austin from now on and 75% of the proceeds goes to the University of Texas”
Voting Yeah – UT-Austin, UT-Norman, UT-Ames, UT-College Station, UT-Columbia, UT-Stillwater, UT-Lubbock, UT-Lawrence, UT-Manhattan
Abstaining – University of Colorado
Voting No – University of Nebraska
Damn…. 10-1 vote again.
Nebraska should really get on board, they are total outsiders. The whole rest of the conference voted for what Texas wants, what is Nebraska’s problem. Friggin’ cornwhiners.
LOL
LikeLike
How long until Oklahoma City loses the baseball tournament to the Round Rock bidders?
LikeLike
i was thinking that as well, it is huge out there. maybe it is what keeps OU and oSU in line.
LikeLike
So, lets see. Texas, acting in its own interests, just doubled the money that all 9 of their “friends” (to use Mack Brown’s words)-the B12-2 schools- got. So everyone should just throw a fit and kick them out. Texas got the same deal they had before and that the P10, BE and ACC schools all have, except everyone gets twice as much. They stayed in the B12-2 which from every indication was what OU, OSU & A&M wanted all along. And what UT said they wanted, but thought UNL was too big a loss (and almost everyone posting here thought also). And UT tried to bring OU/TT/A&M with them because they thought it was in their interests. Maybe OU thought it was in their interests to “bring” UT with them?
I think the Michigan blogger said it best. B10 calling anyone else greedy is kind of like pot calling the kettle black. B10 shares equally with the tribe but rapes and pillages everyone else. They wanted to strip the B12 of its best revenue generating schools and leave the rest for dead. They’re ALL in it for the money. Maybe because Texas wasn’t solely for the money (whether it was power-and isn’t the B10 the most vociferous opponent of playoffs which opposition is SOLELY about control-, student-athlete interests, rivalries or some combination), they aren’t in the B10 now and there are 4 or 5 schools not asking for a 75% pay cut by going to the MWC.
And maybe Texas decided against the B10 because it thought long term, as I said a couple weeks ago, the 93% of their income that doesn’t come from TV would be adversely impacted (Every indication is the projected B12-2 deal is better than the projected P10 and comparable to the SEC deals).
LikeLike
While in Bermuda enjoying this beautiful country, I’ve asked several natives why the country hasn’t gone independent or switched loyalties to the U.S. (which provides military protection). The responses regarding independence generally involved a version of “by leaving Britain, we don’t want to turn into Jamaica.” The responses regarding affiliating with the U.S. involve a version of “it would bring too much attention to us, and and now everyone likes us, since we’re only Britain’s bitch”.
The analogies write themselves. And yes, I’ve been so addicted that I check this blog between enjoying this place.
LikeLike
very cool story and interesting insight; now go back to the beach!
LikeLike
Uh, if I’m a Texas booster I’d be really worried about this:
“UT has done its due diligence on this. They’ve been looking at it for years. They’ve got a great number of large markets in which they are the No. 1 team,” said A.J. Maestas, president of Navigate Marketing, a Chicago-based firm whose services include helping colleges assess the potential value of marketing and media rights.
Texas’ multimedia rights partner is IMG College, a division of IMG, a global sports, entertainment, management, marketing and TV behemoth. “IMG is ready to move on a network,” Maestas said. “Texas knows what’s feasible, and Texas really knows what it’s worth.”
However, he called the projected average annual TV splits of $20 million for Texas, Oklahoma and Texas A&M, with the other schools getting $14 million-$17 million each, “too high, just not realistic.”
“Now, who knows? Maybe they can break the mold and come up with a model nobody’s seen.”
His firm projects an average annual total of $135 million a year for the 10 schools.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-06-14-texas-staying-big-12_N.htm
$135M split among the Big 12-2 is quite a bit off the $165M they would need in order to pull this off. They’d better have a bidding war to get that…
LikeLike
Zeek;
I thought I read somewhere that the big 3 were going to get say 17-20 million know matter what, and the others would divide the rest.
LikeLike
I’m guessing it’s $20M each for UT, A&M, and OU. the rest will get $135M – 3x $20M = $75 M / 7 = $10.7M each, on average. sounds about right.
keep the three schools with options happy. throw table scraps to the rest.
LikeLike
I’m sure there’s a shakedown clause in there somewhere in case the revenue due Texas isn’t as expected, so I’m not worried. 🙂
LikeLike
This article is comparing apples and oranges. This industry insider pegs TV rights at $135M. But the Fox contract includes tv rights, local advertising and a bunch of other crap. Which makes the numbers sound reasonable. From the sportsbusiness link above:
As part of its proposed deal, FSN has asked to take control of the conference’s third-tier rights that are currently controlled by rights holders IMG, ISP and Learfield, sources said. These rights include radio, local media, third-tier TV rights, corporate sponsorships, and in-stadium and arena signage. It is not known when these rights will be available.
For instance, I googled up and found Iowa is in the midst of a 10 yr, $55M local advertising contract with Learfield Sports. If Iowa is getting $5.5M a year, I can’t imagine what the entire conferences rights would be worth. I’m also sure big schools like Texas and Oklahoma make a lot of money off radio rights.
I knew the numbers didn’t add up. After looking at the tidbits of info that are leaking out, it looks like the B12 got robbed. They are giving up way too much in order to pretend they have the TV revenues of B10 or SEC.
LikeLike
I’ve been saying this since it was announced. The numbers do not add up.
But I have no doubt Texas is going to get what they want. OU and TAMU can always bolt to a different conference (although they don’t want to) but Kansas, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Missouri and Iowa State have all been reduced to vassal states of the Mighty Longhorns, paying tribute for the right to continue to exist.
LikeLike
Two points on that:
1. I don’t understand how Texas will start the LSN if Fox gets all the media rights as part of their deal. The initial indication that schools get to “third tier” game TV rights and other media rights seems to be incorrect. Wonder what the truth is. Will Fox resell those games to Texas for the LSN?
2. The info about Iowa is nice and we’ve seen constant comments about Florida making $10M from their Sun Sports deal and how the SEC allows their schools more stuff for local deals. I’ve always been under the impression that Big Ten schools have the same sorts of local media/marketing deals with (1) games that are released from the national TV deals [not football, but other sports, even some non-conference basketball games] and (2) ancillary programming and sponsorships. If Iowa is making $5.5M, I’m sure tOSU/UM/PSU are making more which puts the supposed “big deal” of ~$10M for Florida into prospective.
LikeLike
For the 2009 fiscal year, Penn State made approximately $6.7 million from sponsorships/radio/tv/media/web sources.
LikeLike
Michigan has a deal with IMG that gets them around $7.16 million annually, and Ohio State has a deal with IMG that gets them $11 million each year, second most nationally to Georgia’s.
LikeLike
One very good point you make is that comparing anyone’s numbers is very hard as they all have different deals and report them differently.
I’m not really worried. UT AD is very good, so unless he, all his staff and the B12 office were all so sleep deprived they didn’t really understand what Fox was talking about, he’s convinced its comparable to P10+6 or SEC deals. If they did all mess up, Frank’s blog will be really busy come next May when the TV negotiations are supposed to get wrapped up.
LikeLike
Tom Izzo: “I’m pleased to say I’m here for life at Michigan State.” Another win for the Big Ten!!
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5290541
LikeLike
That is great news.
Izzo is as good as they get.
LikeLike
http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2010/6/15/1519066/the-dan-beebe-pyramid-scheme?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+edsbs%2Frss2+%28EDSBS%29
LikeLike
Question. If the SEC started making $45 million a year… would Ohio State consider jumping?
I say that because people keep talking about Maryland and other schools leaving for the money. How much money would it take for Ohio St., Michigan, or one of the other Big 10 schools to leave?
Tom Izzo turned down a doubling of his salary.
Sometimes it is not about the money.
LikeLike
$45M per team obviously.
LikeLike
If we assumed that academically the change was a sideways step, then sure OSU would at least hear the offer.
LikeLike
Michigan fans might provide matching funds if it would help. I’m just saying.
LikeLike
hmm… well, if we leave, maybe the B10 could invite Toledo as a replacement? evil grin
LikeLike
Miami is a much better school.
LikeLike
Wasn’t Toledo in Michigan at some point and Ohio won a war? Or was it the other way around? Michigan won the war and Ohio had to take Toledo?
LikeLike
it was a political settlement. Michigan got the Upper Peninsula and its mineral wealth from Wisconsin. Ohio got Toledo and Danny Thomas. And Satan got Columbus. Everyone was happy.
LikeLike
Considering we make over $700 million in research money vs $120 million in athletic money, no way. The real money is in research, not athletics.
If we joined the SEC, would we have to put in a NASCAR track?
LikeLike
No, that’s only required if you join the ACC.
LikeLike
There are a lot of reasons no one discusses a university leaving the Big Ten, and when it comes to $$$ no conference can compete.
LikeLike
IMHO, Tom Izzo didn’t really turn down that much of a raise. At Michigan St, he’s set for life, being able to be paid a very handsome sum for as long as he wants to coach. And he’s good at it too.
In the NBA, he’d end up getting fired sooner and later and have some periods without jobs and would probably get a job somewhere with smaller pay, etc. Even though short term, the Cavs job pays more, if I were he I’d stick to the sure thing at MSU and income that you know will be steady and continuous.
LikeLike
Regardless, Texas got what it wanted: more control over its own conference and expanded local TV rights, which translates into more revenue across-the-board.
Precisely why everyone in the Big 10 can sleep well knowing that Texas can be and should be let go forever as this episode illustrates the exact opposite principles of the Big 10. At least Notre Dame comes right out and says they want to be independent and control their own destiny and identity. They don’t bash the Big 10, they just say that we don’t want to be regionalized in any conference at all for football. By contrast, Texas wants and needs other parties to control. I actually gained a new respect for ND out of all of this. The Big 12 is now a fiefdom of indentured servitude. Others could have left and taken a chance to forge their own identity in the MWC, which will now likely be destroyed, but they did not and now Texas owns them – just like the old coal miners to the “company store.”
Miami (and South Florida for that matter) is the most “northern-like” school in the South. And I bet that they will be the next AAU designated school (research it). They are the Big 10’s bloodline to the South.
LikeLike
Indentured Servitude = $ 13 to 15 Million dollars per yer
Own Identity in the MWC+ $ 2-3 million dollars per yer
LikeLike
OU is not a MWC level program.
Anyway, best of luck, hope things work out for everyone involved.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m pretty sure we’ll never hear of Texas -> Big Ten from legitimate sources after this; there just doesn’t seem to be a deal that could be worked out…
However, the Pac-12 in a few years may be desperate enough to let Texas in with its own network. Dodds is going to bargain the Pac-12 into the ground.
LikeLike
This is just an FYI to zeek, rick and PSUguy from a little earlier today regarding NY state population.
I am pretty sure that these figures have been given on a previous comment so forgive me if I am re-visiting something that has been said before.
The State of NY has according to 2009 Census data roughly 19.5 million people.
NYC has approximately 8.2 million people leaving somewhere around 11.3 million people living in upstate NY.
SU does not need to carry the NYC area to have 11.2 million households in their market. Anyone who lives in upstate NY knows that SU absolutely OWNS this market. On top of that they have a better following than RU does in NYC, all you have to do is go to or watch a TV game down there.
Other 2009 state information below:
State of MD pop. 2009 5.6 million
NE 1.8 million
MO 5.9 million
NJ 8.7 million
VA 7.8 million
DC 599K
TX 24 million
Assuming SU carries not a single household in NYC, NJ, Phila, DC or anywhere else, upstate NY has almost as many people as MD, NE and MO COMBINED.
I would be very surprised if SU wasn’t on the short list of the slowed-down BT expansion list or possibly the ACC when they do start plucking other teams and the game starts anew.
Lets just all hope that Frank The Tank is there to give us the inside scoop.
Outstanding job and kudos to all that have contributed to my conference expansion addiction.
THANKS!!
LikeLike
You can’t consider Long Island and Westchester as UpState. There are really 4 numbers for NY State: NYC, Long Island, Westchester, and UpState. Deduct out LI/Westchester/and NYC from the NY State total and that is the real SU market. A very big number even without down state. And BTW: Their following for Basketball is great in NYC, far better than Rutgers. Not true for Football so let’s be clear about that.
LikeLike
Roughly speaking:
NYC: @ 8 million
Long Island (Nassau/Suffolk): @ 3 million
Westchester: @ 1 million
UpState: @ 7 million
NY State total: @ 19 million
NJ: @ 9 million
NY/NJ combined: 28 million
NY Metro (No. Jersey/NYC/LI/Westchester): @ 18 million..(this does not include UpState NY @ 7 million and So. Jersey @ 3 million)
These are serious numbers folks!! Do you really want to pass on this? The Big Ten package and Penumbra of RU/SU and the Big Ten can get some penetration here that will produce dollars that could be ungodly on the BTN. Good God Almighty!!!
LikeLike
My biggest problem with Syracuse is that NY isn’t anywhere near as good for recruiting as NJ/Maryland/Virginia are.
Syracuse may end up being one of the bigger money-makers on the table, but getting flags down into big recruiting areas is also a part of the discussion.
LikeLike
True enough.
Though you take a 17-18 year old kid, show him the facilities that kind of money can buy, then promise him he’ll be on TV every single week (even national if the folks have DTV) and I have to believe recruiting will improve no matter the location.
Besides, I saw some numbers that showed the north east, mid-west, and mid-atlantic still put a large number of players in the NFL.
IMO, the 18 year olds msy better elsewhere, but by the time everyone is ~21 the talent starts to normalize.
LikeLike
Winners in the Expansion Game:
1. Nebraska — For all the reasons Frank outlined.
2. Big Ten — For all the reasons Frank outlined.
3. Texas — For all the reasons Frank outlined.
4. Jim Delany — Still keeps the rep as the man with the midas touch.
5. Me — For finding this excellent website, filled with a ton of hardcore, knowledgeable college football fans. It should be a lot of fun when the season draws closer.
You run a great website, Frank.
LikeLike
JD? He lost complete control of the process, which nearly sent A&M and OK to the SEC. He didn’t come close to winning over ND or TX. And he was forced to scramble matters concerning NEB, abandoning his precious schedule.
LikeLike
Off Subject:
IZZO KICKS LYNN HENNING’S ASS AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE!
He’s the best!
LikeLike
who’s Lynn Henning?
oh and congrats! and keeping Izzo… he’s class!
LikeLike
geez: “congrats ON keeping Izzo.”
LikeLike
Well, it didn’t help that guy that he had on a “I am a pompous ass” Tshirt at the PC………..
LikeLike
Why does the Big Ten need Notre Dame?
Adding Notre Dame would bring exactly expanded digital basic cable households to the Big Ten Network.
Notre Dame carries just as much baggage as Texas and its entourage. Some in Pac-10 country are breathing a sigh of relief that the “Pac-16” failed.
==
Rutgers and Maryland should be the next two schools on the Big Ten’s shopping list.
Maryland in particular brings half of the DC TV market (North of the Potomac) and all of the Baltimore TV market.
Georgia Tech is another legitimate target if the Big Ten wants the Atlanta TV market. (Academically, Georgia Tech is more compatibly with the Big Ten than Georgia. Tech is the latest member of the Association of American Universities.)
LikeLike
Why expand at all and add more mouths to feed? The Big Ten at 12 teams seems pretty darn good to me. All other expansion candidates are seriously flawed in some way.
Personally, I don’t see the reason to expand without getting a “home run” and if Texas and Notre Dame are off the table, then there just isn’t one out there to be had (can Florida be gotten from the SEC? I kid, I kid).
LikeLike
Maryland would be great, but won’t come. Nobody really cares about GT.
LikeLike
This is an interesting Video blog post from ESPN’s Adam Rittenberg, about why the Big Ten is far better off without adding Texas (no that we’ve seen what divas they are.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/13227/video-big-ten-did-not-need-texas
Also, the ‘Spartans’ are out. Its the Michigan State Izzos! now
LikeLike
I don’t know how much ESPN is paying this guy, but he would be a GREAT hire for the BigTenNetwork as an analyst. He knows the BT inside out and is always insightful.
LikeLike
Rittenberg is great, and fair.
He ain’t built for HD. But there is always ESPN radio
LikeLike
Rick and Jeepers.
You both make great points.
Jeepers your post made me think of something Rittenberg wrote on his Big Ten blog.
He said Delanys comments about the sun-belt didn’t mean we needed to go there, but that we needed to get a stronger grip in our own backyard so to speak.
Rick made a great point that no one school will bring ny and the surrounding areas.
But since the area is such a home run in terms of BTN, saturating that market with teams would bring homes from Upstate SU, ( I would love The Cuse, since I lived up there for a number of years)
NJ, Rutgers
And the City: ND, Big Ten Alumni Base, coupled with SU and Rutgers.
Not sure this blows my skirt up as much.
But.
Rick and more so Sheano (good god nice spelling) has convinced me that Rutgers will not tank in the Big Ten, Football wise.
( I like it because top notch B-Ball is addressed with Pitt and Syracuse. Delany played B-Ball at NC.)
Now if what Rittenberg said is true. he did write this while being at the meetings in chicago.
Read number 3 on his list.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/12551/five-lessons-about-big-ten-expansion-study#more
Your 16 team conference of SU (maybe BC mgoblue story) Rutgers, Pitt and ND. fit that mold perfectly.
Making the north Big Ten Country. I must say I like that strategy. And it is much simpler than trying to raid the ACC.
I think it only works with ND. If not stay at 12.
LikeLike
Well said Will, except for the ND and 12 part. The Big North (11+Corn) Country is really the way to go with the possible addition of MD but that will not happen I don’t think. If Delay doesn’t move on it Swofford will and Boston to Miami is ACC county forever. Goodbye Sun-belt and Major Eastern Markets. What a shame that would be for the Big Ten but I am getting quite fond of the ACC these days. The Rutgers game against North Carolina early in this season is going to be a War!!!!!!! Beating Maryland last year was nice but beating the Tar Heels will be tremendous. BTW: Carolina is sick good on defense this year as is Rutgers but NC might have 4 NFL first rounders on D.
LikeLike
Would the ACC really move though? North Carolina and Duke didn’t favor expansion last time. Would the rest really want to be the ones to take expansion past 12? Swofford seems to be taking an entirely reactive position, and as long as no one is going after ACC schools, he doesn’t seem like he’d be inclined to make a move.
My problem with Delany is that it seems as if he wants to include Rutgers in any scenario but that he wants to pair them with Notre Dame. I’m among those who think they’re enough of a no-brainer (mass alumni base, giant land grant, proximity to NYC meaning use of Meadowlands, been filling their stadium, institutional fit is great in terms of research/size) to pair them off with someone right now. Rutgers has everything except TV ratings, but having ranked Iowa/Wisconsin or traditional names like Ohio State/Michigan/Nebraska/Penn State will take care of that. I could easily see Rutgers in 15 years with a 70,000+ stadium filled to capacity every game pulling in decent ratings in the Big Ten.
I just don’t see Notre Dame coming until after Delany is retired unless he plans to be at this another 15 years. I’m really hoping we make a move in the next 12 months and don’t just sit at 12…
LikeLike
Who says he wants to pair ND with Rutgers????
It seems to me that if you get ND, you could add the best program/fit in Pitt. But if you can’t get ND, you go with SU/Rutgers.
LikeLike
Re ACC adhoc expansion committee of Presidents, athletic directors, faculty members formed this spring (Rick)
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/11821/acc-keeping-an-eye-on-expansion
LikeLike
Here are comments from the normally knowledgeable Caulton Tudor of the Raleigh News & Observer:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/06/16/535158/league-dramas-continue.html#
Typical “sportswriter” approach to this topic; he makes his ignorance of the subject visible for all to see when he lists West Virginia as a team the Big Ten would pursue…and something more likely than the conference going after Maryland. Wishful thinking from Tobacco Road?
LikeLike
And lol at that UNC grad talking about the ACC being in a position of power. I’d like to know what he’s on…; the ACC could easily get raided by the Big Ten and SEC. VaTech/FSU are in it for the sports, so they could make the jump easily if they want to… and I’m among those who don’t think Maryland is as married to the Virginia/North Carolina schools as many do, but we’ll have to see about that.
LikeLike
As long as people in North Carolina think basketball is the center of the athletic financial universe, they will remain hopelessly deluded as the world beyond Tobacco Road crumbles about them. (Ironic, in a way, because the ACC was founded in 1953 for football reasons, specifically in response to the Southern Conference’s no-bowl policy.) I think most Maryland administrators — maybe not Yow, but people ranking above her — are wise to how the world operates, and will ditch the ACC for the Big Ten if given the opportunity.
LikeLike
Have you guys already seen this picture of the new Big 12-lite? I thought it was pretty funny.
LikeLike
That about sums it up.
LikeLike
with images like this and the EDSBS comedies, etc., how can the new BXII-lite expect to survive? the non-UofT teams are laughing-stocks including “national CFB power Oklahoma.” geez, i’d be curling in the fetal position in embarrassment. and i feel that i know something about that (reference: FL-tOSU NC game, etc.).
what is BXII football in 2010 gonna be like? will every team be pissed as hell at TX and try and do something about it on the football field? is there enough talent in the BXII to knock TX off it’s pedastal (sp?)?
LikeLike
Big Ten versus SEC…
Gleaned this nugget from a Big Ten press release, prior to the 2009/10 bowl season:
“More SEC Matchups: Over the last five and 10 years, the Big Ten has played more bowl games against the SEC than any other conference. The two conferences have met in the postseason on 13 occasions over the last five years, with the Big Ten holding a 7-6 advantage in those matchups. Over the last decade, the Big Ten and SEC have met in 27 bowl contests, with the SEC holding a 14-13 edge. The Big Ten’s most common bowl opponent since 1999 is the SEC (27 games), followed by the Big 12 (16) and Pac-10 (14).”
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/121609aaa.html
The Big Ten went 1-1 versus the SEC in bowl games, during this past bowl season…with Northwestern losing in OT to Auburn and Penn State beating LSU.
The fact that the Big Ten and SEC are even in bowls for the past decade has to be one of the more unknown stats in college football. You would think the Big Ten is owned by the SEC in the bowls if you listen to the media talking heads and fans from around the nation.
An Ohio State win over the SEC champ in this year’s BCS title game would go a long way in changing the perception…as well as some sweet revenge for the Buckeyes. It is definitely possible, too.
LikeLike
And look up OSU’s record for a similar timeframe. They are like 0-9 or something ridiculous.
LikeLike
Not for the decade, but since the late 1970’s. OSU totally blew a few…like the game vs. Florida. Same with the game against LSU, though OSU should not have been in that game. It’s not their fault every ahead of them tanked in the last week of the season.
They choked three in the 90’s against Tenn, Georgia and Bama…all in the final minutes of games they led.
OSU could certainly use a win over an SEC school this bowl season, and it very well could be in the BCS title game. They have the team to do it.
LikeLike
Iowa has gone 3-1 against the SEC in bowl games in the last decade. But there is an SEC excuse for every one.
LikeLike
They were over LSU, Florida and South Carolina, correct? I’m pretty sure the Hawkeyes dinged the “Old Ball Coach” at two different schools (FL and SC).
LikeLike
Yes, those three. It was Zook, not Spurrier, at UF. Which is one of the excuses. “Well, it was Zook!”
LSU game “it was a lucky hail mary!” Hawkeyes led 59 minutes of that game, and it wasn’t a ball thrown into a mass of bodies.
USC, I think the excuse is that the old ball coach now sucks.
LikeLike
I agree that the Big 10 is right behind the SEC and took a huge step forward by getting Nebraska. I think that if Wisconsin and Iowa keep on producing top 15 teams, and if Nebraska can continue to climb back to its winning past, then the SEC will be in for a fight for the claim of best football conference. The only thing that truely separates the SEC from everyone else are the recent national championships and the level of the passion in the fanbase (not that the Big 10 doesn’t have passionate fans, but I still believe that the SEC takes fan passion to another level, but I’m bias of course). You guys still need to win some regular season interconference games against big time programs and win a couple of national champioships the talking heads move you past the SEC, but you guys are catching up imo.
LikeLike
The SEC’s strength is its depth in the lower tier. Unmatched in the other leagues. Until the Big Ten can match that quality from top to bottom, they will never pass the SEC. Adding Nebraska will sure help at the top, though. That way, when two Big Ten teams are in BCS games, you still have top quality teams ready to face the SEC in the Outback and Cap One Bowls.
LikeLike
And I seriously doubt any of the other BCS leagues played the SEC dead-even in bowl games over the past decade…yet they all feel free to pile on the Big Ten.
LikeLike
SEC’s strength is in the middle 50%. Not in UK, Vandy and MSU.
B10+1 is WAY behind SEC right now and WAY behind B12-0. B10+1 is reason MWC is near a autobid. They are 7th in the rating of their champion and 6th in their average computer ranking. But its just a cyclical decline. B10+1 was really awful in early 90s and was as good or better than SEC by the late 90s.
LikeLike
On how to make the B10 divisions:
been a bit of discussion on how to make the new B10 divisions:
Brian over at MGOBlog.com (sorry don’t know how to embed the links) had this interesting idea: east/west for everything but football; in football, PSU in the west swapping for NW.
Brian says: “If you want to go straight geography for non-revenue sports, fine by me, but in football I think the Big Ten will align things in a a way likely to avoid the Big 12 problem, and putting Michigan/Ohio State opposite Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa/Penn State is the most likely way to get sexy championship games.”
very interesting; never thought about that and such might alleviate the travel concerns for the non-football sports.
one modification: IL goes east, not Northwestern. IL and tOSU have a bit of a rivalry played like 70-80 or more times the second to last game of the season.
LikeLike
Having Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa/Penn State/NW in one division is embarrassingly unbalanced. UM/OSU is trying to create Big 2/Little 4.
I still think straight geography is gonna win. Neb/IA/Wisky against OSU/UM/PSU is more fair that that proposal.
And PSU/UM/OSU are going to want to play each other annually anyways.
LikeLike
MI, OSU will be in one division
Penn St and NE in the other- bank on it.
LikeLike
yeah, personally i agree that a straight east/west is best; just passing along an idea that was new to me. the travel budget is a giant consideration for the non-revenue sports; this was the first time i saw the idea that football could be done differently that Bball and the other sports.
and i personally agree that there is no reason that Neb/Iowa/Wiscy could not be as good year to year as tOSU/MI/PSU. and the east/west split will simply make Iowa and Wiscy step up even more to keep from being embarrassed.
but i think there is a perception that there are only 4 top teams; so two per division. add to that that I think PSU wants NEB as its year-end rivalry game. to avoid a CCG that duplicates a year-end game, PSU has to go to the west.
not the way i would go, but it’s getting lots of talk based on Delaney’s emphasis on competitive balance being issue number 1.
LikeLike
Non-revenue sports don’t really matter because virtually every conference only uses divisions for football. Non-revenue sports are all just in one big conference and efforts at round robin play are made.
LikeLike
There’s no real way to save all rivalries while at the same time split the conference up evenly. If I were in charge of it, I would set it up like the SEC where you’d have one cross-division rival and rotate through the other teams.
Here are the divisions (cross-division rivals in parenthesis):
Division A
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michigan (Nebraska)
Ohio State (Penn State)
Wisconsin (Minnesota)
Michigan State (Iowa)
Purdue (Northwestern)
Indiana (Illinois)
Division B
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Penn State (Ohio State)
Nebraska (Michigan)
Iowa (Michigan State)
Northwestern (Purdue)
Minnesota (Wisconsin)
Illinois (Indiana)
This would create some great match-ups. I’d be all over a Thanksgiving that would start off with Michigan-Ohio State followed by Nebraska-Penn State.
Now if I really had my way, I would bump up the schedule to 9 conference games. Then there could be two permanent cross-division rivals, and the then you could cycle the other 4 teams in the two open slots.
Division A
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michigan (Nebraska) (Minnesota)
Ohio State (Penn State) (Iowa)
Wisconsin (Minnesota) (Nebraska)
Michigan State (Iowa) (Penn State)
Purdue (Northwestern) (Illinois)
Indiana (Illinois) (Northwestern)
Division B
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Penn State (Ohio State) (Michigan State)
Nebraska (Michigan) (Wisconsin)
Iowa (Michigan State) (Ohio State)
Northwestern (Purdue) (Indiana)
Minnesota (Wisconsin) (Michigan)
Illinois (Indiana) (Purdue)
LikeLike
I’d like to see the divisions be competitive as well as maintain as many of the current permanent matches in the Big Ten as well as as many of the trophy games as possible.
I’ve come up the following plan which only sacrifices one trophy game (the most recently established Governor’s Victory Bell between PSU and Minnesota that I don’t think anyone cares about). It seems silly to outsiders but Illini fans prefer losing to tOSU to losing to the other powers because of the long history of the rivalry. I think this feeling is common among fan bases in the Big Ten. I chose to have Minnesota play Nebraska every year because of proximity.
This is based on 9 conference games and permanent cross division rivals are listed in parenthesis.
Big Ten North
Wisconsin (Purdue, Iowa)
Minnesota (Iowa, Nebraska)
Northwestern (Purdue, Illinois)
Michigan (Indiana, Nebraska)
Michigan St (Penn St, Indiana)
Ohio St (Illinois, Penn St)
Big Ten South
Nebraska (Minnesota, Michigan)
Iowa (Minnesota, Wisconsin)
Illinois (Ohio St, Northwestern)
Indiana (Michigan, Michigan St)
Purdue (Northwestern, Wisconsin)
Penn St (Michigan St, Ohio St)
I know there’s no historical or geography argument for a permanent game between Wisconsin and Purdue but every team needs two permanent rivals.
LikeLike
Straight east/west divisions, separated by the Indiana/Illinois border, remains the most sensible approach; I believe Wisconsin and Iowa tend to be undervalued here. You want Penn State vs. Nebraska? Make it one of each team’s three interdivisional games.
LikeLike
There was a long time period when Illinois and Ohio State were traditionally each others Big Ten opening game. They play for the Illinibuck trophy. I think it’s a big turtle shell.
LikeLike
oops .. I”m a bad Buckeye… I was thinking second-game-to-the-end, not the season opener. yep, and meant to mention the trophy. to the best of my recollection, no trophy with the NU game.
LikeLike
Was the longest running series Ohio State had prior to it ending in the late 1990’s.
LikeLike
I was remembering it was #2 behind MI. But for sure, there a long history there. a bit lopsided, but a long history which would merit being in the east division over NU.
LikeLike
Utah – Pac 12 – Press Conference – Thursday
From Comcast Sportsnet Bay Area:
http://www.csnbayarea.com/06/15/10/FONT-COLORFF0000EXCLUSIVEfont-Pac-10-to-/landing.html?blockID=254335&feedID=2478
LikeLike
In a vacuum I would be very pleased with this move. I am still concerned about the divisions, though. I guess we’ll just have to suck it up and work through it. Here’s my less-than serious suggestion: The academic heavyweights in one division and the rest in the other.
Stanford-Cal-UCLA-USC-Washington-Colorado
Arizona-Wazzu-Oregon-ASU-Utah-Oregon State
If this is really true, welcome to the Pac, Utes. We’ll make it work.
LikeLike
Colorado allegedly insisted as a condition of accepting the invite that the Pac-12 football league split into 2 divisions as follows, according to Denver-based media outlets:
North: UW-WSU-UO-OrSt-Stanford-Cal
South: USC-UCLA-UofA-ASU-Colorado-Utah
No one in the Pac-12 north will be happy with that divisional alignment (because everyone wants to make the trip to LA each year and everyone wants to play USC at home every two years instead of 4).
LikeLike
I’d rather play USC in LA. We seem to do well there recently. What’s your deal?
LikeLike
Without a zipper – you have to split the CA schools up (although that is not their preference) as to still allow all schools in conference access to CA, whether it be north or south. Whichever teams are not pairs with SoCal though – will feel they are in the less desirable division.
LikeLike
I’m really happy for Utah. I was among those cheering for Utah against Alabama 2 years ago, and they really do deserve a shot at the big leagues more than any of the BCS busters of the past couple years (Boise is close behind as well) in my opinion.
LikeLike
@zeek – Utah deserves a BCS slot. They are a legit BCS-level program that’s stuck in a non-BCS conference. BYU and TCU are in similar situations. I hope that the Pac-10 invitation is truly forthcoming (I get sent messages with “confirmations” of an invitation only to get them shot down moments later in the press).
LikeLike
What happens to the MWC now?
LikeLike
The MWC will still be on the outside looking in, even if the unlikely were to occur in the next few months (i.e. TV deal can’t get done, Mizzou wants out, whatever) and Big 12 were to collapse.
The MWC has no chance of getting Kansas or Missouri because Kansas and Missouri both know that the Big East needs them if they ever become available.
LikeLike
@zeek – If I were the MWC, I’d take a hard look at Fresno State and/or Houston.
Of course, if I’m also a fan of the “Big Country” concept of merging the best of the MWC and Big East together into a 16-school superconference.
LikeLike
The Mountain West and Conference USA act as “mezzanine” leagues in Division I FBS, just below the BCS AQ cutoff but above the WAC and Sun Belt.
The natural progression:
1. An FCS (formerly I-AA) football program gets the itch to be the next “BCS Buster” a la Boise State and decides to move up to FBS. The WAC and/or the Sun Belt will happily take that school even though the WAC and the Sun Belt both know that they are nothing more than “half-way houses”.
(The FCS schools most mentioned to make the move to FBS in the next 12-24 months are Texas State and Montana, both of which are targeted by the WAC. Sacramento State and Cal Poly are also possibilities, as are Portland State and UC Davis.)
2. Once a school in the WAC or Sun Belt achieve the notoriety of a “BCS Buster”, it will lobby the Mountain West or Conference USA for a spot should realignment occurs.
3. If the BCS conferences ever itch to expand again, then a Mountain West or Conference USA school may get a chance to move up to a BCS conference.
LikeLike
The Las Vegas Review Journal now reports a “Mountain West Conference source” said that Utah has accepted an invitation to join the Pac-12.
http://www.lvrj.com/sports/utah-bolts-mountain-west-conference-for-pac-10–96441144.html
LikeLike
Does this effectively sink the MWC’s chances of getting an AQ bid for 2 years? I haven’t heard what happens, but I assume that losing Utah and gaining Boise State is a net loss in terms of the formula…
LikeLike
I have never believed that the Mountain West Conference has a shot at a BCS AQ bid by 2013.
The MWC has too many weak programs to drag down the entire league. That is the MWC’s weakness.
Furthermore, in the event the the Big 12 self-destructs again within the next few weeks or months (because Mizzou wants out or because a TV deal couldn’t be done, or whatever)…
1. The Pac-12 knows that Texas and its entourage (OU, OkSt, TTech) will be available.
2. Texas A&M can still jump to the SEC
3. Kansas and Missouri, and to a lesser extent Kansas State (and possibly Iowa State) now know that the Big East needs them (to bulk up before the Big Ten makes its move, i.e. to poach Rutgers)
4. Baylor would be locked out of a BCS football league because none of those leagues want Baylor.
You can bet that the Big East will defend itself and add Kansas and Missouri if they become available. It will NOT allow the Mountain West to get those two.
LikeLike
http://philsteele.com/Blogs/Individual_Team_blogs/BYU_Blog.html
This blog has a break down of the MWC chance at an autobid after the criteria were released. It basically echos what OT said, the bottom of the MWC are dragging them down in the overall ranking and adding BSU isn’t enough to help even if Utah stays.
LikeLike
Thanks for the info OT and Gumbynuts, I’ve been so focused on the Big Ten/Pac-10/Big 12 dance that I haven’t had a time to get info on the MWC’s AQ bid status.
LikeLike
What’s really significant about this is that it is the 1st change that affected the BCS group. Everything prior has just been shuffling. I thought that the MWC “problem” would be in the back of everyone’s minds, not the “Tech” problem, but it hasn’t been dealt with.
MWC is very close to the Big 6 and way ahead of the little 4. If they get an autobid it means one less wildcard for the Big 6 or completely shutting out the little 4, which creates political and fairness problems.
When B10 announced in December I thought it would play out 1 of 2 ways. Either:
A) Emasculate BE and MWC-Big 10 goes to 14 w some combination of Rutgers/SU/Pitt/Mo (I completely missed UNL), ACC maybe throws a life vest to 2 of Pitt/UConn/WV, Pac 10 adds Utah/CU, B12 replaces with one or two of BYU/UNM/CSU, SEC & ND stand pat. Net result is a decrease in BCS group from 66 to 63 or 65, BE goes away, MWC loses its best programs and some newbie BCS schools from the east get replaced by stronger western programs; or
B) Emasculate MWC and expand group. B10 settles for Missouri or Rutgers, BE splits and goes to either 10 or 12 by adding 2 to 5 from CUSA (ECU/UCF/Memphis/USM/UH) and possibly TCU, P10 adds CU/Utah, B12 replaces out of BYU/CSU/UNM, SEC, ND and ACC stand pat. Result is 71-73 BCS teams, but MWC much weaker.
With the way it has played out, MWC is as strong as ever. Boise is an even or better replacement for Utah. B12-2 is staying for now at 10. B10+1+1 is stronger, but P10+2 (#5 in computer rankings) is weaker due to USC probation. So the MWC “problem” becomes bigger just as the “Tech” problem dissapates.
LikeLike
There is no “MWC” problem.
The Mountain West remains on the outside looking in. It has too many weak football programs at the bottom to drag the league down enough to kill any chance of the MWC getting a BCS auto bid by 2013.
Furthermore, the Big East will grab Kansas and Missouri if they ever become available. The Big East (with ESPN Inc. money) will outbid the Mountain West for those two schools.
LikeLike
The Big Ten will never give up on ND. They are the one lynchpin school that will make Delany”s dreams of a national BTN a reality.
A dozen ‘Syracuse-Rutgers-Virginia’ combos won’t do that.
Pat Forde at ESPN (an SEC groupie) believes the BT still has its eye on TEXAS and (with the exception of ND) won’t make any moves until the Big 12 collapses (from grotesque $ inequality).
I think the BT will go with ND, BC. Rutgers and Maryland
LikeLike
Delany may still have his eye on Texas but I think almost all of us are off that bandwagon.
How in the world is Delany going to be able to get them to agree to give up their own network once it’s off the ground? And Texas at the very last moment went to the Pac-11 and tried to switch the deal to their own network. And of course there’s the geography problem and Tech problem…
But yea, Delany’s not going anywhere until he sees a plan for Notre Dame.
LikeLike
The plan he may see but might not like may not be his own but one from Swofford, Tagliabue, and Swarbrick. Creative minds.
LikeLike
GreatState: I still haven’t heard the “No means no!!” come out of Swarbrick’s mouth yet so maybe Delany eventually gets his wish. Forde is idiotic to still think Delay and the Big Ten would consider Texas after what everyone saw them do. Zebras don’t change their stripes. They are what they are and everyone knows it now. The Big Ten won’t touch them with a ten foot pole. Unfortunately for Delany ND probably sees a better fit with the ACC and a first step would be if Tagliabue and Swofford put together a joint cable TV Network deal that includes the Big East, ACC, and ND in a joint programming and broadcast revenue sharing partnership. Tags and Swofford could turn ND’s head with a hybrid joint venture and they may never look back. The Big Ten may never give up on ND but they just might not have what it takes to get ND’s attention and allegiance. Delany might forever be the Ahab to ND’s white whale. I have a sneaking suspicion that Swofford, Tags, and Swarbrick might just pull off the biggest move yet.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think above anything, this episode has shown that there’s no way that Texas can ever really be integrated into a Big Ten that has gate sharing/equal TV split and the BTN. That doesn’t even include their problems with being an outpost in Texas even if A&M was interested (which they’re not). There’s no scenario by which they join.
Delany probably already sees that and is mapping out another scenario to 16 including ND, I’d imagine. The question is what does he see being the best fit and whether he can get to 14 without ND…
LikeLike
Come on. You know you still want us. You really really do.
LikeLike
Of course, but the probability of it happening is now 0%, and I am resigned to that fact.
LikeLike
It’s always easier to spurn an opportunity that wasn’t coming your way anyhow.
LikeLike
Re Texas (Hopkins Horn)
Always enjoy your posts.
Good luck to Texas and the Big 12 now 10 which preserves Texas regional rivalries.
I’ve now come to the conclusion that the soon to be Pac 12 narrowly escaped from having it’s wish come true.
A conference where A&M and OK fans prefer the SEC plus the 2 clone schools of OSU and Tech being dragged along as an entourage would have created a long term embarrassment of 2 walled off divisions united largely by a logo.
Perhaps less money for the Pac 12 but money isn’t everything.
LikeLike
Sally Field, is that you?
LikeLike
Above @ Hopkins.
Texas has revealed their true intentions much more than they realize, I suspect.
LikeLike
@ Rick
I like this idea of a joint ACC-Big East-ND network that allows ND to maintain it’s independence. I doubt they brought Tags in to help split the league. These are schools more similar to ND than the Big Ten ever wil be. Also, IIRC, the white whale eventually wins 😀
LikeLike
The recipe for getting Notre Dame would be to add Miami (a southern opponent and traditional ND foe), Rutgers (for a NYC setting) and Boston College (a fellow Catholic institution, ND rival, and New England opponent).
Put Notre Dame in a pod with BC, Rutgers, and Miami (i.e., no traditional “Big Ten” teams). Make Michigan a protected rivalry out of the pod. They could schedule Navy, USC, and two other OOC games.
Typical schedule would be: Michigan, BC, Rutgers, Miami, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, USC, Navy plus two more OOC games. That’s pretty national.
Miami and BC could be induced to join by their own history with each other and with Notre Dame (and Rutgers too). Taking one team off each end of the ACC would not kill the conference. Syracuse and U-Conn would be good replacements. Could add more Big East teams to go super conference.
Big Ten would be:
Scheduling Pod A:
Notre Dame
Boston College
Miami
Rutgers
Scheduling Pod B:
Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Scheduling Pod C:
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
Illinois
Scheduling Pod D:
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
This plan would be strong in the north east, give the conference a foothold in Florida, and add two more brand names (ND & Miami).
It makes too much sense not to happen.
LikeLike
Wow. That’s an interesting plan. It would also increase the institutional fit for ND by adding in BC and Miami.
BC, Miami, and ND are all great institutions, but would the Big Ten really add so many private undergraduate schools that tend not to focus on research/AAU; the institutional fit doesn’t seem to be there, even without mentioning geography…
It might be a plan that ND would like though…
LikeLike
I meant that undergraduate schools comment mostly at BC/ND.
As for geography, would Miami really want to be like USF in the Big East and leave FSU?
LikeLike
@zeek – Miami WAS the equivalent of USF in the Big East. Out of any geographic outlier, I actually feel the most comfortable with Miami in terms of location. Culturally, it’s really a “Northern” city that happens to be at the Southern tip of Florida. Travel-wise, the Canes have to get onto a plane for every single trip even in the ACC. Other Southern-based schools really wouldn’t do well being lone outposts.
LikeLike
Just like with Nebraska, I would love for the Big Ten to add Miami without respect to whatever other moves are triggered. Miami is a good brand name in a key state.
Let’s make it happen!
LikeLike
Great point Frank about Miami’s days in the Big East, and BC wouldn’t mind being closer either, so it is plausible to see them both in a Big Ten configuration.
LikeLike
Frank-
Miami? A northern city culturally? Really?
I lived there for a year; if anything, it felt like a foreign city. Miami has its own cultural vibe not easily comparable to any other US city.
LikeLike
Geography would only be an issue for the outliers (Boston College and, especially, Miami). Both teams are already used to being geographic outliers in the ACC (and Miami was an outlier in the Big East too).
Institutional fit would also be a consideration for Miami and Boston College. It’s clear Big Ten wants ND no matter what. Miami and Boston College are both good schools, so I think the positives (which include good brands and demographics) would outweigh the negatives. Also, Maryland or Georgia Tech could replace BC, if Notre Dame would go for it.
LikeLike
@Paul – I like it, although I also like BC and Miami more than a lot of other Big Ten partisans. There simply might be nothing that could ever really “lure” Notre Dame, though. ND getting comfortable giving up its independence is something that can only happen within the school’s community. Until that occurs, I doubt they’ll join a conference no matter how logical it looks to the entirety of the rest of the universe.
LikeLike
Agreed, but the money and prestige would be huge, so you never know…
LikeLike
agree on all points Frank. ND would be a great addition but they have to come to that as a decision they themselves are happy wit. and that doesn’t appear imminent.
I like Boston College as well but keep getting told their fan base is too small.
Miami just strikes me as too far off unless there is a 4 pack of ACC schools (Maryland, Viriginia, Georgia Tech and Miami). I just don’t see that happening soon.
at this point as much as I’d love ND I’m happy with adding Nebraska and just getting that squared away. then see what happens with ND going forward.
LikeLike
ND is in a catch-22. The pro-independence faction won’t go for conference membership unless the school’s performance falls. Only when the pain is too great will they concede. At that point, their negotiating position is so weak they will have to take whatever deal is offered (ACC, BEast or B10).
Swarbrick is in a no win situation (if you believe that conference affiliation will eventually be a must to maintain relevance) — if he moves from a position of strength (when ND is successful), the pro-independence crowd will pillory him and fight it. If he waits for a decline (when Comcast-Universal kicks them to Versus or when the BCS ends ND’s special status), he will be pilloried for waiting too long and accepting a bad conference deal.
If Kelly gets the program back on track, the smart move is to use that success to leverage a favorable deal. Of course, if Kelly starts winning the pressure will be on to stay independent.
Swarbrick has a very challenging political dilemma on his hands.
Just like with Texas, there is a profitable destination in sight — getting to that destination is very difficult.
LikeLike
No, as long as Swarbrick maintains independence, he’ll be OK for the vast majority of Domers.
Of course, we also strongly doubt that joining any conference generally, or the Big Ten particularly will end well, so there’s that.
We’ve also seen no indication from the NDPTB that they want to move in that direction.
And, since the Big Ten does not believe in giving favorable deals, there’s no point in trying to sell high with them.
LikeLike
Frank, I can’t imagine two worse additions to the BT than Miami and BC. Even GT, which would be a terrible addition, would be much better than those two. Adding Miami and BC would be the beginning of the end for the BT as a viable conference.
If ND came to the BT tomorrow and said “We’ll join the BT today, but only if you add BC and Miami”, I would hope the BT would have the good sense to tell them to take a hike.
It amazes me how few on this blog have grasped that geography, fit, and tradition are still major factors in college football. The evidence is smacking all of you in the face.
Why else would OK and A&M stay in the Texas Ten when all logic would have them going to the SEC? How much did we hear of the tradition element there? Why else would the BT balk at TT when it might get TX and A&M? (wasn’t going to happen, but you get the point)
Why else would the BT worry so much about integrating NEB instead of immediately pursuing #s 13 and 14?
CU leaves for the better fit of the PAC 10.
Yes, NEB leaves for the Big 10, but mostly because of the overwhelming dominance of TX. I read countless posts on the NEB forum to the effect that they loved being in the Big 8, but never felt the same about the Big 12. If any of you saw Harvey and Tom’s PC, you know that NEB would have stayed with the Big 12 if they had had any hope of long-term accomodation/stability with TX.
Now a lot of you have MD coming to the Big 10. Why would MD leave the ACC? We are told they resent UNC.
How difficult was it for NEB, which only had 14 years with the Big 12, and whose fans hate TX’s guts, to leave the Big 12? Pretty damn tough. Now contrast MD and Neb:
Is the ACC unstable? No.
Does the approach of the NC schools to MD in any way approach the screw job TX was willing to put on Neb? No.
Isn’t basketball #1 with MD anyway? Yes. Their bball rivalries with Duke and UNC are #1.
Wasn’t MD a charter member of the ACC? Yes, as far as I know.
Take TX out of the Big 12 equation and throw in Arkansas. Would Neb have left for the BT? No.
If MD goes to the BT, wouldn’t they then be in the shadow of PSU, UM, OSU, and Neb? Yes. It’s not like MD would be seen as a power in the BT. In fact, their influence would be considerably more in the ACC than in the BT.
Md’s not going to win championships in the BT in football or basketball. Hell, I think PSU beat them 30 years in a row in FB when they were still playing. If they came to the BT, and finished in the middle of the pack every year, how long would it be before their fans start pining for the ACC? Not long.
MD to the Big 10 won’t happen, and it’s not a great idea anyway. We should recruit schools that genuinely want to be in the BT, not schools where the adm and fans are split 50-50. That’s a recipe for trouble later on.
Post of the day, if I do say so myself…………..
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – I agree generally with the point that the ACC isn’t unstable (and I’ve repeated many times that I think the ACC is much stronger than people give them credit for). However, there is a balance between who wants to join the Big Ten (which is a very long list of schools) versus who actually brings a lot of value to the Big Ten (which is a very short list of schools). If we threw out every single school that wouldn’t have at least some reservations about leaving their current situations, then we’d only be adding MAC schools. The point about Nebraska could easily be stated about how motivated the Big East schools would be to move if they still had Miami or had Penn State as a fellow member. That’s the issue – that’s not the reality, so schools that aren’t in perfect situations (or alternatively, aren’t in completely horrendous situations where they 100% have no choice but to leave) have to balance issues on both sides of the ledger.
Schools that are worth adding are going to be harder to get – that’s just part of the process. It takes time to build up support for a move, too. If you had asked Nebraska fans back in December when the Big Ten announced that it was looking at expansion whether they wanted to move, a majority likely would’ve answered negatively. That changed drastically by the time expansion actually happened once they got past the emotional history and rivalry aspect of it and learned about the various athletic, academic and financial benefits. If a school like Maryland already has a knee-jerk 50% support for a move (and the other 50% is largely based on being able to play Duke and UNC in basketball, neither of whom actually reciprocates any feelings of a rivalry whatsoever), then that’s actually a very strong base to start from to where, if the Big Ten chose to pursue this path, you could probably get an overwhelming majority of support for it 6 months from now once the alumni/fan population gets educated on how much more the Big Ten is offering (just as it occurred with Nebraska). That’s not to say that the Big Ten will actually add Maryland, but the conference is doing itself a disservice if it’s just going to add schools that are throwing themselves to Jim Delany. We shouldn’t captiulate to demands like Texas was apparently asking for (i.e. own TV network, annexing schools like Texas Tech that clearly weren’t Big Ten material), but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be seeking out the best candidates even if they are comfortable where they are today.
LikeLike
Exactly. Geography, fit, and tradition matter a whole lot.
LikeLike
Nebraska fans neither struggled nor hesitated nor had to be convinced of the Big Ten move, it was like falling off a log.
If the benefits had been a wash, the situation in the Big 12 had become untenable politically, as Nebraska had no voice in the conference, and we still would have benefited from a fresh start. The stark differences in economic benefits meant we could just forgo any doomed attempt at reconciliation with the Big 12 which would have left our spot open for others to take.
Given all that, the geographic fit and being part of a cold weather conference is icing on the cake. The fact that it was the only real option other than the Big 12 helps also, as was said, Miami is out way out on the south 40 no matter what conference they inhabit, unless a Florida conference takes shape someday. They are used to free agency where Nebraska was an either/or proposition.
LikeLike
I like this a lot. Though, I’d prefer to switch Rutgers for Maryland, it’s still makes for a solid conference.
LikeLike
Oh, and you’d need to strengthen Pod C. It is way to weak compared to the other pods, especially Pod B. You’d have to stick Penn State in C and place Indian in Pod B. You’d also have to have premanent out-of-division rivals (a regular and a back-up for when the rival is in the paired division pod). That way Indiana would still play Purdue every year.
LikeLike
That could work too.
Other than IU, there is hope for all teams in Pod C to improve.
Since pod C would be only half a division, then it would always be paired up with some stronger teams. The weakest combination would be when A and C are paired together, but that might be what it would take to get ND into a CCG (to face the champion of the very tough B-D division).
Putting aside all of the details, I think it makes sense to go to 16 by creating an entirely new pod including some southern/eastern schools. Contenders apart from ND would be Miami, Georgia Tech, Vanderbilt, Maryland, Virginia, Va Tech, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt and BC.
Even without ND, I think it would be a good idea to try to add Rutgers and Miami to get to 14. If ND is not interested, then Georgia Tech and Maryland would make a good 15 and 16. Maybe even Virginia too, but I don’t see them leaving the ACC. Putting the new southern/eastern teams into a pod together would alleviate some of the geographic issues.
LikeLike
Oddly, I have no objection with those four additions. Carry on.
LikeLike
It’s like the kind of scenario that starts to grow on you after a while…
LikeLike
Finally we’ve broken Zeek out of the Big Ten Footprint!
Yip, Yip Yahoooooooo!
LikeLike
Go with 27 teams in 9 pods of 3 schools each. That would give us an I pod…
LikeLike
Paul Great Post!
Back when things started going south with Texas [so to speak] this notion, and almost that exact pod scheme came to my mind too. The only thing I had different was I had Syracuse in instead of BC because they are AAU and BC is not, but when I went back and looked at the Carnegie Rankings both schools research profiles are near identical Syracuse is a tick above 40 million, BC is a tick below 40 million, so I guess if Syracuse could work then if it made Notre Dame Happy you could probably slide BC in there like you said.
As you say makes a too much sense not to happen, so since I have been going over this in my head now for a week or 2 and I seem to have found a kindred spirit with the wild notion I am going to threw some more info on this matter just for food for thought.
First reading threw some of the comment to your post would like to address a few of those.
1) Frank Said Miami has the feel of a northern city, and someone took issue with that. I would agree Miami is NOT a Northern City, but I think frank just misspoke and meant the “school” feels more like a northern/eastern school because of the alumni, at least that is my take.
2) I would like to point out that I realize this configuration nor really any configuration would be expectable to the Notre Dame Fans. Their views have been well documented of the last few months and even if I do not totally agree with them after being on this blog I have a better understanding of where a lot of them are coming from; however it is not really germane to the hypothetical because all that really matters is would this be enough to persuade the decision makers in south bend. Would it be enough? Who knows, that is what we are discussing isn’t it.
2A) Just like the Irish Fans there is a certain segment of the Big Ten faithful that feel Notre Dame should not be given special treatment, their not a good fit, would not be a good member, and so on. Again those point of views have been well documented may have some valid points and are not relevant to this hypothetical because all that really matters is do the Big Ten Fathers want Notre Dame? It appears they do, so this is something they might offer.
3) In regard to the Indiana Illinois pod being weak, since the pods rotate anyway I do not see it being a real problem, no matter what pod you put those four schools in they are going to be on the low end of the competition factor. I feel it is better not to over think these things and end up with some convoluted ACC Style hodge-podge of pods or divisions for the sake of competitive balance. Look at Michigan who would have thought they would be this down for this long, if the big ten would have expanded in 2000 and split the two powers up what would the competitive balance look like now. Schools go up and down, better just to keep the rivals in place.
Also I will offer this; those for school are all capable of having one of those once in 10 years seasons, but not all at once. In one of those one in then years for NW or IL wouldn’t they want 3 other in conference cupcakes guaranteed on the schedule? A Red Hot NW could get 3 easy conference wins get 4 wins OOC and they only need 1 upset and they are already at 8 wins and probably guarantied a 2 million dollar payout in the Champ Sports Bowl at least. Just my line of thinking on that any way.
Now as for the teams mentioned just some very rough number to play around with. Below are some population and TV figures if certain schools were to be added. These numbers are from Nelson DMA Rankings, and from the last U.S. census
If the Big Ten where to add:
ND/MIA/SRY/RT = 46.7 million population & 22.5 million TV households
ND/MIA/BC/RT = 33.8 million population & 23.1 million TV households
ND/MIA/BC+/RT = 41.6 million population & 25.1 million TV households
+ = if the big ten could grab the entire New England Region, this number includes those TV markets and population as well, not just Massachusetts.
If ND still said now and the BT was wanted to go ahead anyway with this configuration
SRY/MIA/BC/RT = 53.3 million population & 25.9 million TV households
SRY/MIA/BC+/RT = 61.2 million population & 27.8 million TV households
And if the Northwesters and Wisconsin of the world balked at those schools without Notre Dame, I was also kicking around the notion of the “Revenge of the Nerds Conference” A lot of people seem to like Maryland but do not think you would come alone, well what if the Big Ten tried to go after Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Duke. That is the academic heart and soul of the ACC all are AAU members all are monster research schools save for Virginia but they are consider a public Ivory and Thomas Jefferson’s School no way the do not past the smell test. All those schools more or less consider each other their biggest/best longest rivalries. They are a ready made southern POD, do not increase travel to a great degree for the other BT members, are geographically contiguous. Will make compelling regional content for BTN, and bring in markets like Baltimore, DC, Charlotte and Richmond. The BT gets into the sunbelt but does not have to jump 3 states or try to grab away a school from the biggest competitor. None would be considered perennial National Football powers, but all are competitive enough to not stink up the joint [except Duke 😉 ], and they will not upset the apple carts of the conference powers tOSU, PS, UM and now UNL. Also with these schools the BT would not being making the conference a shark tank, we would not have to eat are young, so schools like MSU, Iowa and UW can still develop and continue get better.
One drawback would be that you are adding a block of schools [see big 12, pac-16] but these all seem like very like minded institutions so maybe the gamble might be worth it? But at any rate if the Revenge of the Nerds Conference was pursued it would add 23.5 million to the footprint and around 9.7 million TV sets.
So there. Discus amongst yourselves…. And if anyone nit picks a typo in all that I’m throwing my key board out the window! 😉
Cheers-
LikeLike
I could see the ACC foursome going into as a package — but it would help political expediency if Virginia Tech and N.C. State were simultaneously accepted into the SEC (something Slive might agree to in order to get a foothold in Va/NC, though he’d prefer UNC to State). Wake has a relatively small constituency and really has no in-state political clout, unlike its Baptist sibling in Waco.
LikeLike
@Vincent
Good points, and I thought the same thing. If the Big Ten invited those 4 schools, I do think we would get a political pissing match in Virgin, and North Carolina. But it would be resolved by the SEC. I do not think the SEC would be outright cooperating with the Big Ten, but after getting shutout in Texas, if their biggest rival made overtures at four schools below the Mason-Dixon Line my opinion is the SEC would go into “I have the biggest d!ck mode” and grab NCS & VA Tech just to have a presence in every southern state other than Maryland.
And yes Wake would be playing the part of Baylor in all of this, But if the SEC grabs 4 ACC schools and the Big Ten does likewise, the remaining 4 orphans could still end up in a pretty stout post split 12 team Big East. Then no one is really kicked out of the BCS Club. This might satisfy the Illuminati or Free Masons or what every secret origination really runs college football that stepped in on the behalf of the Texas-10. 😉
Cheers-
LikeLike
It might be easier now for the Big Ten, SEC and Big East to divy up the ACC, especially since Texas has shown it can’t be trusted and Notre Dame still thinks it’s bigger than the game. Each of the above three conferences would get something out of the deal:
* The Big Ten gets four high-profile institutions that complement its academic and research functions, add depth to its football roster (especially if Cutliffe continues improving Duke), and gets three top-tier men’s basketball programs that have won five of the past 10 NCAA titles. It also becomes the dominant player in the mid-Atlantic region.
* The SEC gets Virginia Tech, N.C. State and two of the three from Clemson, Florida State and Georgia Tech. At least three very good football programs there, and the SEC would also hope that its brand could make NCSU the dominant program in NC.
* The Big East gets Boston College and Miami back, plus Wake Forest and the third team from Clem/FSU/GT. You now have enough teams for a conference title game without having to dip into a lower tier of potential members.
Yes, this would mean the Big Ten has essentially given up on the NYC market, but is it all that strong for college sports to begin with? The ACC certainly didn’t get much of a payoff in New England from adding Boston College.
LikeLike
Thanks for the initial analysis, including the numbers discussing what an expansion of the conference would look like without Notre Dame.
One thing that stands out in this entire process is how the members of a well-functioning conference have to fit in tems of their organizational goals, etc. The new Big Twelve Lite has been described as dysfunctional on this and many other boards with the expectation that it will have a short shelf-life with Texas driving the agenda.
Does it really make sense for the Big Ten to continue pursuing Notre Dame? I throw out this question because ND has a diva quality around it coupled with a decades long perception of itself and how it approaches collegiate sports. Could Notre Dame really “fit” into the Big Ten conference?
Obviously, there have been major indepedents in the past who have joined conferences–Penn State comes immediately to mind (I think Miami as well). But those programs largely wanted to join a confernce setup without special concessions. Does the same hold true for Notre Dame?
I don’t want to discount Notre Dame’s allure in all this. If you were to ask a sports fan from the northeast who their “default” college team was, I’m sure the majority would say Notre Dame. That extends from Boston to New York, Philadelphia, Baltimre and Washington, DC. I’m sure the revenue projections for Notre Dame would be very high–but is it worth the potential headache? After 1999, I simply cannot see the Big Ten making any major concessions to Notre Dame in terms of scheduling, revenue, etc.
I don’t think this expansion saga is over for the Big Ten. At the minimum, the conference still has roughly a year to complete its expansion study–long before the next series of television rights negotiations. It also allows the conference to sit in a position of relative strength and to see how things work themselves out.
But Jim Delany has also spoken about moving in stages and I can also see the conference moving to 14 members by the end of that time period as well. It might be caused by external factors or it simply may be the result of the analysis his office is undertaking with the endorsement of the university presidents.
My best guess is that the Big Ten Conference invites two more members between now and the next twelve months. I have to imagine those programs would be relatively near major metropolitan areas, possibly with the idea of having a presence along the entire northeastern corridor–Boston College, Rutgers (NY/NJ), Pittsburgh (although not likely due to lack of geographic footpring), Maryland (DC/Baltimore). Georgia Tech (Atlanta), and Miami-Florida make sense in terms of metropolitan areas, but they’re outside the northeast corridor. Syracuse and Connecticut would perhaps be out of the picture because they’re geographically outside of the major metro areas.
How would a combination of Boston College, Rutgers, Maryland and one other school (Miami? Georgia Tech? Pittsburgh?) look? Would the Big 10 plus 6 capture the northeast corridor and become a “national” conference with those additions? Or is Notre Dame an absolute prerequisite on any scenario going forward?
LikeLike
It’s just always been hard to see Delany as the commissioner taking the Big Ten to 16 without Notre Dame since he’s always seen it as his white whale.
You’re right though that he is probably looking very hard at going to 14 and probably hardest at Maryland/Rutgers/Syracuse. Those three schools make the most sense in a move up to 14 (2 of the 3)…
LikeLike
@cutter – I think ND is a prerequisite for a 16-school Big Ten, but not necessarily for a 14-school Big Ten. However, the issue is that schools #13 and #14 are going to have higher financial thresholds to cross than Nebraska because they don’t have the benefit of automatically boosting conference revenue with the creation of a conference championship game. It works if the Big Ten can absolutely without a doubt add the NYC market, but that’s the toughest nut to crack out of all of this.
LikeLike
@Cutter
I get your view on Notre Dame, like I said in my post for better or worse the Big Ten leadership seems to be fixated on Notre Dame. Personally I am fine if ND joins tomorrow or stays independent till triumphs sound. There are pros and cons to both paths the Big ten could take.
Get ND and a bunch of private schools they change the academic brand of the conference, but get huge markets and 2 national brands. I will say however I do not think bending to take Miami & BC to get ND is same as taking TT & OSU/Baylor to get Texas.
The ACC block of 4 is not as sexy a pick not has many big markets and you have no foothold in one of the big 3 recruiting state [CA, TX, FL] but it my be much more harmonious in the long run.
Also I Think The shifting demographics thing can be overplayed a bit. People have been saying the Rustbelt is dying ever since I was a kid [I am 31] But we still have people up here. Is the population shifting absolutely, but to think OH, IL, PA, etc will be Wyoming in 30 years is disingenuous.
Also the whole ND diva thing I think can tend to be overplayed a little, a lot of people say tOSU is a diva, but in 95% of conference matters I think they are a team player. If ND did join the big ten their would be no living with their fans for the next 50 years 😉 but I don’t think their leadership would vote to join the conference just to argue with us on every little thing for the next 100 year; but then again if you look back at a lot of the sentiment that was coming out of Austin when they where considering the Big Ten some reports had them saying things like “they needed someone in their corner” “someone that would have their back” “that would go to war with them”. The reports may not have been 100% accurate, but maybe some schools do view being in a conference like that? If that is the case those schools are not for the Big Ten.
Personally I have my doubts ND would ever join any conference. I think they will still be able to carve out a nitch even among super conferences. Even if the Big East blows up I wonder if ND could not just move all their other sport to C-USA. Is it the Big East not by a long shot, but there are enough decently funded schools to make it competitive for the non revenue sports and C-USA has AQ status for the NCAA Tournament. If all ND would have to do is play 3 C-USA Schools a year and still keep the 7 perennial rivals and have 2 more games to play with, is this out of the realm of possibility for ND? Maybe Not.
And for what it is worth I think it is unlikely the Big Ten would take Syracuse, BC or Miami with out ND but you never know we almost had a PAC-16.
Cheers-
LikeLike
At this point I would add RU and Pitt, and call it a day.
Get back to ND in 5 years.
LikeLike
I see a couple problems here.
First, I don’t see any of these schools being “Big Ten material” on their own except Rutgers. Second, I don’t see ND sticking their necks out for any of these schools. Miami and BC both left the Big East in 2003, which apparently almost killed the league. Rutgers couldn’t come to an agreement to play ND because they refused to move the games to the Meadowlands.
FYI, all you pro-RU folks on here, they refused to move games with ND to the Meadowlands that are going to be sell-outs to play them in their 55K seat on-campus facility. If you think you can get them to move the games to Yankee stadium or the Meadowlands for Michigan, OSU, and Penn St., you got another think coming. Make sure you get that agreement in writing before sending the invite, just saying.
Finally, I don’t know how great of connections the NDPTB have with any of these schools. The relationship with Rutgers had to have cooled at least a little after they decided to go public with their annoyance that ND wanted to play in the bigger house. Apparently relations with Miami are warming because we are working if not already inking a deal with them for a resumption of the series. But I don’t know if that’s enough to make it so they’ll be linked come negotiation time. I don’t know how much has passed under the bridge since 2003. The NDPTB are more pro-Big East than the student body, FWIW. Whatever problems ND has with the U from the 2003 raid they have also with BC. Despite what a lot of folks think, ND and BC aren’t close. BC is mad (last I heard) about ND not scheduling them, and the C.S.C. priests that run ND have a bit of a rivalry with the Jesuits.
I don’t see this making a lot of sense.
LikeLike
If you are a representative ND fan, which seems likely, then I agree that my idea of creating a geographically diverse fourth pod of new-to-the-Big-Ten Notre Dame rivals will not be enough to entice the Irish.
It will take something drastic to force ND into the Big Ten–reluctantly–which is not likely to work out well for either side.
I wonder if adding just Miami and Georgia Tech makes any sense. It would get the Big Ten into two growing Southern states and put one more big brand name team into the mix (plus Ga Tech has some good college football history).
The other 2-team expansions that make some sense to me are Rutgers-Pitt and Maryland-Virginia (which probably will never happen).
LikeLike
FLP: Rutgers refused to give in tp the ND demands to move a game to Meadowlands. They have a recently expanded and upgraded stadium and training facility, home games are very valuable. The terms ND DEMANDED (unequal tickets, unequal revenue, etc) were outrageous and made it a money losing situation compared to a home game at Rutgers Stadium. In addition, it included an unbalanced home/away series. All in all Rutgers had enough of the power play and didn’t kiss the ring/ass.
I am sure that as a member of the Big Ten they would have no problems moving games to the New Meadowlands or Yankee Stadium as those schools like OSU, Michigan, Nebraska, PSU won’t act like pricks in the negotiations. Michigan has a very fair series coming up with UConn. The relationship has cooled with ND because we put our foot down and will not put up with their crap anymore. Spin it all you want, ND is a pain in the ass prima donna. The Big Ten doesn’t need that crap.
LikeLike
FLP: please excuse my temper and language. It’s not personal. Just want the Rutgers side of the story out there. Peace
LikeLike
No offense taken, Rick.
LikeLike
Rick, I don’t see moving in conference Big Ten games to the Meadowlands as an issue for Rutgers due to the Big Ten’s gate sharing program, etc.
LikeLike
Rutgers has already agreed to play at least one of their Big Ten home games in the Meadowlands if they are invited.
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox
I had heard before that ND did not have a whole lot of love for BC, which is another reason why I original was throwing Syracuse around in this hypothetical. And I also agree with your point on Rutgers both about ND having no real need or want to play them, and about us Big Ten folks getting jazzed about all these neutral site games at Meadowland Stadium. Rutgers did not want a NSG with ND they probably won’t want them with PSU, tOSU, UM, etc. Especially after they just got done pumping millions into their stadium.
Your also right that the only reason BC would be taken would be to whoo ND. Miami probably only comes with ND too, but I think they would be more acceptable in the eyes of the BT than either Cuse or BC
better research profile, good state, national brand in football and I do believe they are chasing AAU membership. And FWIW I believe they are the most get-able school from the ACC, some may view them as disloyal or what have you [i would not be one], but if you look at Miami’s history everything they have done in regard to the sports program and conference affiliation is to strengthen the schools national perception both athletically and academically. Joining the Big East was seen as a step up from independence both athletically and academically at a time when the age of power independents was coming to and end. Moving to the ACC was seen as an upgrade both athletically and academically from the Big East. And now the one could argue if Miami was offered to join the Big Ten with ND it would also be a upgrade both athletically and academically. They have no strong ties to any of the ACC Schools at least to any large degree. And they already put every one of the sports teams on a plan for every road game they have, and they would do so no matter what conference they are in even the SEC. Miami is closer to every city in Cuba, than almost every city in America; like Notre Dame travel means nothing to them.
After Thinking about some more I was reflecting on one of the previous rumors that had ND at least listing to the Big Ten if they could land UT stay at 14 and make the ND/UT game a protected rivalry. If it is true the interest was at least peaked, then maybe ND would rather just come in with Miami as #13 & #14 and make that a protected rivalry. Keep USC OOC and end the season at either USC or Miami each year ND gets to end their season in a warm climate against another national brand private school.
If the Big Ten still wants into NYC they might be better off just negotiating with ND a deal where say ND gets 4 conference home games a year and one of their conference road games would be a neutral site game in Meadowland/Yankee Stadium in New York. The BT could treat it like a mid season bowl game get a fat corporate sponsor “AT&T Present the Big Ten Gotham Classic” “Big Ten in The Big Apple presented by Apple Computers” etc. Each Team gets a 2 million dollar payout, say another million or two go into the conference coffers, split the gate, both schools alumni get a nice road trip and boom there’s your Big Ten toe hold in the New York market.
ND would then by joining the “Big 10 4” conceivable be getting: 8 home games a year, a yearly prime time NSG in NYC against another national brand name school. A Game in LA ever other year, a game in Florida every other year. Would only have to play 3 road games in the Midwest, would still have 2 other OOC games to work with [3 if the Big Ten could lobby the NCAA for 1 more regular season game], Membership in the CIC, expedited equity ownership in a TV Network, 12 AAU members sponsoring their bid for AAU membership, 25-30 million dollars in TV money if not more, If they keep the OOC game with Navy they can probably have a Second NSG every 3rd year as well, heck maybe when the BT is negotiating the new TV deal they work it so ND is guaranteed 6 of their 8 Home games a year are on ABC with options for the other 2.
That would be a lot to consider on NDs part; and all of that I think would be viewed as reasonable concessions by the BT. I also think that is about all the Big Ten could ever offer ND. And in my personal opinions I would still say their is a better than 80% chance ND Turns that deal down. Que Sera Sera! 😉
Cheers-
LikeLike
I see it’s been mentioned below, but I’ll mention it again. The only reason the Rutgers-ND six-game series (to begin in 2010) did not come off is because ND demanded the Rutgers ‘home’ games be at the Meadowlands and that ND would take half the gate. I understand they also wanted half of the tickets (and luxury boxes) as well. When Rutgers stood firm and insisted it be a true home and home series, ND walked away. I hear that it was also proposed to ND that if they agreed to play their home games in Soldiers Field with the same gate/tickets split, Rutgers would agree to the terms for the Meadowlands games.
LikeLike
I can’t believe any of you would take the idea of Miami seriously. A small school, private, very far away, without a stadium, no fan support, and a football program most commonly associated with criminal behavior.
Boy, that screams Big Ten, doesn’t it.
LikeLike
Well, maybe the criminal behavior part.
LikeLike
Miami has improved things quite a bit in the last few years. Their graduation rates and APR are excellent. The admins and coaching staff have really changed the culture. It’s a bad rap that is being perpetuated unfairly these days.
LikeLike
I disagree that Miami has no fan support. I think they are a pretty popular brand.
Here are the number of fans with profiles at CBS Sportsline. It is probably a good approximation of fan support/popularity (at least amongst the fantasy football playing segment of the population):
1. Ohio State (13,062 Fans)
2. Notre Dame (12,255 Fans)
3. Michigan (11,665 Fans)
4. Penn State (9,221 Fans)
5. Florida (8,058 Fans)
6. Texas (6,658 Fans)
7. Wisconsin (6,461 Fans)
8. USC (6,122 Fans)
9. Miami (5,471 Fans)
10. Florida State (4,243 Fans)
Big Ten does pretty well with 1, 3, 4, and 7.
LikeLike
But they can’t draw 50k to the games.
Click to access 2009.pdf
LikeLike
I take the Miami idea so unseriously that I haven’t bothered to respond to any of the Miami proposals. Just not going to happen. Miami/BC/GT is a ridiculous concept. It’d be tough to come up with a more anti-B10 grouping. Maybe Rice/Cal Tech/Tokyo.
LikeLike
The University of Tokyo is #20 on the ARWU rankings (#1 in the Asia/Pacific region). They are based in Tokyo which boasts a population of over 13 million, and they actually have a football team. Seems like a no brainer to me. 😛
LikeLike
@Greg
Can’t speak for anyone else but my stuff was/is not meant as a proposal I was just offering some information on a possible hypothetical that is dependent on how bad the Big Ten wants ND. There are draw backs to those schools for sure, and that is why I think none of them come in without ND, even then who knows? It’s all just mental masturbation anyway. 😉
Cheers-
LikeLike
Rice is the key that unlocks it all. Sunbelt, great academics, great baseball, uh…not named Houston…Indiana would own them in football.
I got nothing else.
LikeLike
Hi. My name is Aeric. I am a college expnasion junkie.
I blame my dealer, Frank th eTank.
God bless you, sir.
LikeLike
adding… why not?
LikeLike
I just realized the biggest downer from all of the news of the last few days:
We can no longer rely upon TMZ for our sports news.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – I just loved the fact that it was Oklahoma State talking to TMZ. Stillwater just screams “Hollywood paparazzi”.
LikeLike
Re: TMZ N OSU
If Al Gore is landing Hollywood T&A, I guess we can’t rule out T. B….
LikeLike
Thinking back through the timeline, I’m starting to believe that this Pure Prairie League is intended only as a temporary marriage of convenience. If the numbers fall through or agreements can’t be reached, TX can always walk away. This gives the LSN time to incubate, while the P16 option gives TX major leverage when going into the BCS negotiations.
Recall that this all started with the B10+ deciding to explore expansion. TX at the time said it didn’t want to leave the B12. That makes sense with the LSN not yet executed. Maybe they took the call and had discussions, because it is only prudent to review major opportunities, but I don’t think TX initiated this.
Then NE, MO, and CO got antsy. The loss of the latter two could be dealt with, but NE might threaten B12 viability. So TX had no choice but to explore every option and create Plans B, C, and D. But looking back I do believe their statements that TX preferred to keep the B12, for now.
Then the P10 became unexpectedly aggressive, making almost their best offer right out of the gate. This had to take TX by surprise, blowing up the Horns timetable. So TX decided to seize the opportunity before it disappeared, take your 90% now and work the rest out later.
But it appears TX then got significant blowback from several angles, changing the evaluation equation, while aTm wouldn’t play ball. Perhaps not unexpectedly for either.
Timing is everything, and TX’s leverage should increase further as the west coast states take years to get a handle on their fiscal and political implosion risks. The next 12 months are riskier in Texas politics than afterward. Same for the national scene. So when notable pressure from multiple angles suggested tapping the brakes, and the P16 wasn’t giving in to the LSN, walking away made sense. Go back to the shell conference for a year or 3, while of course getting some type of pay increase in the interim.
Delany, the SEC, and ACC could change this, but otherwise I don’t expect TX to play the P16 card until whatever point in the BCS negotiations that Dodds finds it most advantageous. Remember his contract extension.
LikeLike
I should add that there is always the possibility that 12 schools becomes the optimum conference model for whatever replaces the BCS. Or Delany could make 20, as in 2×10, that model. Or 14. But my expectation is Delany will go to 16, the SEC will follow, a P16 will form and we’ll see 5×16 for the BCS or its replacement. Hence my expectation that the P16 is TX’s end game.
LikeLike
Playoffs,
I think this is something that we will have to see how things play out. The 16 team conference seems to be ideal for the B10+2 because they need footprint and tvs. The SEC has a different financial model that may be best at 12. If the B12 could have dropped 2 teams and the PAC 10 stayed at ten we could have seen a “super conference” made up of tw independent conferences that negotiate contracts independently with their own rules and now conference play except a CCG. The nine or 10 team conference may ultimately be optimal in the future paradigm.
LikeLike
That’s a pretty good summary of the situation.
And considering that Dodds/Powers now have a complete understanding of how desperate the Pac-10 is, they might easily be able to swing keeping the LSN if they join the Pac-16 later on along with some more unequal revenue sharing measures.
They already got a feel for how desperate the Pac-10 is to have UT in order to dramatically increase the payouts and bring the league into the central timezone instead of being entirely in the west coast. They’ll be able to keep that as their backup plan in the future no matter what happens with the Big 12-2, since UT is the only way the Pac-16 ever occurs…
LikeLike
“Bevo TV”.
That’s what it will be called. “Bevo TV”.
I learned that tonight in the oddest of ways: my in-laws were at a destination on their travels today and wound up chatting with a very friendly person who works directly for Someone Who Really, Really Matters at Texas. Having spoken with my inlaws about realignment (I married into a Pac 10 family) they were able to be conversant on the subject of the day and were able to get that detail along with a couple of other minor pieces of information about what was going down. (Nothing earth-shattering, just “hmmm” kinds of things.)
So: scratch “LSN” and replace with “Bevo TV”.
Carry on.
LikeLike
does that make the conference Bevo and the Buttheads?
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now! – Over/under for the life of the new Big 12: 4.5 years. This is about the time where the conference has to actually sit down and renegotiate its TV contracts (not just receive “assurances”).
LikeLike
Don’t have the link, but I seem to remember that UT has been talking to the Pac 10 for months? Then blew up the deal at the last hour trying to get additional concessions.
LikeLike
Texas, OU, OSU staying in Big 12
A source close to the Pac-10’s expansion negotiations told The Denver Post that Texas insisted on better revenue sharing and its own network, which essentially killed the deal.
“In the 11th hour, after months of telling us they understand the TV rights, they’re trying to pull a fast one on the verge of sealing the deal in the regents meeting,” the source said. “They want a better revenue sharing deal and their own network. Those were points of principle. (The Pac-10) wants to treat everyone fairly. It’s been that way for months of discussions.”
LikeLike
Texas was not in reactive mode, they were proactive. Nothing wrong with it, it just means that part of the story is hogwash should the penalties for CU and Nebraska get pushed into court.
LikeLike
@playoffsnow
I seem to be barking at the wind here, but it’s nice to hear someone else is thinking along my lines.
Until I hear the “Big 12” sitting down with ESPN/Fox/whomever and writing down deals OR the league forming new “exit penalties”, I’m not convinced this peace is permanent.
This could be the reprieve that Texas et al. need to assess their best deal.
I go back to where we all were two months ago, regarding financial situations. The pecking order is…
Big 10
small gap
SEC
large gap
Big 12
ACC
small gap
PAC10
Now, I think it’s changed…
Big 10
large gap
SEC
large gap
ACC
PAC10
small gap
Big 12
The largest slice of a tiny pie isn’t worth as much as an equal share of an enormous pie.
Texas, AM, and OU are at the table right now…but they haven’t picked up a fork. Don’t forget that Delaney’s timeline is now 1/3 over. Don’t you think that 12 more months is enough time to negotiate something better for Texas?
LikeLike
Yeah but its Texas’s pie. eh hm Texas’s pie!
LikeLike
Its curious to see you list the P10 w/ the ACC – and ahead of the UTen.
The ACC recently received a $155M/yr deal and the expected UTen deal (if UT/aTm/OU receive the $20M suggested while other receive $15ishM) will be around $165M/yr – for 10 teams. As of now the P10 has an existing deal of $58M/yr with a new deal coming from BLANK in 2012.
I still fear for the P10 and their yet to be determined nat’l tv deal, but feel that the ACC deal should at least be the target. I am very much hopeful that they start a PTN however so that they can enjoy those benefits a few year down the road.
LikeLike
The ACC deal is for TV rights (as far as we know), while the B12 deal is TV rights and a whole pile of hogshit, so its not apples to apples. B12 is giving up a lot more value.
LikeLike
The new Big 12 deal (if it ever comes to fruition) will be groundbreaking in college sports. As far as I know, never before has the elite of a conference make twice as much as the lowliest in the conference. This situation is very different from the ACC, where Wake Forest makes a similar amount as FSU. It’s even different from the SEC, where Florida makes a bit more than Vanderbilt. This is a groundwork that is being formed where three schools will make HUGE money and 7 schools will accept survival funds. That’s why I put the Big 12 below the ACC and PAC10 even.
I’m assuming the PAC10’s new deal (to be renegotiated this year!) with its new schools and markets should be worth similar money to the ACC.
LikeLike
Realignment Winners & Losers & The Texas Trinity
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/06/15/realignment-winners-losers-the-texas-trinity/
A good read, some solid snark. Loaded with hair triggers for the usual suspects.
Since I’m feeling like kicking ant hills, here’s a juicy excerpt:
If there’s anything funnier than Texas Women’s Athletic Director Chris Plonsky holding forth on the realignment conference call like a big cigar, bloated in self-regard – or even being present at all – it likely involves a banana peel positioned behind a fat Mexican man on a burro with a vaselined ass, and a sprinting Mark Mangino.
The irony was rich. In a call dedicated to explaining why we’re maximizing revenue generation at the expense of good times, a bureaucrat from a federally mandated money drain weighs in. Remind me again, Plonsky, how your tasked programs, which we invest enormous resources in and offer state of the art facilities, funded by football, are doing outside of volleyball? We support women’s athletics, but be thankful the scrutiny being visited on our men’s programs isn’t placed on your underachieving mix.
Get off the dole, clean up your own house, and show me some banners. Until then, DeLoss likes his coffee with Sweet N Lo.
LikeLike
A very good read of the whole situation. Obviously, I disagree on the Big Ten’s outcome in that I think Nebraska is more a play on the 2016 contract as opposed to purely a BTN play, but it was a fair take on the whole situation. The Big Ten did play a very conservative hand despite all the broad claims about the sun belt and massive speculation about going after ND/Texas which appeared to be a lot of smoke with little fire.
LikeLike
His characterization of UNL as a welfare case is a bit much. More like one of the universities (which he rightly stated has different interests than the Texas core of the conference) was making demands of UT. The danger is that if you give in to UNL, the small fish become empowered, and that’s not acceptable. So UT laid down the law, forcing the malcontents out (CU and UNL) or humbling them (Missou) before any real attempt at salvaging the conference.
LikeLike
Morning Folks….
A) IZZO STAYS!! (best news of yesterday)
B) IZZO STAYS!! (sounds so nice you say it twice)
C) Welcome Big Red!!
D) Fall Football Approaches
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/405508-2010-college-football-rankings-all-120-teams#page/1
Maybe delany and slive just need to man up and take control
#1 Bowl – Big 10 #1 vs SEC #1
#2 Bowl – Big 10 #2 vs SEC #2
#3 Bowl – Big 10 #3 vs SEC #3
#4 Bowl – Big 10 #4 vs SEC #4
ect.. ect.. ect..
let everybody else just play for the scraps (football is really the domain of these 2 anyway – top to bottom)
E) My favorite links from yesterday (as replies below)
LikeLike
post 1
http://www.mrsec.com/2010/06/who-controls-college-sports/
from mr sec
LikeLike
According to Orangebloods.com — a site that deserves a lot of credit for its coverage of the expansion game — reports that ESPN and Fox have bumped the Big 12’s television revenue from about $78 million (with 12 teams) to nearly $200 million (with 10 teams).
comedy gold Jerry, comedy gold
LikeLike
Nice “reporting” there Chip.
LikeLike
post 2
Click to access colorado.pdf
Frank, If i am Beebe, and this is the best I can do, wow.
LikeLike
post 3
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/06/15/realignment-winners-losers-the-texas-trinity/
welcome to the Longhorn Conference, leave your balls at our door.
LikeLike
post 4
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/140047
“tax exempt status” – 3 biggest words in conference realignment talks
LikeLike
“tax exempt status” – 3 biggest words in conference realignment talks
I agree duffman and I’d add the next four biggest are state level university funding.
There is a simple mathematical statement in play here too; 8+12+12+12+10+12+1 > 4×16.
LikeLike
john,
agreed, excellent point could this be part of the “mystery cabal” that helped push the deal through?
LikeLike
post 4
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/140047
“tax exempt status” – 3 biggest words in conference realignment talks
LikeLike
sorry to duplicate, screwed up cut and paste
🙂
LikeLike
SIAP
A realignment winners/losers discussion without mentioning either the Big Ten or Nebraska? Did I miss something? ESPN sucks.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/23241/video-realignment-winners-and-losers
LikeLike
Why doesn’t this surprise me considering that they’ve been of no help during this entire process.
LikeLike
Yeah, I actually watched that on TV and kept waiting for Nebraska and the Big Ten to come up. I mean, in my opinion Nebraska is the team that “won” the most of all this and they weren’t even mentioned.
LikeLike
You have to wonder about the propriety of ESPN’s reporting/coverage of the expansion process given that it cooked up a deal that was designed to keep the Big XII alive. It’s one thing to report on college football in a way that might be designed subtly to influence things like rankings, etc., but it’s a whole other thing to try to so directly to insert yourself and influence things.
LikeLike
absolutely agree. ESPN appears to have acted to forestall Texas going to a larger conference oriented television network and taking content and equity from the ususal outlets. A one school university network like the Lone Star Network is not a threat because it will never have sufficiently broad content to get on multiple states. it will be pretty much exclusively in Texas. that will generate good revenue for UT but never be able to compete for the broadcast rights to Texas football games. ESPN acted to stop that and keep content available to them. THey will never report that.
LikeLike
They talked about The MWC, Utah, Boise State, the Big IIX, Dan BeeBe. Larry Scott and the SEC.
No Big Ten, no Nebraska. I guess they did us a favor by not putting us in the loser column. Total BullS&*t!
LikeLike
LOL, we just got another Aggie sideshow they’re so famous for.
(cough, allegedly, cough) Some jerk sent aTm Bill Byrne a nasty email threatening to quit buying tickets and used a vulgar image. (cough, allegedly, cough) Byrne stupidly calls the guy and leaves a voice mail and his dept’s phone number, saying he wants to talk to him directly and the guy deserves to get his ass kicked.
Of course that gold was quickly posted to the internet and youtube. With Aggie nation still seething, the dept phone will be ringing continuously with pro-SEC messages until they get a new number.
[audio src="http://www.suspectclothing.com/gigem/billbyrne.m4a" /]
LikeLike
Wow, that’s awesome.
LikeLike
Unbelievable. Man it really is different in Texas.
LikeLike
ESPN is reporting that Utah will accept an invite to the Pac 10…..what happens with the MWC now? Do they try to get to 12 teams and a championship game for the extra revenue or do they stand pat at 9? What are thier options? Fresno St, Houston, and maybe Tulsa? I’m not sure if they deserve AQ status without Utah and if they can’t get AQ status, then why not try and pump extra revenue in with a championship game? I’m anxious to see how that Utah/Colorado rivalry could develop….
LikeLike
well adding Boise State while losing Utah probably keeps them in pretty much the same territory for competitiveness…. at least in football.
of the possible adds I like Fresno State. Houston and Tulsa work as well.
LikeLike
Forget Tulsa, MWC should go with Fresno, UHou, and SMU, though they probably should wait until after the BCS AQ evaluation period is finished. SMU is coming on strong with June Jones and they were previously a BCS-caliber program (the best team in the country for the 1982-3 season.) They had the support and donors before the death penalty, elevation to a BCS-caliber conference would bring that back out.
But more importantly, their best financial move is to get as many quality teams as possible in California and Texas. Currently there are 3 available: Fresno, UHou, and SMU. None of TCU, SMU, and UH carry their markets, but an accumulation of niche programs could reach critical mass. Having both TCU and SMU would carry weight in the large DFW market.
Tulsa may have a decent program and be in a similar position in Oklahoma as any single available Texas school, but Tulsa’s market is a fraction of DFW and Houston’s.
LikeLike
1)Houston is number one. IN fact Houston is ahead of Utah in how they figure out the BCS crap, though don’t ask me how.
2)Fresno St would be 2nd.
3)….get’s tougher, either Nevada-reno or UTEP
I’m so glad my other school (Colorado State) is in a growing conference, that can lose one of it’s marquee schools, and still be strong unlike the Big 12.
LikeLike
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094753
…Sunday, June 13…Texas was really starting to feel queasy now, sources said. UT officials knew deep down Texas A&M wasn’t coming to the Pac-10, despite Bill Byrne’s assurances, according to sources. And now Scott and Weiberg were looking to dump Oklahoma State in favor of Kansas. If A&M was a no-show, the Pac-10 would add Utah. Scott was looking to add new TV markets, not stick to the deal that was agreed upon a few days earlier.
According to sources who talked to me Tuesday (two days after the fact), Dodds and Plonsky couldn’t stop thinking about all the negatives. And now they were dealing with a wheeler-dealer Pac-10 commissioner who wanted to sub out Boone Pickens’ Cowboys for the chance to grab new households in Kansas, Missouri and middle America.
Dodds had given Oklahoma State his word they would be part of the group headed west. Now, the Pac-10 wanted to do some late rearranging. Dodds didn’t feel good about it, sources said Tuesday. Now, Dodds and Plonsky had to convince Powers that the Beebe Plan was the best plan…
LikeLike
no doubt there was negotiting on both sides. Dodds referring to someone else as a wheeler dealer is a bit humorous.
and from a markets perspective we all thought adding teams with additional markets made more sense than Oklahoma State and the second tier Texas schools in the Big 12. The subtle implication that Dodds was being altruistic in preferring OSU is a bit much. Power and schools dependant on Texas’ goodwill was likely more the point.
LikeLike
No, TX felt OK St had to be included because otherwise OU might go to the SEC.
LikeLike
So not one little bit of the deal falling apart was Texas’s fault apparently…gotcha Chip. Though I can see Texas valuing keeping A&M in the fold over doing the deal.
It would also be nice to explain how he keeps coming up with $15 – 20 million as the number that CU is going to owe. Revenue distributions for the last 2 years have been 8 -9 million and from what I’ve seen of the bylaws if we leave after next year we’d lose at most 80% of that number, you can’t count what the Little 5 schools are going to make after we leave as the number and the league isn’t getting any new money. Plus NU, bless their tight-fisted, financially sensible mid-western hearts, is arguing that CU and NU don’t owe a dime after Beebe’s claim that the league will make more money with us gone, so there aren’t any damages to make whole.
LikeLike
right, God bless Harvey Perlman and his shrunken lawyer’s heart but he got right to the point on damages. the language apparently is liquidated damages. my parent raised me right so I avoided law school but the wiki definition of liquidated damages includes the paragraph At common law, a liquidated damages clause will not be enforced if its purpose is to punish the wrongdoer/party in breach rather than to compensate the injured party (in which case it is referred to as a penal or penalty clause). One reason for this is that the enforcement of the term would, in effect, require an equitable order of specific performance. However, courts sitting in equity will seek to achieve a fair result and will not enforce a term that will lead to the unjust enrichment of the enforcing party. also the amount of the damages identified must roughly approximate the damages likely to fall upon the party seeking the benefit of the term. Sure makes it sound that Perlman is right in that since the suppossed tv deal will actually make more money for the Big 12 teams there will be no damages.
I will not hold my breath for Sock Puppet Brown to ‘report’ that.
LikeLike
So Nebraska could “break up the Big 12” twice?
LikeLike
I wouldn’t expect any further defections or objections any time soon. all Texas has to do is look at the other 9 and say ‘it puts the money in the basket or it gets the hose again’ and all should fall in place.
LikeLike
@Hank
Good point. So even though Iowa State and Baylor won’t get any of Nebraska or Colorado’s money they’ll have to cover the legal costs of defending the Texas.
LikeLike
Putting two and two together…
Does anyone think that the news that the exit penalties will be split evenly is related to Beebe and Dodds actually reading the Big 12 charter?
LikeLike
Exactly. Perlman also mentioned he didn’t think the penalties applied last friday. So he has another route/approach he’s thinking of as well. Of all the people in the big12 at the table, he’d best know how to approach this issue. It will be in the courts for the next few years.
LikeLike
Big 12 bylaws are online:
http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdfs/handbook/Bylaws.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=10410
Effect of Withdrawal From Conference Other Than by Giving Proper Notice. If,
other than by giving a proper Notice pursuant to Section 3.1, a Member Institution (a
“Breaching Member”) withdraws, resigns, or otherwise ceases to participate as a full
Member Institution in full compliance with these Rules, or gives notice or otherwise
states its intent to so withdraw, resign, or cease to participate in the future (a “Breach”),
then the Member Institutions agree that such Breach would cause financial hardship
to the remaining Member Institutions of the Conference, and that the financial
consequences cannot be measured or estimated with certainty at this time. Therefore,
in recognition of the obligations and responsibilities of each Member Institution to
all other Member Institutions of the Conference, each Member Institution agrees that
after such Breach, the amount of Conference revenue that would otherwise have been
distributed or distributable to the Breaching Member during the two (2) years prior to
the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term, as the case may be,
shall be reduced by an amount that equals the sum of the aggregate of such revenues
times the following percentages (such sum being the “Aggregate Reduction”); if Notice
is received less than two years but on or before eighteen months prior to the Effective
Date, 70%; if Notice is received less than eighteen months but on or before twelve
months prior to the Effective Date, 80%; if Notice is received less than twelve months
but on or before six months prior to the Effective Date, 90%; or if Notice is received
less than six months prior to the Effective Date, 100%.
After such Breach, none of the revenues that otherwise would be distributable to a
Breaching Member shall be paid to the Breaching Member until the aggregate amount
so withheld (the “Withheld Amounts”) equals the Aggregate Reduction; thereafter, all
revenues that would otherwise have been distributable to the Breaching Member shall
be so distributed. If the Withheld Amounts are less than the Aggregate Reduction, then
the Member Institutions acknowledge and agree that the Conference shall assess such
Breaching Member an amount that equals the difference of the Aggregate Reduction
less the Withheld Amounts, and the Breaching Member agrees that on or prior to the
Effective Date it shall repay to the Conference such amount from revenue that previously
had been distributed to such Breaching Member. The Withheld Amounts and any such
repayment of the difference of the Aggregate Reduction less the Withheld Amounts
shall be distributed to the other Member Institutions who are not Withdrawing Members
or Breaching Members as additional Conference revenues in accordance with Section
2 herein. The Member Institutions agree that such reduction in the distribution of
revenues to a Breaching Member is reasonable and shall be in the form of liquidated
damages and not be construed as a penalty.
LikeLike
fwiw an early passages references this covers membership till July 1 2006. it probably wasn’t changed but just a note.
LikeLike
fwiw the last sentence certainly makes it look to my admittedly non lawyer eyes that Perlman has an arguement. ‘liquidated damages and not be construed as a penalty’ appears clear.
LikeLike
I read that twice and my head is still spinning. So so so happy I am not a lawyer!!!!
It would be funny if it only covered things until July 1, 2006 and therefore there are no breaching members.
LikeLike
there was most likely an upated version to reflect revenue numbers and the like but the clause on withdrawl is unlikely to have changed
LikeLike
husker,
a) maybe CU was thinking the same thing, and bolted
b) if it is true A&M just got smoked
c) if true, way to go huskers!
LikeLike
and if they had dumped Okla. St., I’m sure OU would have raised all kinds of hell over that. In fact that might have killed the deal in OU’s eyes.
LikeLike
Seems to me Scott overplayed his hand.
Looks to me like T. Boone Pickens wielded an awful lot of influence on the situation.
Also looks like aTm played their hand well.
Texas is acting irrationally unless you buy into the notion that they were afraid of a scenario that saw aTM and OU moving to the SEC without them.
I think Chip grossly overstates things when he suggests that the Big 12 Lite is now strong for the next 6 years.
I’m hoping Nebraska dominates the Big 12 this year to highlight just how much weaker the conference will be going forward.
LikeLike
Very possible. If they can get some decent QB play, Nebraska could be a darkhorse NC contender.
Whoa…I actually talked about football instead of realignment there for a second. That was weird.
LikeLike
I am rooting for Cody Green to have a good year or at least develop into the dual threat QB that everyone envisioned him being.
LikeLike
It all starts in the trenches, we need to get that fixed. The OL blew up drives like a swiss watch last year.
LikeLike
john,
it does go back to an original question I had….
what does TU do if OU and A&M bolt to the SEC?
LikeLike
Texas is never at fault for anything…everyone else though, well they are all weasels trying to mess with Texas!
LikeLike
The real reason ESPN has been surprisingly silent regarding expansion….World Cup Fever, and trying to figure out what the heck these things are:
http://bartbonte.com/vuvuzela/
LikeLike
You know those are actually quite a good thing to meditate to.
LikeLike
Pingback: Major Ripples Lead to Minor Changes in College Football
Is the Big 10-ish dead? Delany followed up on Dodds suggestion and is taking the leadership. A trade of B12 for B10 (and how about throwing in Illinois or even Northwestern for Iowa State while we’re at it)?
http://www.ibj.com/big-10-considering-name-change/PARAMS/article/20553
LikeLike
I don’t see what other name it could take. Western Conference doesn’t really make sense any more, and they don’t want anything like Big North or a connotation that seems regional…
As one of the later points stated, way too much brand equity in Big Ten.
LikeLike
Perhaps they can rename it the “Nebraska is here” conference
LikeLike
how about the Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives?
that was the actual legal name until 1987.
I agree, too much brand equity in Big Ten. no name change.
LikeLike
hank if they did, the SEC could go back to the SIAA and then this would all come full circle..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Intercollegiate_Athletic_Association
for info on the old SIAA (FWIW – Vandy started the whole thing so leaving the SEC would probably be a BIG deal).
LikeLike
I’m against changing the name of the Big Ten. It’s a brand. It carries meaning.
If they change the name, it better not include a number, because then you’ll just have to change your name AGAIN if you add another school. And I thought the whole point of a brand and identity was consistency.
Let the Big 12 worry about changing its name.
LikeLike
There is no need for a name change, the Big Ten is what it is.
As for Bullet suggesting Illinois or Northwestern for Iowa State you should be round up and hung! 😉
LikeLike
I’m a Texas fan, so we’d take the trade. And Frank keeps talking about the Missouri-Illinois rivalry. And I’d take NW’s 3 recent B10 fb championships for Iowa St.’s stack of wrestling titles (after that comment watch Iowa St. surprise everyone and win B12N this year).
LikeLike
I think the Big 12 should trademark the WMBA Conference. Stands for Where My Bitches At?
LikeLike
Of course, you could always just add Pittsburg & Rutgers, say we’re 14 teams in 10 states and we’re sticking with it.
LikeLike
Latest rumor, AR and ND to the B12:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jun/16/notre-dame-arkansas-come-down/
Unstated in the article but buzzing elsewhere is that WV would be the SEC replacement.
LikeLike
Gross. No.
A visionary, Jones sees the Big 12 expanding with Arkansas and Notre Dame.
I love Jerry for what he has done for the Cowboys. He’s an amazing owner. But this is quite a vision, even for a visionary.
LikeLike
Jerry Jones might be seeking AR and ND, but settle for AR and BYU.
Or think of it another way. Why assume they’d stop at 12? Might ND talk to JJ a bit so that this leaks out as a warning shot to Delany? “Break up the BEast and we’ll have more options than you think.” If the B10+ and SEC start feasting on ACC and BEast teams, ND could bring 4 BEast/ACC schools with them. Just another way to try and stop the super conference movement.
Which suggests another line of questions reporters should be pursuing: How involved was JJ in the talks to save the B12 and what was the time line of his involvement?
As to B12 stability, agreed that why would any team in a good home like the SEC join? They wouldn’t, if this is a bogus rumor. But it might make sense if we are talking big changes to college football that establishes 12 as the conference template. Such as a playoff.
So we have some possibilities:
1-BS/dreamer rumor, B12-2 is a temporary staging point
2-TX/OU/aTm and others view a B12-2+6=16 as the end game
3-Goals for more than just the B12-2 were agreed to over the weekend that would make the neo-B12 viable long-term. Most likely negotiating parameters for a playoff replacement to the BCS, but not necessarily.
LikeLike
Should clarify, I think the most likely explanation is either:
1 – ND politely listened to JJ’s pitch, knowing that he’s a blabbermouth and the leak would send another ‘We have options’ signal to Delany.
2 – JJ is just throwing out crap because he likes to stir things up, an unsolicited trial balloon that ND has even responded to.
But you never know. I thought there was no chance in hell JJ could ever get voters to approve building a $1.2 billion stadium that was twice as expensive as any previous. Yet it happened.
LikeLike
Yeah, I could see either of those two being the case.
LikeLike
I agree on both, and JJ definitely still wants the Big 12-2 to go back up to 12 so he can have his Jerryworld Big 12-2+2 CCG again.
LikeLike
Does Arkansas add $20M in value to the conference though?
Arkansas may not even be near the top half in terms of value in the SEC; I’d put Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and LSU ahead of it at least…
And does BYU add $15M to the conference? I mean the Pac-10 is definitely settling for Utah since they couldn’t get their Pac-16 option, but who knows what BYU’s value is…
The safest option seems to be to just stay at 10 and maybe try for ND. I mean I guess you always try even though I’m almost certain Swarbrick would say no offhand unless Texas offered to make its network a joint network between ND and Texas…
LikeLike
Although, if you get the Big 12 CCG again for Jerryworld, which is obviously what Jones wants, that cuts the needed amount in half.
I’m still not sure its worth it though…
LikeLike
Arkansas is Jones alma mater, as I recall. That’s all the explanation it requires.
LikeLike
So, is UT happy now that Nebraska is out of the Big XII?
It’s an interesting question, and I don’t know if anyone really knows the answer, there seems to be two ways of looking at this:
A) Of course the Horn’s didn’t want to lose UNL, that’s why they gave them an ultimatum to stay, or else! UNL leaving took away the one team that made the Big XII north viable, and now the Longhorns can’t even have a CCG. Plus, the loss of the Huskers negatively impacts the Big XII brand.
B) Hell, no, the whole plan was to get rid of UNL. The Huskers were a constant thorn in the side of UT’s rule over the Big XII. The huskers created disharmony and always voted against UT’s conference desires. And of course the Huskers were always a threat to derail the Horns BCS and National Champ aspirations. UT gets Nebraska’s exit money (if the courts allow any), UT lords over a dominion of the remaining puppets, and now that UNL is gone UT doesn’t have to play a CCG that potentially does more harm than good for UT. Perfect!
I don’t know where I stand on these two arguments, I suppose UT never wanted UNL to leave in the first place, but it is interesting to see how well it is all working out for UT in the end.
LikeLike
It would be so much easier if UNL just agreed to throw games! That way, Texas could benefit from the Nebraska history and tradition, but still roll to a Fiesta Bowl.
LikeLike
I tend not to buy the conspiracy theories. I tend to believe that Texas legitimately wanted its own network the entire time within the confine of a stable Big 12.
The Big Ten forced this out into the open because the announcement last December started the mouths in Missouri flapping and Colorado has always been rumored to be going to the Pac-10 but that was out in the open again because of the Pac-10 expansion rumors.
So Nebraska did the logical thing and began to scope out its options, and then went to the Big 12 meeting and found out that Texas had been planning out a Pac-16 for months.
LikeLike
Zeek,
I’m not a conspiracy guy myself. Could UT have been SO GOOD at “Double Chess” that they had anticipated a couple of schools jumping with BT expansion and then positioned themselves (lots of ABC / ESPN negotiating) in a position where they actually wanted schools to leave?
Heck, it would have been even BETTER for UT if Mizzou left for the BT too! Penalty money rolls in for UT and less cuts of all future revenue……
The business models that are driving the conferences are pretty interesting. BT, Pac and SEC seem to basically have a model for expansion with quality schools, the idea is expand market share, provide a competitive product (football) to a wide spread geographic area and capture market share.
The Texas model is almost the opposite: One great school and dominate the market in one big state. Get rid of as many competitors so you don’t have to share revenue (and less chance for losses against quality schools) And, let the other poor schools lose games and pick at the leftovers.
I’m not sure that that is a sound long term business model….we’ll see.
LikeLike
Texas is like a reverse Notre Dame. It’s trying to act like an independent within a conference in a sense.
LikeLike
Today’s info from John Lopez, a writer for the Houston Chronicle.
Archive > Articles
Article
Published 06/15/2010
LOPEZ: You’re not the boss of me
By John P. Lopez
Talk about this story inside the TexAgs Premium Forum- Click Here
Playing the role of Rosa Parks in the bizarre, twisting college football drama that unfolded over the past week was Aggies athletic director Bill Byrne.
Bill Byrne / The Eagle
It may not have been as far-reaching a statement on social injustices. It may not have been as culturally significant. Then again, we are talking college football in Texas. Either way, Byrne’s refusal to meekly take a seat at the back of the bus DeLoss Dodds was driving toward the West Coast was a bold and significant statement.
And when all the deal-making was done, the impact and trickle-down could well change the game’s landscape. More, after all the greedy posturing and negotiating was settled, the Big 12 could well have the rest of the college football world asking one question today.
Why didn’t we think of that?
Your initial reaction may have been one of disappointment, if not outright anger. Mine was, too.
But in the light of day and as more details of the New Big 12’s dealings emerge, the stance the Aggies took may well have been the boldest and most profitable in college football’s history. It was about money, only the money and nothing more than the money. Don’t fool yourself into thinking anything else really could have been a deal-maker or deal-breaker.
At one point when an A&M athletic department source was laying out the options and possibilities on Monday, he told me, “It’s all on the table right now. I mean, EVERYTHING is on the table.”
The scene he described during the negotiations was something out of Wall Street. Sleeves were rolled up. Big 12 ADs, presidents, conference administrators and TV executives literally had calculators out and furiously scribbled on notepads, comparing notes, trying to make the finances work.
That’s no surprise. Money drove the breakup. It definitely was going to drive the reconciliation.
A quick aside: Feel free to sneer knowingly the next time someone in the college game utters the term, “student-athlete.” Conspicuously absent from the bedlam that was conference realignment was discussion about the NCAA’s favorite catchphrase — the “student-athlete.”
But in the end, the biggest winner in the money-grab was not the Pac-10 nor Southeastern Conference. It was the league that was supposed to die a pitiful death. And the biggest reason the Big 12 went from cutting-room floor to cutting-edge, was Texas A&M.
With promises as big as Dallas and fancy footwork that would make Houston Rodeo clowns proud, the Big 12 went from irrelevant to perhaps the game’s model league.
If it’s money you want, contraction is the new expansion.
Dan Beebe / ESPN.com
The Longhorns’ brand might have driven the bus on this deal. But it was crucial leverage by the Aggies that led to every member school doubling their money, improving bowl-game payday prospects and carving an easier path to the BCS championship game.
Ultimately, the Longhorns got their Longhorns Sports Network. It’s what the ‘Horns wanted more than anything else and it will prove to be a financial windfall like no other in college athletics. They even come off looking good, keeping the Big 12 alive and Beebe employed.
The Aggies, meanwhile, managed to leverage a flirtation with the SEC into a setting at the big table. The irony is every school in the league should be sending Tiffany cufflinks to Aggie administrators for saving their back bacon, not to mention bringing home the bacon. The Aggies will more than double its annual financial pull, to more than $20 million annually. So will the Sooners and Longhorns. Everyone else will double their pull as well.
Want to know the epitome of irony?
Baylor, Texas Tech, Iowa State and other smaller brands that like to chant, “Pooooor Aggies” would be scrambling for a pauper’s pittance if not for the rich Aggie tradition that drove this deal.
As for on-field benefits, the most significant for everyone is the league dissolving its title-game. It makes for an easier path to the National Championship game, of course.
But considering that bowl game tie-ins don’t figure to change in the 10-team Big 12, every program moved up in the food chain as well. A third-place finish in the Big 12 South used to mean a fifth, sixth or even seventh pick when it comes to bowl selections. Now, it means third, which could spell millions more dollars as well, considering at least one team will be in a BCS game every year.
It was a wild ride. The Aggies dared to dance with someone other than the one who brung ’em. And it paid off with the best deal anyone could have expected for the Aggies, gave the Ags a better chance to win big and saved the Big 12.
LikeLike
Sounds like some chest pumping after throwing out large figures based on easily exposed accounting schemes.
We’ll see how long this strategy of “expansion by contraction” lasts when the Big Ten gets the full value of having 4 national brands in the 2016 contract and blows this Big 12-2 out of the water…
LikeLike
yea. I suspect much like the NFL draft all judgements on who ‘won’ will take 3 years.
LikeLike
Yes, I was thinking the same thing.
The Big 12 and Big Ten both have deals with ABC/ESPN. Both run out in 2016.
The Big 12’s current ABC/ESPN deal pays them $60 million/year. That was negotiated with 12 teams, obviously including Nebraska and Colorado.
The Big Ten’s current ABC/ESPN deal pays them $100 million/year. That was negotiated with just 11 teams, obviously not including Nebraska.
Just from the ABC/ESPN deals, the Big Ten currently rakes in about 67% more than the Big 12.
Now, when the Big 12 negotiates for a new contract with ABC/ESPN in a few years, they’ll be negotiating with two fewer teams, missing one marquee brand in Nebraska, and with a significantly smaller footprint.
When the Big Ten negotiates for a new contract with ABC/ESPN in a few years, they’ll be negotiating with one more team, a marquee brand in Nebraska, and a slightly larger footprint.
If the Big Ten’s new ABC/ESPN deal isn’t at least twice as big as the Big 12’s, I’d be somewhat surprised.
Of course, this doesn’t even account for the Big Ten Network revenues, which will exponentially grow.
Also, this assumes the Big Ten and Big 12 don’t expand before the next contract negotiations. The likelihood of the Big Ten expanding before then is pretty good, and the Big 12…not so much.
Can you imagine what the TV revenue gap between the Big Ten and Big 12 will be in 2017?
LikeLike
It will be massive, and I agree with the rest of your points.
There’s no way the Big 12-2’s deal isn’t obsolete the moment it is signed.
I can easily see the average Big Ten school making $35M+ after the 2016 deal (including BTN) all things considered…
LikeLike
And if the Big Ten can add Maryland/Rutgers or Syracuse/Rutgers (still not sold on Syracuse’s football impact, I know they have a lot of the NY footprint for basketball though…), every school could be making $40M+.
LikeLike
Actually per team, assuming equal distribution, it’s 82% more (9.1M vs 5M)
LikeLike
FWIW, Lopez is a former columnist for the Chronicle…
LikeLike
Chronicle is pretty weak on college reporting. And Lopez is the weakest. He’s also an Aggie (and surrounded by a number of Longhorns in the sports room).
LikeLike
I guess according to Bob a former columnist-and he was the weakest when he was there.
LikeLike
Frank,
You and I agree about TU, but the more I look at this you need to update your Winner / Loser thinking at the top of the list.. Here I go..
THE REAL WINNER: ESPN – Follow the money, with the following facts
a) The Big 10 is hitched to the BTN (see also FOX)
I kept thinking of the chess match between delany and slive was where the action was (I still think this). I had suggested the ESPN / FOX thing as what could get the ACC to blow up like the Big 12 (and kept getting shot down, as xxxxxxxx school in the ACC would NEVER consider the SEC). The more I think about it the more my thinking was right but my weighting was WAY to low.
b) The SEC & ACC are hitched to ESPN
I was a big premise why I could see certain schools jump the ACC for the SEC, no matter what everybody else kept thinking.
c) If you spend a penny to save a dollar, you do it
We keep wondering how the Longhorn Conference can work, especially LONG TERM. Then I think what is long term? A year, 3 years, 7 years, 14 years? Now you start doing the math:
#1 100,000,000 / 10 > 100,000,000 / 12
#2 1,000,000 < 1,000,000,000
#3 1 + 9 = TU in a weak vote position
#4 1 + 2 + 7 = TU is stronger when voting (call it a bribe, A&M + OU)
#5 -16 + 20 = TAMU out of debt overnight (in SEC or Pac takes time)
d) it is news if you are making it?
Enter the ESPN article that took Bebee success from 0% in the morning to 100% in the afternoon. I must ask who these "mysterious" people are who bailed out the Big 12? These are public institutions, so the public has the right to know! Unless these "mystery" folks are none other than a consortium of ESPN folks. I this is true somebody somewhere should do the investigation to get to the bottom of this.
e) where the brands are now:
4 = Big 10 (FOX)
2 = SEC (ESPN)
2 = Big 12 (ESPN)
1 = USC (FOX – second tier)
1 = ND (NBC)
f) where the brands could be:
5 = Big 10 (FOX) via BTN (adding ND on the way to 16)
3 = Pac 16 (FOX) via PTN (add 1 and subtract 1 if ND is here)
2 = SEC (ESPN) via ACC merger (and maybe ND)
g) now think like a tv executive at ESPN
You already have contracts with the Big 12 (and just lost 1 brand to FOX via the Big 10) so honoring that plan cost you nothing new [the penny]. In the process it shifts money from TU to TU, OU, and A&M but still leaves the "lesser" seven to remain in the cellar where they have been anyway. When it is all said and done they are tied up for at least 3 years, maybe 7, and possibly 15. This gives ESPN time to make money on its current contracts with the SEC and ACC without having to worry that it will cost billions more if suddenly ALL its contracts across the USA are reopened at the same time, and ALL the contracts go WAY up [the dollar].
In short, ESPN has spent the penny to save the dollar and was the real winner in all of this.
THE REAL LOSER: The Fans – always at the bottom of ANY power play
If the natural order is to go to 16, then the fans have lost..
Imagine if things had realigned into a real Big 3 + smaller 2
Parity between the Big 3
Big 10 with M, tOSU, PSU, UNL
SEC with Bama + pool (UF,UT,UGA,LSU,etc)
Pac 16 with USC, TU, OU
eastern scraps = BE + ACC + ? scraps
western scraps = SWC + Big 8 + MWC + ? scraps
eastern scraps team play western scraps team in end of season game
Pac 16, Big 16, and SEC play CCG's same day / weekend
Pac 16 CC meets Big 16 CC in Rose Bowl
SEC 16 CC meets es CC / ws CC winner in Sugar Bowl
Rose Bowl winner meets Sugar Bowl winner in NC game (jerryworld?)
and the fans get a NC game that kills the BCS and pollsters
so this does not happen and the fans take it in the end, at least for the next 3 – 15 years. Way to go "invisible" power brokers in the ESPN report. Thanks soooooooo much!!
LikeLike
also ESPN+ owns 7 of the 34 bowls. ESPN will also broadcast the 2011 Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
from mrsec..
http://www.mrsec.com/2010/06/report-sec-worried-that-big-12-might-target-arkansas/
on arkansas to the Longhorn Conference….
TU, OU, and A&M this is your future….
“Win in the SEC and you can win national titles. Win in the Big 12… and you lose to SEC teams in the BCS title game.”
when it comes to recruiting between the Longhorn Conference and SEC!
LikeLike
I still don’t understand why Arkansas would leave the safe confines of the SEC to wander to the disaster that is the Big 12. Yes, recruiting in Texas would probably make Arkansas better off in the long run as they haven’t been nearly as competitive in the SEC as they would have wanted…
Perhaps Texas offers them the same size share as Texas/A&M/OU are going to get, but is any of this sustainable? Arkansas doesn’t seem like it would really improve the value of the TV contract that much, and we’re talking about a TV contract that’s being valued based on Ponzi scheme accounting.
And what happens when Texas does bolt for the Pac-12, only this time with its Bevo TV…
Arkansas will have to go hat in hand begging the SEC to take them in again…
LikeLike
I agree.
Sure, Arkansas played some great games in the SWC, but they would be sacrificing way too much to move down to an unstable, unequal league. At least those other clowns who have no problem being on the short end of the stick in the Big 12 were already there. Arkansas would be voluntarily entering that situation. Who would be the bigger fool?
LikeLike
zeek,
Arky to the Longhorn Conference (slim to none, and slim is already out the door). My point was now the SEC has REAL recruiting advantage against the Longhorn Conference!
According 2 Forbes (Arkansas and South Carolina) both are in the Top 20 most valuable college football teams in the US. I said it early on, Kramer took lemons and lemonade in the last SEC expansion.
LikeLike
Those Forbes valuations though are based on the value of the overall football program, not just the TV value of the school. Yes, they have a passionate fanbase willing to pay big $ on their football program, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to coast-to-coast ratings…
You could say the same thing for South Carolina.
Both are really strong programs in terms of local support which is why they’re so valuable, but I don’t think South Carolina has much TV value at all outside of South Carolina, in order to move the terms of the national TV contract…
LikeLike
zeek,
I agree, but when you look at the list it is almost all B 10 and SEC. Going back to my argument of the 2 toughest conference to break a member away from. which was sorta my point.
LikeLike
Ah, I had thought you were arguing that Arkansas had TV value to the Big 12-2.
Yeah, I tend to agree that the Big Ten and SEC have made their programs much more valuable than they would be otherwise.
Which is why we need to add Rutgers sooner than later…
LikeLike
My thinking on names..
Folks keep talking about the Big 10 / Big 12 thing
(for those on the moon without computer access, the Big 10 now has 12 teams and the Big 12 now has 10)
given the choice between
A) The BIG 10 – the “brand”
B) ???????? – the future brand
where do you stand?
if you think a new name is in order, give it a name or a premise (ie the fact that all members are AAU schools)
in fairness give your background
1) fan of the “classic” 10
2) fan of the “new” 10 – PSU & UNL
3) fan of another team / conference not in Big 10
thanks….
ps Izzo, we love you man!
LikeLike
As a fan of the “new” Ten I say keep the name until you are done expanding. Grab one team from in the footprint (i.e. ND, Pitt, etc) and one team from outside the footprint. You now have ten states and can still be the Big Ten.
LikeLike
3) ND fan/alum who wants the Big Ten to keep the Big Ten name. If it wasn’t a problem having 11 teams for almost 20 years, it shouldn’t be a problem now. They stuck by the name for a reason: brand.
Don’t open the identity-Pandora’s Box of including an up-to-date number in the league name if you value consistency. If the Big Ten were the only “Big” conference, this wouldn’t be a problem. If there were never a Big 12, this wouldn’t be a problem. Otherwise, have fun updating literally everything with Big Ten on it until you reach 16 (or more with expansion, or less with contraction).
LikeLike
How about “The Big Ten: Now with Even More Corn”?
Seriously, I couldn’t care less what the name of the conference is. I would prefer at least one of the Big Ten and Big 12 to change just so I don’t have to hear “Big Ten has 12 teams but the Big 12 has 10. Har har har.” again.
(I am a fan of a founding Big Ten member, unlike those newbie Buckeyes and Hawkeyes)
LikeLike
Which team is that?
LikeLike
Regarding the Big 10 with 12 teams and the Big 12 with 10, I’ll bet they stick with Big Ten. It’s their brand–how they’re recognized.
It’s why American Express (which used to be a courier service) kept its name even though it has a completely different focus today.
I remember a store called “Just Pants”. They evidently realized they could make more money selling other things besides pants, so they added a sign below stating “We don’t just sell pants”. The same goes for the Burlington Coat Factory today, (who sell other clothes and even furniture). I drove by one recently that had a sign stating they didn’t just sell coats.
And in Canada, there’s a very well-known store called Canadian Tire that doesn’t just sell tires any more. They sell almost as much stuff as a Walmart–camping equipment, cooking equipment, gardening, bicycles… And London Drugs sells everything from groceries to smalll appliances, photography equipment, computers, televisions…
LikeLike
I like it.
All we need is a sign a Big Ten HQ
We Have 12 Teams.
Done and done.
LikeLike
As a “new” fan, I’d like to see the name updated somehow, there’s just too much future ridiculousness based on having 2 “Big” conferences with incorrect number of teams.
If we really want a numbering scheme, how about Great 12 (eventually Great which reminds folks of the Great Lakes). Or maybe we go the other way with the Classic Ten. I’d prefer something without a number in it. I’ll just throw a few out there:
Big Academic
Great Education
Big Sports
Great Future
National Sports
LikeLike
It will always be the Big Ten. You just need to redefine what the ‘ten’ stands for. Long ago I mentioned Big Ten country as being Great Lakes & Great Rivers, just find the 5 rivers with their watershed that you want to emphasize . Another poster, Pariahwulf? mentioned that 16 = 10 in hexadecimal. Academics over geography?
LikeLike
Yep, I’m the crazy buckeye that mentioned the hexadecimal bit. However, technically the Big Ten is still at 10 teams…if you’re operating under mathematical base 12. On a side note a ‘decimal point’ is simply a ‘radix point’ that is noted as being in base 10.
LikeLike
The No-Doz. Ten?
LikeLike
Clever.
http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/index?id=5293231
LikeLike
mike,
in one of my first post moths ago I told you guys the “nerdy nine” were not gonna take all this expansion stuff lying down….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Athletic_Association
for folks unfamiliar with the “nerdy nine”
I am not sure you want to leave out NYU and Carnagie Mellon, who wants their finance data hacked.
🙂
LikeLike
is this a repeat of an earlier link?
http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=1639370&forum_id=5
found it on an A&M board, is this new, or already out there?
BTW – listening to T Boone on TU radio right now
he does not want to be “stepchild of pac 10”
“better known, than unknown”
on Missouri….
“fine if missouri is gone, so is north / south division”
“was turned down by A&M for school, went to oSu instead”
“fine with missouri now – will not hurt with carrying grudge”
on oSu….
“cheaper to be Joe Fan than T Boone, but more in common with Joe Fan”
“surprise some people this year”
on buyouts….
“don’t like to leave oSu out”
“strong feelings of loyalty – Kansas, Kansas ST, Iowa State” – old Big 6
(funny as none of these teams were headed to the Pac 16)
on missing CU and UNL….
“let them go”
on A&M
1947 freshman starter on BB team
took T Boone off scholarship, went to Oklahoma A & M (now oSu)
leaf quote was OK A&M coach, not TX A&M coach….
Boone Pickens “class of 51” when on TAMU campus
TAMU reply “see what you would have amounted had you graduated”
End of Interview
NOTE: I type slow, so quotes are close, but may not be perfect.
LikeLike
ND needs Big12 like a another preditor priest. Longhorn conference will saty at 10 ubtil LSN gets going, then expands West to get AZ and ASU, who had long standing rivalries with TT.
SPeaking of TT. Far fetched scenario: TT bolts B12, goes to PAC 10, BYU goes to B12.
Eh? TT hasn’t signed on the dotted line with the new deal yet…..hmm.
LikeLike
[“strong feelings of loyalty – Kansas, Kansas ST, Iowa State” – old Big 6
(funny as none of these teams were headed to the Pac 16)]
and Missou and UNL were part of the Big 6, while Ok A&M (OSU) was not.
LikeLike
Utah to Pac-12 appears to be a done deal.
Timeline for Thursday:
Board of Trustees will meet (again) at 12:30pm Mountain Time
Press Conference is scheduled for 2pm Mountain Time
http://twitter.com/LyaWodraska
LikeLike
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_15310027
Public Meeting. Thursday 12:30pm ET. Rice-Eccles Stadium. 6th floor.
LikeLike
OT,
with the utes now in the Pac 12, too bad Rick Majerus is no longer there.
*sigh*
LikeLike
The good news is that the school can now feel his gravitational pull from St. Louis.
LikeLike
Correction.
Pac-10 has announced that the press conference at Rice-Eccles Stadium will be at 1pm Mountain Time (12noon Pacific/3pm Eastern).
LikeLike
I thought this was a joke but apparently it’s real.
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/16/big-east-commissioner-john-marinatto-thanks-big-12-with-roses/
John Marinatto sent Beebe roses.
LikeLike
M,
great find, I am guessing the ACC should be sending a truckload!
LikeLike
He sent roses in Nebraska colors?
LikeLike
That’s a “joke” post.
The Big East was drooling at the prospect of being able to annex Kansas and Missouri and grab both the St. Louis and Kansas City TV markets.
Kansas may have had to drag along Kansas State as well due to the politics in the Kansas state legislature.
LikeLike
BTW,
did that texas (state legislature) meeting go off today?
if it did, any links?
LikeLike
Bigger expansion winner: Nebraska or BT?
By Adam RittenbergNow that the expansion rumblings have subsided for the time being, many pundits are determining winners and losers from a wild few weeks in college sports.
Although I don’t see this issue in the same way I see a game or a season — you need more time to determine success or failure — I’ve been keeping track of the expansion scorecards out there.
Here are a few viewpoints of where the Big Ten and its new member, Nebraska, stack up:
Colleague Bruce Feldman: Calls Nebraska the No. 3 winner in expansion … “The Big 12 never felt right for the Cornhuskers. Sure, NU had won big at times in the league, but clearly this had been the Longhorns’ league in terms of clout, recently. UT was the biggest shot-caller. Husker brass reportedly always resented that. Now, the tradition-rich Husker program is moving to a more stabile league with much better academics across the board and is a better fit geographically. NU does have 24 Texans on its roster, which is quite a lot, but this should open up the Big Ten recruiting turf more to Nebraska, which only has seven players from those states.”
SI.com’s Stewart Mandel: “The Big Ten will continue to hold out for its ever-elusive dream girl, Notre Dame, but in the meantime, it quite seamlessly added one of the most prestigious programs in the sport to an already stable league. Nebraska, a big winner itself, got out from under the rule of the Texas-Texas A&M-Oklahoma triumvirate while joining a new set of 11 colleagues with which it already shares much in common academically and geographically.”
The Indianapolis Star: “While the Pac-10 added Colorado and its subpar football program, the Big Ten added one of the nation’s elite in Nebraska. That’s a win for the league, which can now stage a football championship game and earn more money. Jim Delany usually wins and he’s not done chalking up victories. … The Huskers are winners because they get away from evil Texas and its power hungry ego. Sad to lose the rivalry with Oklahoma but that’s a small price to exit an uneven partnership in the Big 12 where the rich just made more money than every other school. Nebraska has found a home for a long time in the Big Ten.”
The Sporting Blog’s Brian Cook: Calls Nebraska a winner in expansion … “They’ve extracted themselves from an abusive relationship and now find themselves in a football conference approximately the equal of the one they left minus the revenue imbalance and plus many millions of dollars. Also, Big Ten membership should gradually improve Nebraska’s academic reputation.” … Puts Big Ten in category of Folks Not Quite Sure How They Feel … “Nebraska is a fine addition for football and various other non-revenue sports but is terrible at basketball and hardly expands the reach of the Big Ten Network, which will now be on TV in the nation’s 38th most populous state and possibly the Dakotas. That’s not nothing, but it’s not much, either. The Big Ten’s divisions figure to be awkwardly non-geographic and possibly unbalanced, and meanwhile they’ve filled that precious 12th slot with a team that is Not Notre Dame.”
The New York Post’s Lenn Robbins: Calls Big Ten a winner … “You get the feeling if Jim Delany took up chess, he’d be a grandmaster in about a week. Created a near panic when he uttered the word, “expansion.” The Big Ten added just one team but what a team — Nebraska.” … Also calls Nebraska a winner … “Out of the Texas-dominated Big 12, where its rivalry with Oklahoma was not respected, and into the Big Ten. Already the fourth-most profitable program in college football (Texas, Notre Dame, Penn State), Big Red to operate in the Big Black.”
The Austin American-Statesman’s Cedric Golden: Calls Big Ten a loser … “Nebraska coming in was a big deal for commissioner Jim Delany, who had to believe two super conferences — his own Big Ten and the Pac-10 — could run the Big 12 out of business and cripple the Big East in football. Now, only landing Notre Dame can make this thing a success for the Big Ten.” … Calls Nebraska AD Tom Osborne a winner … “The Nebraska athletic director wasn’t happy with his school’s standing in the Big 12, so he left. The Huskers are in a better situation now.”
From looking at these and other assessments, Nebraska earns a big “W” and the Big Ten earns a little “w.”
It’s hard for a lot of folks both regionally and nationally to view this as a major success for the Big Ten because neither Texas nor Notre Dame have been added to the league. But for Nebraska, even though the Big 12 is staying together, the move is being seen as an excellent one.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/13244/bigger-expansion-winner-nebraska-or-bt
LikeLike
All these folks are judging this without considering that this is an arms race and that the true measure of victory will be after the 2016 negotiations. Texas may have won a battle, but we’ll see who wins the war.
And give me a break, the Big Ten doesn’t need to cripple the Big East in football. It’s been crippled since 5-7 years ago when it lost schools. The Big 12-2 is crippled with the loss of Nebraska since the only game that matters is Texas-OU and there’s no CCG.
LikeLike
agreed. just offered as an example of what is being said. much was witht he addition of Penn State I believe it will take a few years to see the real benefits show themselves.
LikeLike
NP; I had read it earlier on ESPN and just wanted to throw what I thought about it up with here since you posted it.
LikeLike
I’d say that both Neb and B10 were winners. Maybe you give Neb Big Winner Status because it moved from a “lesser” conference where it did not feel like it was getting its propert due to a much more prestigious conference. The B10, maybe you say is just a winner, and only missing big winner status because it didn’t land UT or ND and only took one. Kind of like having bases loaded and winning the game on a walk rather than home run. Sure the latter is more exciting, but you the former still got you the win.
UT is really the big unknown. They are a winner in that they were clearly the program most suited. But with so many options, they may have chosen poorly. This one will have to play out as Zeek said.
My prediction is that the B10 is going to be the hand’s down winner when all is said and done.
LikeLike
Larry Scott deserves more fans. He’s not done yet… See you in 2014, Texas.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Larry-Scott/135207129823772
LikeLike
It makes sense, I mean the Pac-12 will have 4 spots open for Texas/Tech/OU/OSU and allow A&M to bolt to the SEC.
The question is whether the Pac-12 will do well enough have some sort of bargaining position to take in Texas without having to give away the whole store.
I mean, if the Pac-12 can’t do better than $15M per team per year, they’re going to be looking at some really hard negotiations with Texas even if Beebe’s accounting fraud is exposed and Texas makes a bit less than estimated.
I don’t see the Big Ten ever allowing Texas in with its own network, but Scott and the Pac-12 are so desperate to get into the central timezone with Texas that they may agree to let Texas keep it and set up an even more steeply unequal revenue sharing deal.
LikeLike
We may not be done with conference realignment yet, guys.
Pac-10 has just sent out an email to media that Utah has been officially invited. That’s not a surprise.
What might be a little more of surprise is what I’ve heard from a few places: the Big East is supposedly ready to invite Memphis and UCF this week. Whether this would result in a split of the league is to be determined.
Granted, I’ve been hearing from people for about 5 years that Memphis was a “done deal” to join the Big East, so take that with a grain of salt.
LikeLike
Maybe the FedEx money was the final sweetener needed to complete the deal?
And yea, UCF has made sense for a while as it would provide a nice duo for USF, which has acquired quite a bit of stature the past few years. If UCF does the same, they could be a nice second tier combo of Florida schools behind UF/FSU/Miami.
LikeLike
Frank et al.:
This is a rough day for the lone BYU poster on this board. There seems to be only two ways BYU can get into the Big 12: Mizzou leaves or the Big 12 goes to 12 (boy does that sound dumb). My questions:
(1) If the B10 can somehow get ND, which combination of schools is more likely: ND/Rut/Cuse/Pitt or ND/Rut/Cuse/Mizzou? (I’m assuming MD/Vandy/UVA are not in play right now.)
(2) Any chance the Big 12 have a change of heart of seek to add teams 11 and 12? Whoever teams 11 and 12 are, I think they would be more than happy to take a small piece of the pie in order to make it worth the Big 12’s–excuse me–Texas’ while.
LikeLike
fwiw I think any Big Ten expansion strategy that involves Notre Dame but not Texas would take a pass on Missouri. Not enough independant added value. If Notre Dame is involved I would think the Northeast/MidAtlantic strategy comes to the fore.
LikeLike
I don’t think there’s any chance that the Big Ten takes Missouri at this point.
It doesn’t make sense to take Missouri and as a result send Texas + 3 to the Pac-12 and A&M to the SEC. That’d be a huge net loss for the Big Ten, so it won’t push that domino over. Perhaps, if Texas considers leaving for the Pac-12 and blowing up the Big 12, we’d consider Missouri, but that result is of no help to you I’d imagine.
The Big Ten can only look at ND and to the east at this point (Big East/ACC/ND). We’re locked in by fragility of the Big 12.
So of the scenarios you’ve laid out, it’s just going to be ND/Rut/Cuse/Pitt or something to that effect. Mizzou isn’t in the cards anymore; they’re an offering to keep Texas happy with its Texas Ten.
As for the Big 12-2+2 scenario. There aren’t any schools that can replace Nebraska and Colorado in terms of Colorado’s TV markets and the national brand of Nebraska.
Your only hope is for Jerry Jones to push so hard for a Big 12 championship that Arkansas/BYU happens or something like that. Since the Big 12 CCG could be worth up to $10-15M (although I don’t think OU-Texas want to play twice in a season because it would ruin their chances at dual BCS, etc.), the two schools would have to bring in another $20M to cover their $35M (Arkansas would get $20M and BYU would get $15M).
But I don’t see it. I just don’t see OU/Texas ruining their chances at going 12-0 and 11-1 every year and grabbing two BCS bowls (at least that’s what they want). Having a CCG ruins that since they’d have to be in separate divisions unless you have a totally unbalanced system worse than the Big 12 North (BYU/ISU/KU/KSU/Missouri/Arkansas would never be taken seriously and OU wouldn’t want to play Texas twice…).
LikeLike
If the B12-2 can add ND as a football independent, then AR and BYU would be logical 11th and 12th fb schools.
LikeLike
Should clarify: the rumor has ND invited to the B12 for all sports except they would remain indy for football.
LikeLike
Why would ND do that? So all their other sports have to travel even further?
LikeLike
Indeed. Just passing along a rumor.
LikeLike
That sounds like a recipe to end up in the Big Ten in a few years when the B12-2 falls apart. But the B12-2 might have a better chance of survival than the Big East.
LikeLike
only thing that would make nd to the big 12 for non-football make any sense would be nd wanting to get away from the big east since the big ten keeps talking of raiding the big east to force nd’s hand.
there wouldn’t be anybody, i don’t think, in the new big 12 that would be a possibility. i don’t think missouri will be talking big ten for a long time.
LikeLike
a&m might be interesting to the big ten, but i don’t think the aggie financial situation would allow them to leave except in a mass exit.
kansas leaving wouldn’t have any effect on the big 12. besides they probably couldn’t go without k-state. politicians should keep their noses out of this.
LikeLike
If BYU hadn’t been so rude as to beat OU at Jerryworld last year, you might have had a shot. Since you’re actually competitive in football and the plan seems to be the Big 2/Little 8, uh, not so much.
LikeLike
are those two enough to shore up and stabilize the football side? and does two more start making basketball and perhaps the other sports cumbersome?
LikeLike
Maybe this is the “forced” split that the Catholic schools want. Here’s praying that ND is run out.
LikeLike
If Memphis and UCF were to go to the Big East it would be in line with the “Best Interest of the Game” theory.
http://sheet.zoho.com/public/expansionnut/untitled
LikeLike
Pretty sure the rumor started on June 10, 2010 from memphisroar.com, back when everybody thought the world was blowing up:
http://memphisroar.com/2010/06/podcast-memphis-gets-a-soft-invitation-to-big-east-conference-expansion-rundown/
LikeLike
Realizing that it doesn’t have many better options on the table, I still think the Pac11 would be better off w/out Utah. Sure there are some plus sides to the ledger:
(1) SLC market and the small bits of the rest of Utah.
(2) Going to 12 and getting a CCG.
But the negatives are high, as well.
(1) Another mouth to feed.
(2) Filling up a “spot” with a smallish media market.
(3) The Utes might be a terrible football team once they have to compete week-in-week-out in a real conference.
(4) The real value in Utah was likely BYU and their legions of very loyal fans everywhere (the LDS ND). (Though I wouldn’t add BYU either).
(5) You can get a CCG w/out going to 12.
I think this is a meh addition that will weigh on the Pac12 for a long, long time.
Am I missing something here?
LikeLike
The Pac-10 needs a CCG though.
Now that USC is getting hammered, it’s going to be tough on them anyways entering their negotiations for their contract, and the CCG will help pay for both Colorado and Utah…
LikeLike
they could have got it w/ the rule change. maybe the support wasn’t there or would just take too long. still seems short-sighted. once the utes have to endure the injuries related to the p11 schedule, I doubt they’ll cruise to BCS wins.
LikeLike
agree there are questions but:
it is a good academic and sports school contiguous to the Pac 10.
its much more of a college oriented sports market than some of the Pac 10s curent markets.
if the question is growing markets there is no demographic growing faster than Moromons and its reflective in Utah’s democraphics. I can remember sitting in the Salt Lake City airport and noticing the very high percentage of preganant young women with multiple children in tow. its a growing market.
it shuts up Orrin Hatch.
it may not be a great market but given the current options available its their best shot to get to a championship game in the next five years.
LikeLike
I’ll take shutting up Hatch as a gift to the rest of us. All praise the Pac12.
LikeLike
GOP,
I think the Pac 12 is going to use that chip down the road, just wait and watch.
LikeLike
hank,
your 2 best points….
a) mormons are like catholics (national mkt)
b) it shuts up orrin hatch
LikeLike
I don’t remember the exact number, but LDS membership at the Univ of Utah isn’t as high as you think it might be. LDS members go to BYU and support BYU, the “U” is usually for everyone else (and a number of LDS members, but no where near a majority).
LikeLike
they’re better than Wazzu
LikeLike
I was just on a CIC conference call. Someone asked about Nebraska. The word is that the CIC decision on them would be addressed sooner rather than later.
LikeLike
has someone posted the rules/criteria for admission?
LikeLike
We call it a “Cover Charge” or “Club Initiation Fees” here in the Longhorn Conference.
LikeLike
DRD,
now that OU is in the Longhorn Conference how will the OU fans feel if the A&M bribe cuts their share of the pot? As a real CFB “brand” with TU, now part goes to 2 texas schools.
curious how this is playing in OK?
LikeLike
MOST of the fans are pissed. When the Pac-10 was announced, many were upset and didn’t like how the conference looked.
But for this new one…fans are really upset. Mostly at AD Joe Castiglione saying “we were going where Texas was going”, which made OU look bad.
It turns out OU was in on all the unequal money sharing, and even the network, thing, as OU thinks it’s network (rumored to include Ok St, and the OKC Thunder) would keep OU close with Texas.
OU is one of the new league overlords.
The last 13 years of the Big 12 has been VERY good to OU, and most fans don’t want that to change.
(Note: I live in Denver, now, my OU reaction is some what distant.)
LikeLike
In Mexico, they call it a donkey show. 😉
LikeLike
There are no rules/criteria; they’ll just extend an invite…
LikeLike
thanks. let the fiber optic cable of the corn begin.
LikeLike
I should have mentioned that I read a bunch of FtT posts during the CIC call. Full circle, etc.
LikeLike
@Frank – Can you expand on your twitter comment on Missouri? You say “Missouri got screwed like no one else”. Do you mean that they screwed themselves? Did the Big Ten use them to get to Nebraska and Texas? What communication from the Big Ten made them so sure they would get a Big Ten invite?
LikeLike
@Mike – I definitely believe Missouri was used as a stalking horse for Nebraska and Texas. They were at least led to believe that they would be invited to the Big Ten to the point that they told the rest of the Big 12 to kiss off without an invite in hand. When Mizzou didn’t get the invite, the rest of the Big 12 considered kicking them out with all of the hard feelings. It is going to be VERY rough on them in the new Big 12 and they have absolutely no leverage.
LikeLike
I disagree Frank.
I really think the BigTen saw Mizzou as the only school likely to come out of the B12 and thus they talked to them first. Mizzou, most likely feeling the same (that no other team from the B12 would leave), figured their “solid but unspectacular” grades across the measurement board meant, combined with location, population, etc meant they’d be a safe and conservative addition that would make sense…the kind of decisions the BigTen is known for. I don’t think the BigTen ever said “you’re in”, but I do think they said “your under consideration” for the original expansion timeline (12-18 months from last Dec).
IMO, it wasn’t until the BigTen was doing its “due diligence” with Texas and Nebraska that it became apparent how fractured the B12 really is and the BigTen rapidly changed focus (see the Gee emails about “speed and agility”).
Personally, I think Mizzou is still in the mix for the original timeline expansion.
LikeLike
Remember Delany’s comment about someone calling him out of the blue they didn’t expect. Any speculation on who that was Frank? UNL or someone we haven’t heard about yet?
LikeLike
Mexico World Cup team. Huge market, locked down.
LikeLike
I still believe it’s Virginia, whose new president has ties to Michigan. While UVa still has a southern/ACC mindset, some officials there may sense Big Ten (and CIC) membership could provide a jumpstart in research, where it has lagged a bit for a university of its caliber. In recent years, UVa has built a research park northeast of Charlottesville, just off U.S. 29.
LikeLike
who won if you think outside the box.
The Pac 12
they added 2 new states for lobbying purposes
while not gaining a “brand” or “footprint” i can not help but think the Pac 12 just added to the clout for research $$$$. As every other team in the Pac 10 had a pair (CA had 2) so they only had 8 senators, now they have 12.
comments?
LikeLike
Not to mention CU is a pretty darn good school with plenty of research themselves. They’ve had 3 Nobel physics prize winners in the last decade.
LikeLike
to the A&M folks on this site….
there was supposed to be a video Q and A with the president of A&M do any of you guys have a link?
thanks
LikeLike
Parts 1-3 of 6 are currently up on youtube. Search “texags.com interviews Dr. Loftin” on Youtube and you’ll find it. The other 3 parts should be up by tomorrow morning (supposedly).
LikeLike
If the Big 12 expands to 12, I assume one or both of the schools come from the MW (BYU/TCU). If the MW has asperations of getting to 12, some of schools the MW would target would be from the WAC. If the MW raids the WAC of 3 schools, what happens to the western schools left in the WAC after MW expansion, specificaly Hawaii, Utah State, Nevada, San Jose State, Fresno State & Idaho?
LikeLike
Not sure if there is any truth to this but there is a post over on TexAgs claiming that ESPN/ABC was threatening to use a club in addition to the carrot, e.g. actually going after the schools, particularly UT and OU for breaking the contract early. Here’s the link:
http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=1644579&forum_id=5
LikeLike
I’m not buying that D. That would be a big risk for the networks as well. First I find it hard to think they could believe they would actually get punitive damages that would allow them to recoup previous payments to the conferences. I’m not a lawyer but I susepct it gets back to the question of what the actual damage to the network would be of the change in membership and what they could claim as damages. This notion that you could just claim ‘you broke the contract so pay me back everything I ever paid you’ sounds specious. The networks got value for those payments. Just doesn’t sound something like the courts would sign off on.
But more importantly what is the objective of the networks? They want to buy content from the conferences and they don’t want them to set up independant conference networks. By threatening Texas in particular they may keep them out of the Pac 10 network short term but would create a lot of ill will. Even if their theory of damages wasn’t specious it would almost guarantee that they lose that content in the next contract round. I really doubt that the network used a stick of any sort but tried hardest to appear to me helpful in guiding Texas to the best solution for ABC/ESPN.
LikeLike
I believe Utah is a great pick up in terms of competition.
They are already very well coached and can compete with the Big Boys with their current recruiting configuration.
Now they should have some new in roads in Cali because they are BCS caliber. I believe Wittingham is going to thrive, unless someone smart picks him up first.
Paging Knoxvegas.
LikeLike
when you play cream puffs all season, you’re bound to look good. I don’t think anyone really knows if Utah is any good, but we’ll find out soon enough.
LikeLike
They have been good since 2005 IMO, and Wittingham has continued what Meyer started.
they have beat big teams all across the country in every conference. two bcs wins. shoot any team would like that record.
Pac 10 is perfect, they love losing to the MWC.
LikeLike
Take away the one BCS year and the Utes finished 3rd in the MWC twice and 4th once since Whittingham has been there. Not that great. Also, evry single school from the MWC has beaten Utah since Whitt was hired, from Wyoming to UNLV.
Utah isn’t a consistent and some people think, and they will lose their fair share of games in the PAC.
LikeLike
http://www.uhnd.com/bb/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=6&msgid=136819
Just saying…
LikeLike
the issue is dealing w/ physical teams week-in-week-out. Utah has never faced consistently talented/physical teams in the past 5 seasons and still they lose to other MWC members.
whether or not there is an argument that Utah’s BCS opponents couldn’t get motivated for their games with Utah, I don’t know. But, I know for sure those opponents had far more injury issues than Utah.
LikeLike
GOP I respect your opinion but this isn’t CMU joining the Big Ten.
two things and I’ll stop, because who really cares right.
1. If you can’t get up for a BCS game. That is a you problem. When GA beat the pants off of Hawaii nobody was talking about a let down game for GA. It is the BCS. Alabama LT was hurt. You r Alabama you take 35 recruits a year with 22 spots available. They should have depth. They got spanked.
2. The Pac 10 is not a physical conference. It is a better conference. But physical?
Utah should fit as well as Oregon State or ASU, they should be better than CU for sure. There are lots of possible W’s in that league.
LikeLike
I’m not saying they r USC. But two BCS wins since 2005 with a less than fertile recruiting footprint.
Put it this way. They wont have stars in their eyes.
Who will fair better Cu or Utah.
LikeLike
Can’t disagree with your comments, but the Utes just aren’t a “great” addition. Did the Pac10 really need another OSU or ASU? I realized they were limited, but, for me, the addition is the equivalent of the B10 having settled for Kansas State or Syracuse.
LikeLike
http://www.kiowacountysignal.com/topstories/x1600617614/Part-2-of-Beebe-Q-A
Beebe talks about TV, also talks about local networks. Makes comment that local networks were much more developed in South than in midwest before BTN. That coincides with my memory of when I lived in Indiana and Ohio, but that was a very long time ago-memories fade and things change. If his comment is accurate, the number of pro teams in the midwest could have been a factor inhibiting growth in the midwest.
LikeLike
I think B12-2 stays with their name and their 10 until the ESPN deal comes up in 5 years. After all, UT and OU count as 2 apiece! At that point, they will probably figure out if they can find 2 teams that add enough value.
Based on their TV analysis, even with a championship game it might be difficult. UNL and CU were only a little over 10% of the value.
Seems like there were a lot of lessons about TV value:
1) What have you done for me lately? B12 schools were surprised that UNL (at worst #4 team in value) only was a little above 1/12th of the total value. I suspect it was because they have not been a national factor for a few years. UT and OU have been hot and clearly had a very high value.
2) Brand matters. UNL despite a tiny population and their failure on 1) above still did have significant value. UNL is not that big a school-its not about their alumni in Phoenix. Its about their success over the years makes them an interesting team to watch.
3) Population does matter. See Texas A&M. The SEC was willing to bring them in as #13 despite their failure on 1) and 2).
What was really interesting about the analysis was how much of the value was tied up in 3 schools. ISU,KSU,OSU,TT clearly bring in less than CU who added very little. UM and KU didn’t bring in enough to interest B10 and are clearly behind UNL and possibly CU also. That means 50-75% of the value is Texas, OU and Texas A&M.
LikeLike
And Dan Beebe isn’t spinning this like a Texas tornado, of course. His job doesn’t depend on holding what’s left together, nosirree. I’ll withhold judgment until some real life numbers show up.
LikeLike
Because as I explained in a post a couple days ago, there are a lot of schools that add no value.
I.E. 10-12 random schools playing = very small amount of money (see C-USA or WAC, etc.)
ISU/KSU/Baylor/Tech/OSU = “random” schools = tiny (basically near 0%) of contract
So basically 100% of the contract’s value comes from Texas/OU/Nebraska/A&M/Colorado/Mizzou/Kansas.
Of those, Colorado, Missouri, Kansas only bring a bit of value, Colorado and Missouri bring markets, Kansas brings basketball. Let’s give all 3 combined around 5% of the overall contract. That leaves you with 95% of the contract to distribute to Texas/OU/Nebraska/A&M. Beebe’s numbers probably give Texas around 65-70% of the contract’s value and then divides the rest among A&M/OU/Nebraska (A&M is worth a lot less to the Big 12 than the SEC because its markets are redundant so it’s no different than Nebraska…).
So once you realize that Texas alone brings like 65-70% of the value of the contract, there’s not much left for OU/Nebraska/A&M to really have. Even if each is worth around 8-10% (maybe A&M is worth a bit more even with the redundancy because of how big a state Texas is).
Of course you do need OU/A&M there for people to care about the matchups so it at least seems as if there’s things to watch. All of that plays into the value of the contract, but it isn’t really as if Nebraska is insignificant, it’s just how big a player Texas is…
But those are probably what Beebe’s numbers look like. I’d venture that OU and Nebraska are worth more, probably around 15% or so of the contract. We’ll see when the Big Ten’s contract comes up in 2016 and we compare it to the Texas Ten.
LikeLike
I think we can quibble about the numbers, but this is largely correct. And it explains why the Big Ten seems to be focused more on “brands” than “markets” even though markets makes some sense from the BTN prospective. To earn the big bucks with TV deals (and with advertising on the BTN), you need to add in teams that have enough national appeal to draw in random viewers who are not affiliated with the school.
LikeLike
With Utah joining the Pac 10 today, I think we have seen the last of conference expansion for a bit. Thanks Frank for all the great posts; in part because of your blog, I incorporated expansion talk into my own. Much like what I expect to be your final article on this for a while, I too did an assessment of the winners and losers which can be read here if interested (http://thepolesposition.com/2010/06/16/the-winners-and-losers-in-a-historical-week-in-college-football/#more-1081). I’d also like to thank everyone at this cite for their input; I think this was hands down the best discussion thread on conference expansion on the web.
LikeLike
Frank, now that Utah joins, and it *looks* like we’re done for awhile, might you include some site statistics with your “final” expansion post?
And, yes, thanks to Frank and everyone here for keeping this civil and very informative. Very rare indeed to see on “teh internets.”
LikeLike
Just got home and saw the news. I agree. it looks lke were done for the next 12 months.
A note to Frank:Frank, when I was excited about and in need of information about the big changes in college football, I looked around a lot and then I found one of your links. I read them out of order as I found others while doing my searches. It’s been a real goldmine of information, speculation and entertainment. I really do appreciate the above average work you did in getting my attention informing me of new developments and pulling me into putting my useless 2 cents into your blog. It’s been fun and I will be back for sure.
LikeLike
cat watches World Cup
LikeLike
If you want to know how Texas would fit in the group we call the Big Ten, here’s my analogy. Texas would fit into the background and not try to call attention to itself about as well as this drummer fits into his group.
LikeLike
awesome.
LikeLike
WOW!
that was better than I thought it was going to be.
LikeLike
The guy’s a pretty decent drummer actually. But he just slays me.
LikeLike
Why does everybody say that we’re done for a while? I’m so confused.
Delany wants 16 teams. He still has 6-12 months left from his initial 12-18 month timeframe (from Dec 09). Why would anything be over?
At any moment, I think Rutgers could be annexed.
LikeLike
That’s precisely the reason why the Big East needs to move pre-emptively now, rather than having to scramble when (not if) the Big Ten poaches Rutgers.
(Kansas, K-State, and Mizzou learned the hard way when they had to scramble last week to get themselves into the Big East had the Big 12 imploded.)
Memphis is dangling $10 million in sponsorship money from FedEx.
Central Florida brings a medium-sized TV market and a natural rival for South Florida.
(I don’t see the Big East grabbing Houston.)
LikeLike
I totally agree, this party is not over. Go back and listen to Delany, Alvarez, etc. This is going to take some time. Phases. I think folks have overanalyzed what is in the minds of the Big Ten thinking this is over. As much as I think Delany lucked out with Nebraska, I do believe he is not done yet, he has a bigger plan, and he wants to make a big move to cement both his legacy and the future of the Big Ten for the next 50 years or more.
LikeLike
We might be done, we might not be done. But I don’t think Delaney is going to expand to 16 just to expand. If the Big Ten brings in 4 more teams, there’s going to be some real equity in them and I’m skeptical that you’d find that with your typical Big East/ACC suspects that are mentioned. So, I think if expansion happens in the short term, it will either be something outside the box or involve Notre Dame.
Well, or maybe the Big 12 breaks down and it’s Texas.
LikeLike
I’m a huge fan of going to 14 and then just settling in for the long haul and waiting out Notre Dame.
I’d go for Maryland/Rutgers or Syracuse/Rutgers or Pitt/Rutgers and then just move to 9 conference games with a 7/7 division split (1 protected cross-division rivalry and the other 2 games rotate among the other 6).
LikeLike
I agree with the go to 14 and wait stategy.
I think adding RU and Pitt makes the most sense. WORST thing about these 2, imo, is both are in the 90s in DC standings, 40-50 behind the current last-place BT team. If added, these schools would have to make a major commitment to improving their overall programs…..
I like Misery but I don’t see the BT presidents adding a second school (out of 3) that ranks at the bottom of the BT in academic rankings. I do think Misery might be the 5th team added if the BT goes to 16, even if ND is 15.
LikeLike
@all that youcantleavebehind… We’re all worn out from watching the Texas vs. Texas A&M World Cup conference expansion match. Even though the final score was 0-0, both sides had ample opportunity to score and it was exciting right to the very end. Think these are definitely looking to be the two teams going forward out of the Texas group of four. The Big Ten obtaining Nebraska almost looks like an afterthought, which seems ridiculous on a Big Ten expansion board. I still think the obvious targets are Syracuse, Rutgers, UConn and Pitt. I’m not convinced the ACC is going to be real easy to raid despite the speculation. The idea of grabbing Vanderbilt just seems strange. There is no reason to think Notre Dame is going to fall anytime soon. The northeast seems like an obvious point of attack, with the Big East Conference the obvious target and a sixteen team Big Ten the ultimate goal when it is all done.
LikeLike
What would the divisions be?
Ohio St.
Penn St.
Pitt
MSU
Rutgers
UConn
Syracuse
Michigan
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Northwestern
Purdue
Illinois
Indiana
No need for protected rivalries here. Just play it out and see what happens.
For all the criticism of the Big East… is it me… or would the East be too strong in football… and WAY too strong in basketball. Wow.
LikeLike
Until Connecticut is an AAU member, it has about as much chance of landing in the Big Ten as West Virginia.
LikeLike
UM, PSU, MSU, and tOSU: Welcome to the Big East!
LikeLike
@EZDozen, that would probably work. I would split it this way…
Alvarez Division
Minn
Mich
Mich St.
Wisconsin
Ohio State
Rut
Syr
UConn
Fry Division
Nebraska
Iowa
Illinois
Northwestern
Indiana
Purdue
Penn State
Pitt
A little better balanced for football with Penn State/Nebraska anchoring one side, Michigan/Ohio State the other. Both divisions have a long east to west axis but you’re never going to have two teams from the same state playing in the Big Ten championship game.
LikeLike
I think they mean over until after the season. The Pac-12 is done. The Big X[-II] is done. And Delaney wishes to go back to the quiet phase and crunch numbers ’til T-day. I figure around then we’ll all come back here for round two.
LikeLike
Does the addition of a CCG hurt the chances of getting 2 teams into the BCS? The reason would be having one of the better conference teams finish with a loss in the CCG. Would Iowa have been an at-large team last year if they finished the season with an extra loss to Ohio State in the CCG? Would Penn State have gone instead?
For the eight years (1998-2005), when 2 at-large BCS spots were available, the Big Ten (no CCG) had the most at large appearances, with 5. The SEC and Big 12 each had 3 (despite having many big name teams). The Pac-10 only had 2 at-large appearances (which goes against the theory). The others went to Notre Dame (2) and the MWC (1).
For the last four years, when 3 at-large BCS spots have been available (plus one automatic non-BCS conference spot), the Big Ten and SEC have had an at large team every year. The other four spots went to the Big 12 (2), Notre Dame (1), and the WAC (1). Zero for the Pac-10.
LikeLike
Hasn’t been the experience for the B12. In fact, they probably have two extra spots because of the CCG. Sometimes its different teams, but net has never been negative. B10 has the most for the same reason they generate the most $. People and fans.
For B12
1996 TX upset Nebraska-both made BCS. TX would not have made it otherwise. So +1
1998 A&M upset KSU-A&M made it, KSU didn’t (despite only 1 loss). No game-KSU makes it but A&M would not have. No net change.
2001 CU upsets UT-CU made it and NU who lost by 38 to CU made title game. No game, UT makes title game, NU probably still makes BCS. No net change.
2003 KSU upsets OU-both made it. W/O game KSU doesn’t make it. So another +1
2007 OU upsets Mizzou-OU and KU make BCS. w/o game, Mizzou probably makes title game and KU probably makes BCS. No net change.
Game has made a difference in who goes, but has probably increased # of B12 teams going. If bowls had their way, it would be B10#2, SEC#2 and Notre Dame every year.
I can’t think of a game that cost the SEC.
LikeLike
Well it depends on how deep the conference is; basically, whether a conference has 3 teams in the BCS discussion.
A CCG would likely hurt the Pac-12 since their 3rd strongest team is not likely to be BCS material and the loser of the CCG is likely to drop out of the BCS race.
The Big Ten and SEC both have enough depth to have 3 teams in the BCS discussion including the division champions, that the 3rd team or CCG loser is likely to get a spot.
LikeLike
I think a CCG does somewhat hurt the chances for a second BCS bid, but is that a big loss? A CCG could bring in $15M in revenue. A second BCS bid brings in about $3M in additional revenue. The bid itself is $4.5M, but its only replacing a birth in a low-paying bowl, that pays roughly $1.5M. So a CCG is roughly a $10-$12M net gain over a 2nd BCS bid.
I think a second BCS bid has been a net loss in terms of B10 reputation, since the B10 has had the most BCS bids. It not only puts the #2 conference team in the top tier of bowls (which is mostly populated by #1 conference teams), but bumps every other conference slotted team up to one higher bowl, making all the bowl matchups more difficult.
LikeLike
One might make the argument that this is a good reason to split the Big Ten geographically (east/west) and put Michigan/Ohio St/Penn State in one division. One of those teams is very likely to make the CCG every season (good for that rating) but one of the ones that doesn’t go will quite possibly be good enough to qualify for a BCS at large bid and won’t get a CCG loss. That’s pretty much how its been working for the Big 12 with Texas and Oklahoma making the BCS.
It also ensures that you have UM/tOSU (obviously), tOSU/PSU, and UM/PSU games every season which is good TV to sell.
LikeLike
Great point. I hope JD thinks this way.
LikeLike
That’s a good point, but the Big Ten would be losing out on an additional UNL vs. tOSU/UM/PSU game every year. And I think the chances of a strong 3rd team that does not make the CCG is even better with 2 of the 4 in one division and the other 2 teams in the other division. Imagine UNL vs PSU in the CCG with UM and tOSU as potential 3rd place teams positioned for a BCS slot.
LikeLike
This fact is more a measure of how sought after the Big Ten teams are for bowls than the effects of a championship game. Can anyone give me an example of the conference championship game costing a conference a BCS berth?
In other words, a situation where the conference was going to get two berths, but those two teams played each other in the CCG and the loser did not get in.
I think Bullet has given several examples of a CCG actually getting more teams in than would otherwise be expected.
LikeLike
Hard to predict who would have been in the BCS had they not lost a CCG game, but lets just look at SEC results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Championship_Game
2006: #8 10-2 Arkansas loses and goes Peach
2005: #3 10-1 LSU loses and goes Peach
2003: #5 10-2 Georgia loses and Cap One
2001: #3 Tenn loses and goes Citrus
1999: #5 9-2 FLA loses and goes Citrus
I think its fair to say that at least a couple of those teams are BCS bound without a CCG. Maybe all but Arkansas go BCS.
LikeLike
crap, my analysis needs to cross reference that the SEC only had 1 BCS team in those years. But its a start.
LikeLike
I think 2005 is the only year the SEC only got one bid. B10 results will probably be similar to SEC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Championship_Series
LikeLike
99-SEC got two bids
01-#21 LSU wouldn’t have got a bid anyway
03-only one at-large bid, I don’t think Georgia gets it over OSU who was one rank lower
05-#13 Georgia wouldn’t have gotten a bid if they hadn’t won (ND was high enough ranked to trigger and auto-bid and I don’t think #13 Georgia gets taken over #5 OSU)
06-SEC got two bids
’03 is definitely the most questionable, but I feel pretty safe saying that a conference championship game has never cost the conference a BCS bid.
LikeLike
A nice write up about Chip Brown (actually pretty fair) with a huge shout out to “FRANK THE TANK” for being on top of everything. Gives some credit to some of the main writers on the expansion.
http://www.cornnation.com/2010/6/16/1520230/chip-brown-expansions-edward-r
Check out the poll about Chip at the bottom though, obviously a Husker site, but the results are funny.
LikeLike
patrick,
the poll shows close to 90% that he was just the mouthpiece for DeLoss
LikeLike
A discussion on the liquidated damages clause:
http://www.netbuffs.com/message_board/football/2010/June/16/642994.php
LikeLike
Lol, CU and NU coming together arm in arm to fight Texas tyranny and Beebe’s fuzzy math based on the buyout. I’ve also seen folks making an argument that the schools shouldn’t be penalized because it looked like the conference was about to collapse, not sure whether that has any validity or not.
LikeLike
I’ve also seen that argument. It won’t be hard to prove that the puppet Beebe created an unequal situation for the schools at the Big 12 meetings, because Texas never received any ultimatum. If this gets to a courthouse in Delaware, I guess I’m just not seeing the slam dunk nature of the Big 12 grabbing the huge chunk of Big Ten (in Nebraska’s case) house money they’re counting on. Maybe they get that result, but not without putting a bunch of people on the witness stand who aren’t used to being forced to tell the truth, or at least tailor the truth in such a way that they can’t be caught in an outright lie. If I was Dan Beebe, I wouldn’t be putting in the new pool just yet.
LikeLike
Shifting ND, Maryland, Rutgers, UCF, and Memphis would stabilize the eastern conferences.
It would be a win win for the BigTen, ACC, and BigEast.
(well, the BigEast wins by not losing)
BigEast loses ND and Rutgers, gains UCF and Memphis.
– goes from 8 football schools to 9.
– loses one big name bball program for another
(ND for Memphis)
ACC loses Maryland, gains ND.
– Shift the divisions slighly so the the ND division is: ND, GT, Miami, BC, NC, and Duke.
– Having a division of many ND rivals will help bring unity to a spread out conference. (BC, Miami)
– ND adds a big name football program to the ACC.
– Only require ND to play it’s 5 division games in football. (so basically ND is a full member except for 3 out of division football games) This way ND still has football “independence”. They can schedule 7 other games. Three of their 5 ACC games will be historic rivals. ND will play the same conference games and be eligible for the conf championship game and ACC bowls.
– Maybe ND puts a stipulation that it can leave without penalty if the ACC ever expands. (thus requiring them to play 6 or 7 division games)
The BigTen
– gets their media markets (Maryland and Rutgers), and lets them organically grow into stronger programs.
– gets two good academic schools.
– gets two two long term full members of the conference.
In a previous post zeek had explained a rotating pod plan for a 14 team big ten. It works really well with adding Rutgers and Maryland.
East Pod: Mary, Rut, PSU, OSU
Mid Pod 1: NW, ILL, Ind
Mid Pod 2: MSU, UM, Pur
West Pod: Wisc, Minn, Iowa, Neb
(the Mid pods swap divisions each year)
The Mid pods have the following perm rivals:
NW-MSU, ILL-UM, Ind-Pur
Each school will then have 3 perm rivals and will play each other school every other year.
NW rivals: ILL, Ind, MSU
ILL rivals: Ind, NW, UM
Ind rivals: ILL, NW, Pur
MSU rivals: UM, Pur, NW
UM rivals: MSU, Pur, ILL
Pur rivals: UM, MSU, Ind
West Pod rivals: (within pod)
East Pod rivals: (within pod)
Note: OSU and UM will have to add a 9th conf game every other year to have a yearly UM-OSU game.
End of year conf rivalry games:
NEB-Iowa
Minn-Wisc
NW-ILL
Ind-Pur
UM-MSU
OSU-PSU
Maryland-Rutgers
The end of season UM-OSU game will have to move earlier in the season if we don’t want to risk a repeat UM-OSU matchup in the title game. (UM and OSU will be in opposite division every other year)
Note of my background: I’m Michigan raised, Michigan alum, from a “Michigan” family. The MSU and ND are as important to me as OSU (probably more).
I really think ND will fit better in the ACC, and the ACC seems more likely in comprimising on a partial ND football schedule.
LikeLike
Shifting Mich-OSU is a non-starter where the Big Ten is concerned (I’m not certain it would back a 9-game conference schedule, either), and would the ACC accommodate Notre Dame that much?
Perhaps for the Big Ten, change the pods to two groups of five and two mini-groups of two:
East: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan
West: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois
Central “A”: Michigan State, Indiana
Central “B”: Purdue, Northwestern
Guaranteed games: Michigan-Michigan State, Michigan-Minnesota, Penn State-Michigan State, Ohio State-Illinois, Purdue-Indiana, Illinois-Northwestern
Teams play 8 conference games — six within division, two against the other division.
End of season games — Ohio State-Michigan, Michigan State-Penn State, Rutgers-Maryland, Indiana-Purdue, Illinois-Northwestern, Wisconsin-Minnesota, Iowa-Nebraska
LikeLike
Not all Michigan fans are the same. The most important game to me is and probably always will be Ohio State–even though we lose every year. (Not too long ago there was a long stretch when we won every year).
The biggest mistake the new Big Ten could make would be to tamper with the Michigan-Ohio State game. Look what happened when the Big 12 eliminated the great Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry (and the Orange bowl prize).
They do not have to be in the same pod or division, but THE GAME should be the last regular season game for each team every year. If they meet one week later in a CCG (very unlikely), then we would have a great CCG matchup-rematch notwithstanding. Two UM-OSU games in one season is a bonus!!!
LikeLike
I am actually of the opinion that having this game be the last game every year is an unfair advantage to UM and OSU as it typically allows them to climb the polls as both with great records prior to the end game, where a loss doesn’t effect you so much. Just my 2 cents.
LikeLike
Totally disagree. Best time to take a loss is early on – youve got plenty of time to catch up. An undefeated team losing late in the year runs a huge risk of being dropped below 1-loss teams who have “momentum.” Plus, seeing as Michigan is almost always overrated in season-opening polls, a victory over them early in the year means more it does after they’ve dropped a few games.
LikeLike
The timing of a loss doesn’t make as much as a difference as people like to think. Once you get into the second half of the season, the standings are mostly sorted by losses, with a secondary sort on “program prestige”.
LikeLike
I agree that an early OOC loss is better than a late one; but in the conference, a later one is better. Just my 2 cents.
LikeLike
If you just want to talk about advantages and disadvantages, how about this: Michigan has to play Ohio State every year.
Would it be an advantage to Iowa if they had to pay Ohio State every year, but got to play them last?
UM-tOSU as the last game of the year is the best thing the Big Ten has going. Supplementing it with Nebraska-Penn State or Nebraska-Iowa and Pitt-Penn State would be even better.
LikeLike
I agree the game is great, but I don’t think it has to be the last game of the year.
On your other point, OSU clearly wins this pissing match. Here are the annual games:
Michigan: Michigan State, Ohio State
Michigan State: Michigan, Penn State
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Michigan State, Ohio State
OSU has the hardest lot. They play UM and PSU every year.
In this littel cluster of teams, MSU is next. They play UM and PSU every year and they are clearly the weakest link in this quad (OSU, PSU, MSU and UM).
UM wins the bronze as PSU’s other annual game is MSU, which means their’s is the easiest lot.
Some of the more western teams’ annual games are joke compared to this little cluster. I will say that.
LikeLike
Sorry, meant to say split the bronze. UM and PSU have the same games.
LikeLike
Apologies if this post is repetitive of others, but it is too mind-numbing to get through all the posts by now (is this blog at 20,000 since expansion started?).
In considering ND, I think everyone would be well-served to step back a bit and not fixate on ND, the Legendary Football Program but rather as an actor in a potential combination. In other words, the B10 is Actor A who wants Actor B (ND) to consider joining its organization. There are both costs and benefits to such a combination that could be mutually beneficial. However, the collection of interests in Actor B would rather maintain independence, but can see potential benefit.
At heart this is a political problem. Will Actor A be able to offer a strong enough set of inducements for Actor B to overcome its objections? What is the relative negotiating power of each? The more negotiating power ‘B’ has, the more flexibility it has — to be independent or demand inducements.
In any controversial political situation there are never two distinct camps. Pro-life v. pro-choice; grow govt v. shrink govt, etc. In the situation of ND, there are likely a camp of pro-B10 backers regardless of circumstances and there is a camp of pro-independence backers who will never want to join a conference. But most people are in a persuadable middle, some are more toward B10, some more toward independence. Of course, it is the president, trustees and big donors who count the most are are likely to take a sober view.
I still maintain on-field performance is crucial for ND. If ND continues to have Weis/Willingham-type seasons, the NBC contract is in danger, interest wanes, the BCS is less likely to offer ND good terms, etc. Like any party that is/may be part of negotiation, strength of position is vital.
Now, there is the opinion that there is no room for negotiation to enter the B10. Garbage. Here are some possible negotiating points:
1) The length of time for ND to fully vest in the BTN (or immediate)
2) The B10 could give ND the right to have a separate broadcast contract that would cover some of its OOC games — say USC, Stanford and Navy.
3) The B10 could permit such a contract if ND shares a portion of the fee.
4) ND could be guaranteed that none of its games would have to start at noon. They could secure a 2:30 or later guarantee.
5) If the B10 decides to start having some Thu night games, ND could be allowed to opt out.
6) Guarantee of annual games with Mich, MSU, Purdue (or a subset of these)
7) ND Bball could get some concessions — teams to play in the ACC challenge or prime spots on the BTN.
8) Distribution of Touchdown Jesus keychains in all B10 book stores.
If ND is desirable enough, I doubt any of the above points would be absolute dealbreakers. None of them seem absolutely out of the question (unlike some kind of B10 Lite 7-game schedule) or too offensive to the egalitarian sensibilities of the conference members.
Domers: your school may be unique, but it is not exempt from politics and economics.
LikeLike
Don’t know how that emoticon got in there. Ugh.
LikeLike
Smiley with sunglasses. 8, the number followed by a closing parenthesis for the smiley. 8 ) 8)
LikeLike
Thanks. Won’t be making that mistake again <@:)
LikeLike
PensfaninLAexile,
I’ve liked some of the things you have written, but you clearly have little experience with ND fans. First of all, know that ND fans hate everyone: every other public school, every other private school, and every other Catholic school (you have seen hatred until you see them discuss BC or Georgetown. Not “haha we hate them” but a “we wish they didn’t exist and we never had to see them again”.) I am half-convinced that they only reason they don’t play themselves is that they wouldn’t have someone to gloat over should they win.
Second, they do not understand that ND hasn’t been a first rate power in 30 years (19th in winning percentage over that time, only one decade in the top 10 since the 50s). In their minds, ND is by far superior competitively than the OSU’s and Florida’s of the world and they should be treated accordingly. The idea of entering a conference on equal footing with Penn State or Nebraska is abhorrent. Equal footing with Northwestern or Wisconsin is unthinkable.
Third, their fanbase is old. ND got its fan base by appealing to the large waves of of European immigration in the early part of the century. These fans did not attend the school or any other college, but they saw ND as a visible sign of their Catholic heritage. During a period of anti-Catholicism, this was a powerful draw especially considering that ND was the #1 team in record for the first half of last century. However, this draw has diminished since then. Far more Catholics today attend secular schools and anti-Catholicism has mostly abated (give or take Lady Gaga). This leads to a huge “overhang” of older fans with relatively few (though still a large number) of younger fans. Though the country is experiencing a second wave of Catholic immigration, a school in Indiana known primarily for playing mediocre football whose nickname is “The Irish” has made very few inroads into this new population.
Thus, ND has a large number of older fans who still view ND as THE preeminent football power and do not accept that any part of the landscape has changed. They also fundamentally dislike everyone else (especially schools in the Big Ten) and are completely against doing anything that might help cretins like Purdue or Iowa, even if it might also help out ND.
In short, ND is not exempt from politics or economics, but its fans believe it is, and its administration is unwilling to stand up to them.
And there may be a number of ND fans favoring a conference, but most of them of rather ambivalent and the few that speak out get treated like IrishTexan.
LikeLike
That’s some powerful acid you have.
You are right, I have little experience with the Domers. I failed to “Prove You Went to ND Test” very badly.
I defer to your experience with the Domers. I think Brian Kelly was a great hire and the team will get better.
If I had to guess (and what we are all doing is really guesswork), I think that NBC will not make such a good offer when the contract is up — or Comcast will try to use ND to build up Versus. Plus, I think their fading relevance will stare them in the face when the BCS conferences decide to stop giving them special treatment. The BEast is their only ally left in the BCS — that’s one vote.
If you are right and ND refuses to budge unless it has to, there goes the negotiating leverage and they might have to crawl into the B10.
LikeLike
Think like a young person (and be wrong, I know, but…)
Is there a statute of limitations on ND’s desirability? I know they’re the White Whale and all, but:
1) If their dominant appeal is based on a prior generation’s European immigration status and thus represent an aging and changing demographic (i.e. old fan base),
2) They have made no special inroads to the Latino/Mexican Catholic community,
3) They haven’t won a NC since Lou Holtz’s days and haven’t been dominant in decades, certainly long enough for a ‘new schooler’ to scratch one’s head about all the drama, and certainly long enough to erase any competitive recruiting advantages,
4) They’re small, private and geographically disadvantaged,
5) They’re not AAU,
6) Their admission would bring instant backlash from significant portions of their alumni/fan base and set up instantly a situation of a future divorce.
My question is at what point does one (the Big Ten) divorce itself from the drama and decide there’s not enough there to warrant an invite (or ‘holding a future spot for them’). When is it possible to decide the bloom’s off the rose? Objectively, there’s a lot to ponder…
To what end is the decision no longer that ND’s continued lack of football success weakens them enough so that they’ll settle for the Big Ten vs. with the aforementioned weaknesses, they are no longer attractive as a member.
I know we’re nowhere near that, and it would be a home run (instead NY, national, blah, blah). Specifically, Notre Dame football on NBC averaged a 2.4 rating and 3.684 million viewers last season, so obviously their fans haven’t died yet, and if that level of viewership could be transferred to the BTN…wow! I’m just asking for some objectivity and consideration of where things might stand after a theoretical 5-year period of failure under Brian Kelly. One just wonders…
LikeLike
I don’t think ND to the Big Ten will ever die regardless of what happens to their football (obviously if it becomes good again they become more desirable, etc.) because Notre Dame has the ability to brand itself as a national team not tied to a specific footprint, which is something that no other major football power has…
Notre Dame will always be able to get viewership on the coasts and in the middle of the country more easily than Big Ten schools can because it isn’t branded as a Midwest or Northern university, and that applies even for Michigan/OSU/Penn State/Nebraska which are national brands.
It’s like how the Ivy League schools are branded academically in some sense; that’s how Notre Dame is branded athletically…
LikeLike
Thanks. So would you agree or disagree with the following two considerations?
1) ND would become more (or less) ‘regionalized’ by affiliation with the Big Ten. – I’d say more if the other expansion targets gave the Big Ten a national footprint (Miami, Rutgers, somewhere in NE, for example).
2) ND affiliating with the Big Ten is its best path back to National Championship competitiveness. – I’d say yes again; there are easier paths to GET to a BCS bowl/NC game (ACC, independence), but ND’s problem has seemingly been getting to bowl games and losing because of they’ve been getting there without the hardened season that conference championships demand.
LikeLike
With Kelly and as an Independent, they will be in the NC game within 5 years. Their best path to the NC game and BCS bowls in the short term is not in the Big Ten. They will be hardened up just fine with Kelly. They will always think they are regionalized in the Big Ten no matter how many pod options or scheduling flexibility they get.
LikeLike
In the near term staying as an independent works.
In the future if there is ever a time that 4×16 conferences looks to be on the horizon (i.e. the next time the Big 12-2 collapses and Texas actually ends up in the Pac-16 and A&M ends up in the SEC up to 16 as well), then Notre Dame may need to consider conference affiliation.
I don’t think conference affiliation would regionalize them at all or devalue the brand. The brand is still national in terms of pull even if their opponents won’t be located all over the country. Then again, playing other Midwest national brands would be enough to garner the kinds of ratings on the coasts that they desire.
i.e. people on the coasts will tune in for ND-Nebraska, ND-OSU, ND-PSU, ND-Michigan as much as they’d tune in for ND-GaTech.
The only game that ND has to keep (other than Navy) is USC. As long as ND-USC is on their schedule, that’s the one game that no Big Ten school can replace in terms of its cross-country appeal. Strictly in terms of ratings, I don’t see it as regionalizing them much.
LikeLike
1) More. Much, much more.
2) Strongly disagree. ND’s problems are not schedule based since their schedules are considered harder by Sagarin than the average Big Ten sched.
LikeLike
After watching Brian Kelly at Cincy up close in the BE, this guy can flat out coach. With mostly 1-2-3 Star recruits, he kicked ass. Why? He develops players very well, finds hidden gems, has great game plans, and his players play their ass off for him. They play with a chip on their shoulders. This guy will be VERY successful at Notre Dame. They will have big winnning seasons, go to and win big bowl games, and NBC will give them a GREAT new contract.
LikeLike
Kelly kicked ass in the bigLeast. Nothing demonstrated to date that he can transfer that success to more physical and competitive teams, week in and week out, than he enjoyed at Cinn.
Dan Hawkins kicked ass at Boise State (another big fish in a very small pond), and he took the Colorado program into the toilet.
Urban Meyer has done better at FL than at Utah, and might be a better more desirable comparison, but FL program was well stocked with talent recruited by Zook. Kelly has to rebuild from the ground up against “the toughest national schedule” (according to ND fans. Meyer won a BCS bowl; Kelly has not. LOTS of pressure on Kelly, LOTS of challenges, with NO margin for error. Don’t BANK (and spend) that GREAT new contract yet.
LikeLike
If I was Delany I would go to 14 or 15 and leave an open chair for Elijah.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is going to be a top brand for a long time to come. it may struggle at times but they will remain abig draw in the northeast for a long time.
and Kelly is now the coach. this will be the first coach in a long time who is not a complete fraud. I think he will have some initial struggles as he gets the team he wants. similar to those Rodriguez has had at Michigan but likely not as bad. From what I’ve heard of the some of the initial reactions it sounds like ND, much as Michigan was, was oriented towards producing NFL players and using that as a recruiting draw. You can win games that way but its not optimal for college success. the game is different. Kelly sounds like a guy who is much more focused on winning at the college level and if that generates pro players fine. Kelly will eventually get ND winning. as much as it pains me to write that.
LikeLike
@M
I think you’re villifying ND’s fans a bit more than is necessary or frankly usually seen by the UM crowd.
I suspect that the ND haters just can’t accept the fact that ND doesn’t really want to join up. Why is that so hard to accept? Let them do what they want. I don’t think ND should be forced into anything; what good will come of that?
UM left the B10 once and voted against, I think, both MSU and PSU. In short, UM, like anyone else, has always tried to protect itself and it has voted against helping others.
What is the big deal? Seems to me UM’s ego just can’t handle that ND isn’t begging to be more closely associted with them.
That said, I would love ND to join as a regular, equal share member just like anyone esle. If they had a “partner” that made 14 and made sense for the B10, then even better.
LikeLike
I think Zeek is correct, with a few caveats. 4×16 isn’t necessary — if the BCS conferences just get a bit bigger, then things change for ND. A reduction in the universe of possible OOC games for conference members hurts ND since it reduces the number of available quality opponents. ND’s appeal falls as the number of rent-a-patsies increases.
ND has to win to be relevant and it has to do so in decent games.
A second problem for ND is the BEast. No discussed previously is the ND/BEast bowl relationship. If the BEast falls apart, then ND has to strike out on its own for its bowl agreements.
What happens when the BCS contract comes up for renewal? Why would the major conferences make any concessions to ND? Fox and ESPN don’t have contracts with ND, nor does CBS. So only NBC (which has zero bowl exposure) would back ND. If I were advising the BCS conferences I would tell the Domers that the only way into the party is if you are #1 or #2 and are playing for the NC — that reduces the likelihood my conference has to share with ND.
The only reason for the SEC/ACC, etc. to keep ND in the BCS mix is to keep ND away from the B10. The arrogant way in which the B10 has handled this past 6 months (humiliating Kansas and Mizzou in the process) may create enough bad will for the other conferences to screw the B10, but I would expect the $$ argument to win out.
Where is ND w/o the BCS? Just a little more erosion.
The problem for ND is that the potential downside is greater than the potential upside. That’s not hate for ND, that’s reality. There is a reason that only ND, Navy and Army are independent. ND has had enough strength to buck the trend, but I simply don’t think it can buck it forever.
LikeLike
One more challenge to the “ND is national crowd” —
ND’s NBC rating is hovering below 3.0, yet Pitt’s rating over the past few years is about 3.4 — and that’s with Pitt primarily on cable and ND on broadcast.
Nobody in their right mind would suggest that Pitt is a stronger natl program than ND, yet its rating is higher. Two programs with mediocre results over the past several years, but ND gets the lower rating on broadcast.
That’s a much more objective metric than going on and on about history and anecdotal stories. If Kelly starts winning, ratings will improve — but isn’t that the case for ALL programs? ND has to win, like any other. Being in the B10 gets them in a schedule with strong programs — in other words, good football.
Kids want to play on TV and get to the NFL, they don’t give a crap about the Gipper. Get good kids and win and you have a winning program. And winning takes care of everything. Or maybe you simply don’t think you can beat Penn State, tOSU and Nebraska? After all, you can’t seem to beat Pitt.
/zing
Again, I think the downside risks of independence are higher than the upside. Nobody from ND has really provided an objective, quantifiable argument that ND still has a ‘special’ quality. Give us some real numbers, not your emotions.
LikeLike
One more challenge to the “ND is national crowd” —
ND’s NBC rating is hovering below 3.0, yet Pitt’s rating over the past few years is about 3.4 — and that’s with Pitt primarily on cable and ND on broadcast.
Nobody in their right mind would suggest that Pitt is a stronger natl program than ND, yet its rating is higher. Two programs with mediocre results over the past several years, but ND gets the lower rating on broadcast.
That’s a much more objective metric than going on and on about history and anecdotal stories. If Kelly starts winning, ratings will improve — but isn’t that the case for ALL programs? ND has to win, like any other. Being in the B10 gets them in a schedule with strong programs — in other words, good football.
Kids want to play on TV and get to the NFL, they don’t give a crap about the Gipper. Get good kids and win and you have a winning program. And winning takes care of everything. Or maybe you simply don’t think you can beat Penn State, tOSU and Nebraska? After all, you can’t seem to beat Pitt — ratings or on the field.
/zing
Again, I think the downside risks of independence are higher than the upside. Nobody from ND has really provided an objective, quantifiable argument that ND still has a ‘special’ quality. Give us some real numbers, not your emotions.
LikeLike
Regrets on the accidental double post.
LikeLike
Well stated argument, sir.
LikeLike
1. The Big East bowl tie ins already stink. I’d imagine ND non-BCS bowls won’t look much worse than the current BE slate. ND will maintain a place at the BCS table as long as the Networks are paying the piper. ND is still has great demographic and geographic draw. Whoever has the BCS contract is going to want ND in the mix, and the BCS conference know that ND increases the pie larger than its split (since Dr. White botched that negotiation, particularly).
2. ND is not competing for OOC games with tomato cans. It is a school teams bring in for Gate $$$ or for prestige. ND doesn’t need or want 11 games against the top 15. This argument is a non-starter.
3. From Pens’s original post: I’m not sure there are sufficient Pro-Big Ten voices to make a difference at ND. IrishTexan is a recent alum and is so far the only alum I’ve ever heard of with that POV. I guess there are still communists in this country, but I don’t think they’re looking at getting any power any time soon. Your “negotiable” points 1-6 are ones I would suspect ND would demand their way on as a matter of course and if pressed on them would get up from the table. The Big Ten’s basic problem is that they can neither make the ND donor base comfortable, nor can they offer much of what the NDPTB covet since it isn’t theirs to give.
4. You strongly discount the potential downside for ND in joining a conference generally, and the Big Ten in particular. I can easily see a future where ND joins the Big Ten, makes a couple more bad coaching hires, and turns into a northern Vandy. That doesn’t help anyone. The truth is Notre Dame is “NOTRE DAME” because it’s independent. Is PSU still the eastern draw it was 30years ago? You can bet ND won’t be a national draw long playing a Big Ten schedule. How will recruiting go when the only difference between ND, UM, OSU, NU, etc. is that the non-ND schools have easy ‘jock majors’ and more attractive coeds? Does the Big Ten really think we are stupid enough to believe that the CIC can fast track us to AAU membership when it took a century for GT, and they don’t have “sectarian baggage”?
There’s a reason folks on NDN think the Big Ten only wants ND in their conference to punish and destroy ND. http://www.ndnation.com/boards/showpost.php?b=football;pid=85781;d=this
4b. Y’know what, to a Domer, Penn State’s last twenty years is a great lesson in why we shouldn’t join the Big Ten.
As long as ND stays independent, and thus hungry, we are always one coach away from National prominence. Independence requires an AD to consciously seek opportunities, as opposed to just divvying up where the money goes. Since there’s no school like ND, independence is still the best way forward for us.
5. Prove ND is still special? OK, a conference of gigantic land grant universities with multi-million dollar TV pacakages and their own cable channel have been coming up with Byzantine plots to get a small Catholic school in a small and shrinking Rust Belt city to join their conference for over a decade. The Big Ten’s own interest proves ND specialness. IF you don’t want to accept that, how about the media’s obsession with ND? I’m sure someone with more time on their hands can crunch the time spent on Sportscenter and the inches of Newsprint dedicated to the Fightin’ Irish in comparison not just to other schools but other conferences Nationwide.
LikeLike
1. So because ND is already in a crappy position it shouldn’t do anything to improve it? Got it.
2. You’re right…playing Western Michigan, Tulsa, and Army really make that schedule. In fact, with USC probably not going to be very good (sanctions), Michigan junk (RichRod), and the rest being of varying difficulty it’ll be interesting to see how exactly ND is going to get its 4-5 losses this year.
3. Actually, totally agree with that.
4a. You mean they become a small town, private college in the mid-west that cannot string together enough wins to make a legitimate shot at the NC…oh wait I was talking about their past 20 years as an independant.
Also, yes PSU is still the draw it was 30 years ago…because it has top notch academics and graduates a rediculous amount of students, who then spread througout the eastern seaboard (I’ve personally seen my PSU alumni from NYC to Florida to New Mexico).
4b. Ummm, PSU should have won the NC in the mid-90’s, but that’s beside the point. You mean the past 20 years of expanding our academic excellence (via cooperation with the BigTen and the CIC), being a perrenial contender (Top15), and helping create a revolution in the college sports landscape that will secure the stability of the school for decades was “a mistake” and is a “lesson learned” for ND? Joke is, it SHOULD be a lesson, but I don’t think ND Nation is smart enough to learn it.
5. So because we want you, you’re special. Great basis of reasoning there. How about ND’s storied history, national following, or willingness to play anyone anywhere. These are all excellent reasons for any confernce, let alone the BigTen, to want ND.
The problem is that history is being marred by the continued inability to even finish in the Top25 (let alone win NC’s), an aging and non-expanding demographic, and the fact that expanding (and enlarging) conferences are making it harder and harder to schedule anyone of worth once conference play starts.
To be honest Domers comepletely miss the boat on these arguments. There are two reasons why teams join a conference (its slightly different for the BigTen, but whatever)…$$$ and stability. Being part of a conference allows each school to ride through its down years and ensure the profitability of its sports program.
The thing is Notre Dame doesn’t need to worry about those two things. As its a private school, it can depend on its name and undergraduate focus to get nation-wide student’s to pay a premium to go there (ensuring its small student base maintains the school side) and with $5.5 billion in endowment (and no graduate/research overhead to draw from that pool) the school simly has plenty of $$$ to ensure stability and viability for all its sports programs.
The only thing (from an athletics stand-point) that ND cares about is still being ABLE to compete for a NC.
In a vacuum, they don’t need anyone else and can operate the way they always have.
Thing is, if the BCS formula is changed or new arrangements are made (new contract is in 2014 IIRC) the only viable path to a NC might be through a conference. I’m sure they’ll always be “theoretical” way, but I have to believe what ND (athletics) fears most is a situation where they go undefeated and end up like a Boise St….ranked 5-10 and outside the NC picture.
Think that’ll never happen? Look at this years schedule. There are reasons why every team on that schedule may end up being “ok”. If that comes to pass, and ND goes undefeated (big if’s on both parts admittedly) I could really see ND being pushed out of the picture in favor of an BigTen/SEC team, even with a loss.
THAT’s what the administration is most worried about, and IMO, what the ND supporters just don’t seem to grasp.
“It’ll never happen” they say and maybe it won’t. But there will be a ton of people pointing and laughing if it does and there will be no one but “ND Nation” to blame if it does.
LikeLike
A question for the domers: To address the “national scheduling” issues that are restricted by playing an 8-game Big Ten schedule, would there be value in having an annual (or semi-annual) “neutral site” conference game on the regular Big Ten schedule for Notre Dame?
I’d be curious to see the cost-benefit analysis for The Big Ten in doing this. More often than not, there would likely be a loss in direct revenue from ticket sales. But if you market this properly, you get to showcase the conference nationally sort of like when the NFL plays in London, or the NHL has their Winter Classic or they kick off the season in Sweden/Czech Republic. The loss in ticket revenue might be made up by perhaps gaining valuable exposure in a region, and might draw more eyeballs.
Notre Dame would get to play a game outside of the Big Ten footprint (or at least on the fringe of it), but it just wouldn’t be against a team outside of The Big Ten.
Games in the Northeast are logical. If ND is alternating Rutgers (assume they are added w/ ND to get to 14 schools) and Navy so they get one NorthEast game every year, they still can get a chance to play an additional game in the NorthEast. But they can also do this in Florida or Texas (for football recruits and for the Latino Catholics), that would be fine too.
I think it would be reasonable to ask every Big Ten school to play one neutral site Big Ten game every 13-20 years, depending on ND’s desired frequency. If ND didn’t want this every year, it might be one neutral site game every 20 years. If ND didn’t want this every year, but The Big Ten liked the idea, maybe we see more non-ND conference games at neutral sites. I don’t see this as a big sacrifice for Big Ten schools to make, but might mean a lot to Notre Dame.
And off the top of my head, here are some possibilities that could be marketed a few years ahead of time to allow alums to make travel plans.
Michigan-Notre Dame at The Rose Bowl.
Ohio State-Notre Dame at Yankee Stadium.
Nebraska-Notre Dame at JerryWorld.
Michigan State-Notre Dame in Toronto.
Penn State-Notre Dame in Philly.
Wisconsin-Notre Dame in DC.
Illinois-Notre Dame in St. Louis.
Iowa-Notre Dame in Kansas City.
Rutgers-Notre Dame in Giants Stadium.
For Minnesota, Indiana, Northwestern, and Purdue, nothing logical specifically came to mind, but destinations that would have to be considered include Orlando and Las Vegas. Other spots might be Boston, San Diego, the Bay Area, New Orleans, Hawaii, Atlanta, and Miami.
LikeLike
I imagine that Notre Dame would be free to give up one of its 4 BT home games in order to play neutral site. But I assume you’re talking about every other BT team having to give up home games and ND not having to, yet ND getting the benefit of being involved in every one of these marquee games. Not sure that’s fair. But it would be an interesting point of negotation.
LikeLike
Oh, and Wisconsin having to give up a home game against ND in order to play it in Washington would be a pretty big sacrifice, assuing that home games against ND are going to be pretty rare anyways. As a UW alum, I’d like to bring on ND, but reason #1 would be to able to see ND come into Camp Randall. Reason #2 would be to see UW play in South Bend. Reason #3 would be to see Notre Dame have to play in the Motor City Bowl.
LikeLike
Although I will say, your idea of a neutral-site BT game as an “event” is a really good one, even if it involves ND every year. I just think the missing home games have to be spread around a little.
LikeLike
Who knows how each Big Ten school would view this. Maybe 2-3 schools aren’t sold on it, so they take a pass.
But maybe Wisconsin loves the idea. So they plan 2 neutral site games with ND over the next 6 years.
So their schedule looks like this:
2014 DC
2015 South Bend
2016 Madison
2017 South Bend
2018 Madison
2019 Giants Stadium
So in 2014, Wisconsin loses a home game and has 3 home, 4 away, and 1 neutral.
In 2019, ND loses a home game, so Wisconsin has 4 home, 3 away, and 1 neutral.
Obviously ND gets the benefit sooner, but there are other things that can be worked out to mitigate the damage.
Maybe Wisconsin gets 80% of the revenue from the “home” game in DC instead of the (I believe) 60/40 normal revenue split. Maybe ND agrees to send their basketball or hockey teams to Madison for a couple of years non-conference before entering the Big Ten without having Wisconsin return the favor.
Additionally, as I said, maybe ND doesn’t want this every year, but is good with 80% or 75% or 66% of the time.
For some schools, like Indiana and Northwestern with lower attendance, they may be more interested in other schools, and favor losing a home game, because it may increase their revenue from a particular game.
.
LikeLike
Except that its almost impossible to envision a scenario under which ND and Wis would play every year in a 14 or 16-team B10, which means that a game taken out of Camp Randall would be one that doesn’t get replayed fro at least a couple of more years. I get what you’re saying about “out of footprint” games (and a lot of your proposals sound really cool, such as ND-Neb at JerryWorld) but how about ND-Wis at Lambeau. College Gameday travels to that one, right?
LikeLike
Lambeau would be awesome. I think one of the first CCG should be there.
But my reasoning for setting this up was to expose ND and The Big Ten outside of the existing footprint.
I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, but I was trying to address ND’s fear of becoming a midwestern school instead of a national school.
LikeLike
I can’t see ND or most Big Ten teams giving up a home date period. NU, IU, and Minnesota might, since they have <53K seat stadiums. Everyone else would just be leaving money on the table and cheesing off the season ticketholders.
LikeLike
FLP,
You’re right, that for some, there would be a financial hit for that game.
I’m guessing here, but if a 100,000 seat stadium sells tickets at $60 per ticket, that’s $6M in ticket revenue. Throw in another $2M for parking and concessions and gameday advertising for a big game against ND, and you’ve got $8M in revenue for a Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State hosting ND.
Now move that game to a neutral site. Maybe you get 60,000 tickets at $50 for an NFL stadium. The home stadium keeps parking, ads, and concessions. So now it’s $3M.
So you might be looking at a loss of $5M in revenue for that game for the two schools. Let’s say it’s a $4M hit for the “home team” and a $1M hit for the visitors.
But what does value does ND bring to the Big Ten? Do they add $2M annually to each conference team? What is the value of ND to the ABC/ESPN contract, or getting BTN on basic cable in NYC, or even nationally?
For current Big Ten teams, you’re asking them to do this once in… 20 years. So you’re asking each school to take (at most) a $4M hit once, but getting a return on your investment of $40M over 20 years. I think I’ll make that investment.
And again, from ND’s view point, this helps them achieve their 7-4-1 Home-Away-Neutral goal, while not destroying the integrity of an 8 game conference schedule.
Beyond that, I think season ticket holders and fans understand. If you are an alum that ever travels with your team, this would be like a Bowl Game in the middle of the season, but instead of having 4-6 weeks to prepare, you would have 2-3 years to plan for it.
LikeLike
Pac-10 expansion: Revenue analysis for the 12-team league
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/06/16/pac-10-expansion-revenue-analysis-for-the-12-team-league/
LikeLike
The interesting point is that the consultant says CU offers no value and Utah very little.
When the B12 was formed, I’ve read they asked the consultants how much more a B12 was worth than a B12-Baylor-Tech. The answer was ZERO.
However, they had the option of a championship game, so they ended up with the same revenue/school with 12 as they would have with 10.
This goes back to what I have believed: that very few schools can justify going beyond 12 teams in the traditional model. And UM,OSU,PSU,USC and UF aren’t going anywhere and UT and ND don’t appear to be going anywhere in the next few years. I wonder if A&M was even enough to bring the SEC more revenue per team or was just a long term bet on value to avoid being drawfed by the B16 and P16. Only the BTN model justifies going beyond 12.
One thing to note about the B10 expansion: The reverberations of the Penn St. expansion were still being felt in 2005 when the ACC finished its expansion. Even if the B10 were to stop at 12, its impact could be felt for many years.
LikeLike
this is something I’m coming to the conclusion as well.
There are few schools out there that move the needle, and especially once you get past a certain number of pie divisions.
There are only 2 out there and that would be Notre Dame, and BYU. And it’s questionable how much BYU would help a conference.
Personally I like the idea of playing everyone in a Conference in football and basketball. That really makes it “FEEL” like a conference to me.
LikeLike
There has been a lot of speculation about how the new Big10 will choose to divide the teams and schedule.
I am a proponent of not creating divisions, rather, have choose 5 protected “rivals” for each team, then play 3 out of the remaining 6 teams on bi-yearly basis. I believe this would allow the conference to protect all rivalries while creating some interesting new ones.
The CCG can be played against the top 2 seeds in the conference (using an NFL-like seeding process). I think this would create a true Big10 champion. Having a 7-5 Division A winner play a 11-1 Division B winner would be not bring in the most money for the Conference.
Since I am a Penn State alum, the protected rivals could be: OSU, MSU, Minne, Iowa, Neb.
What does everyone think about this setup?
LikeLike
The NCAA requires divisions in order to hold a championship game.
LikeLike
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100616/BIGRED/706179924/-1#alvarez-pitched-idea-of-husker-move
Barry Alvarez suggested Nebraska to Jim Delaney on Jan. 2nd of this year.
LikeLike
in retrospect it makes perfect sense that Alvarez was part of the process
LikeLike
Alvarez was visiting with Delany in Pasadena, Calif., on Jan. 2 when they started talking about schools that might be expansion candidates. Delany brought up Nebraska. They discussed it, and Alvarez wondered if NU Athletic Director Tom Osborne might be interested.
LikeLike
but it was also clear that their thinking was longer terms. events accelerated the process.
LikeLike
FRANK,
I was looking back at some of the early threads for the picture of the singing mouse (rodent). It was the best pic in all of these threads and I can not find it, can you help.
thanks
LikeLike
How would you all feel about a very “vanilla” (but relatively compact) expansion to 16 with no Notre Dame?
EAST
Penn State
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Rutgers
NORTH
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Northwestern
SOUTH
Missouri
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana
WEST
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
The pods would rotate to create new divisions each year. With a 9-game schedule and no protected rivalries outside of the pods, each team would play 3 games against its own pod, 4 games against another pod, and 2 extra games against the other 8 teams. For the two extra games, the highest finisher in each pod from the previous year would play the highest finisher in each of the pods from the other division. Second would play second, and so on…
The addition of Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse, and Pitt would expand the footprint to three new states.
The Big 12 could replace Missouri with BYU.
Notre Dame would probably join the ACC. Fine.
LikeLike
I prefer no more expansion, so I definitely don’t like an expansion to 16 without ND. The conference has just added a football power, now people want to water it down with mediocre teams. Going beyond 12 is unwieldy, and means that you play teams infrequently.
Michigan visiting Iowa once per decade is not my idea of a good time.
LikeLike
Aside from Nebraska (and they have been mediocre recently), who is out there that is not mediocre in your mind? That is getable? How do you define mediocre? Tier 2 in football results? Adding World Class Universities who would be Tier 2 in Football in the Conference would be excellent additions. Nebraska was a Tier 3 addition (mediocre) in academic but potentially Tier 1 in football. Adding Tier 1/2 in academics and Tier 2/3 in Football is still a very good expansion in my eyes.
LikeLike
There really aren’t any great getable institutions. To me, you really need some great additions to go beyond 12. “Mediocre” may have been too strong a word.
Pitt is a great institution with solid athletics, but zero footprint. Rutgers is a very good institution with lots of possible TVs (and I think their TVs are undervalued since they may bring Philly into in-state carriage rates), with decent football (which may continue an uptrend) and poor athletics otherwise.
Syracuse is a poor institutional fit with a dump of a football stadium but likely strong TVs. Missouri is a weak academic fit (and I doubt B10 adds a second after adding Nebraska) which gets jumped in the bowl bids by IOWA STATE.
But this isn’t a game of Risk, where every property is a plus. There is a point of diminishing returns when there are too many teams athletically, and too many schools for collaborating.
The B10 has added two institutions in the last 61 years. I have a feeling they are done for now, Delany’s wishes be damned. He is not making decisions here.
LikeLike
For Rutgers in particular, Men’s Basketball being so poor hurts them tremendously. Women’s BBall, Mens and Womens Soccer, Baseball, Wrestling, are the only other Sports that are very good. Upgrading Lax and Men’s BBall are of the highest priority now for them. With their new coach hire in Men’s BBall they may be on the right track.
LikeLike
The Dome is not a dump. The new field turf is a real improvement.
When the team is good and the capacity is 90%, it is a loud venue.
If that fails… the Carrier Dome serves beer during games. The beer goggles improve it as a venue. 🙂
LikeLike
Sorry, I have to consider any dome a dump. 🙂
We just got rid of the Humpdome dump in Minnesota (aka Kinnick North), I don’t want the B10 to go out of their way to add a new one.
LikeLike
I think there is zero prospects for expansion to include Missouri at this point. they heve been bound to Texas and would be too gunshy to dare discuss leaving.
and that South pod is pretty weak. North and West would be bitches and when they rotate into the same division…ouch.
I’m also shifting towards the Notre Dame will never happen camp. so either a 4 team package in the east that makes sense without ND or stick at 12.
LikeLike
This.
Missouri to the Big Ten is 100% dead until the Big 12-2 explodes and UT ends up in the Pac-10.
Delany isn’t stupid. He’s not going to take Missouri only to thrust the Texas footprint into both the Pac-10 and SEC (UT -> Pac-16, A&M -> SEC).
Until UT and A&M bolt the Big 12-2, Missouri won’t get invited to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I think you’re probably right there. A&M and OK could be forced into the SEC, and TX to the Pac 10 or SEC……
I really think Mo’s best chance is if ND ultimately joins. Let’s say RU and Pitt are invited in a year, then BT holds for a few years. IF BK doesn’t kick ass at ND, and the BTN continues to grow, opposition to the Big 10 at ND may decline. If ND were added, BT would look to the best 100 year fit to end up at 16. With RU, Pitt, and ND added, there would be academic cover to add Mo., which the western teams would probably favor.
The interesting question to me right now is how much opposition would exist from alums and donors to adding RU and Pitt. Most of us on this blog are pro-expansion, but I don’t think most donors and alums are.
LikeLike
If you are wondering what the western teams favor, its not Mizzou. The Western teams, and basically all teams, want to have OSU/UM/PSU visit their stadiums. Adding Nebraska was another big name to visit your stadium. I think most schools will be against adding Miz/Rut/Mar/Pit/Syr because it just means less games against the big names.
LikeLike
NO!
LikeLike
So when do we start to hear about divisions and how this conference is going to look next year? Knowing that Nebraska is starting league play next year makes me think this news should come fairly quickly; future expansion or not. They threw some ideas around on the Big Ten Network after the Nebraska press conference (which by the way being able to watch it on the Big Ten Network was something all in itself!) but nothing sounds definite. Does anyone know of a timetable? One of the things they said was that they looked to keep travel costs to a minimum along with competitive balance and preservation of the major rivalries for all the teams in the conference; so that makes me believe that this may be a solution: (with permanent cross section rival in parenthesis)
East
Penn St (Iowa)
Ohio St (Michigan)
Indiana (Illinois)
Michigan St (Minnesota)
Purdue (Northwestern)
Wisconsin (Nebraska)
West
Michigan (Ohio St)
Nebraska (Wisconsin)
Iowa (Penn St)
Minnesota (Michigan St)
Illinois (Indiana)
Northwestern (Purdue)
Now, I’m not completely familiar with all the Big Ten rivalries……and I know this kills the Michigan St/Michigan and the Wisconsin/Minnesota rivalries, but it does keep THE GAME in tact as well as the Iowa/Penn St game which has been extremely entertaining the past 5 years. The most logical thing would be to split it geographically:
East
Penn St
Ohio St
Michigan
Michigan St
Indiana
Purdue
West
Iowa
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Illinois
Northwestern
Minnesota
But I think national perception would see the West as the ‘new Big 12 north’ as far as being competitive…..although the past couple years Iowa/Wisc/Neb would stack up well against Penn St/Ohio St/Mich……..how bout some of you long time Big Ten followers out there? How do you see the divisions playing out?
LikeLike
Just read in this morning’s paper that the ADs meet in late July/early August, and that is when divisions, and other athletic concerns, will likely be decided.
LikeLike
Good deal! I’ll be on the edge of my seat till then…..thanks Greg, I appreciate it!
LikeLike
In the spirit of avoiding a B12 situation, I could see the B10 without permanent divisions, possibly revisiting the split every few years in some way, protecting rival matches of course.
LikeLike
yea. I like that as well. I’ve been advocating 4 rotating pods elsewhere. but that still runs into the question of protected rivalries unless you just bight the bullet and put Michigan and Ohio State in the same pod. perhaps with Michigan State.
LikeLike
as a Michigan fan I want the Ohio State game protected. In terms of rivalries I rate my interest Ohio State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Michigan State. Penn State already rotates off the schedule 2 years in 8 so some disruption can be dealt with. and picking up Nebraska in exchange for Michigan State every year would be fine by me. Plus we keep the Little Brown Jug game with Minnesota which is currently on the same rotation as Penn State so that is a plus.
But I may not represent all Michigan fans since I am out of state and the instate rivalry while not as intense as Texas/TAMU can get prety big.
but your line up with Michigan and Nebraska together with Michigan keeping Ohio State protected is as good as any. any other version involving splitting the four ‘perrenials’ would require Penn State and Nebraska together which could fly in the face of geographic sensibilites. But then we still call ourselves the Big Ten.
also I think Penn State makes the better protected rival for Nebraska. Penn State’s current protected rivals are Michigan State which always felt forced and Ohio State who would remain with Michigan.
LikeLike
I get that you’re out of state alum, but as a grad of both UM and MSU and one that grew up in Detroit, I literally can’t believe this post. No offense meant.
LikeLike
I’m totally cool w/ dropping the Michigan State every year or two years. It’s a big deal for them, but not as big for us.
LikeLike
Here we go again! This is the prototypical UM response.
Honestly, MSU’s biggest rivals these days are NC, Duke and Kentucky.
UM’s biggest rivals these days are the NCAA and the United States Constitution.
LOL! Again, I’m a grad of both. Good times, good rivalry. Don’t be a turd and act like it doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
I thought it was cows and snow. I get it, it’s a civil war game. But, you have to accept that it IS a bigger deal for MSU than Mich. The Game is by far more important.
LikeLike
From a national football prospective, yes I get it. Otherwise, not so much.
LikeLike
fair enough. i’m a long way away from ann arbor.
LikeLike
@ JJ: don’t give it a second thought.
in my experience, JJ, in speaking with MI fans and reading MI blogs/articles (many exceptions of course), whether you are MI’s “biggest” rival depends on the audience.
when talking with or about a fan like me (that is a Buckeye fan), the MI fan says MSU is the biggest rival.
when talking with/about an MSU fan, then it’s tOSU.
oh, and there is something about current success…. i think every MI-er would agree tOSU was the biggest rival in the 1990s; now story is a bit different.
and I think when the MI fan is talking with a Domer, it’s tOSU because otherwise MI/MSU and ND/MSU would be on the same level. can’t have that now!
as noted, many exceptions to the above and all said with comrade-like affection for my fellow B10-ers.
LikeLike
sorry, bucknut, the audience has nothing to do with whether or not a certain school is a Wolverine’s “biggest” rival. I think JJ hit it on the head by noting location. I think most Michiganders would rank the M-MSU rivalvry high (if not the highest), but out-of-state fans rank the Bucknuts the highest. I remember my friends from places like Okemos and Lansing going crazy for the MSU game.
LikeLike
oh come on, GOPWolv. there have been consistent “memes” on MgoBlog and MVictors and Maize and Brew, etc., and the question of “who’s-the-biggest-rival” seems relative at best and seems ever changing. If it’s an MSU troll, that rivalry is denigrated. If I’m the troll, then “nobody on this board” cares about tUoOS. I’ve read similar “debates” about where ND ranks.
of course I understand those to be perfectly normal reactions on internet boards and forums.
but changing the “biggest-rival” seems to be a way of variously insulting various fan bases.
I’ve seen something similar on boards/forums for/between Purdue, Indiana, Illinois and NU.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
I have seen the same thing with Hawkeye fans. They insist the ISU doesn’t mean anything, and we should cancel the game. They claim to not care about the game or the rivalry. But when I offer to buy their tix for the ISU game for face value, they aren’t interested. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m a Michigan fan too (and an alum living in Michigan). My order of interest goes like this:
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan State
BIG GAP
3. Notre Dame
4. Penn State (and, I suspect, Nebraska)
gap
5. Wisconsin & Iowa
6. Minnesota & Illinois
7. Indiana, Purdue, & Northwestern
LikeLike
my two cents as a Buckeye:
1. MI
2. PennState (Neb will probably get in here at 2 or 3).
gap
3. Iowa and Wiscy (about on same level; fun games; good fans; pissed if we lose, but not getting all fetal-position)
gap
4. Illinois (pissed if we lose but look forward to butt-kicking the next year).
5. and then everyone else.
And, for obvious reasons, the school I hate most is Florida. I was so glad when MI kicked their asses (and yes, the score didn’t reflect how MI dominated that game even with Florida playing Tebow, Blessed Be His Name (said w/ dripping sarcasm — probably a great guy personally, but geez, the media love was more than embarrassing)).
LikeLike
on re-reading, i’d add MSU to the Illinois category. IL we’ve played more often; MSU better games, but we’re still not forgiving 1998 (dagnamit!!) so MSU doesn’t get added to the Wiscy/Iowa category.
geez, i sound like a four year old… LOL… but, hey, that’s was CFB does to us all
LikeLike
was at that game, TT had to keep pulling turf and crap from his helmet – praise be indeed.
LikeLike
heh heh… yep, wasn’t there, but I remember all that turf and dirt on Tebow. and I just loved loved loved the “deer-in-headlights” look on smarmy Meyer’s face when he went to shake Coach Carr’s hand at mid-field. and how classy classy for Coach Carr to say what he said.
I suppose I’ll get over the whole 41-14 debacle sometime … lol
LikeLike
BB,
as an IU fan, you accept you are the third best in your own state behind ND & PU. that said I think this past year we got robbed in a few games, and if you were watching you know who you are.
😉
LikeLike
I have thought about how to set up the Big10 the best and came up with the following scheduling. No divisions, just 5 protected rivalries with a rotation of the rest of the conference for each team. No current rivalries are broken and new ones will form over time. This format also makes it flexible for expansion, divisions may be formed if we get to 16 teams. Anyway, Take a look:
Format:
TEAM: 5 Protected Rivalries
Year 1 & 2 Rotation Teams
Year 3 & 4 Rotation Teams
PENN STATE: OSU, MSU, Minne, Iowa, Neb
Mich, NW, Ill
Ind, Pur, Wisc
OHIO STATE: Mich, PSU, Ill, MSU, Pur
Wisc, Ind, Iowa
NW, Neb, Minne
ILLINOIS: OSU, Ind, NW, Pur, Neb
Wisc, PSU, MSU
Minne, Mich, Iowa
MINNESOTA: PSU, Iowa, Wisc, Neb, Mich
MSU, Ind, NW
OSU, Pur, Ill
IOWA: Minne, PSU, Wisc, Neb, NW
MSU, OSU, Pur
Mich, Ill, Ind
MICHIGAN: OSU, MSU, Minne, Wisc, NW
PSU, Neb, Pur
Ind, Ill, Iowa
NEBRASKA: PSU, Minne, Iowa, Wisc, Ill
Ind, Mich, NW
Pur, OSU, MSU
NORTHWESTERN: Ill, Iowa, Pur, Ind, Mich
Neb, PSU, Minne
OSU, MSU, Wisc
PURDUE: NW, Ill, Ind, OSU, MSU
Mich, Wisc, Iowa
PSU, Neb, Minne
MICHIGAN STATE: PSU, Ind, Mich, OSU, Pur
Iowa, Ill, Minne
Neb, Wisc, NW
INDIANA: MSU, Pur, Ill, Wisc, NW
OSU, Neb, Minne
PSU, Mich, Iowa
WISCONSIN: Iowa, Minne, Neb, Mich, Ind
OSU, Ill, Pur
PSU, MSU, NW
LikeLike
I like this. You spent some time on this. Thanks for the idea.
LikeLike
I like it too. But you’d probably have to give up the CCG, which doesn’t seem likely in a 12-team conference.
LikeLike
The CCG can be played by the top 2 seeds at the end of conference play.
Tiebreakers
1. # of Conference Wins
2. Head to Head
3. Common opponents W-L
LikeLike
As I said above, the NCAA does not allow this. In order to hold a conference championship game, a league must have at least 12 teams split into two divisions.
LikeLike
Thanks Pezlion, I missed that. Well then in that scenario a CCG would not work, unless the NCAA changed its bi-laws!
LikeLike
Not a bad idea.
My only thoughts are that each school would probably want as many games as possible against the big four, and evenly balanced.
Indiana, which doesn’t have any of the big four as a protected rivalry, might not be happy getting only 8 big games (and 4 at home) in four years. Minnesota, which has protected games against Penn State, Nebraska, and Michigan, has 14 big games (and 7 at home) in four years.
Additionally, there would need to be some balance for a particular team. Michigan, for example has both Nebraska and Penn State in the same rotation. So for two years, M plays all 3 of the others. And then for two years, they miss both Penn State and Nebraska. The schedule shifts from “too hard” to “too easy”.
Assuming, of course, that we actually are able to put a competitive team on the field some time soon.
LikeLike
This is a great setup for 14 teams.
Have a 9 game conference schedule.
5 yearly rivals.
The other 8 teams rotate onto the schedule every other year.
The “Big 4” do need to be balanced around the conference as rivals.
LikeLike
Wow, thanks for those permanent cross sectional rivalries from the state of Illinois standpoint. We tend to shoot up here not down. I am not willing to shell out any extra money for these games. Not to slight the state of Indiana. It’s just that a rivalry depends on a certain amount of equality and some animosity. Over the last 20 years, I don’t really see either. I see (3) big ten championships (2) Rose bowls on one side and none on the other. Either of Wisconsin, Michigan state and Iowa would be better fill ins.
LikeLike
I understand, but you would also be playing OSU & Neb Every Year. Have to even out the schedule. You would be playing 3 of the “Big 4” teams (OSU, PSU, Neb, Mich) every year…..
LikeLike
A few random questions…
1. Just how much are the future of the B12 and the success of Longhorn cable channel tied together?
2. How likely is that channel going to succeed with a homogeneous product which includes no marquee games?
3. The Rose Bowl now has very nearly a coast-to-coast footprint. I don’t know any of the numbers, but what are the chances that it breaks from the BCS as it is the bully in that group? How much does the Rose Bowl need the BCS?
LikeLike
I think the Longhorn Network will succeed to a similar level to Florida’s channel. that will provide decent revenue but not be a real challenge for first run broadcasts of Texas football or perhaps even basketball. it will never have a broad enough footprint to compete on that level. but it will make decent money.
I dout the Rose Bowl pulls out unless there is a massive reimagining of the BCS.
LikeLike
CGE,
1) Longhorn Conference = Longhorn cable = TU success
2) TU and OU can draw, after that i am guessing Iowa State vs Baylor just does not have much of a national appeal.
3) funny you ask….
In early discussion I put out something that looked like this:
Pac 10 goes to 16 and the Big 12 goes to 16
Neither plays an end of the season CCG and both conferences are broken into 2 divisions.
Post christmas / Pre new years 2 games are played on the same day
Game 1: Pac 16 division 1 winner plays division 2 winner
Game 2: Big 16 division 1 winner plays division 2 winner
(note: home field advantage goes to team with best record – it they are equal then decided by coin flip)
winner of Game 1 plays winner of game 2 in the Rose Bowl
positive points:
1) all revenue stays in Big 16 / Pac 16 (and by playing at home fields decreases travel costs, and keeps tourist revenue in Big 16 / Pac 16 cities)
2) BTN and PTN can better control media revenue
3) The Rose Bowl would ensure a NC or shared NC EVERY year!
negative points:
draws in media / congress, but other conferences are still out there, so the “monopoly” argument may be harder to prove.
comments?
PS.. here is simulation
UNL has 1 loss and tOSU has 1 loss (so coin flip and UNL wins)
Game #1 tOSU meets UNL on UNL’s field (tOSU wins)
USC is undefeated and Utah is undefeated (Utah wins coin toss)
Game #2 USC meets Utah on Utah’s field (USC wins)
Rose Bowl ==> tOSU meets USC in Rose Bowl (USC wins)
Rose Bowl stays the “granddaddy” and the Big 16 / Pac 16 keep all the loot….
LikeLike
1. Just how much are the future of the B12 and the success of Longhorn cable channel tied together?
This to me is one of the most interesting questions to be answered over the next couple of years.
If the Big Ten network model is a better business model for local distribution why wouldn’t the Big 12 just run with this in its 5 state market?
Texas could own a disproportionate share of the network and they could partner with any number of partners in the cable business.
Or is the general feeling that the ESPN model is a better deal?
LikeLike
IMO, the BTN is the better model for schools with the BigTen’s features. Large, state subsidized, large market penetration, large markets.
The Big12 has the problem of having teams like Baylor, KState, OKState, etc which dilute markets and split revenues.
Ideally, for a conference network, you want the one most popular school in the state to get the channel on basic teir cable and that’s it. Thus why Texas was such a hot property and why schools like Mizzou, Rutgers, and Maryland, while not being national powers, provide very good revenue sources.
It will be interesting to see how the Pac network works out as they tend to pair their schools together.
I really think Texas is simply using the Big12- to buy time to get its LHN up and running. At that point if it appears to be a money loser, its an easy “bargain away” chip when it slides to a new conference and if it makes money Texas can say it has already sunk large sums of money into it, it simply isn’t on the table for discussion (again when they join another conference).
LikeLike
Buying time? how can you look at it any other way?
LikeLike
hmm… not sure I agree.
You say: “Ideally, for a conference network, you want the one most popular school in the state to get the channel on basic tier cable and that’s it.”
There are too many counter-examples to say “one school, one state” is the best model.
I think saturation is the key. You may get that with one school (tOSU). But one massive state university does not necessarily bring saturation. Example: Maryland.
There has to be fan interest. Fan interest/passion is often generated/created by two-instate rivals. Examples: too many to list, but here’s three: MI/MSU, ‘Bama/Auburn, UCLA/USC. where fan passion is higher, saturation is higher.
Thus, I personally like the idea that Pitt is already in the footprint. Creates interest, fan passion and ensures maximum saturation of the tv market.
But again, the point is that fan passion and interest is what leads to market penetration and saturation. That may or may not be accomplished by one giant state school.
LikeLike
First off, I said “ideally”.
Ideally there is only one school in a state that is of any worth. OSU is a perfect example. Does anyone REALLY think bringing Cinci in to the BigTen would actually improve Ohio coverage? Of course not. OSU is by far the top name in that state and draws the majority of the tv sets. Any further expansion in that geography and you’re just splitting revenue more than you need to.
As a PA guy (and one who lives in MD so I’ll get there in a sec) I’m actually a fan of Pitt. I think they work on many levels and would not be upset with them getting in the BigTen. However from a conference network perspective I think they are decidedly second tier. They have good product and thus would help with advertising, but in the end the increase in markets is minimal. In fact they don’t even really help further pentrate the PA market as they are so focused in Pittsburgh and their student body (ie alumni base) is relatively small (compared to PSU/OSU/etc anyway). If a conference didn’t have a foot in PA, Pitt is a good choice, but it isn’t the best. If a conference already has PSU then Pitt needs to bring a lot more than just markets (and IMO it does) because it simply doesn’t cut it.
As for MD. MD is by far the most popular “Marylander” team. The problem in Maryland (the state) is the number of transplants due to the federal government. At which point the question become how many of a conferences alumni already reside within the expansion state in question?
As a PSU alum, I can say there are tons of PSU, OSU, & Mich folks here & I have seen several from mid-western BigTen states (Minn, Iowa, Illinois). Heck Indiana is having a “home game” against PSU in FedEx field this upcoming season because there are so many alumni around here.
At which point a school like MD (in my mind actually) trumps a school like Pitt since they broth bring similar “non-athletic offerings”, but only one greatly expands markets and provides new venues for the BigTen schools to showcase their product.
IMO, rivalries are good. Passion is good. But in the end, the conference needs to make sure it will be able to provide for all its members in the best way possible.
In reality, maybe that means some extra schools in an already covered area (Pitt), maybe it means totally new. but ideally you have the one and only major draw in a populous state.
LikeLike
Frank,
on the arkansas twitter, i agree with you..
I think Chip Brown is pimping for TU to try and get some positive spin for this whole Big 12 clusterf$#k. Yes Jerryworld is a Arky grad, but what would Arky get in the deal? Besides, while we may see the football angle, Arky has had success in basketball (mens and womens) and track & field in the SEC. The current coaches (football, basketball, and women’s basketball) ALL have strong ties to Kentucky via UK or UL.
LikeLike
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/16/2271157_p2/how-the-aggies-saved-the-big-12.html
Kinda answers the orange mouthpiece from an unbiased newspaper.
LikeLike
wes,
thanks for the link, I looked at the poll, and the names leading are the Longhorn Conference and the Southwest Conference are way out ahead. To be fair it probably should be SWC II or SWC Part Deaux (sp), but what the heck. Everybody seems to know who is calling the shots.
I like that it gives A&M credit, but it is still not on a good leg. A&M used their cards to get a better seat, it does not look like they used their Ace to get equal revenue sharing for the league as a whole. If the Aggie’s had done that, it would have been a sight indeed!
LikeLike
If they try to call it the Southwest Conference I demand a place for Rice.
LikeLike
loki,
As a rice guy, would you really want rice in all that dysfunction?
LikeLike
Hell, no. We’re holding tight until the big Ivy League expansion.
LikeLike
Based on the great discussions on this thread, I wanted to throw out an invite to the posters here to sign up to participate at a site called the best damn poll in the land. This site was started years ago by those that run it because they are discussed with the polls which presently determine who gets to play in the BCS games. They have forums with the best discussion on college football I have found on the web. After a while, you can earn the right to submit a weekly poll during the college football season where you rank the various teams. They have recently opened up their requirements to allow people to write articles and submit them on their page (I”m presently a writer for them now). If interested, check it out at: http://www.thebestdamnpoll.com/Home.aspx
LikeLike
Had some here ask about the relationship between Oklahoama, and Okla. St. From the Daily Oklahoman today (thursday) there was a great article on the real relationship between the 2 schools:
Would the (SEC) invitation include Oklahoma State?
The answer was no, not at this time. Boren thanked the SEC for its interest but said the Sooners weren’t going anywhere without OSU.
Truth is, OU preferred the Pac-10 or remaining in the Big 12 to joining the SEC. But as the realignment craze settles down, one thing abundantly clear is the solid relationship between the two Oklahoma schools.
Read more: http://www.newsok.com/berry-tramel-realignment-frenzy-proves-oklahoma-is-a-state-united/article/3469082?custom_click=lead_story_title#ixzz0r7ib2EGG
LikeLike
And this is why it was so dumb that the PAC 16 deal got killed. When Delany kicks off his run to 16 then this is all going to start back up again and the same issues are still going to apply, only now there is one less seat at the PAC table and either Tech or OSU is going to be left standing.
Unless the same cabal that killed the move for the PAC is successful in blocking the Big 10’s expansion, but with an established network they have more juice to resist those efforts.
LikeLike
This is not true at all.
The next break up of the Big 12-2 will feature collusion between the Pac-12 and SEC.
Most likely, the Pac-12 will invite Texas/Tech/OU/OSU. The SEC will invite A&M and another school.
Thus, Utah is not an issue. My guess is that the SEC may tip the dominoes by inviting Missouri and A&M in order to break up the Big 12-2 (if Missouri is willing to go along).
Then Scott will jump in and invite Texas/Tech/OU/OSU to go to 16.
LikeLike
I want to go a step further and say that whatever happened or didn’t happen with realignment this time; we now know how the players will act or what they will want next time.
Even if some things change; the SEC will make a hard run at A&M, and the Pac-12 will be in solid position to land the other 4.
LikeLike
SEC may invite A&M, OK, OK. Stae, and Missouri. Don’t see why SEC would give OK to the Pac 10……….
LikeLike
Well, it’s a question of what Oklahoma wants to do. All indications right now and in the future are that they’d follow UT west if they have a choice.
LikeLike
shroom,
from the media, oSu is a no starter for the SEC, and I am still pretty unsure that they want OU as well. Missouri was out there and they did not react. My guess is they only wanted TAMU.
In simple terms it looks like “southern” culture matters to the SEC, and OU, oSu, and Mossouri are more midwestern. it feels like it was OB spin suggesting that OU had a bid from the SEC, and the TAMU president kept saying 13 member SEC, but nothing about a 14th team.
My early premise was the SEC would take TAMU then head east. It looks like this is just what slive was doing.
LikeLike
SD,
just limits the players..
Pac 16 ==> TU + TT + OU + oSu = 16
SEC 16 ==> forces A&M to the SEC
still out there, but buys some time to work it out. As a 10 team league 5 could vote to disband and avoid exit penalty (especially if leaving teams sweetened the pot by working a deal with delany to get Missouri or Kansas to the Big 10). This allows a majority, and may include a deal to find homes for KSU, ISU, Baylor, and leftover in a conference home (maybe 1 time lump settlement to ease financial pain).
LikeLike
BUT…I get the feeling that K-state and KU may be died even closer than OU/Okla. St. are.
LikeLike
although, TTech to the SEC accomplishes the same goal for the SEC (entre into the TX market for TV and recruiting).
If TTech has a “safe landing” in a stable BCS conference, UT-Austin may not have a “tech problem.”
just some two cents.
LikeLike
While Tech has had some success on the field, their pull in the market is a lot less. They have a presence in DFW, but other than that, it’s mostly West Texas–more cows than people. Geographically speaking, Tech is a long way from anywhere, but it’s especially a long way from the SEC. Conversely, it was once in the old Border Conference with the Arizona schools.
LikeLike
DRD,
In the video interview, I picked up something the guys said about the institutions (not politicians) keeping together. While everybody knows OU and the football team, people forget that oSu is a basketball school (2 NC’s and a recent run at the NC a few years ago). I brought up the reverse theory (In a conference a great basketball school is offset by a great football school) as a way to keep harmony in a conference. UNL can beat KU in football, because KU knows it will get back in basketball.
just something to think about with OU and oSu….
LikeLike
Rittenberg on phase 2 of expansion.
sorry if all ready posted.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/13255/recruiting-must-be-a-factor-in-phase-2
LikeLike
Maryland/Rutgers; someone figure out how to make it happen.
LikeLike
willarm1 and zeek,
I have to laugh a bit at rittenberg.. we have been debating UM and RU since winter.
🙂
ESPN just needs to come here to figure out what happens next….
LikeLike
For those who care, Nebraska was invited into the CIC yesterday (UChicago got a vote for that, it was obviously a 12-0 unanimous vote). An article that has some tidbits about Nebraska’s relationships in research.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100617/NEWS01/706179910/0#nu-jumps-at-big-10-research-invite
LikeLike
As a UNL alum, that’s great news. Thanks for the post.
LikeLike
Trying to get a handle in CCG’s
When could the Big 10 hold its first CCG? this fall? next fall?
same question for Pac 12? this fall? next fall?
is the Big 12 CCG cancelled for this fall? does CU & UNL have financial liability for this loss of revenue?
what about basketball and other sports going forward, as their schedules are more flexible than football (some football games are scheduled 5 – 10 years in advance)
thanks….
LikeLike
The 2010 season is unaffected by realignment.
Thus, there will be a Big 12 CCG this coming season, but no Pac-10 or Big Ten CCGs.
The 2011 season will feature Big 12-1 (Colorado still in Big 12 I believe, but may move quicker), and the Pac-10 still won’t have 12. Thus, only the Big Ten will have a CCG in 2011; the Pac-10 and Big 12 will not.
The 2012 season will feature both Pac-12 and Big Ten CCGs.
My understanding is that Nebraska joins the Big Ten for the 2011 season, CU/Utah join the Pac-10 for the 2012 season…
LikeLike
Reports in Nebraska are that Colorado has been asked to leave the Big 12 after this season by the conference; the Big 12 does not want to have to concoct an 11 team schedule for 2011.
LikeLike
Ah, that makes sense.
LikeLike
Utah will join the Pac-10 in 2011, too. So it all works out.
LikeLike
interesting. the exit penalty is higher if you leave with less notice. but, if you are asked to go more quickly, no way legally for you to have to pay the higher exit penalty?
that will be another big argument for Neb if the penalty issue ever gets to court. At minimum, Nebraska should only have to pay the lower amount.
LikeLike
BB,
It begs a question on the numbers that Beebe was tossing around. My understanding was the 20 million was part of the “package” that saved the Longhorn conference. If CU and UNL get out with little or no penalty how does Beebe’s $$ work?
LikeLike
LOL, for sure Duffman. and, personally, i think there are some very very strong legal arguments in Neb’s and CU’s favor.
The big one, of course, is everyone saying that the B12 gets more money, etc., with Neb/CU gone.
What’s the injury to the BXII?
Instead of something easy to prove, now the BXII-lite must prove that they would have gotten and even BIGGER deal if Neb/CU stayed. Now, THAT is a hard legal argument to win (or certainly creates a battle-of-the-experts which is never a slam-dunk win in court).
Now add that CU is allegedly ASKED to leave early and NEB can rightly argue for the lower penalty at a minimum.
However, BIG POINT: Beebe’s full of sh*t right now; he’s just making stuff up. Nothing in writing, just “talks” and “promises” and “projections” by the tv execs but nothing on paper. yeah, what are those worth? and what’s in the details? what other concessions are made by the BXII-lite schools to get all this phantom money?
and here’s a question: why has Pac-12 Commish Scott stopped? why isn’t he still trying to lure OK and OKST? Or invite KS instead of Utah (yes, too late now, but still). If you pick off another one or two BXII schools, BXII dies. And until Bebee’s “deal” is inked, it’s just bullsh*t. and if you pick off a school or two, the BXII dies and the “deal” never happens.
Same question as to why Mizzu and KS and KSState are not talking with the BEast. If I ran one of those schools, i’d be looking for anyplace to go rather than stay as Texas’ butt-buddy for the next two decades.
Frankly, none of this makes any sense to me.
LikeLike
Why has the P12 stopped?
Of course you recall the coordinated uprising against the P16, and likely 16 team conferences in general. There may be political power via administrators/industry/etc that prevent 16 team conferences from ever happening. People wondered who was against 16 team conferences. Well, basically every school in the country who wouldn’t be one of the chosen ones, most boosters, most alums, and a huge chunk of industry.
Since I’m happy with the B10 staying at 12, I hope this is true.
LikeLike
1) End of the 2011 season.
2) Whenever both Utah and Colorado join. Last I heard it would be the end of the 2011 season, althought I have not heard it confirmed.
3) There will be a Big 12 championship this year (Nebraska vs. Texas is my prediction). After that there will not be one.
LikeLike
thanks,
on the other sports will we see a shift in schedules in OOC play this year to accelerate future integration of new members?
LikeLike
It sound like the aTm fans are still in meltdown mode. Here is a link to a Scout’s article which talks about the unexpected (from the aTm PTB viewpoint) backlash that the aTm president, chancellor, and BOR are currently facing. It also talks about a function this weekend between some big donars and the PTB.
http://tamu.scout.com/2/978071.html
LikeLike
Here is an article on Scout’s website that talks about the backlash from the aTm fans due to the president’s choice to stick in the Big 12-lite. It appears that the PTB weren’t expecting this vocal of an outcry from them. There apparently is supposed to be a function this weekend between the big donars and the PTB at aTm. It would be fun to be a fly on the wall at that meeting.
http://tamu.scout.com/2/978071.html
LikeLike
yeah some people are more direct than others
LikeLike
Just a semi-interesting nugget that is somewhat expansion related…according to a connected poster on one of the Colorado boards apparently all scheduling agreements between schools contain standard language that nullifies the agreement in the event the school switches conferences, so CU is apparently in the midst of completely redoing its schedule starting most likely in 2011.
This came up in the context of examining when they are going to play the CU/CSU which is typically the first game of the season, but might be moved to account for timing with the Utah/BYU Holy War game. I guess its still up in the air whether CU/Utah would be the last game like for other PAC schools or if they would leave the established rivalry games in that spot.
What I’m not sure of is whether this holds true for the entire conference or just the schools making the switch. Apparently the PAC is planning on remaining at 9 conference games and not going to the 4 OOC format the old Big 12 used, so that should keep the other schools from scrambling to add OOC games except where they had CU or Utah scheduled. Any word on what the Big 10 is going to do.
LikeLike
@SuperD – Whether the Big Ten goes up to 9 conference games is a big debate internally. Illinois and Michigan are on the record as in support of an increase, whereas my understanding is that Ohio State and Penn State want to stay at 8. The Big Ten has a number of schools that want the extra home date no matter what, so my guess is that it will stay at an 8-game conference schedule. The Pac-10 is different because its members don’t have as much money to pay for guarantee games and need better opponents in order to sell more tickets compared to the Big Ten schools. So, I believe that the Pac-10 will stay with a 9-game conference schedule.
LikeLike
9 would be great. Shave off some of the crud from the scheduling.
LikeLike
agreed.
I’ve heard the arguement for the extra home date but that will work out to one game every two years. and I’ve always wondered if viewership and thus advertising revenue for BTN wouldn’t be better with a better quality conference opponent or home and home with a respectable out of confernece opponent than with scheduling a tomato can like Delaware State.
LikeLike
I think the 9 game schedule isn’t the panacea that everyone thinks it is.
For one thing, it reduces the number of games that the Big Ten hosts, and therefore has the television rights. It means that one additional week a year, the conference averages 0.5 home games per team. You’re replacing non-conference games, and that average is almost certain to be above 0.5.
I doubt Delaware State games are going to be replaced by B10 games. As usual, I’ll use Iowa as my example. Iowa’s four non-conf games are usually: cupcake (Eastern Illinois this year), MAC team (Ball State), Iowa State, and a BCS team (Arizona this year, Pitt next year). What game will be cut from the schedule? I would bank on it being the BCS opponent. So you are replacing Pitt/Ariz with MSU/Purdue.
Its practically a wash. But creates a 5 home/4 road or vice versa scheduling issue in terms of conference standings.
LikeLike
greg, you sort of catch your own tail. If the Big Ten does go to 9 games and schools replace a BCS opponent, that does increase the television value. Since those schools usually require a home-and-home, the conference doesn’t get any value in the away year when Iowa plays at Arizona (like this year). If they substitute in MSU, the conference gets to broadcast both games.
LikeLike
Drats, you got me there.
LikeLike
When the Big Ten goes to a 9-game conference schedule, it officially signals it’s no longer pursuing Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say that necessarily though.
I think we could go to 14 and move to 9 game schedules without ND.
LikeLike
Maybe it does the opposite and squeezes ND a bit.
I do prefer that B10 is no longer carrying a torch, though.
LikeLike
From what I have heard as well – the Pac is looking to keep the 9 game conference sked.
The reasoning, to my understaanding is to keep as many NorCal vs SoCal games and NW schools vs SoCal games as possible on an annual basis. From a traditional rivalry and NW schools getting into recruiting hotbeds more often standpoint – it makes sense. The schools also don’t end up shelling out money for a cupcake to head their way in OOC (cheapos).
I don’t know that I like that though – I’m sure the coaches don’t (they have been on record, I beleive, as saying they don’t like the full 9 RR). It was always a detriment to rankings and BCS births, IMO, as you gaurantee 5 additional loses in the conference vs your competition (as all other BCS conferences played 8).
Now if the B10 schedules a 9 game conference slate (I dont see why they would), and the UTen goes to 9 game RR, the BE as rumored adds 2 for a 9 game RR – then the playing field at least levels out for it. Just always seemed (as fun as the conference games are to watch vs cupcakes) the 9 game slate automatically put the conference as a whole in the hole vs competition.
LikeLike
if all the conference start going to 9 conference games that will make scheduling even tougher for Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Seeing a conference mate once every 5 years is something that lacks integrity to me. Especially so when teams will be clamoring for the game day payday that comes from the conferences big 3 coming in to their home stadium. This is the real legacy of a 16 team conference.
LikeLike
This is why 16 is just to many for a tightly knit conference.
Fourteen seems like it would be the max. You need to see each team in the conference every other year.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why people can’t seem to grasp that a pod system fixes this problem, and you can play every team in the conference every other year if you switch to a 9 game conference schedule (which there is some talk of doing anyway).
LikeLike
16 teams w/ 4 pods:
-play 20% of the conf each year.
-play 80% of the conf every other year.
Every summer I’ll have to remind myself if I’m in the Even Year BigTen Conference or the Odd Year BigTen Conference.
LikeLike
Pods didn’t work in the WAC. Similar issue to ACC. Fans had a hard time figuring out who was in your division. If you try pods and they don’t work you’re stuck with seeing the other division teams at home once in 16 years with 8 games and once in 8 years with 9.
The SEC with its 5-2-1 schedule did only see 4 teams from the other division at home once in 8 years, but they switched to 5-1-2, so now its once in 5 years (1 home, 1 away).
If B10 had gone all east or east +ND, it would be easier to do an 8/8/ split. Stick PSU, new schools and Indiana schools together. You don’t hurt rivalries much. But with UNL, you can’t do that (at least not logically).
LikeLike
Everyone, I’m against divisions, but look at this list. These are the annual rival games. The B10 already seems to be skewed very much toward the east. Being on the east side of the B10, I can tell you that people love to point this out when Iowa, Purdue or Wisc do well. I guess what I’m saying is that the imbalance of a pure time zone division already exists. The Huskers should, hopefully, help bring some balance.
Illinois: Indiana, Northwestern
Indiana: Illinois, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Michigan: Michigan State, Ohio State
Michigan State: Michigan, Penn State
Minnesota: Iowa, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Michigan State, Ohio State
Purdue: Indiana, Northwestern
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota
LikeLike
speculation on Big East network…
http://www.ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=440094&pid=5513257
LikeLike
The BigEast had a network in the early 90’s. Its was a bball focused (surprise surprise) network and they sold it to ESPN soon after starting it up.
The problem with the BigEast starting a network is thus:
Content. Even if they refocused on football instead of bball (the reason why the BTN makes as much as it does IMO) the BigEast simply doesn’t have huge draws. While they do have good product, that product tends to be very focused in its regional appeal (does anyone think UCF is the main draw in the region?). When the BTN puts Indiana vs Minnesotta on it at least know there are two entire states that will tune in to watch. The BigEast might be lucky to have two towns (depending on the team).
LikeLike
What if Delany’s goal is the 35 million in NY, NJ, Maryland/DC area.
Does he need ND?
If not would SU/Rutgers and Big Ten Alumni in NYC carry the 20 million in New York State? because a TV in Ithaca is worth just as much as a TV in NYC to the BTN. (is that right? maybe not)
Does SU-Rutgers-Pitt-Maryland (NYC BT alumni) without ND, achieve that 35 million person goal? is it close?
Of course this is a great B-Ball expansion. And expansion as a whole with NEB, Pitt, and Rutgers would not be a horrible football expansion.
How much of that 35 million is carried?
Delany probably wouldn’t even look at this 16 team option without the “white whale” included.
LikeLike
Aye. An Ocean full of whales and Ahab good only see the great white one. Fortunately for Delany he has more ways to carve out his oil, I mean, numbers.
LikeLike
It sounds like we’re not listening. ND wants to remain independent. The outcome of our expansion will be defined by the expectation that’s set. This expansion shouldn’t be about grabbing ND, although most would welcome it if it happened. That’s why it was curious, disappointing and (IMHO) stupid to hear critics of the UNL acquisition, which should have been universally hailed on its own merits, not criticized because “it wasn’t ND”.
TPTB (and more of us) need to focus on advancing the interests of the Big Ten where the opportunities exist. Clearly a NJ/NY/NE grab and complete ownership of the North is within our grasp and would be a success my multiple means.
LikeLike
um, the above example is without ND.
The question was do those teams achieve the 35 million goal and if not how much does it attain?
And is ND necessary to achieve those goals?
The White Whale comment is legit. It is obvious that Delany has coveted ND.
Will he leave a spot open? try to move on without? or leave some writing on the wall at 14?
LikeLike
LOL. I’m supporting your comment. A prevailing premise on this blog is that the Big Ten won’t go to 16 without ND. I’m agreeing with you that there may be a path forward without them if necessary.
LikeLike
Sorry Jeff.
Thought I awoke the beast for a moment.
LikeLike
GRRR… Nope, still there.
LikeLike
If that meant just grabbing Rutgers would not in its self signal a massive success. Some would say that Rutgers may not deliver the NY/NJ market in the way that the big ten wants. In the same case Nebraska delivers all that there is to deliver and it comes with substantial history and football gravitas. It might be that the NY/NJ market depends on a Syracuse/Rutgers grab. This is not the same bang as a Texas or a ND pick up.
LikeLike
A Texas pick up seems like inviting Aretha Franklin to sing at the local church choir. Nobody else is going to be heard.
But adding the NE market provides the BTN just as much punch without the Diva.
Delany could simply give ND an offer like I suspect he gave UT, but tell them we are going to 16 with or with out you. If BTN analysis concurs. and by the way, we are going to make an boat load of money with you or without you. Because our analysis shows it to be true.
It is not forcing the issue. It is giving an offer. ND says yes or no.
ND-Pitt-Maryland-Rutgers
or
SU-Pitt-Rutgers-Maryland.
in phases or not.
Either way if analysis is correct we are going to capture a large chunk of that 35 million, in addition we probably will secure Philly with a combination of all involved as well.
You want in?
Delany is from NC. this white whale thing is probably overblown anyway. He doesn’t appear to me as a overly emotional guy.
In fact he may be the first hybrid computer/human on the planet. If he gives ND that offer, they know it will be their last chance.
LikeLike
for A&M discussion:
http://texags.com/mwr/loftin.asp
six part video link with A&M president
LikeLike
um… can you provide a 5 sentence summary of the mountain tops (for those of us not in a position to open and watch video at the present)?
LikeLike
BB,
Culture and travel were the factors that made the decision.
Money was not (easter bunny anyone)
The SEC had an invitation to A&M by itself (he mentioned a 13 team SEC several times and that the rest would be in the Pac 16).
it “appears” as if the president pulled the trigger here (unlike the BoR for the Pac 16 schools, A&M did NOT have such a vote scheduled).
This guy and slive have respect for each other
He is under MUCH pressure from the fanbase / donors for not taking the SEC invite.
He seems to have caved to TU in the end, as the arguments he makes about going forward do not seem to be made with conviction.
It was a “spin” interview as there were several main issues he skirted that are on the minds of the fanbase.
His “criteria” would put A&M in the SEC, but he kept referring to Texas the state. You get the feeling when he said Texas, it was more TU. He spoke of conference history but you got the impression it was SWC history, not Big 8 history.
UNL and CU were smart to go, as it will still be a have and have not conference. The only difference is OU and A&M got better seats at the table to keep the peace for now.
ps.. any bloggers on here have access to texags.com site? as parts are closed, we may not get to see what all is going on in the entire fanbase. What I can read appears to be at least 2:1 against staying in the Longhorn Conference. Am I reading this right, or are the numbers different than what I can read?
thanks..
PS .. BB the video’s probably average about 7 min each so I know I went a bit past 5 sentences, but it covered much stuff.
LikeLike
no, appreciate everything (very much). I only suggested five sentences so as not to request too much from you. but very much appreciate the mountain tops and some looks at the mountain sides.
As I note in a couple of places on here, none of this makes sense to me. I want to add TexA&M to the list of things I don’t get.
Why is TexA&M not continuing its flirtation with the SEC. I mean what POWERS THAT BE are out there that can basically (i) tell the Pac10 to keep hands off of BXII schools, (ii) tell A&M to stop flirting with SEC and (iii) tell the four northern orphans to “sit still while TX f’s you.
I mean seriously, who/what group has that kind of power?
Beebe’s phantom money is bullsh*t and is barely a fig leaf for this power play (or more actually, power stop).
LikeLike
I mean seriously, who/what group has that kind of power?
Legislators holding tax-exempt status over their heads?
LikeLike
Or more likely Texas Legislatures holding back funding from TAMU if they are the one’s to “break the history”.
LikeLike
BB,
somebody protecting TU. Lost in all of this is if TU would not go to the SEC and TAMU would, they could find themselves second dog in a decade or 2.
TAMU could recruit SEC footprint, but TU could not. I think some TU folks can hear the footsteps, TAMU just did not have the stones or power to fight back. They may cement #2 in the state, but they will not knock TU off the roost as history is on TU’s side.
LikeLike
Duffman,
It is 9-1 against the B12-2. A lot of frustration in Aggieland over this decision.
LikeLike
Was the aTm AD’s threat of fisticuffs to an alum discussed here yet?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/texasam/7057274.html
LikeLike
AggieFrank,
was my summary of the videos correct, as it is hard for us outside Aggieland to see it the same way you guys do? I am curious, as the regents wishes seem to have been blocked by the president. I hate to be so blunt, but it really seems like a bribe by TU to TAMU.
Do many TAMU folks know about this site?
ps. congrats on the NC wins, lost in the realignment is the track and field success you guys have had
pps. I know this may be no big deal, but your equestrian team would be better served in the SEC.
LikeLike
I watched most of the videos from the president of A&M. Interesting all considered. I don’t believe he mentioned the Big ten as a likely landing zone. Seems like many had not so much Georgia but the SEC on their minds. It seems that they (A&M) are happy with the money they think they will make.
LikeLike
StvInILL,
has first thing was student travel (smokescreen?) but his second thing was culture (this i think he was being honest about) which would knock the Big 10 out even with the academics. In one of the interviews he said there were some voices for the Big 10, but minor or no power in decision making.
LikeLike
@ Frank.
Seriously, Frank, does any of this make sense to you? As I noted up above in response to Duffman, why does Beebe’s phantom tv deal put an end to 16-team conferences and kill further expansion? The BXII-lite is even more vulnerable than before; pick of one or two more schools and it all falls apart regardless of Beebe’s imaginary tv deal.
Kansas would have been a better add than Utah because it might have actually caused the BXII House of Cards to collapse which re-creates the scenario where the P16 gets TX, et. al.
Just because UT-Austin said “no” doesn’t mean that the P16 had to take “no” for an answer.
And from the standpoint of Mizzu, KS, KSState and IOST, why are they just sitting there taking TX up the bum? If I understand correctly, the former BXII north schools were/are are each getting $5-7 million in annual revenue from the tv contacts RIGHT NOW. Okay, so this phantom deal supposedly doubles that IN THE FUTURE. But why should they care?
Take these facts:
the BEast is apparently serious about adding schools; the BEast pays about that ($5-7 million) and might get a serious bump in TV money in the next round of negotiations; the MWC is obviously interested in adding schools; MWC pays out $2-3 millions and might get a serious bump in the next round of negotiations and might end up as an AQ conference.
If only for the sake a self-respect, going to the MWC should be seen as an option for MO, KS, KSTATE and IowaState. Since you are currently making due with your $5-7 million, explore the Big East option; maybe even the MWC option. Yes, you may take a pay cut and never get $15 million (or not soon anyway), but you have some self-respect and aren’t just a cupcake/f-buddy for Texas and OKLA.
Anyway, I just don’t get it.
Maybe I am thinking too much like a sports fan. How does a University President see this? I can’t imagine that the University itself on the academic side isn’t getting a public relations hit here too.
Don’t know; just makes no sense to me.
LikeLike
Money talks. Boosters talk, etc.
How can an administration seriously tell their boosters and students that they demoted themselves voluntarily instead of staying with the Texas dominated Big 12-2? They can’t. They would get run out of town immediately. It’s not about self-respect, it’s about staying in the race of big time athletics. The big boosters would always want them in the Big 12-2 over the MWC.
And what other options do they have? The Pac-12 wants Texas, the Big Ten is looking east, and the SEC is looking at A&M and the ACC.
They’re beholden to Texas because Texas/Oklahoma/A&M bring all of the value to the TV contract and they have no realistic alternative.
This is one of those times where you bite your tongue and agree to be vassals to Austin.
LikeLike
The administrations of KU/KSU/ISU/Mizzou/Baylor floated this plan along with Beebe to give so much of the $ to Texas because they were afraid of their alternatives. They have to be rational actors and that requires them putting their pride behind what makes the most sense in terms of conference affiliations from a $/convenience/student/booster perspective.
And Kansas wouldn’t have gone alone to the Pac-10 thus setting off more fireworks and abandoning KSU and the rest of their fates like that…
LikeLike
@ Zeek. not sure I agree about the administration being run out of town; from all accounts on the message boards, etc., the fans at A&M and the four northern orphans are NOT happy at all.
plus, leadership sometimes requires actually leading. So, just do it and tell your fans this is long-term best interest (and based on fan reaction to what is actually happening, the fans might buy it).
but say you are right: how about A&M? why are THEY putting up with this?
and I understand there may be no options. but as far as we can tell, MO, et. al., aren’t even looking, aren’t talking with the BigEast or the MWC. Why not?
LikeLike
I have no idea why A&M is putting up with this.
My guess is that the Aggies in power would not want to be seen as abandoning the Big 12-2 and killing it off.
You would have seen Perry and more powerful Aggies involved at that point…
LikeLike
BB,
the more I read the more I agree with you. Beebe is full of $hit, and the lesser children (not OU and A&M) are too scared to call the bluff. If I was an old Big 8 school not in OK (OK and oSu) I would get the hell out of dodge ASAP! It is basically going to be the Texas & Oklahoma conference going forward with any school not named TU getting a shorter end of the stick.
They should just go for SWC II – the sequel
Only instead of TX and AR it is now TX and OK.
If the PAC 16 is a reality (and it really does make sense) – the guy running th show out there would be foolish not to pick off 4 schools now, than wait. I get the feeling TU wants to be master of its domain, no matter what. It feels like they would take crappy teams in TX area, than jump anywhere just to stay in control.
I keep looking at this thinking in 20 years OU and A&M will be the biggest losers in this whole thing.
LikeLike
let’s be more pointed here: the Pac12 doesn’t need to take the four northern orphans. all they need is one or two and the BXII-lite falls apart and TX and OK and OKST are back on the table (assuming A&M goes east).
why is the Pac12 taking “no” for the answer?
who are these “influential” people that are making all of these powerful universities and conferences stand still?
LikeLike
BB,
If i was gonna pick 2 it would be missouri and kansas. Missouri could actually blossom in a Pac 16 East football group. Kansas already has the basketball thing covered. Both are AAU, so it covers ground in academics. As a bonus they pick up 4 more senators.
LikeLike
ps..
Pac 10 = 8 senators
Pac 12 = 12 senators
Pac 14 = 16 senators
picking up KU and Mizz doubles their senators, and the Pac 10 already has plenty of congressmen.
In a week or 2 they could double what they started with! That is a BIG jump.
LikeLike
http://www.cic.net/Home/NewsAndPubs/News/Nebraska.aspx
CIC press release on UNL addition. Effective July 1, 2011, same date as B10 effective date.
LikeLike
I was just watching the Utah press conference. Huge difference from the Nebraska presser with JD and Perlman. Where JD came across distinguished and professional, Larry Scott was awkward and juvenile. Do better, Larry.
LikeLike
link, for video?
LikeLike
Here’s the link:
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=635&sid=11210641
LikeLike
Miz,KS, KSt and Iowa St seem too complacent to me. If I were in their administration I would commission some intense study on what their options are their next move will most likely be. I never could have stuck to this status quo because its not even the status quo. Things have changed and they are in a far less advantageous position than they were in previously. The only real winners here are Texas, A&M and maybe OK.
LikeLike
they really had no choice. they were facing the abyss. the immediate alternative was to take what will be a better near term deal from the Big 12 or accept the significantly lower payout of the WAC or MAC os similar. I don’t believe the Big East was an option, at least not for all 4. So they had to grab the lifeline or a serious hole was going to get punched in their athletic budgets. no choice.
going forward they should indeed study all options and see what their alternatives. but there is no reason to publicize the study and every reason to keep it on the down low.
LikeLike
hank,
if nothing else, the lesser children should pass a resolution that lets them jump without penalty. It might at least keep the Big 3 in the Longhorn Conference in check.
LikeLike
Duffman, totally agree. Who wants to get screwed whether you are staying or going.
LikeLike
and when they try DeLoss Dodds will simply look at them and say “it puts the money in the basket or it gets the hose again”
they have no power, UT has proven they are desperate.
LikeLike
Hank: gotta disagree that the four northern orphans have/had no choice.
first, there is always a choice! don’t ever let anyone say otherwise. There are things worth dying for.
second, the choices may not be all that bad. The BigEast and the MWC pay something in the range of what the orphans are CURRENTLY getting. So, continue to make due with what you have and figure out other revenue streams. maybe even a pay cut in exchange for some dignity.
The promise of FUTURE money in the BXII-lite should have zero allure to the orphans for several reasons: first, it’s bullsh*t. Beebe just made it up and nothing’s on paper. Second, future money is just as imaginary in the Big East and MWC. Let’s pretend we’re going to get $7 million more in the Big East and at least we’ll have some self-respect. Third, Texas, Okla and TXA&M are going to get the lion’s share of any future money in the BXII-lite. So, there really is NO future money for the orphans in the BigXII-lite.
In any event, the real issue is that the orphans don’t seem to be even LOOKING at options. “We will stand here getting f*ed and not do anything to stop it.”
I just don’t understand.
LikeLike
BB
I’m not unsympathetic to their plight but I really find it hard to believe those options. I’ve heard the rumors about the Big East but I just don’t see it as any more than the usual internet rumors around the Big East. how often have we heard Memphis or UCF was imminent to the Big East? and the comprability of money in the Big East is even more based on projections that the deal the Big 12 claims to currently have.
and I find it very hard to believe that the conference payout to MWC members is anyway close to even the old Big 12. the old Big 12 was clutered around $10 mln per team. I thought MWC was closer to $2 million.
I’m not saying the northern 4 should accept this as their final fate. but I think they had to take the best deal for the next few years. that doesn’t mean they can’t consider and study options. but there is no benefit to telling anyone you are looking. look how Missouri got played because of that.
I agree Beebe’s deal is bullshit. but they need to survive today. and then plan for the future.
LikeLike
well, as said, I don’t get any of it.
I don’t understand why Scott took “no” for an answer and I don’t understand why the MWC is not a viable option even if you have to take a pay cut. money is not the end-all IMHO.
based on some earlier posts on here, I thought I saw numbers saying that the northern orphans were in the 5-7 million range currently. and yes, I agree with your number for the MWC (based on what I have read).
But be visionary: MWC wants new teams because they want AQ for the BCS. Adding the four northern orphans helps with getting the AQ. (as an aside: prefer “orphans” over “the lesser four” because no value judgment implicit in the name — though the value judgment is patently true both in CFB quality and in $$).
Once the MWC has its AQ, then a bump in tv revenue is nearly a gurantee and maybe the four orphans are back to 5-7 million per school. now grow the money.
and don’t argue that the BXII-lite is more money. It’s all imaginary future money right now. so, let’s move to the MWC, pretend we’ll have millions in the near future (just like we’re pretending with the BXII-lite) and we have some self-respect.
Alright, so what about the academic side of that equation? how big a step down is it academically to join the MWC? anyone have the numbers?
LikeLike
I’m with you BB. They need a plan B pronto. What I don’t get is why A&M didn’t head to the SEC. I think 12 is a mental hurdle for everyone. Maybe A&M had a contingent offer based on B12 blowing up or something. Who knows.
LikeLike
StvInILL,
I go back to the battered wife syndrome thinking. The winner is TU, with OU and A&M getting better scraps to keep them happy. Everybody else seems pretty hosed. If Kansas and Missouri could jump to the BE they should be gone, and leave behind K State & ISU. It would be crappy but at least 2 schools would get out alive, not live the rest of their existence in ZombieWorld.
LikeLike
yeah, i don’t understand battered women either.
LikeLike
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1095242
“…Those sources said Arkansas currently doesn’t have the votes among the Big 12 schools to join the league. But those sources said they would need to see how the television money would work if adding a school or two to know if they’d vote for expansion.
Orangebloods.com heard from two sources over the weekend Arkansas had put out feelers about possibly joining the Big 12. But OB decided not to report it at that time because events in the Big 12 were moving so fast, we wanted to get more confirmation because the news was so potentially explosive for Arkansas in its relationship with the SEC.
Plus, Orangebloods.com wanted to make sure the information wasn’t being used as an emotional chess piece with regard to how things would play out in the Big 12.
But OB went back to its two sources and even added corroboration from a third and fourth source Thursday that Arkansas had definitely inquired about possibly moving to the Big 12…
——
…Orangebloods.com contacted three exeuctive sources in the Big 12 on Thursday and was told by one executive that Arkansas joinining the Big 12 was “a long shot.”
Another said, “Arkansas has definitely put feelers out about joining the Big 12.”
A third executive said, “If anybody can make the math (money) work, it’s Jerry Jones.”
That executive went on to lay out the only scenario he thought it might work for the Big 12: if the money can be adjusted by the Big 12 TV partners – ABC/ESPN and Fox Sports Net – to accommodate Arkansas (possibly with the help of Jerry Jones), then adding Arkansas could make sense, the source said.
That source went on to say if Arkansas joined the Big 12 and realignment started back up with the SEC having to replace a school and possibly looking to get to 14 or even 16, Notre Dame could be back in play.
Several sources, including a source close to the discussions that took place between Notre Dame and the Big Ten over the past month, indicated Notre Dame would remain independent unless it appeared super conferences were forming.
And now that the Big Ten is at 12 schools already, Notre Dame might be more interested in joining the Big 12, where it might be the 12th school added to the league (along with Arkansas).
Notre Dame could also explore having its own TV network inside the Big 12, whereas that would not be an option in the Big Ten, which has a conference network that requires everyone to share their inventory.
A source close to Texas said athletic director DeLoss Dodds and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick have “a very close” relationship. The source said Dodds has helped serve as a mentor to Swarbrick since Swarbrick took over as Notre Dame’s AD in June of 2008…”
LikeLike
Just because the B10+ goes to 14 or 16, or was even followed by the SEC, doesn’t mean the other conferences would.
Here’s the thing, if the B12-2 does expand with schools that aren’t desperate, TX to the P16 is dead. No one is going to leave a safe league unless the have written assurances from TX that they are committed to the B12-2+? with astronomical departure penalties. But if you have that, then AR to the B12-2+2 makes sense. If it is the same money as in the SEC then geography is a big plus. Get out a map and take a look, AR is in the NW corner of the state. MO, KS, KSU, OK St, and OU are closer to AR than any SEC school, and the entire conference is as close as AL and LSU.
ND may be a long shot, but BYU isn’t. SEC could replace AR with WV, a wash to an upgrade in their eyes. Win-win, IF, and a big IF, AR can be assured of conference stability and $.
And here’s a wild thought that I haven’t seen anywhere else, what about an aTm for AR trade?
LikeLike
The idea of TEX to the Pac16 is only dead if the Pac12 decides not to kill off the BXII-lite.
I realize that “not-killing-the-BXII-lite” is exactly what the Pac12 decided to do, but I don’t understand it.
Why did the Pac10 take “no” for an answer? if they had added KS instead of Utah, the BXII-lite would have collapsed. Then, Tex et. al. is back on the table.
LikeLike
Texas always has more options than to go along with that deal. Options including independent for one. But I would have been an interesting scenario. I say Texas has more option especially if they are willing to lose the LSN for now.
LikeLike
hmm… point well taken. killing off the BXII doesn’t necessarily put UT-Austin, et. al., back on the table.
But still, KS is a better “get” than Utah in my view. and who knows, if the BXII-lite collapsed …
LikeLike
Playoffs,
step away from the crack pipe!
WVA to SEC = TU to SEC
Arkansas is WAY ahead of WVU, I have spent time in both and it is NO contest. Arkansas has Wal Mart, and WV has Wal Mart stores. HUGE difference!
LikeLike
Kansas wasn’t going to the Pac-16 because…
The Big East was always the option for Kansas if the Big 12 had blown up.
Kansas can’t separate from K-State due to politics. The two systems are in the same public university system.
LikeLike
and if KS won’t go without KSstat, then add KState too the Pac11 and when it’s time to add TEX et. all, tell TTech “too bad.” (or become the Pac17 … once you are past 14, 16 or 17 doesn’t matter (other than for revenue split)).
LikeLike
Trying to force ND or TX into a conference is the dumbest strategy out there. All that does is piss those schools off and make it more unlikely. ND has the ACC option, an imperfect BEast option, and now a B12 option that would be far more flexible than anything the B10+ could offer. Remember the rumor that if ND joined, it wanted to be the 12th and final member?
If TX wants the B12 and wants to take it to 14 or 16, it could always look to luring a BEast block or non-BCS schools. And if it can make a convincing commitment to the conference on paper, adding AR and LSU is no longer inconceivable. I don’t see the upside for TX on adding either school, but Dodds might. And did you see yesterday’s article where the P12’s Larry Scott said he never thought he had an agreement with TX and understood the P16 was a long shot. Sounds like he’s still using the carrot approach.
The point being that both TX and ND have multiple options. No matter what happens, trying to manipulate them into a corner with only one option will fail and possible backfire.
LikeLike
Doing nothing is also not a good option. I like the try better than the total awe of TX and ND. Better to harness power than to let it run wild.
LikeLike
I agree Playoffs Now! 100%.
That’s why all of these “smoke ND out of the Big East” strategies don’t really make sense.
What happens if the Big Ten takes Rutgers/Pitt/Syracuse, and then ND joins the ACC?
LikeLike
agreed that being OBVIOUS about trying to force UT-Austin into the P16 would be counter-productive. and with so many football schools in the State of Texas, would be nearly impossible to corner UT-Austin in any event. The all-Texas conference is actually an option.
LikeLike
@Zeek. agree with your point about “smoking out” ND with a “big east gambit.” any gambit needs to be solid and sold on its own merit with a possible ND addition being the gravy.
Obviously, if such is done in concert with a ND decision to join, then that’s another story. And I think Delaney would do it as a concert rather than take any move that only “might” end up with ND joining.
LikeLike
“Remember the rumor that if ND joined, it wanted to be the 12th and final member?”
Another of Chip’s kneeslappers aimed at frightening a school that was well past that stage. On par with “Nebraska doesn’t have a Big Ten invite”.
I guess the infallible Texas Athletic Department isn’t so infallible after all, because spot #12 in the Big Ten just got filled, and it wasn’t Notre Dame.
LikeLike
With all due respect, how (or where) does ND get a network of its own on the air? For all of ND’s strengths, does it have even one metro area that would carry this channel on basic cable?
LikeLike
We aren’t talking about basic cable. The LSN and any NDN would be sports tier package channels. ND already has NBC and might be allowed to keep it.
I’m not saying AR or ND is likely. I sure as heck don’t want AR joining the B12-2, no upside for TX unless it brought along ND (highly doubtful.) But it isn’t my call, and it isn’t inconceivable.
LikeLike
Ok, ND keeps their NBC deal, but are locked into a bunch of games against B12 opponents. I just don’t see it. ND seems like the one school that might take principle over money, but JOINING a conference is principle #1 rather than maintaining the NBC deal. joining the B12 breaks principle #1 and almost certainly makes them less money.
LikeLike
Do they need it on basic if it is on the sports tier in all 50 states?
LikeLike
They need individual households to purchase the ND channel if it’s on a separate tier, and it has to be highly questionable what type of subscription fee ND could get when there are no metro areas with a high percentage of ND faithful. Texas fares much better in this type of deal because it has compact markets full of people craving Longhorn action. Notre Dame’s dispersed fanbase actually hurts it here.
LikeLike
Yes and no. Everything I’ve read about the LSN has it bundled in a sports tier package (which in TX includes the BTN.) It would be logical to assume that any NDN channel would be part of a similar bundle. So someone in California or Virginia or Georgia who wanted ESPN Classic or ESPNU or the BTN or FSN-south, west, central, etc. would also get NDN. LSN would be a driver of sports tier package purchase in Texas, but NDN almost certainly could be included in sports packages in more states than the LSN.
LikeLike
Why would an individual have to purchase one channel? IIRC I purchased a Sports Package on UVerse. That gets me a whole slew of channels. I would think the ND-TV would go there.
LikeLike
There are Catholic High Schools closing every day here in Illinois. I don’t know if they have reached their zenith. I would bet they have and are on a steep decline. They provide some really competitive sports but they are the “other” compared to newer suburban public schools. So I do not see as much coming from this fan base ala “Rudy” as we had 25 years ago.
LikeLike
If the ND network is placed on a “sports tier,” in a random city in the US, how large of a subscriber fee could ND possibly seek? Texas can ask for more because of the huge demand in Texas. The Big Ten went through huge fights in Wisconsin to get the network on “expanded basic,” and that’s with a much more concentrated amount of demand. Placing the ND channel up in the sports ghetto at pennies a subscription isn’t making them real money.
LikeLike
Have you looked at sports tier channels? CBS College Sports and other junk channels. If ND Channel makes a dime a month in 10M households, that is $12M a year.
LikeLike
How much does it cost to start a one-university-centric cable sports channel that only makes $12M a year? Plus you have to buy the rights to Rudy to play 12 times a day on every non-football game day. The logistics are staggering compared to sticking with NBC’s money.
LikeLike
@jcfreder – Yeah, it would be a lot different if there was a ton of support for ND basketball and other sports, but most ND fans are non-alums that only watch football and they are dispersed nationwide. Texas, on the other hand, has fairly strong support for basketball and baseball in a concentrated area with tons of alums, which makes it a stronger candidate for a cable network. That strong regional support is an advantage in this situation since Texas could strongarm a handful of cable operators for a high subscriber rate and likely be successful. ND, in contrast, would likely have to deal with a lot of cable operators nationwide at a lower rate and have a harder time because without football programming, the subway alums aren’t going to call and demand that channel.
LikeLike
StvInILL,
in Cincy and Louisville they are thriving (catholic schools) as there was a move in the state to separate the catholic schools from the public schools. It was in the papers in Louisville and northern ky (a big chunk of the Cincy MSA) for awhile. The state stopped because the state schools would not have the demand, as the catholic schools are so dominant in sports.
Point to ponder..
Poppa Johns (UL) sell the catholic hs games better than UL
Nippert (UC) sell the catholic hs games better than UC
LikeLike
I’ll echo doubts on the viability of any ND cable network.
reason: ND’s non-football sports.
assumption (based on what I see on B10Network): non-football content is necessary to make the cable network viable. although not highly rated, live programming does better than pre-recorded and CFB and Bball are not year round.
so the other sports are essential.
ND’s other sports are in the Big East; the Big East is supposedly going to create the BEN; so BEN will carry ND’s other sports.
If ND created it’s own cable channel like the LSN, it would need it’s other sports for content thus pulling those matches from the BEN; doing that would cause giant issues with the Big East and how would the rights/revenue be divided. Boston College is going to allow its LAX or tennis to be broadcast on the ND network? I have my doubts.
LikeLike
Well, this discussion was prompted by the rumor of ND going to the BXii, so that would solve that. They would have the same rights as Texas has for their channel.
LikeLike
oh, sorry… missed that piece. so, ignore my points… LOL
LikeLike
Texas could have also tried to steal ND’s defacto network away. It actually has a better product(football) to sell over the past 12 years.When is ND contract up ? hmmm?
LikeLike
I’m sure that Ark is dying to go to a league where one the main players’ fans overwhelming want to leave, and are fuming. That’s the real story here.
http://tamu.scout.com/2/978071.html
LikeLike
Interesting thoughts from TTech. Excerpts:
—–
http://texas.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=61&tid=144202318&mid=144202318&sid=902&style=2
…2. UT is not the villain for the following reasons:
– a) they did not market themselves to other conferences mainly b/c they know they have standing invitations to every conference, and apparently even FIFA was courting UT;
– b) Iowa State is responsible for proposing that the penalty money from the forsaken 5 goes to UT, OU, and TAMU (he believes TAMU is the only university considering it but isn’t sure how they became part of this conversation in the first place);
-c) UT said all along that TAMU and TTU are coming with;
– d) the UT president’s phone lines were always open to TTU. In summary, UT worked “collaboratively and cooperatively” with TTU throughout the process, and he says they were straight with TTU throughout but wouldn’t give TAMU such credit when prodded. In fact, he seemed to take a shot at TAMU at every opportunity and complimented UT at every opportunity…
…5. The new deal of the Big XII, which is so terribly unlike the New Deal, gives us 5 years of stability. It is imperative that we improve athletics and academics during this window. He believes Tuberville knows how to win championships.
6. He thinks this is a three tier League with TTU, TAMU, and OSU resting in the second tier. Use your non-AAU status education to fill in the blanks…
…9. TTU’s student body is growing steadily and he expects about 32,000 enrolled students in the fall. The current goal is 40,000. Infrastructure will ultimately place limits on growth. There is plenty of room for professors, labs, and classrooms. Parking and student housing need to expand next. Apparently, students living on campus do better as a whole in the classroom.
10. No marketing by the administration can ever do as much for our university as the scene of students rushing the field after a particular game (the specific game he mentioned escapes me at the moment)…
LikeLike
I’m kind of interested by the talk of obtaining AAU status, even though he acknowledged how difficult it would be to achieve it.
(Considering the universities that are waiting in line for it, it’s difficult to see TTU coming up for AAU any time in the next 20 years especially when you have many private and even public universities that do substantial research that aren’t included…)
LikeLike
10. It put great value on the stand being full and guys wanting to play in the NFL, NBA. Maybe too much for me. A University has on primary mission and neither of those are it.
LikeLike
2. Texas was looking to blow up the Big12 as much as anyone. They just wanted to do it while keeping certain members with them.
5. < 5 years for folks to get new conferences lined up / finances in order. At which time if Texas is in any way at a disadvantage to the other big names in college sports, look for the Big12- to look back to the Pac (or elsewhere). At which point the ability to "bring folks along" is much reduced. Each school is going to have to carry more of their own weight.
7. Tied into #5. Academic improvement is a must. Cool to see AAU membership a stated goal.
8. Texas (the state) is going to cut budgets. TT possibly by $15 million. I have a feeling if TAMU went to the SEC a $15 million cut would have only been the start…TAMU knew that and decided to stick.
LikeLike
I don’t appreciate the gratuitous shot at Rice.
LikeLike
Loki;
I interpreted that as a funny compliment, not as a shot. Replace Rice with Harvard and re-read it.
LikeLike
Playoffs,
6. He thinks this is a three tier League with TTU, TAMU, and OSU resting in the second tier. Use your non-AAU status education to fill in the blanks…
This alone would make me jump to the SEC if I were TAMU, it shows you are still second class at best.
LikeLike
Has anyone heard anything about influential alumni/boosters throwing crazy money at academics in order to get AAU membership?
LikeLike
It’s based mainly on things like research $ as well as the # of phd’s minted, what fields, etc.
This is especially true in the modern day, as opposed to some universities that received it way back when but aren’t competitive with the biggest nowadays.
Look at the universities that have received it during the past 10-15 years, as a model for what a university has to do. Among those are A&M and GaTech.
I would imagine you’d have to see at least $300M in research money to get into the discussion nowadays…
Good ideas for helping to get it probably include things like increasing endowments and more large donations/funds that would provide for tenured professors for named chairs/positions.
Other ideas probably include building research parks as NC State/UNL and others have done.
Getting a critical mass of research funding is really the key to getting the momentum for it. All of that takes time especially since the big research universities are never sitting around themselves and are always trying to get biggers slices of the pie for themselves.
It’s just really hard to turn donation/endowment money into the ability to generate research funding.
LikeLike
zeek,
I look at 3 components
1) how long ago you got AAU status
2) how many friends you have already in
3) actual academics and research
and no, these are not in any order, or weighting
LikeLike
The second one is an interesting point, especially re: Big Ten membership.
I’d have to think that if ND or VaTech or UConn was brought into the Big Ten, that somehow they’d be fast tracked for AAU within the next 2 decades.
No it wouldn’t be immediate because that would look bad, but now that the Big Ten has 13 AAU members (including UChicago), that has to make it not so much of a lift to getting an additional member.
And presumably we’d be adding more such as Rutgers/Pitt/Maryland/Syracuse to vote for it as well…
LikeLike
zeek,
which was why I was okay with KU to the Big 10, they were already AAU. Just strengthens Big 10 voting power. once you are in you are in, no mechanism to kick you out.
LikeLike
Good news for the Longhorn Conference
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5298393
Good if you are TU, OU, and A&M – Bad if you are anybody else.
Can SMU be far behind, welcome SWC II
LikeLike
Good if you are TU, OU, and A&M – Bad if you are anybody else.
100% wrong, none of them want this.
LikeLike
Playoffs,
Long term they do, they will have to get back to 12 at some point, especially if the Big 10 and Pac 10 have a CCG. Look at the winners in getting to 12 in the first place, the Big 12 and the SEC. If the Big 10, Pac 10, SEC, and ACC have a CCG, and the Longhorn Conference does not, they will start backsliding.
If you have to get to 12 in the next 3 – 5 years, Houston and SMU get you there. Adding these two get you to 12, with no real threat or expectation of equal revenue sharing. How is this not good?
LikeLike
I would shave 2 – 4 years off of that. As Big IIX guys watch the Big Ten, SEC and pac ten play their CCG late into the season collectng money and attention.
LikeLike
How is this not good-Answer-SMU and UH.
Those are about the last two schools Texas would want in the conference. A&M certainly wouldn’t want UH. They might fall to 3rd in Houston if UH was successful. Maybe that was the reason for Beebe’s comment that they would NOT expand within the conferences’ 5 state footprint. Any school within Big 12-2 footprint-probably same for B10+1+1 and P10+2, adds 0 value.
LikeLike
My first and last attempt at this, because the division discussion is one of the first orders of business and a lot of what’s been said has been interesting. It’s my thought that this can be broken up in a logical fashion geographically without creating imbalances that a strict east/west or state line divide can cause, and preserve the classic Big Ten rivalries, based on making two divisions based on the six closest schools to any of the Great Lakes when you measure a line on a map. There are four schools where the eyeball test fails and you have to measure that line, and Ohio State wins the closest to the pin contest at 94 miles, beating out Illinois (115 mi.), Minnesota (130 mi.) and Penn State (138 mi.). Mileage was measured off Google Earth, which is accurate enough for this purpose. To get some idea of competitive balance, at least in regard to where teams are at now, last years final Sagarin number, f for football and b for basketball, and in alphabetical order:
Great Lakes Division
Michigan (f67.18, b78.42)
Michigan State (f73.28, b87.59)
Northwestern (f70.95, b79.17)
Ohio State (f88.35, 88.93)
Purdue (f68.60, b89.13)
Wisconsin (f81.21, b87.40)
Average football Sagarin: 74.93
Average basketball Sagarin: 85.11
The Division to be Named Later:
Illinois (f64.37, b82.12)
Indiana (f63.56, b71.60)
Iowa (f85.82, b71.68)
Minnesota (f70.61, b83.62)
Nebraska (f84.06, b77.46)
Penn State (f85.43, b74.58)
Average football Sagarin: 75.64
Average basketball Sagarin: 76.84
As I said, just a competitive snapshot as of now, but pretty darn close in football, much less so in basketball with more conference games in basketball it’s less important.
I’ll leave this to you Big Ten guys as to whether it kills any rivalries or trophy games that have to be played every year, keeping in mind the idea that some rivalries are more important than others.
LikeLike
As much as Penn State will complain about being in geographically distant division, I think it has to be done.
I just don’t see the momentum for putting Michigan/OSU in separate divisions and having the CCG be a possible rematch of the season ending game.
I think switching Northwestern and Minnesota might be worth doing though…
LikeLike
Penn State is the obviuos odd man out. Michigan and Ohio state WILL be in the same division. You can bank that. So to furthure balance the league PSU has to move.
LikeLike
The more I think about it, the dumber it seems to me to put PSU in a geographically nonsensical division for football balance. Just split it East/West between Indiana and Illinois. Yes, the East looks stronger, but the difference isn’t that bad and there’s upside to it:
1. You’d be extremely likely to have one of UM/tOSU/PSU in the CCG every year which provides a nice anchor to the broadcast.
2. Whatever elite teams from the East that don’t make it to the CCG would be prime candidates for a BCS at large if the record suffices and wouldn’t end the season with a loss in the CCG
3. You’d have UM/PSU, tOSU/PSU and, of course, tOSU/UM games every season for nice TV broadcasts. You’d also have some of them playing Nebraska at points.
4. Keeps travel costs and time down by being geographically sensible. Helps with fan travel too. I realize this isn’t a huge deal, but it makes sense.
People comment about the Big 12 having issues with uneven distribution, but they always had good attendance and TV ratings. East/West would work fine with the Big Ten.
LikeLike
@SideshowBob – I’m thinking the same way. A few months ago, I was thinking differently and didn’t think it would be a good idea to have Michigan, OSU and PSU in the same division, but I think a pure East/West split makes the most sense. The competitive balance really isn’t that far apart and you never know how schools perform year-to-year (i.e. Michigan over the past 2 seasons). Better to keep the strong and logical geographic rivalries than try to predict which teams are going to be good in any given season.
LikeLike
And as stated earlier, Iowa and Wisconsin are being severely undervalued in this silly “put Penn State and Nebraska in the same division” talk. You have six solid football programs in a 12-team Big Ten, and unless Michigan gets out of its doldrums, you can argue a division comprised of Illinois on west would be stronger than the one with Indiana on east.
LikeLike
Nurturing the growing PSU-OSU border rivalry as an annual inter-divisional game would help a little bit with PSU’s travel concerns.
LikeLike
Eapg, I dont think I have a problem with your two divisions although NU vs IL is a recruiting game for both.
LikeLike
Switch Purdue and Illinois to protect two more in-state rivals (and to avoid two teams from the same state playing in the CCG).
Will there even be basketball divisions? Why do we need them if there is a 12-team tourney at the end?
Separating Wisconsin and Iowa helps competitive balance in the short term, but it cuts Wisconsin off from all of its main rivals. That problem (and the emerging PSU-OSU rivalry) is why I would prefer a straight east-west split (which will probably never happen because of the perceived need to split the so-called “big four”).
LikeLike
I agree with switching Purdue and Illinois, though I highly doubt they’ll ever be in the CCG together, but stranger things have happened.
There would definitely need be permanent cross-division rivals like the SEC has. I’d say you’d want to have the following:
Ohio State-Penn State
Michigan-Nebraska
Michigan State-Iowa
Wisconsin-Minnesota
Illinois-Indiana
Northwestern-Purdue
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/23300/mwc-commish-says-hes-done-with expansion
Not only is he saying they’re done for now. He’s also saying they’re done period. Makes the comment that when it all comes down, no adds make much difference.
Now should Fresno or UH start to go to BCS bowls, that could change. But for now, it doesn’t make financial sense for MWC to add anyone else. Pac 10 also said they were done and B12-2 is breathing right now and not in any hurry to get back to 12. SEC has also said its done for now. So its up to the B10 to stir things up. Maybe BE and WAC make minor ripples, but the tsunami has passed-for now.
LikeLike
Mis-typed the link:
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_id/23300/mwc-commish-says-hes-done-with-expansion
LikeLike
that explains a lot about the four orphans’ decisions.
LikeLike
They have almost no value but, if projections hold, get as much as an SEC school. And have the possibility, if successful, of earning more than anyone else in the conference.
They don’t have quite as many rights as an SEC school. Apparently SEC schools can hold out one fb game for local rights, something the B12-2 schools can’t do. They have to take what’s leftover.
LikeLike
Back to the academics issue, the #1 reason I don’t think this ND to B12-2 rumor has any legs is b/c outside of UT, the B12-2 is nowhere near the ACC or B10 in academics. The faculty at ND wanted to join the B10 and the academics/CIC move that needle. No doubt if ND had to join a conference, they would enjoy a flexible option, but I think the academic side would prevail (and possibly an understanding that the B12-2 is really just a whipping pen for Tx).
LikeLike
The one thing that convinces me that it’s either ACC, Big Ten, or independence forever for Notre Dame is that those are the three answers most easily explained as being beneficial for their football program in the context of the school as a whole. I don’t see the Big East as being stable/prestigious enough for them to hitch their football program to, and the ACC and Big Ten can be cast as academic upgrades to blunt the criticism of moving to a conference.
I don’t see how anyone at ND would explain joining the Big 12-2; there wouldn’t be academic support at all for that kind of move, and the fanbase would be unhappy with joining a conference regardless of which it is. Heck, the Pac-10 makes more sense than the Big 12-2…
LikeLike
The thing is, you get the sense that Texas and Notre Dame think they could schedule each other every week (Jerryworld) and college football fans would stop whatever they were doing and go drool in front of the TV for a couple hours. And both sporting a stunning 6-6 record would demand a BCS spot.
There comes a point when you just have to do what’s best for your school and conference, and let them go off on their merry way.
LikeLike
That’s partly why I think the Big 12 took a bigger hit from Nebraska’s leaving than Beebe gives it credit for. That’s a couple of marquee matchups that you just lost.
Considering A&M’s drought, even if you include Texas Tech, the number of permutations for big games is reduced by something around 1/4th or 1/5th due to the loss of Nebraska. Those are the games people on the coasts care about, the ones that garner the 3-4 ratings…
LikeLike
I’m w/ you, I’m cool w/out ND or Tex, but I just don’t see ND to B12-2. Love the 6-6 comment – too true.
LikeLike
Yeah? But the Big 12-2 is a great faced for a team full of it’s self that wants to be a part of something yet above it all while it stirs the pot and ladles up all of the meat out of the stew an leaves the lima beans for the rest of the suckers.
LikeLike
NU appears ready, willing, and able to unleash the lawyers to avoid the full buyout amount. Looks like they’re floating another trial defense besides the no damages claim. Apparently they may claim it was anticipatory breach of contract if they left in good faith believing that the conference was done because of what other schools were saying and who they were talking to, particularly UT.
http://betteroffred.fantake.com/2010/06/16/anticipatory-breach-of-contract/
No way this thing doesn’t get settled for significantly less than the sticker price. Since I doubt anyone wants anything from the Big 12 meeting or subsequent negotiations between the schools, conferences, networks, and other members of the “secret cabal” aired in public.
LikeLike
I love the way our schools are wasting tax $ on lawyers. First ACC/BE lawsuit, now this. Nebraska is definitely burning bridges.
Again, its all about the money. Ethically Nebraska owes it. All they had to do to avoid it was simply accept the B12 as it was. 10 other schools would have stayed. But they’re using lawyers to try to minimize their damages. I realize there are a lot of lawyers on this site, but this is the seedy side of the law. Give them the choice of accepting less than owed, or spend the money on lawyers and risk not winning.
But if Nebraska keeps throwing bombs, they may tick off the other side enough they decide to take it to trial. Nebraska has the same risk. They can spend hundreds of thousands on lawyers and might end up owing the whole amount + lawyer fees.
LikeLike
10 other schools would have stayed? Half the friggin conference had an open invite to leave. Nebraska had to look out for themselves, and they were almost forced to strongly consider leaving. Once they started the process, they can’t be blamed for not slamming on the breaks once Texas’ mind changed with a change in the direction of the wind.
It won’t go to court, and I bet they pay less than the originally amount.
LikeLike
ethically Nebraksa owes it? in what alternate reality? check the time line enshrined on this very blog. this entire situation developed when UT’s sock puppet floated UT’s plan to take the entire Big 12 South to the Pac 10. They then threatened Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado without being willing to make a similar commitment themselves as they were still negotiating with multiple conferences. Just because Texas then changed its mind when ESPN stepped forward with big promises of future cash and the other remianing schools agreed to an even more unequal distribution doesn’t mean Texas isn’t equally if not more responsible. Its no coincidence that Texas stayed for a promise of as much money as they were projected to earn IN THE OTHER CONFERENCE. For Texas to cry foul is obnoxious.
and you might actually want to read the bylaws. section 3.3 discusses conference withdrawl. it is pretty clear the provision is not a penalty but intended to keep the remaining members whole. and Beebe’s description of the new tv contract makes it very clear they are being kept more than whole. no basis for any penalty.
LikeLike
Let’s see… Big 12 asked for a commitment from Nebraska, not the other way around.
Nebraska bolted, expecting the other 5 to bolt in response to Nebraska and perhaps Missouri (and Colorado) leaving. Nobody else left though.
All we talked about for three months was that Texas was not going to leave first. Nebraska jumped… but is now too freakin’ cheap to pay what they owe.
Amazing.
LikeLike
Nebraska asked Texas would they stay if Colorado left the B12. Texas said yes.
Nebraska asked Texas if they would stay should Missouri leave. Texas said yes.
Nebraska asked Texas if they would stay should Missouri and Colorado leave. Texas was silent.
To any reasonble person that would be a No.
So Nebraska was supposed to do nothing until Texas decided what was best for Texas?
LikeLike
Nebraska asked Texas for an ironclad commitment to the Big 12, doing the job of a conference commissioner that isn’t actually in the pocket of one school. They didn’t get that commitment, if two North schools left or if they had to commit media rights to the conference. Don’t confuse the what you believe the final result is going to be (Big 12 saved) with how the landscape appeared at the time for Nebraska. Also know that the schools involved know a great deal more about what went on behind the scenes than a random group of people speculating on the internet.
LikeLike
nice rationalization ezdozen but bs. when Nebraska and the others were given an ultimatum Nebraska asked for a commitment from Texas but Texas declined.
and as far as Big 12 fans claiming Nebrasaka being to cheap to pay try not to prove the criticisms of Big 12 academics to be so accurate. read the Big 12 bylaws sec 3.3 that was posted here. it is very clear that the revenue issue is designed to keep the conference whole and the last sentence of the section directly states it is liquidated damages and shal not be construed as a penalty. the Big 12 officials have made it very clear that the new contract offered is keeping them more than whole. so no need for the dearly departed to do so.
but don’t let a little reality get in the way of your rant.
LikeLike
Nebraska is burning bridges? Maybe your hero DeLoss burned the bridges with his “we didn’t start it, but we’ll finish it” gloat. Neither part of the statement is true, but it does indicate to me that he thought Texas could leverage some feigned interest by them of joining the Big Ten eventually into a Big Ten rejection of Nebraska, forcing NU to crawl back to Texas. That didn’t happen either, and it’s the best part of all this for Nebraska. Forced to choose between Nebraska now and Texas, eh, someday, maybe, we’ll think about it once we get Bevo TV rolling, he refused to be played for a fool.
See you in Delaware, not Austin, should it get that far.
LikeLike
This should serve as a warning to the rest of the Little 7 about the fight they’ll face if they attempt to leave their indentured servitude. Good thing Big Red has the smarts and cojones to not take this crap.
LikeLike
see comment below; should have put it up here.
to summarize: modern contract law is not about ethics; it’s about money. if UNL pays $1 million in litigation costs to save $5 million, that’s a bargain.
LikeLike
Buckeye-That’s my point exactly. Net result overall is that $2 million goes to the lawyers.
Nebraska did what was in their schools best interest as they should have. That’s a paraphrase from President Powers. That’s what BC did. Didn’t mean they shouldn’t owe an exit penalty.
The ultimatum was because UNL and CU were planning on leaving. They wanted them to make a call. From everything that has come out there’s no doubt that the lost 5 less UM, OU, OSU and A&M wanted to stay in the B12. Everything points to Texas wanting to stay. They didn’t think it was financially viable w/o Nebraska. They weren’t sure it was financially viable w/o CU and UM. Beebe convinced them otherwise.
Its hard to make both arguments with a straight face, guys. Texas wanted to leave with a bunch of schools so Nebraska wasn’t really leaving; or Texas so wants control that they take a phantom TV contract to stay in the B12.
As for control, there was one issue that would have doomed the B12. That was academic standards for athletes. But I don’t think Nebraska would have gotten many votes on the partial qualifier issue even if Texas didn’t make that clear. CU,KU,UM were solidly on Texas side on that. Interestingly, Nebraska bringing that up in 95/96 was annoying to a lot of us in Texas. That was an essential part of the deal made in 1994, but Nebraska wanted to change what they had already agreed to.
Revenue sharing rules were important, but remember, UNL was more on the Texas side than anyone else (until it was convenient to make an excuse to justify leaving). Pearlman had no need to make excuses. Didn’t hear that out of Boise, Utah or CU.
And then there’s Jerry World. 11 schools vote to take more money and give their athletes a chance to play, most likely in good weather, in the world’s best stadium. Nebraska wants to take less money to play in a 40 year old stadium that may have bad weather, but is conveniently located to their campus and can’t understand why those other schools won’t vote with them. There probably are several prima donnas in the Big 12, but IMHO the biggest will be leaving 7/1/11.
LikeLike
I disagree that the biggest prima donna is leaving, since we all know who that is.
But I will give you that Nebraska has just become irrational in regards to Texas.
LikeLike
I have solved the division problem. It took me a few days, but I finally came up with a system that will achieve all of these objectives:
1. Big four split 2×2
2. All key rivalries maintained
3. Schools from same state in same division.
4. Penn State plays closest teams (from Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana) every year.
5. Nebraska plays closest teams (from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois) every year.
All that is required is 9 conference games.
The Big Ten naturally breaks up into three groups of four.
PSU-OSU-UM-MSU
ILL-NU-IU-PU
WIS-MIN-IOWA-NEB
To make two balanced divisions, each group should be split 2×2 into separate divisions and retain cross-division protected games with the other two.
That amounts to 5 division games, 2 protected cross-division games, and 2 games against the remaining four teams (to be played every other year).
Here’s how it would look (with protected games in parenthesis):
Division A
OHIO STATE (Michigan, Michigan State)
PENN STATE (Michigan State, Michigan)
WISCONSIN (Iowa, Nebraska)
MINNESOTA (Nebraska, Iowa)
PURDUE (Northwestern, Illinois)
INDIANA (Illinois, Indiana)
Division B
MICHIGAN (Ohio State, Penn State)
MICHIGAN STATE (Penn State, Ohio State)
NEBRASKA (Minnesota, Wisconsin)
IOWA (Wisconsin, Minnesota)
ILLINOIS (Indiana, Purdue)
NORTHWESTERN (Purdue, Indiana)
Thoughts?
LikeLike
Typo: INDIANA (Illinois, Northwestern)
LikeLike
Here’s exactly the same concept with a different split. This one gives Penn State games with Nebraska and Iowa every year (too tough of a schedule?). It also preserves the Ohio State-Illinois and Michigan-Minnesota trophy games.
Division A
PENN STATE (Ohio State, Michigan)
MICHIGAN STATE (Michigan, Ohio State)
NEBRASKA (Minnesota, Wisconsin)
IOWA (Wisconsin, Minnesota)
PURDUE (Indiana, Illinois)
NORTHWESTERN (Illinois, Indiana)
Division B
OHIO STATE (Penn State, Michigan State)
MICHIGAN (Michigan State, Penn State)
WISCONSIN (Iowa, Nebraska)
MINNESOTA (Nebraska, Iowa)
INDIANA (Purdue, Northwestern)
ILLINOIS (Northwestern, Purdue)
LikeLike
I like this one better.
LikeLike
Still leaves an awfully big risk for Ohio State-Michigan two weeks in a row. Granted Michigan’s been down of late, but the conference race could easily come down to those two in many years to come, just as it did during much of the past several decades. It’s better if their matchup decides a division so the winner goes to the championship game, rather than both.
Unfortunately, that’s the only thing that keeps your idea from working so well.
LikeLike
If it comes down to splitting Michigan/OSU, I think they should just put away the splits and just do geographic split, East/West even if Michigan/OSU/PSU are in the same division. It just doesn’t seem right to split Michigan/OSU up.
LikeLike
That is pretty good. The only thing I don’t like is Nebraska doesn’t get PSU every year.
LikeLike
Here’s mine, elegant in its simplicity (I even have good names for each division):
East
Penn State [Nebraska]
Ohio State [Illinois]
Michigan [Minnesota]
Michigan St [Wisconsin]
Purdue [Northwestern]
Indiana [Iowa]
West
Nebraska [Penn State]
Iowa [Indiana]
Wisconsin [Michigan St]
Minnesota [Michigan]
Illinois [Ohio State]
Northwestern [Purdue]
The teams next to them would be protected games for every season, but I don’t think that is essential.
I kept all the key rivalries intact (looking at Rittenberg’s blog at http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/index/_/count/16 I included all the “hands off” and “handle with care” ones remain except PSU/Iowa and they both get compensated by adding Nebraska every season). The only one of the current “every year” games continue except for Illinois/Indiana which doesn’t seem to be a priority by those fan bases. All trophy games are played every year except Minn/PSU and Illinois/Purdue and those aren’t every year now anyway. And this re-adds Illinois/tOSU and Minn/Michigan trophy games as annual affairs again.
People are way too hung up on the competitive balance issue. PSU/UM/tOSU in one, Nebraska/Iowa/Wisconsin in the other. Minnesota and Illinois have had their success at times. So has Michigan St. It’s fine and it makes sense. Don’t overthink and make it complicated.
LikeLike
Bravo.
LikeLike
Stop throwing our illinois teams in with the Indiana ones, God I’m so sick of this lumping. We dont have a copetitive series between us, we dont hate hoosiers and we tend to shoot up here in Illinois not down. back to the drawing board folks. We have 12 million TV that wont be watching.
LikeLike
I think WI/IA/UNL historically are close enough to PSU/UM/OSU that you go with this setup. Otherwise PSU gets geographically isolated and doesn’t get a good schedule for them. One problem is that PSU is playing all of the other members of the Big 4 while MI gets MN and OSU gets IL. So do you choose trophy games or do you do MI/IA and OSU/WI to try to create more balance? With a 9 game schedule you don’t have to make that choice.
Competitive balance does change so overthinking that really doesn’t work. The B12 North dominated the B12 South in the early years as much as the B12 South dominates now. UNL was at their peak, producing some of the best teams in college football history, KSU was great-except they couldn’t beat UNL. CU was very good and not long off an MNC. Meanwhile OU and UT were having losing seasons. A&M was the only consistently strong team in the South.
B10 has the #6 computer rating over the last 2 years. Wasn’t that long ago there was serious debate over whether B10 or SEC was top conference.
The only real issue is whether you want two traditional powers on each side and I haven’t seen any plan with that split that doesn’t either;
1) give us UM/OSU 2 weeks in a row or;
2) leave PSU on an island with an overall not very appealing schedule.
LikeLike
Ethically Nebraska owes it? No chance. Texas did everything humanly possible to make Nebraska unwelcome in the conference they helped found 100 years ago. Legally, anticipatory breach is a perfectly reasonable defense to a breach claim. This is all about the specific time line of events and that actual facts, not rumors and Texas spin. If Nebraska reasonably believed that the B12 South was going to bolt and asked for reassurances and didn’t receive them (as seems apparent by Dodd’s comments at the B12 meeting), then breach is allowed. If I were Nebraska, I’d file a declaratory action ASAP in Nebraska so they don’t get home fried in Texas court.
This is a reasonably use of tax payer dollars to avoid a payout Nebraska (and perhaps Col).
LikeLike
I also think that as all of the institutions involved are public state universities that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over this matter as a “dispute between states.” Someone feel free to correct me, but this would be some high profile, but relatively inexpensive litigation.
LikeLike
Plus, the Big Ten has enough law schools with enough of the best lawyers in the country to do this whole thing pro bono on behalf of the conference.
I don’t think anyone’s worried about whether Nebraska has to forfeit $8M of TV money.
LikeLike
No, GOPWolv. Disputes between state chartered or state-run institutions are not disputes between the States; so no original jurisdiction in the U.S. Sup. Court. Last case like that was NJ’s dispute with NY over ownership of Ellis Island (NJ won).
LikeLike
BB,
On the Ellis Island thing they both got part of it. NY got the “original” part, and NJ got the parts that were added by dredging to expand the island.
for the legal eagles out there, can UNL claim ‘sovereign immunity’ to get out of this contract?
LikeLike
In any event, the dispute is between UNL and the Big 12 Conference, so it’s a non-issue. Also, I’d expect the matter to be handled in Delaware court, versus Nebraska or Texas.
LikeLike
If you spend $1-2 million saving $10+ million, you’re not on the “seedy side of the law”.
LikeLike
legally speaking, contracts are designed to be broken. Contract law is precisely about defining what the injury is and how to compensate the non-breaching party.
but ethics and “seediness” have nothing to do with it. taking into account how much it you have to pay for the breach, if it financially beneficial to break the contract, the client is advised to break the contract.
modern contract law is not about ethics or morals; it’s about money.
if you personally have an old-fashioned concept of contracts, that’s fine. however, I ask you: do you pay your credit card bills on time always like the contract requires? if you get charged a late-payment fee, are you happy to pay it? do you feel morally righteous when you pay the $39?
have you “lifted” a few office supplies? have you pirated software or “borrowed” a song or two from a friend?
in any event, I assure you, UNL and CO University do not have that old fashion view of contract law. Further, if the litigation costs you $1 million and saves you $5 million, it’s a bargain.
it’s all a business decision.
this is one reason why there is a sharp distinction between contract and tort law.
LikeLike
Texas did everything humanly possible to make Nebraska unwelcome in the conference they helped found 100 years ago.
The Big 12 was an entirely new conference, formed by four members of the SWC and by all eight members of the former Big 8 Conference, which ceased to exist.
So if you’d like to work with “actual facts” rather than “rumors and Texas spin,” start with that.
LikeLike
When I was 10 and came of football-interest-age (mid ’90s) as a kid in Texas, I considered the Big 12 an expanded Southwest Conference.
Now that I’m in my mid 20s, I consider the Big 12 an expanded Big Eight.
Sometimes, I feel both are right.
Perception is reality, and kids in Texas 1) had no idea what the Big Eight was and 2) felt any conference with Texas in it became a Texas conference. Most of the adults seem to feel that way, too.
LikeLike
I’m just amused at the amount of energy being spent on this site by people trying to brainstorm ways Nebraska can get out of paying the fine it clearly owes.
LikeLike
Agreed. Unless the B10 South actually said something akin to unless you give us an assurance, we are going to leave to do X, I think this whole justifiable breach arguementis a loser. The damages/penalty issue is more interesting, particulary as to the Huskers with CO bolting first. Reminds me of RR’s problems with West V. I’m sure they will settle it without litigation – maybe.
LikeLike
@Hopkins
no offense Hop but you might want to read the Big 12 Bylaws. Section 3.3 fwiw. last line clearly states it should not be construed as a penalty. calling it a fine clearly runs counter to the language. there is little doubt its intended to keep the former partners of the departing member financially whole. well Brother Beebe insures us that has been taken care of.
LikeLike
Hank – that’s typical lawyer protectionism wording and I’d be blown away if it didn’t say that. They’ll point it out, but it won’t matter too much in the end. The facts is the facts, as they say. That will be $250. 🙂
LikeLike
Expanded the name of the Big 8, kept all of the Big 8, added a subset of the SWC. UTx can claim that legally it’s a new conference with everyone equal. But everyone knows that is a canard. The Big 8 expanded.
LikeLike
My quick read is that it says we can’t figure out damages so we’ll all agree what damages are up front. I think the Nebraska fans are doing selective reading.
I’m sure as Buckeye points out, there’s enough ambiguity so there’s at least a possibility of breaking the contract. Both sides have to evaluate their risk and expenses.
There are regional differences in the way agreements are viewed. I’ve heard Texas lawyers say that New York lawyers view a written signed contract as the beginning of the negotiation, not the end. But there are always ambiguities.
LikeLike
Bullet fwiw I’m not a lawyer. But I was involved in finance and have been involved in a lot of partnerships and joint venture contracts. the wording reads like a clause to keep the remaining partners whole, not as an exit fee. the reason I say this because the language doesn’t confine itself to listing the percentages of revenue withheld under various notice times. It contains language that makes it clear that if the schedule doesn’t adaquetely compensate the non breaching members then further assessments would be made. then the last phrase which I believe is key is that such reductions “shall be in the form of liquidated damages and not be construed as a penalty”. if damages and not a penalty then they should be limited to actual damages and not a penalty fee. I’ve seen this kind of clause in investment deals and while there are differences in wording it is generally meant to limit the assessment to actual damages. again I’m not a lawyer and I don’t really have a dog in the fight. but Nebraska’s interpertation does look like one that could be reasonably argued in court. I have no idea how a court would rule.
LikeLike
I’m also beginning to view Pearlman’s press conference differently. Osborne has a history of being a whiner, but not Pearlman. Pearlman may have been trying to set up his case to avoid the buyout clause. So instead of talking only about how great it was for his university to be in the B10 (like the other 3 changers), he was busy setting up his case for getting out of the contract. Reminds me of the time I got stuck on a jury with 2 defendants who were suing each other in a different case. We had to listen to their lawyers try their other case in this one.
LikeLike
Pardon me if this has been discussed here before, but has there been any official explanation (as opposed to speculation) about what the addition of a 12th team and CCG does to the Big Ten’s current contract with ESPN/ABC? Surely they included a clause that will pay them more and won’t have to wait until 2016 to cash in. But if they didn’t, what a deal for ABC for five years.
LikeLike
It’s not included from my understanding of the contract; the contract only affects the 12 regular season weeks is how I’ve read the summary of the terms that I saw (i.e. ABC gets 17 games and ESPN/2 get 25). It doesn’t impact the addition of an additional game, so the Big Ten will be able to get sponsors and everything and probably negotiate the value of it.
LikeLike
we don’t know the specific’s for certain but in the past few years there have been a finite number of games to ABC/ESPN each week. 3 in most weeks. so if the conference had 11 games in non conference weeks, and 5 or 6 during conference play, ABC/ESPN would get 3 games of their choice and the rest would saty with the Big Ten. So under this expansion if there is no renegotiation then ABC/ESPN would still take 3 and the additional game would go to the BTN. Also with the addition of a name like Nebraska it increase the odds that in any week the BTN will have at least one top tier name with the improved advertising revenue.
and the conference championship game is a new event to be seperately negotiated but I suspect ABC/ESPN would have the right to match any offer.
but net/net this doesn’t really effect the ABC deal as they are likely to just get the same number of games.
LikeLike
People seem to think that there is a clause in the current ABC/ESPN deal for a Big Ten championship game were one ever to be added. Don’t know the details, but I would guess that Disney would carry the game (on ABC one would think) and probably pay some additional amount for the rights on top of what they currently pay.
LikeLike
Yeah, considering that the Big Ten was at 11 teams before the 2006 contract and that we had just chased Notre Dame down twice to be the 12th team in the previous 7 years, there’s no way that Delany didn’t put in a bunch of clauses about 12th schools and CCGs.
He wouldn’t have made that kind of elementary mistake, so the details are somewhere hidden in the part of the contract no one gets to see publicly.
LikeLike
Ironically, in all of the “theoretical” TV offers that the Big UTwelve is supposedly going to get with its new membership, hardly anybody is talking about this. We heard extensively how the SEC would be able to “renegotiate” their 15 year deal with ESPN immediately. Well, where’s the talk about the Big 10’s new negotiations. Plus, the Big 10 will have a championship game (supposedly a 15 million dollar deal by itself) in just 18 months. That means something will have to happen soon.
I hate to play the “ESPN bias/conspiracy” game…but the Big 10 chatter has been extremely absent. A thinking fan of CFB has to ask WHY?
LikeLike
Hatch proud of Utes, but campaign against BCS will continue
http://www.sltrib.com/collegesports/ci_15321253
LikeLike
http://blog.al.com/tommy-hicks/2010/06/conference_expansion_cools_off_–_for_now.html
Conference expansion cools off — for now
“Expansion II: False Alarm.”
Earlier this week, when Texas just said no to the Pac-10, or Pac-12, the dominoes stopped falling, at least in a dramatic sense.
Now comes Phase II. And who won Phase I?
The Phase I winner is clearly the Big 12, which is still alive. But it’s also a loser in that it had to sell its soul to one member — Texas — so it would continue to live. The conference was saved, but at what cost? Yes, all 10 remaining members will continue to make millions of dollars, but there’s now a definite class division based on what Texas will receive and be able to receive based on the deal it struck with the league to stay.
Ironically, the Big 12 has become more divided by staying together. The 10 remaining members banded together to save the league, but there is only one huge suite on the top floor of the Big 12 Hotel and it’s occupied by the Longhorns. Oklahoma has a nice suite, too, one would imagine, but the rest of the league members stay in regular rooms.
It now appears that Longhorn muscle, at least the Texas Legislature, is set to test its newfound power by pushing league officials to add Houston, a member of Conference USA, to the Big 12. That’s a new twist to the playbook.
The Pac-10, which got the expansion ball rolling, is a winner in the sense the league added two members, opening the door for a football championship game, the financial spurt that will create, and some new TV markets. But by failing to add Texas — and Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State — the league didn’t produce the wow factor it sought.
Colorado and Utah will likely be good fits for the Pac-10, but they don’t make what was geographically the best league in the country before all the shifting and talk of shifting that much stronger.
The Big Ten gets Nebraska, which helps in terms of tradition and fan base and painting the league red, but it didn’t make the kind of noise it hoped to make, even though it continues to sing its praises and possibilities to the still tone-deaf Notre Dame administration.
We’re at intermission; the play isn’t over. There are rumors Arkansas might consider jumping to the Big 12. The Big Ten still wants the Irish, maybe others. And what of the Big East? No, the play isn’t finished, but most of the cool action scenes may have already played out.
LikeLike
hank,
good post
Arkansas and ND to the Longhorn Conference!
seriously!
more Chip Brown spin to try and lessen the TU collateral damage, to make it look like people want to join, when the reality is they just want to get away! maybe the TU folks want to collect that 120 bucks a year from the TU faithful (possible part of how Beebe would finance this house of cards), but I am not buying it (the service or the story).
LikeLike
completely agree Duff. I was just tossing it out to throw off the morning cob webs while watching the early World Cup match.
the notion of Notre Dame in the UTen strikes me as comical as well. the Big Ten is too regional and provincial but Waco and Stillwater is the big time. but weirder thiks have happened.
LikeLike
I’m sure Arkansas has made due diligence feelers to the B12-2, but I’m also sure neither side will seriously pursue it.
To Big 10 fans. Texas and almost all of its fans have NO interest in UH. Won’t happen. This writer clearly doesn’t understand what he’s writing about (but that’s not anything new among sportswriters!).
As for selling their soul, that is just spin. The Big 12 agreement is exactly the same as it was before. There are no changes. There have been a lot of stories saying the lost 5 gave the Big 3 their buyout money. That is not true-its more typical bad reporting. They did suggest to Beebe to offer it, but greedy Texas has said they won’t accept it (I know that conflicts with the spin on Texas grabbing every scrap of $ from everyone else so you don’t have to believe it if you don’t want-but both Beebe and Powers have publically said that). B12 revenue split is not as egalitarian as the B10, but is more so than the P10’s current deal. From top to bottom B12 revenue is more balanced than BE or P10 and less so than ACC/SEC/B10. Someone posted the revenue splits in an article a week or so ago.
LikeLike
bullett,
http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/sports_article.asp?aID=122654.73953.134773
link from arkansas media
LikeLike
sorry,
http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/sports_article.asp?aID=122535.60665.134651
meant to put this link in
still pissed at world cup refs
LikeLike
I will make a couple of points of disagreement. It is not generally accepted that UT was going to SEC. Everything indicates UT was more serious about going to the P10 with CU before the B12 deal came up. Its also possible w/o political interference, UT may have gone to B8 with A&M going to SEC. UT and OU were working very closely as B8 was doomed also. Miami, FSU and Texas all refused to join the SEC.
And yes, the Razorbacks faced lots of chants of “SEC, SEC” when they were losing for being the first jumping off a sinking ship, but everyone knew it was sinking. The arrival of the Cowboys and Oilers killed the TCU, SMU and Rice programs. The end of the CFA caused by the OU and UGA lawsuit led to the rush for $. Small private schools in pro markets couldn’t generate them. One state conferences couldn’t generate them.
LikeLike
Also, it is frequently reported that UT approached the B10 in the early 90s, but B10 was in an expansion moratorium and wasn’t interested.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Very nice summary, and I for one appreciate your sticking around to fight the good fight on a site on which an increasing number of commenters seem intent on making the average TexAgs poster seem relatively even-handed when it comes to commenting rationally and factually on matters pertaining to UT.
LikeLike
Well if I had the eloquence of Longhorn Bob, maybe I could get them all singing “The Eyes of Texas.” Naww..probably not! Loki, maybe.
LikeLike
Most Longhorn sites don’t comment rationally and factually on matters pertaining to UT. Unless you think the women’s AD at Texas gives a shit what DeLoss likes in his coffee.
LikeLike
Morning Folks..
After yesterday I am more convinced that OB and Chip Brown is the puppet of spin control for the Longhorn Conference and TU in particular. I keep hearing that OU and TU had an invite to the SEC. The more I read I feel this is untrue, and just spin put out by Chip in an effort to make TU look less like a bully.
I watched and listened to the TAMU presidents six part interview, and I sense a totally different story. In this video the presidents speaks of a 13 member SEC, and of an invitation to join the second the TAMU president desired it. It did not seem conditional on TAMU bringing TU or OU along with it. In the interview he also portrayed slive as a gentleman who did not make demands or ultimatums (unlike what TU and the Big 12 have done in all this).
In all of the OB articles by Mr. Brown, the spin is that TU saved the Big 12 but it is quite clear from the video that what saved this, was the decision by TAMU to hold the Big 12 together. In the Longhorn Conference I will give TAMU the credit, not TU for still being around. If slive offered TAMU an invite only with TU or OU I have yet to see credible evidence of it. I think Chip at OB was just stirring the pot for TU.
Yesterday Chip got on the pot stirring bandwagon again in his article on Arkansas seeking to jump from the SEC to the Longhorn Conference. Forget the history of the old SWC and Arkansas being the “red headed stepchild”. I was living in Arkansas back in the days of Lou Holtz and Eddie Sutton. It was always Arkansas vs the state of Texas, as they were the ONLY team in the league NOT from Texas. Arkansas now gets equal treatment in the SEC as well as a top 20 value by Forbes magazine (a much more reliable source than your blog). Yet according to you they would leave all that to join the MOST dysfunctional conference in the country! seriously!
I for one feel great that UNL and CU escaped the “battered wife” or “stockholm syndrome” that grips the Longhorn Conference. I just wish other schools could get the same satisfaction of being able to tell TU to kiss their a$$! Conferences with stability attract new member, not repel them. I feel the move by UNL was the best thing that could happen to them. The Big 10 offers a welcoming home and stability that the folks in Nebraska found lacking in the Big 12.
Chip get you nose out of TU’s butt and report something without a TU bias if you want me to believe a word you say!
LikeLike
ps.. sorry for the length of that, it just irritates me that this OB site is getting such national respect when all they really want to do is sell 10 dollar a month memberships to folks that just drink the burnt orange kool aide by telling them what they want to hear.
LikeLike
I agree Duff. the UT spin machine is really out of control. its pretty comical how Chip Brown gets accepted by the ESPN types as a serious reporter when he is such an obvious mouthpiece. but them other than ‘Outside the Lines’ the only real reporting is scores. the rest is all opinion and the wacky morning zoo radio approach.
LikeLike
hank,
FWIW…
here is a link from the Arkansas media
http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/sports_article.asp?aID=122654.73953.134773
to offer some balance
LikeLike
A popular Dallas sports radio station believes Chip Brown is feeding a reclined DeLoss Dodds grapes by bunch and in return, Dodds will surrender one juicy morsel of info (of varying truth).
LikeLike
lol sounds about right.
LikeLike
Two men, this close???? in texas? Noooooooo!!!!!!
LikeLike
http://kentsterling.com/2010/06/18/big-ten-expansion-big-12-will-be-gone-soon-enough-and-the-irish-will-come-to-the-big-ten/
Big Ten Expansion – Big 12 Will Be Gone Soon Enough, and the Irish Will Come to the Big Ten
Yeah, the Big 12 saved itself from Armageddon earlier this week. As Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech teetered on the brink of a mutinous run to the Pac-10, and Texas A&M flirted with the SEC, the gravitational pull of the eventual college sports landscape came clear – there will be four 16-team megaconferences soon enough.
The drama of the past ten days did nothing but delay the inevitable, and secure Texas’ ability to make a bunchmore money through the formation of its own TV network. When Texas finally moves into the Pac-10 with its sycophant brothers, and the ACC gets off the dime and grabs up what remains of the sinking S.S. Big East after the Big Ten fires two torpedos into its hull by grabbing Rutgers and Pitt, we will have logic in college sports – a true national championship in its most popular sport.
The next first volley will be the Big Ten offer to Rutgers and Pitt, and then life gets interesting for Notre Dame Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick. Without Rutgers and Pitt, the eight-team Big East football effort dies. That leaves Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UConn and USF scrambling for affiliation. The ACC will gladly accept some of those.
The Big East will then be little more than a Catholic school basketball conference with second tier athletic programs (and I’m speaking in terms of profitability not quality) like Seton Hall, Marquette, St. John’s, Providence, DePaul, and Georgetown. Forget Notre Dame’s desires for a minute. The schools like DePaul and Seton Hall can’t compete financially with a behemoth like Notre Dame, and what do they gain from trying – a few extra fans for men’s basketball?
Notre Dame may not have the option of staying in the reconstituted Catholic Conference, and then it has no home at all and is forced to take the deal in the Big Ten.
Either way, if Rutgers and Pitt are invited to join the Big Ten and accept, Notre Dame has no choice but to be the 15th or 16th member of the Big Ten.
Nothing really changed when Texas decided to slide back home. The logical outcome was forestalled, but noteliminated. The world wants a playoff. Everyone knows a playoff is the right answer to a problem that has plagued college football for generations, and a problem that requires a solution sooner rather than later. The four megaconference solution is so sensible that talking about anything else is futile.
The only question that remains is how much time will elapse before those resistant to change are convinced that this change works. If there is no progress, all that remains is to regress. There is no standing still in business, and college athletics is big business. The ACC, Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC will move forward as major players, and the rest will enjoy playing football for reasons other than to compete for a national championship, and marshal its other resources toward building a significant brand with its men’s basketball programs.
There are people who embrace change, and people who are terrified by it. With change, there is always risk. Some see the greatness that change can bring, and others fear the worst-case scenario. Businesses who eagerly embrace evolution thrive or die quickly. Those who covet the status quo, wither almost imperceptibly until it’s too late.
Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany is an early adopter. He sees the need for growth, and isembracing change. Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe wants to delay the inevitable. He may like change, but sees that in this game of musical conferences, there are only four chairs and they are already claimed. His only chance is to keep the music playing for as long as possible. He wants “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida” and “American Pie” strung back-to-back.
Change is coming. It’s just taking longer than it needs to. The losers are the fans who demand a playoff. The winner is Texas who gets to build a network while the Pac-10 has no ability to tell them not to. The biggest challenge is for Swarbrick (a change and reinvention proponent by DNA) to get the Notre Dame administration on board with the move to the Big Ten before they lose all negotiating strength in the process.
LikeLike
Slightly OT, but found this on wiki. Knew about the rivalry, but not this part.
“This is a Homecoming weekend tradition at Penn State, started in 1966 when Sue Paterno (wife of football coach Joe Paterno) and a friend covered the lion in orange latex-based paint as a way of stoking interest in that year’s game against PSU rival Syracuse. While that paint washed off easily, a later dousing by actual Syracuse fans with oil-based paint proved much harder to remove, requiring sand blasting. The shrine is guarded for the duration of Homecoming weekend by Penn State’s ROTC detachment, Blue Band, alumni, current students, faculty, and by the Lion Ambassadors. The latter group brings food, music, games, and (starting in 2004) an event called “Last Guard Standing”, attracting students from all over campus. Originally, the guard was manned by freshmen.”
LikeLike
NEWS FLASH!!!!
US got the a$$ end of the refs in World Cup, if you watched and knew nothing about soccer you would know we wuz robbed!!
still a tie, but it should have been a win!
in fairness US needs to stop giving up early goals!
LikeLike
I’m sick to my stomach after that game. And it wasn’t just one call, it was a bunch of them.
LikeLike
FRANK,
I was looking back at some of the early threads for the picture of the singing mouse (rodent). It was the best pic in all of these threads and I can not find it, can you help.
thanks
sorry to repost, just did not see your response yet
LikeLike
@duffman – Here’s a link to the picture:
LikeLike
thanks frank,
it just tickles me every time
🙂
LikeLike
A Freakonomics short.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/how-to-choose-a-sports-league/
LikeLike
On the debate of UT to the SEC….
“That’s why lawyers, such as current SEC head Mike Slive, make such good commissioners.
It’s also pretty much accepted that Texas athletic director Deloss Dodds put the cart before the horse and quietly promised he’d move UT to the SEC before Texas (and A&M) ran into state legislature roadblocks that left them in the dying SWC.”
http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/sports_printable.asp?aID=122306
from the above link, at one time TU was SEC bound no matter how they spin it now…. did not know slive was a lawyer by trade, with all the lawyers on here it is good to know how lawyers think.
LikeLike
Texas (it’s spelled “UT” by the way) was never SEC-bound, and that is not spin.
LikeLike
HH,
the link was about a guy who has been following football since the 60’s and has a pretty good view of the actual history. The article was discussing the move by Texas – Austin back in the last go round. It makes the point that back then the folks in Austin were SEC bound (read the whole article).
LikeLike
Why read the whole article and stick to facts. Broad statements and big hats are all that matter.
Houston with a side of Rice to the Big12-2!
LikeLike
You’re an odd one to argue “stick to facts.” Just sayin’.
LikeLike
A couple of points… first, for someone so closely following, he should have gotten Schiller’s name right. (It’s Harvey, not Harry.)
Second, save for what Finebaum wrote and this guy spreads, there has never, in almost 20 years, been anything about this in the media until now. It wasn’t well known at all.
This happened before the formation of the Big 12, and yet, while politicians ultimately told the story of how the B12 was formed, we’ve never heard a Texas politician stand up and say, “I stopped Texas and A&M from going the SEC.” Or, even that ohe heard this was stopped.
I never say never when it comes to college sports, so I suppose it’s possible that all these people discussed this at some point back then. However, the idea that politicians scuttled it just doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
As I posted above, Hopkins is right about UT and SEC.
And UT was never a Big 8 school with the reversed letters. For some reason its NU, KU, OU, CU (don’t know about Missouri) even though official name is U of ___. That’s unlike IU which really is Indiana University. The Aggies like to reverse the letters and use small letters as a sign of disrespect.
LikeLike
Arrogance is kind of inconsistent with hanging out with those guys who “don’t belong in the room”, don’t you think? UT at the time had a president (incidently now head of AAU) who was previously President of Illinois, had a master’s from Illinois, PHD from Minnesota, and eventually left Texas for Berkeley. Texas administration had a very Big 10 attitude and would never have gone “slumming” with the SEC.
Just because one SEC guy says Texas was going to the SEC doesn’t make it so. There have been a bunch of articles over the years that tell what really happened.
LikeLike
bullet,
thanks for the heads up, as I had seen it both ways TU and UT I thought I thought it was a way to separate TU (texas) from UT (tennessee) the same way tOSU, oSu, and OSU make Ohio State, OK State, and Oregon State easier to tell the difference when just using initials. As you point out IU is IU so TU makes more sense to me than UT, but if it disrespectful that way now I know.
I see your argument about UT president at the time, but I am also aware that many years ago boosters had a big say in matters. I am old enough to remember that IU and tOSU were “party” schools and with Little 5 and all the bars around tOSU that I frequented I can say firsthand this was pretty true. I lived through the 70’s and did not read about them in a book later.
The old Big 8 had OU vs UNL, people forget that this rivalry was HUGE, akin to Michigan vs Ohio State. The move to the Big 12 changed all that, but being older I was around to see those old games and listen to them on the radio. Just saying what we hear now may not be coming from folks around back then.
As a new member of the family any Big Red fans out there to discuss the old UNL vs OU rivalry? Am I wrong in my views of this game?
LikeLike
I’m old enough too to remember seeing the game of the century (71 OU/UNL), the big shootout (69 UT/Ark) and even IU in the Rose Bowl. And BTW, since I lived in Indiana awhile, I’m partial to IU in the B10.
Boosters do have a role, but TPTB at UT have been of a like mind for quite a while. Faculty has had a heavy concentration of B10 Phds and UT wants to be like a Big 10 school. Administration has never liked folksy coaches and certainly wouldn’t like the SEC. Chairman of the board of regents wasn’t happy that legend DKR hung out with Waylon and Willie and the boys. Administration got Abe Lemons (bb coach) fired and Dodds quickly became the most unpopular man on campus shortly after he arrived as AD. Yet he’s still here a quarter of a century later.
LikeLike
Bullet,
I am an IU guy I am totally happy to see them in the Big 10, did not mean to imply that I did not. The 68 Rose Bowl seems so far away now, but it started my dislike for OJ Simpson.
🙂
LikeLike
Actually, what I was trying to say, but not very clearly, is that I usually root for IU when I’m watching B10 games, not that they win that often in football.
LikeLike
From the same article:
“Remember, there was a day when the University of Chicago was the dominant football power and produced the first Heisman Trophy winner, Yale was the East Coast version of Southern Cal, and TCU and SMU were the flagships for the now dead-and-gone SWC.”
Tomorrow’s not promised for anyone. You know who I’m talking to…
LikeLike
Amen to that brother!
LikeLike
Nebraska?
LikeLike
Assuming you’re talking about Texas; most of the Texas fans supported moving to the Pac-10 for that very reason; HH mentioned that reason most often in terms of the cyclical nature of the game/recruiting/coaching, etc..
LikeLike
Nah, not Texas. I live here now, and I bear witness that this state’s production of talent and its insane devotion to high school football should make it impossible for UT to not be a power for an eternity. Frankly, it’s pretty awesome, especially on Friday nights. I never saw anything like that in Chicago; easily one of the biggest culture shocks I experienced upon moving here.
LikeLike
B10J,
I have seen high school football in texas and high school basketball in Indiana and Kentucky. It is an awesome sight to see both. The rest of the country has no idea, until you actually see it firsthand just how big a deal their respective sports are.
LikeLike
@Big Ten Jeff:
If you were a Texas fan who lived through Longhorn football from 84-93 — I’ve mentioned it before, but take what Michigan has experienced for the last two seasons and extend it for a decade — you might think differently!
LikeLike
If you’re talking single sport infatuation–ya better throw in hockey in the frozen tundra of Minnesota.
Most kids come from the womb wearing hockey skates! It truly is friggin’ crazy… kids on skates as toddlers/pre-schoolers.
Even with this craziness and hockey talent in the backyard, the Gopher’s hockey is in a little bit of a down cycle in the last few years (’02,’03 last Nat’l Champs)… So, dominance is very hard to maintain… Of course, the Gophers also play in the SEC of college hockey… the WCHA (Western Collegiate Hockey Association)…
Anyway…
Want to add… This Blog is INCREDIBLE… It is truly cool to have folks from all over the country, with various interests and allegiances , come together and INTELLIGENTLY discuss the matters that have been out there regarding conference expansion…
THANKS FranktheTank and all you bloggers for keeping this so cool—unlike the many childish/ignorant stuff on the sporting websites…
LikeLike
And I lived in Kentucky, Indiana and Texas. So I’ve also seen all 3. Similar devotion. Also lived in Ohio and football was big, but not quite like fb in Texas or bb in KY or IN.
LikeLike
@Duffman, and that’s what makes the death of IU basketball so sad…
Actually, I’ve lived in Chicago, Wisconsin, Ohio, MD and VA prior to coming to Texas. Thought I had a pretty good perspective, but I was wrong!
@HH, I hear you, but it’s just hard to imagine that. All I know is that it’s pretty awesome. I have a son who’s a kick ass, tall ass basketball player, and I’ve heard “that’s too bad” on more than one occasion (cause he wasn’t in football). LOL
LikeLike
B10J,
Tell me about it! I have to get my basketball fix through Izzo at MSU. It kills me that Everett Case went to NC State. The IU vs UK basketball rivalry was way better than the dreck between UNC v Duke now. It was a real border war between 2 basketball crazy states. Folks around the country just have no clue about the Indiana vs Kentucky things starts pretty much from birth.
LikeLike
ps..
It is a sad day indeed when you see kids in Indiana sporting UNC or Duke gear. I am not calling IU dead yet tho.. It took awhile for Bama football to come back from the “Bear” era, I am thinking IU basketball is sorta the same. They need to bring the Big 4 back to Lucas, and feed the old rivals.
LikeLike
Texas has had some dry spells. I don’t see it permanently changing, but dry spells will come. And if A&M had gone to SEC and UT to P10, I was real concerned we’d see fewer highs and more lows (still some highs, just not as many). And IMO OU and A&M would have been hurt also.
What I worry about in basketball is the national nature of recruiting. How many Kentucky kids get a chance to play for Kentucky anymore? Not very many. Don’t know about IU. Its hard to keep an advantage like KY and IN have if you don’t recruit local players, if everyone they see wearing the school colors is from NY or Chicago or LA.
Growing up in KY and IN you learn the fundamentals of bb. Its ridiculous to see all these college and NBA players now who, despite enormous athletic ability, don’t know how to block out or shoot free throws.
LikeLike
bullet,
i follow women’s basketball as well, they are the ones who are getting IN and KY talent, especially ND. X has some Indy girls on their team including their AA. It is getting sad with the boys tho, to many hot shots with no team skills and basic fundamentals. With ND and UL in the BE, and UK in the SEC the girls can get the national exposure, so they stay closer to home. The Big 10 could be better in WBB, but they are so focused on football. The tOSU womens team was good this year, and MSU but they just do not seem to care at the AD level like the BE and SEC. Much I guess has to do with Uconn and Utenn success i guess..
B10J,
is your kid good enough for D1 BB? Is he playing AAU ball anywhere?
LikeLike
@Duffman: actually he’s not quite in high school yet. I’m taking a hands off approach on athletics though. He’s still a straight A student, so that takes the pressure off him athletically, to where he can view it as fun.
LikeLike
Wall Street Journal on how won small school navigated conference realignment. I’ll give you one guess on who the school is. 😉
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/06/17/football-ma-how-one-small-school-navigated-conference-realignment/
LikeLike
Won, loki? Won? 🙂
LikeLike
Rice, HH. Rice.
LikeLike
loki,
great post!
if you look at the comments under Moose .. that is a cheer I have not heard since the 60’s or 70’s. who chanted it back then?
LikeLike
TX once again refuses to take an unequal share of the NE and CO departure penalties, while aTm and OU won’t make the same commitment. Iowa State had proposed that ISU, MO, KS, KSU, and Baylor give their shares of the penalty money (5x$2 million) to be split among TX, aTm, and OU as enticement to stay in the B12-2. TX had already stated Tuesday that they wouldn’t accept it.
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/06/18/texas-doesnt-want-special-payout-am-and-ou-well-still-thinking/
LikeLike
For all the crap CU has taken for supposedly having no money because we didn’t can Hawkins last year I’ve been shocked at how under the radar A&M has been able to keep their own financial situation. Their AD has a huge amount of debt, something like $16-20million that it owes the school. Apparently their leadership was making some noises recently about wanting some sort of plan for paying some of it back, so they may be willing to take the PR hit on this and take the money. Though I’m not convinced the windfall will be anywhere near the amount required by the bylaws, let alone the imaginary numbers Chip has been putting out there.
LikeLike
Love this reply:
——
Mocking Bird said:
June 18th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Has Dodds defeated Aggie the same way Reagan beat the USSR during the Cold War?
A&M spent all that money on their stadium and facilities to keep up with the Joneses. Someone should have pointed out both sides of the balance sheet to $ Bill, and a little thing called ROI.
LikeLike
Maybe its time for an amicable divorce and a split of the difference.
LikeLike
I suspect that will happen with CU. Not so sure about UNL. CU AD said he was talking with Scott and Beebe about maybe moving CU a year early.
CU got significantly better deal than Utah with P10:
http://azstarnet.com/sports/college/wildcats/article_b93fcbao-b636-5899-b727-f7a8404dcce5.html
LikeLike
try again-hate these long odd strings:
http://azstarnet.com/sports/college/wildcats/article_b93fcba0-b636-5899-b727-f7a8404dcce5.html
LikeLike
“Scott said he also was not sure yet when Colorado would begin play. He announced last Thursday, at Colorado’s introductory news conference, that the Buffaloes would join the Pac-10 in 2012, unless events in the Big 12 dictated otherwise.
The next day, Nebraska joined the Big Ten and said it was leaving the Big 12 in 2011. If the Buffaloes don’t leave with them in 2011, the Big 12 and the new Pac-12 would have asymmetrical 11-team alignments for one season – but the Buffaloes don’t have a financial incentive to leave the Big 12 early, because they would not receive a full share of Pac-10 television revenue in 2011-12.
Whenever it finally happens, the Pac-10 will become a 12-team league. If it doesn’t change its name, the Pac-10 would become another statistical oddity in college conferences, along with the Big Ten (soon to be 12 teams) and the Big 12 (soon to be 10).”
That sounds like an easily solvable problem; make Colorado whole for moving early. What good is it to have two 11 school leagues for 1 year instead of having the Pac-12 CCG in 2011? If the Pac-12 CCG brings in enough money to easily cover the difference for Colorado (which it should), then there’s no reason not to move them in 2011.
LikeLike
The fact that Nebraska’s deal hasn’t been fully disclosed could be interpreted as the B10 not wanting to disclose too much before inviting others.
LikeLike
Nebraska indicated that it didn’t negotiate the terms; it just accepted Delany’s formula based on making them and the rest of the Big Ten whole and then growing Nebraska’s share faster until it matches the other 11’s shares.
Presumably, since Nebraska just accepted the terms; we should assume that only Notre Dame would really get a full share immediately if it joined, since they’re the only school that’s being looked at that could negotiate it.
But yea, I did find it interesting that the terms weren’t disclosed, and you’re right that the reason is most likely in case more schools get added in the next year.
LikeLike
not so sure that its odd that we don’t know the terms. its not like they make a habit of reveal such financial details no matter how interested we are. I suspect the general ouline UNL gave us will be the most we hear for awhile.
LikeLike
So Utah will be getting the money spoon fed over a number of years. I’m sure they will be fine with that. Rose Bowls and BCS opportunities make the inequities go away. You can hate on the Ute’s either. They have been a strong program for a number of years now.
LikeLike
If Nebraska fans are looking for full disclosure of the BTN side of the deal they will be waiting awhile. The BTN is a private company and has released very little information.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/illini/story/4E0D7FE430DDC05E86257724000A464E?OpenDocument
The only transparent aspect of the BTN money going to the schools is the annual rights fees paid to the Big Ten that will average $100M/yr over the length of the contract. Beyond that the BTN has 1) made a statement when they became profitable, 2) stated they will have paid back Fox’s initial investment in a “few” years, and 3) the schools will receive additional profits after Fox is paid off. The BTN president has repeatedly stated as a private company they are not required to release further financial details.
I took the statement regarding Nebraska becoming a full partner over time to simply mean they will need to pour back their share of the profits back into the BTN to get a full equity stake.
LikeLike
Beyond these types of hints, in Big Ten country we look for clues from cable industry analysts like SNL Kagan (quoted in the above article) to get a glimpse inside the private workings of the BTN.
In a Rivals article this same group (Kagan) estimated the current profits of the BTN are about $50M/year, the value of the network is $1B and the value could increase to $2B by 2012.
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=974181
If Notre Dame were to join the Big Ten I highly doubt they would be given a full share. If the above estimates are valid, a full share in the BTN will be worth $78M (51% of $2B divided 13 ways for 12 schools plus the conference). Notre Dame or anybody else will need to earn their equity stake out of the profits just like the current Big Ten teams.
LikeLike
right. the word all along had been that a new member would have to buy into the BTN equity. of course the price would be negotiated with each new member.
LikeLike
Faitfhful5k; my point is that Perlman indicated in his speech to the BOR at Nebraska that he accepted the terms on the Big Ten’s position.
If Notre Dame were to negotiate that they would join if they get a full stake immediately, I’m pretty sure Delany would pull the trigger immediately.
Each school brings a different amount of value to the Big Ten Network and the TV contract. Nebraska was in a tight position and they felt that the terms Delany set were fair.
Notre Dame is going to be a position when/if it ever joins since it won’t be pressured. They’ll probably try to negotiate away the entire buy in if they feel that their value is sufficient.
LikeLike
I certainly hope not. To every outsider the BTN was a risky endeavor. I am sure it was a no-brainer for Nebraska to accept terms where there is now demonstrated performance and the risk is now low. There should be no exception if Notre Dame or anybody else is to join in the future. Any special deals would just establish a sense of entitlement that is a very poor fit in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
not so sure about that Zeek. the value of an individual stake is already @$40 million and will be increasing rapidly as Fox gets paid back. By the time ND joins, if they ever do, that stake could be nearing a $100 mln value. As valuable as Notre Dame is I doubt the conference would be willing to in effect pay that full amount to get their membership. just an opinion of course.
LikeLike
That’s wonderful. So in fact, even putting aside the equity asset value, the gross annual payout is significantly higher than what’s being reported, in order to allow the payback to Fox. Just beautiful. I just hope the BTN has some type of limited non-compete or right of first refusal that would allow them to joint venture with Fox to buy others’ (eg. Pac-10) media rights, instead of Fox being perfectly free to go against the Big Ten’s business interest in growing the BTN’s inventory beyond Big Ten products.
LikeLike
I disagree because just look at the Colorado/Utah deals to join the Pac-10.
And the real question is how much does the Big Ten value Notre Dame’s independence.
And secondarily, how much value does Notre Dame add?
If Notre Dame increases the value of the Big Ten by 10+%, then the actual value of the stakes doesn’t matter in nominal terms.
Whether the stake is worth $40M or $80M or $120M, the real question is how much a university increases the value of the contract in % terms. If the contract is increased by a % greater than 1/12th, then it pays for itself.
As I’ve stated before, Nebraska’s primary value is to the 2016 TV contract and not so much the Big Ten Network.
That’s why Nebraska would have a slower buy in, because its value isn’t going to be taken into account until ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 shell out the big bucks.
Nebraska probably increases the value of the TV contract by much more than enough to pay for itself, but it doesn’t increase the value of the Big Ten Network to pay for itself. Thus, they have a staggered buy in because we don’t get anywhere near the full value of Nebraska until 2016.
Notre Dame is a different story if Delany thinks that it can immediately help push the BTN rates higher in certain markets and with certain providers.
Of course, if Notre Dame doesn’t increase the value of the contract and BTN by enough, then it wouldn’t get a full share immediately.
These formulas are not going to be the same for every institution.
LikeLike
Big Ten Jeff
the conference owns 51% of the BTN which gives it the control to prevent the network itself from doing deals not in the conference’s interest.
the payout to Fox is bacause the conference spent no money to set up the network. Fox paid all of the start up costs which I heard were estimated at $50 million. the payout to Fox is just to pay back the conferences share of that start up cost which Fox paid on their behalf.
LikeLike
@Big Ten Jeff
It has been somewhat speculative but a deal for the BTN and the PTN to exchange broadcast rights for live events would seem to be a major win-win-win for Fox and the two conferences. Additional live content across different time zones just seems to be a natural evolution of the business model. It is sometimes hard to swallow some of these rumors, but if ESPN has stepped in to sweeten the BigXII deal to keep Texas out of that club it makes a lot of sense if it blocks Fox’s path to a truly national presence.
@Zeek It is hard to argue without seeing behind Oz’s curtain for the specifics of Nebraska’s value to the BTN. I would not dismiss their value solely based on the number of new households they bring. For one, it has been speculated carriage fees may be higher in Nebraska for such an avid fan base. In addition, any value they bring to a network contract cascades to the BTN because better match-ups move from ABC > ESPN > ESPN2 > BTN. Barbasol may even have some competition for advertising in the next go-around. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m not dismissing it; I’m just saying intuitively that Nebraska has a lot more to offer in the TV contract than in the BTN contract.
Yes, Nebraska will increase viewership for its BTN games as well as the footprint, but I’m much more comfortable saying that Nebraska clearly increases the value of the ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 contract by enough to pay for itself because those are the marquee matchups. Nebraska will increase the number of marquee matchups by at least 10-15% so I’m comfortable working under the assumption that Nebraska adds huge value to the TV contract above its own value.
Nebraska may very well pay for itself in the BTN, but that’s much more speculative because it won’t bring enough households (in all likelihood) to do that on its own.
But these are all just different revenue streams, and every university is valued differently when it comes to negotiating.
And yea, the cascading effect is there, it’s just that the BTN’s valuation increase is still more of a questionmark than the TV contract which we all know is going to jump upwards with the addition of Nebraska.
LikeLike
@Faithful5K, I’ve been a loud proponent of this for months. I believe it creates a huge win/win for the Big Ten if we either buy the rights of the PTN or allow the PTN to buy equity in the BTN (while forfeiting its media rights). The combined BTN/PTN would then be distributed nationally.
Not only does this compete with ESPN (citing the previous comment that BTN beats ESPN Saturday afternoons in the conference states), but it allows movement from the 5 cent/household distribution in non-conference states to a more universal 88+ cents distribution. And recall, the BTN’s opening salvo was $1.10/subscriber/month.
Obviously, this would be just splitting the pie if done equitably, but that would be prevented if the following occurred.
1) the BTN owning the bigger share;
2) distribution exceeding .88+.05 cents/member/month in the footprint;
3) the network having enough appeal to get national distribution on the first tier.
LikeLike
@Zeek Like I said the value of Nebraska to the BTN is debatable. There is no debate that Big Ten schools will have been paying back a share of profits to Fox for years if and when Notre Dame joins the Big Ten. Notre Dame is in the middle of Big Ten country so they add even less than Nebraska in terms of footprint for the Big Ten model. It does however raise the national brand value of the conference, just as Nebraska does. If a full stake is offered just because they are Notre Dame I would be stunned.
LikeLike
Hank, I understand that. Allow me to illustrate my point (with a ton of simplicity).
Assume that the Big Ten’s share of BTN’s gross revenues currently equals $10. It currently has to deduct some amount, say $4, to pay back Fox for covering the capital outlay, leaving an available distribution of $6.
At some point, Fox will be paid off, that $4 will come off the expense side of the ledger, and even more money will be available for additional membership distribution.
It is this investment/repayment that will preclude anyone from getting an immediate full share, as all current members have have a ‘risky’ buy-in period. Also, this makes the Big Ten’s current, early receipt of profits that much more impressive.
LikeLike
Jeff
I agree completely.
LikeLike
It isn’t often I get to root for Algeria. They’re holding up well.
LikeLike
What if ND and Arkansas go to Big 12? Can you imagine ND/ARK in Big 12 west, with OU/Tex in the east? Pretty strong football conference. ND could start their own network, but, they already have that with NBC.
Guess it depends on what teh B10 does in the east. Orangebloods.com say TX AD buddy buddy with ND AD. Hmmmmm……
LikeLike
It will never happen. I do though want to see Texas and ND form their own two man league along with their own network. The Longhorn leprechaun Network. Watching these two steal from each other will be another sport entirely.
LikeLike
It isn’t often I get to root for Algeria. They’re holding up well.
Does the winner get Gibralter? (Spain may complain…)
LikeLike
I think that’s Moracco, not Algeria.
LikeLike
Both and more, the Umayyad Caliphate.
LikeLike
This is a rare college sports blog that can get Umayyad Caliphate references.
LikeLike
Playoffs,
well yes, but that was along time ago – and with an empire that big you can cover much ground.
the british empire it not what it once was
china and russia are still around
but funny nonetheless
🙂
LikeLike
just tell yourself they are Ireland with those uniforms
LikeLike
Look, I need to ND alums here to back me up on this one. ND is not going to the SEC or the Texas-10. ND wants its independence, and if and when that’s not viable, they’re going to affiliate with the Big Ten (or maybe the ACC). I just don’t see ND associating with a group they’d perceive to be ‘less thans’, knowing that a seat at the head table is available.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten is a bad institutional fit for Notre Dame, I don’t even want to imagine the institutional fit of Notre Dame with the SEC or the Big 12-2.
The ACC actually tends to have smaller public universities (other than Maryland/FSU) as well as a few smaller private schools. Much of the ACC tends to have more of an undergraduate education based focus as opposed to the intense graduate/research focus of the Big Ten universities. That tends to match Notre Dame more in terms of the way the institutions see themselves.
This is also why I think Maryland is a much better fit with the Big Ten other than it also being a Northern university as opposed to 10 of the other ACC schools, but that’s another story for another time.
LikeLike
Oh and ND probably isn’t going to join a conference that it sees as being way beneath it academically in terms of undegraduate education; thus, the ACC and Big Ten are really the only two in play.
Maybe there’s some crazy deal they could pull with the Pac-10, but the Pac-10 doesn’t seem to care about academic standards with their attempted landgrab of the past couple months, so I think ND would be careful about the Pac-10.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’d be shocked if ND went to the SEC or the UTen. BTW, I like UTen, I think I’m going with it for the foreseeable.
LikeLike
OT: Coulibaly was born on the Fourth of July. Awesome.
LikeLike
Frank,
loved the twitter from the onion….
“Colorado is just moving to the Pac 10 because they have better weed there.”
was my favorite, but the KSU one was pretty good.
LikeLike
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/197653-holtz-irish-should-join-big-ten?eref=sihp
08:05 AM ET 06.18 | After all these years, Lou Holtz, who went 100-30-2 with nine consecutive bowl appearances in South Bend has changed his mind. He thinks Notre Dame should join the Big Ten. “I’m an old man, and all my life I’ve said that Notre Dame should remain independent because it’s a national school,” said Holtz, a former Fighting Irish coach who was in the Twin Cities last weekend. “We played the very best in the country from Texas to Tennessee to Miami of Florida to Southern Cal. However, two days ago was the first time I’ve ever said that I think Notre Dame ought to seriously consider joining the Big Ten. Because what I see happening, I see four or five superconferences.”
Minneapolis Star Tribune
LikeLike
Wow I really feel bad for the Left Behind 5 in the Big Twelvish…is there anything that is an actual deal breaker for them?
“Here’s what Beebe said: As part of their plans for continuing the
Big 12 with impending defections, Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, Iowa
State and Missouri agreed to 10-year commitments as a sign to other
schools that might have considered joining or remaining in the league.
The 10-year commitment now only applies to those five and may not be
even applicable given the change in circumstances.”
http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/06/about-that-10-year-big-12-commitment.html
LikeLike
Super D, that reminds me of the Bobby Knight quote (sorry to my IU friends):
“I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.”
LikeLike
The funny thing is that the 10 year commitment doesn’t mean anything unless it includes their media rights (which it may).
I mean if Missouri gets an invitation to join the Big Ten; it’s gone the day it gets it regardless of any pledges or whatnot.
LikeLike
And there’s really nothing that can be said about the 5 schools.
What else do they do? People keep saying that pride matters, but the alternative to the $14-17M Beebe dreams up for them along with the Big 12-2’s TV exposure is the $1M that the MWC pays to each team with almost no exposure on the coasts.
It’s really hard to fault the actions of any of those teams the past 2 weeks. They know where their bread is buttered so they have to suck it up and take everything that’s given to them.
At least UT is trying to make it somewhat more fair by turning down their unsolicited offering of the penalty money.
Those 5 are doing what they have to do to survive.
Every single one of them has seen what’s happened to the SMU/Rice/Houston’s of the world; they have to cling to the Big 12-2 to try to stay relevant nationally or they’ll totally fall off the radar.
LikeLike
Zeek, do you really think they have no choice to SURVIVE? Is it really not better to die with honor than to survive a coward? Does the extra $14M provide them with any more prestige or competence as a football team? Is an extra $14M a year worth losing this amount of pride? Do we respect U of C any less for abandoning major D-1 football?
With respect to the other Texas teams (way too many trying to be FBS), why would it be so bad for Rice to go the way of U of C and embrace academia instead of suffering through this blow to what’s otherwise a well-regarded academic institution? Isn’t UH in Houston? With all the deep pockets in Texas, can’t there be a better way to prominence than begging UT (such as Phil Knight has done in Oregon, T. Boone Pickens has done in Oklahoma and FedEx is trying to do in Memphis)?
That’s a big reason I’ve proud of Northwestern. It’s been a long process; obviously we’re not close to the best team in the Big Ten (or even given our due respect for our progress), although we’ve won 3 conference football championships since 1995 (the year we beat Notre Dame and they stopped scheduling us 🙂 ).
It just seems to me that FBS college football isn’t the same as college basketball. Cinderellas aren’t welcome to apply. There’s a big ‘get better’ rule (which the Big Ten as a whole seems to be adopting to avoid losing to much ground in the race for conference supremacy). Either become a TCU, Boise State, Cincinnati, WVU, etc. and crash the party, or step aside. There’s no handouts coming to the downtrodden. The light at the end of the tunnel shines for 5×16 semi-pro teams, then the rest can figure out the rest. It’s probably sad but also probably true.
LikeLike
Look. There’s a difference between UChicago giving up its football program of its own volition and being forced out of the big leagues by a Pac-16 land grab.
I’m making no judgment on whether its good or bad to abandon “big time” athletics.
But in reality, boosters and students and fans and politicians all want the schools to forego their pride and do what needs to be done to keep the Big 12-2 alive.
There is no internal movement at these universities to abandon their athletic ambitions, and that’s the different between Rice and UChicago.
Rice bounced around for a while before settling into C-USA (I think, I can never keep it straight where schools are).
There are schools that place a premium on staying up with the big boys; they have no alternative but to go down this path until they’re forced to accept the Big East or MWC or whatever happens after that.
And spare me the lecture about NU and UChicago; I’m an alum of both.
LikeLike
Actually, a lot of faculty want Rice to join the UAA with Chicago. They did a very good study of their options 3 or 4 years ago. Probably still out there somewhere on the web. Came to the conclusion their only viable options were IA in CUSA or Division III in UAA. Both cost a lot money, but not as much as IAA or Division II.
LikeLike
@Zeek: That’s fair. I just can’t imagine (and glad I don’t have to) why this is so important to the other 5 schools. While NU was losing 34 straight football games (I was there on the back end and when the streak ended), it just seemed like we still had perspective and pride. Honestly, I’m just trying to understand more than criticize. Do these schools depend that much on the $14M? Is the civic pride and alumni donations that tied up in being in a big-time football conference? And BTW, when were you at NU?
LikeLike
I was referring to when Rice was in the SWC, but if that’s true than they’re pretty much considering getting out of the race altogether if they pursue a UAA invite.
I just find it hard to blame the 5 schools for giving up as much as they have because they all want to stay in big time BCS conference athletics.
It’s different when a school makes a choice to drop it voluntarily as Rice may do or as UChicago did because then there’s probably a lot more support at the school as opposed to getting a demotion and then having to choose between several options to try to stay competitive for a couple of years before getting out of the race.
And we’re talking about state flagships in some cases here; that’s far different from schools that aren’t in the position where the state’s college athletic pride rides upon that one or two schools.
LikeLike
rice in the nerdy 9, what do you think loki?
LikeLike
Rice administration decided to stay put in I-A. Faculty didn’t necessarily agree.
LikeLike
I have thought about D3. But the schools we are talking about are quite far away. Other than Tulane we do not really have many comparable schools nearby.
I remember the study, but I don’t remember if it addresses the possibility of D1AAA. Dropping football completely to save our baseball program.
LikeLike
The Rice report:
Click to access report.pdf
LikeLike
’00-’03.
LikeLike
So… regarding the above, what’s your take on this? This seems huge to me. Isn’t Lou the greatest living ND coach? Isn’t saying this at this age a message to the faithful? If he can convert, can’t anyone?
LikeLike
I would argue that Ara is still the greatest living ND coach. Brought us back from further down and had a better winning % than Lou. In Lou’s defense, he did leave before he could get more wins than Rock.
With the TV money bailing out the UTen, it looks like the Media PTB have decided against Mega-conferences. There’s no PAC-16 without Texas. Besides the Big Ten, the remaining conferences are locked into their TV contracts and I doubt that Disney/Fox/Comcast/Viacom appear interested in paying for more volume they don’t really have spaces to run. Since it’s the TV money fueling the conference realignment, it looks like we won’t be seeing super-ultra-mega-conferences any time soon.
Without the Superconferences, there’s no reason for ND to surrender independence. The stories we’re hearing are based on speculation that has since been proved false. ND will be fine.
LikeLike
Great points, great logic. You have clearly stated the contra-expansion view. Still debatable as to how it will actually play out, given that the superconferences are the easiest path to the National Playoff that the public clamors.
LikeLike
I actually think the B10 superconference is a way for the B10 to generate enough revenue to be able to resist a playoff.
But it does clear the path. Anything that reduces the number of autobid conferences clears the path. I just don’t see a 16 team playoff happening anytime soon. And 6 or 7 autobids limit your wildcards in an 8 to team field. In any event fewer autobid conferences increase the control the top conferences have, which is really what the opposition to a playoff is about. They don’t want anything like the NCAA bb tournament where they don’t really control the size or the $ distribution.
LikeLike
Wow. People are really downplaying the importance of Lou Holtz coming out in favor of ND joining the Big Ten. Forget this “Lou says crazy things” garbage. Lou Holtz entire legacy is Notre Dame and he doesn’t say something like that unless
A: He’s been asked to by the powers-that-be as a way of softening up the faithful
and making expansion more acceptable in their eyes.
B: He knows how far along/serious the negotiations are and sees it as inevitable.
I’ll bet we see a few more of these ND legends coming out in favor of it.
Joe Montana anyone? I know many will disagree, but I’ll bet we see ND in the BT within a year.
LikeLike
Agreed, as I pointed out above. I think the real question you create is if they decide to come on board, what’s a reasonable time frame… It’s all guesswork until the study’s done.
LikeLike
Wow, that’s funny. We both posted basically the same thing at almost the same time (9:01/9:05) when no one else seems interested.
LikeLike
Lou Holtz is one of the last people on this earth that I would want to try to figure out his motivations…. from my limited contact with domers, I don’t think he is as important to the domers, or carries the same weight as say Tom Osborne, or Bo, or JoePa. Or Barry Alvarez or Hayden Fry, for that matter.
LikeLike
Folks who remember the Devine and Faust years remember Holtz the most fondly. They consider him the third best ND coach and the one who restored greatness to a program in its darkest hour since the Brennan-Kuharich era of deemphasis. The rest of us think very highly of Lou, but he’s no Rockne.
I think the reason folks aren’t commenting on Lou’s statements is that it’s last week’s news.
LikeLike
Oh, it was last weeks news? Gee I guess I’m just way behind the times, I thought it was today. No doubt you’ll provide a link.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/tag?name=lou-holtz
LikeLike
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/chicago-blackhawks-honorary-expansionpalooza-thread-and-one-more-super-death-star-conference-rumor/#comment-72955
LikeLike
Rockne, Leahy, Parseghian before Dr. Lou
LikeLike
This is so cool. Is it a generational thing? I certainly understand Ara and Rockne, but to the non-ND alum fan of the ESPN era, hasn’t it been all about Lou. The guy is your greatest cheerleader. Superficially, it would seem that the love would be reciprocated in equal amounts. That being said, I agree that still nothing will happen with ND without a total restructuring of the football landscape.
LikeLike
It sort of is a generational thing, BTJ. Guys in their 40s love Lou since brought us back in the Eighties. Older guys remember the job Ara did bringing us back and are more impressed by it. Guys a under 40 remember the NC in 1988 and how we got screwed in your choice of 1989 or 1993. However, we also remember how at the end ND was so predictable that freshman girls were able to consistently correctly predict play calls by the second home game. Anyone much younger than me barely remembers Lou as a coach other than that stint he had at S. Car., and he’s mostly known as a analyst.
Lou was only the coach at ND for a decade. Granted, that’s a long time for a Notre Dame coach (11 seasons is in a three-way tie for the longest coaching tenure behind Rock’s who died after his 13th), but it is nothing like the twenty years Fry was at Iowa, the 24 yrs. Dr. Tom had a Nebraska, the 27 Woody had at tOSU, the 30yrs Bo had at UM, or 44 JoePa’s had. Lou’s time at the top was only about 5 seasons twenty years ago. Lou’s winning percentage is also 5th all-time at ND for three-or-more-year head coaches, and only .001 > Dan Devine’s.
The kind of sad thing is that all Domers know the school will never love them the way they love the school. Lou is loved because he loves ND and was coach for our last NC. But the rest of us love ND just as much. Besides we all love Rock, Leahy, and the Lady on the Dome more.
LikeLike
FLP,
I remember Lou best, but I first met him when he was coaching the hogs at arkansas. I knew Faust from when he was at Moeller and the Moeller vs Massilon games in Nippert. I do not ever remember meeting Devine in person, but ND was on TV so you got to see the games he coached.
I can not say what Lou was like to his players in practice, but in person he was very humble and gracious. I have a feeling that ND folks may feel this same way, which might account for their fondness as well. It did not hurt that he beat OU in the orange bowl, and won a NC for ND for some folks.
I think Cliff Notes may have hit the nail on the head tho in relation to how ND may view Lou. He was “a” coach at ND but not “the” coach at ND. My guess is the ND faithful may not view his opinion like PSU thinks of JoPa or BAMA thinks of the bear.
LikeLike
Let’s see, Bo, Woody, Ara-in their honor maybe you should invite as #13 Miami U. (the one in Ohio). Wasn’t the last coach to take IU to the Rose Bowl from Miami? And Northwestern had Randy Walker. I don’t know that Mackovic was fondly remembered at Illinois (certainly isn’t at Texas), but he did win some there-and is another with Miami ties.
LikeLike
Lou’s statement was made in the context of 16 school superconferences on the horizon.
Until we actually see Texas in the Pac-16, SEC, or Big Ten, I don’t think there will be a larger, more coordinated push.
If/when Texas does join a conference and transforms it into a superconference, then we’ll probably see the brass at ND make some kind of decision as to whether they will be proactive or whether they’ll wait to see where the dominoes fall.
I still don’t see ND making a choice on anything until the Big Ten and/or ACC move over 12…
LikeLike
Mostly agree.
1) I’m starting to think RU/SU/Pitt etc will never be added unless ND is 100% on board and ready to roll. Some people seem to be complaining about Nebraska being added–how are those people going to react to the schools above coming alone? 2) I think ND would fit well in the ACC, but if they ever join a conference I’m fairly 100% certain it will inevitably be the B10. 3) I really don’t think ND cares who’s added. Their stubbornness is all because of the independence issue, not being in a more non-regional conference. 4) Unless it lines up a certain way, I think ND only moves at two 16 team conferences, not just one. 5) This cabal story is interesting, indeed! 6) I think we could be looking at another few years wait for major expansion. 7) I think ND is of the mindset that “one more bad coaching job, and maybe this B10 idea isn’t so bad after all.” But if Kelly turns out well, could be looking at another 50 years wait. 😀
LikeLike
That’s why I think Delany went for Nebraska alone.
A lot of the media makes the presumption that the Big Ten will raid the Big East in order to move ND towards it. But nothing could really be further from the truth.
I don’t see it playing out like that. Delany’s probably already decided that we offered twice publicly in the past, and it didn’t work out, so instead he’s probably just let them know that if they ever change their minds, he’s willing to listen.
Thus, I don’t really see the Big Ten moving unless it’s because ND approached the Big Ten to open negotiations.
The only thing I could really see Delany moving for is two market/recruiting grabs if they appear, but since the ACC seems to be extremely stable, I’d venture he’s just going to wait on ND/Rutgers until ND decides it wants to join a conference.
Nebraska wanted to join the Big Ten. Notre Dame doesn’t at this time but has probably left the door somewhat open if there’s a 4×16 or negative BCS changes on the horizon that would cause them to reconsider. Texas doesn’t and probably won’t ever be at the same place as the Big Ten with respect to the Big Ten’s revenue sharing/pooled media rights…
I think there are some other considerations. For example, how long does NBC (soon to be run by Comcast) want to keep their deal with ND?
And I think FLP_NDRox made a point that has come up in other stories about how ND is committed to ensuring that the Big East is doing well. Raiding the Big East seems like a surefire way of pissing ND off, especially when there’s an attractive alternative to the Big Ten in the ACC in terms of institutional fit…
LikeLike
Some things are just not meant to be.
I wish the Big Ten would make a clean break from its unrequited love for Notre Dame and try to move on with its life. The public rejection is getting embarrassing.
There are a lot of fish in the sea the the Big Ten is really special just as it is. Any other school would be lucky to have such a nice conference.
LikeLike
I tend to think BT will not wait around and will go forward, but it will be a year or so brfore it happens. Watching the PC, it seemed that the BT was serious about integrating Neb. first.
Wait a year or so and RU/Rutgers could begin play in 2013. That will give things time to settle down.
As to what ND wants–screw them.
LikeLike
should have said RU/Pitt……….
LikeLike
I don’t think UNL solved any of the B10 issues (demographics,recruiting,population) or is going to genereate major increases in $, except that the B10 can now have a championship game. If UNL is it, its positive, but not that great an add.
If, however, the B10 is going to 14 w/o ND, UNL was probably essential. A Missou/RU/SU expansion would probably have generated a collective national yawn. With UNL you add a 4th national power and can add schools that address recruiting, demographics and market.
LikeLike
the one thing re the economics with UNL. yes they don’t bring a lot of households. but a big part, and in the longer term probably the biggest, revenue stream for the BTN is advertising. we all focus on the idea of carriage fees if the BTN gets on basic but advertising revenues are an issue. Nebraska can help a lot in this regard. Nebraska will convert a lot more of the household in its region in to actual viewers than Rutgers is likely to, at least initially. Brand names are important because they get loyal viewers not just passive housholds. Actual viewership powers advertising revenue.
LikeLike
Bullet is right on point though; the Big Ten has to focus on recruiting/population grounds next.
LikeLike
First comment, long time reader, have commented on the illiniboard but really like the multiple perspectives found here, plus FTT’s fantastic columns.
I agree with most of the above sentiment, ND is not going anyplace until they see the 4×16 alignment coming. I’m not sure I even want ND and UT in the Big Ten, one of the hallmarks of the conference is its stability, and I think these two additions would destroy that if concessions were made to get them, and I’m not sure they would come without concessions until the very end.
Having said that, the BTN has unique flexibility right now to incorporate additions that other conferences whose revenues are tied to network contracts do not. Clearly there is a movement toward conference networks, so this is likely a temporary advantage. I hope the Big Ten capitalizes on this temporary advantage to add two more teams that enhance the academics of the conference and add to the BTN footprint. (e.g. Maryland, UVa, Rutgers, Vandy, GaTech). After that, we should watch the other dominoes fall.
Welcome the the Big Ten Huskers. I believe this addition will show how teams can be added that enhance and solidify the conference, rather than destabilize it.
LikeLike
long post from an aggie site
http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=1646241&forum_id=5
for the discussion of A&M thinking
LikeLike
another post
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/aggies/at_colleges_football_money_talks_loudest_96705824.html?showFullArticle=y
interesting was the Big 12 numbers, as UNL was #2 and CU was #5. Still makes me wonder how you can lose 2 teams at the top, and still generate more money long term?
LikeLike
I’m trying to figure out where that number comes from, obviously doesn’t seem to include conference payouts, so is that pretty much the straight revenue generated by the gate and season ticket sales? Interesting that Colorado still manages to be #5 given that Folsum only seats 53K which is a big drop off from the schools ahead of us and is smaller than Missouri, OSU, and Tech…but you know its common knowledge that no one cares about football here and we never sell out, lol. What that probably means is we’re paying through the nose for our season ticket packages relative to a lot of the other Big 12 schools, lol.
LikeLike
Duffman, great info. From that same post, I thought I’d share the chart “Football Revenues Scorecard (amounts from 2008, in millions of dollars; only top 15 listed)”. Good stuff.
1. Texas $87.6
2. Ohio State $68.2
3. Florida $66.2
4. Georgia $65.2
5. Alabama $64.6
6. LSU $61.9
7. PSU $61.8
8. Auburn $58.6
9. South Carolina $57.1
10. Notre Dame $56.9
11. Nebraska $55.2
12. Michigan $52.3
13. Mich State $43.5
14. Tennessee $42.8
15. Oklahoma $42.6
LikeLike
By conference:
SEC – 7
Big Ten – 5 (credit given for UNL)
Texas Ten – 2
The rest (Notre Dame) – 1
Surprising lack of strength in the Pac-10, but otherwise this would seem to correlate with perceptions of conference strength (from an on the field perspective).
LikeLike
What the heck is South Carolina doing at #9?
“One of these things is not like the other…”
That shocked me. The rest seem feasible.
LikeLike
Just for fun, after a discussion on another board, I decided to rank the top schools in the US. I did this by only including the schools in the Top 100 of both USNews and AWRU. The schools are then listed by the average of those two lists. Not sure it buys us much, but here you go:
1. Harvard (1)
2. Stanford (3)
3. MIT (4.5)
3. Princeton (4.5)
5. Cal Tech (5)
6. Yale (7)
7. Columbia (7.5)
8. Chicago (8.5)
9. Penn (9.5)
10. Cal (12)
11. Cornell (13.5)
12. U of Washington (14)
13. Johns Hopkins (16.5)
14. UCLA (18.5)
15. Wash U (St Louis) (20.5)
15. Duke (20.5)
17. Northwestern (21)
18. UC-San Diego (24.5)
18. Michigan (24.5)
20. Wisconsin (28)
21. Vanderbilt (29)
22. Illinois (32)
22. NYU (32)
24. North Carolina (33.5)
25. Southern Cal (36)
26. UC-Santa Barbara (38.5)
27. Carnegie Mellon (40.5)
28. Texas (42.5)
28. Brown (42.5)
30. Minnesota (44.5)
31. Maryland (45)
32. UC-Davis (45.5)
33. Penn State (46)
33. UC-Irvine (46)
35. Florida (52.5)
36. Pitt (53)
37. Colorado (55.5)
38. Rochester (56)
39. Ohio State (57.5)
39. Virginia (57.5)
41. Rice (58)
42. Emory (58.5)
43. Rutgers (60.5)
44. Purdue (63)
45. Case Western (64)
46. Boston U (65)
47. Texas A&M (74.5)
48. Michigan State (78.5)
49. Indiana (82)
LikeLike
By conference:
Big Ten 10 (11 with Chicago)
PacNew 6
ACC 4
BigTex 2
Big East 2
SEC 2
LikeLike
*sigh*
IU at the bottom of another list.
nice work tho loki!
maybe you should post the whole 100, so we could at least be in the middle.
🙂
LikeLike
ps..
from your list the Pac 12 getting CU made them the academic winner.
LikeLike
Strong work!
LikeLike
Rankings are a bit arbitrary, but I can’t argue too much about any of the schools making this list. Off the top of my head, I’d probably have included 45 of the schools listed, myself, including the top 24, though I probably would have placed Washington 5 or 10 spots lower.
It surprises me that UC-San Diego, UC-Santa Barbara, UC-Irvine, USC and Rochester rank so highly. Dartmouth (which doesn’t rank at all) would have made my top 25, knocking out USC. Irvine and Rochester probably wouldn’t have made my list at all.
LikeLike
Yeah, every ranking is arbitrary. I just figured if a school made it to both lists, with their very different criteria, it is pretty certain to be very good.
Plus I figured Rice would be the only D1A school to qualify and not be in a BCS conference. So we can use that to sell ourselves next round of expansion. 😉
LikeLike
I think Rice is underrated.
UW being so high was a surprise to me.
And of the other conferences:
UAA 7
Ivy 7
Big West 3
LikeLike
Rice is underrated, but I still prefer a good potato. Potato quality varies so much, however, that rice is frequently the better choice.
LikeLike
Also, besides Dartmouth, interesting Georgia Tech is not on this list. Or Iowa.
The other thing you notice is that if you consider this list as possible expansion candidates, then whittle away the impractical schools, the names that pop out are awfully familiar.
First, take out the schools without Division 1 football, and those on the west coast.
What’s left?
Duke, Vanderbilt, UNC, Texas, Maryland, Florida, Pitt, Colorado, Virginia, Rice, Rutgers, and Texas A&M. That’s pretty much going to be our pool of candidates.
Let’s remove Texas and Texas A&M (already chased). Let’s remove Colorado (now Pac-10). And we’ll remove Rice (sorry) because it’s not a major athletic power.
We’ve now got Duke, Vanderbilt, UNC, Maryland, Florida, Pitt, Virginia and Rutgers.
Those are some pretty familiar names to those who have been reading this blog. Everyone has been discussed.
Florida should be pursued, but would likely not come. Duke and UNC should be pursued, too, but may also be pretty entrenched in their conference.
That leaves us with Vanderbilt, Maryland, Pitt, Virginia and Rutgers. All AAU schools, too.
The only additions that immediately spring to mind would be Georgia Tech, mostly for its market (it’s also AAU, and a school that probably should be on this list academically anyway).
Also, Notre Dame (for its football brand and proximity) and Miami (for its football brand and market).
LikeLike
What? No Mizzou? 🙂
LikeLike
Well it is the show me state. I guess they have to do some showing themselves.
LikeLike
Take away Maryland, Virginia, and Vanderbilt because they are also highly unlikely to leave their conferences and what’s left….
RUTGERS AND PITT.
I could live with that. Except dividing up the divisions and making a good schedule with the addition of two new eastern schools is really tricky. So maybe we should just stand pat.
LikeLike
Rutgers and Pitt are hurt badly by non-academic factors, more so than the other candidates on this list.
The only well rounded candidates would be Notre Dame, Maryland, Virginia, UNC, Duke?, GaTech, Miami?, Texas and A&M.
Any of those schools would be ¨home runs.¨
LikeLike
I should have obviously also included Florida.
That gives us 8 ¨home runs¨: Notre Dame, Maryland, Virginia, UNC, GaTech, Florida, Texas and A&M.
Two triples or borderline home-runs: Miami and Duke
And probably two doubles: Pitt and Rutgers. Although Rutgers could move up if it could be leveraged with other candidates to realistically make a play on NYC.
LikeLike
Michael, I like all your options accept UNC and Duke. That’s the spirit of the ACC. It be like inviting Alabama and Mississippi to join the Big ten?
LikeLike
Michael, you’ve yet to learn that tradition, culture, and geography still matter. Va, UNC, MD, Duke, Florida, and MIami aren’t coming to the BT, nor should they. GT could be a possibility, but it is hardly a home run—a border-line 16th school at best if ND was on board.
LikeLike
Rutgers, dude.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/christie_administration_wants_1.html
LikeLike
Looks more like broccoli………
LikeLike
urban farmers meet new land grant profile?
LikeLike
As I look at the goals (or at least what I think are the goals), it seems like JD was looking at two things — high profile schools (Texas, ND, NE) and market area. If that’s anywhere remotely accurate, it would appear that large markets are what remain on his shopping list. And if so, it seems the list of possible candidates is fairly short. If he looks to the NY/NJ area, it would be Rutgers and Syracuse in a surround the city approach. Pitt is the ideal Big Ten school but doesn’t help in the NY area. ND and Pitt together would fit but ND is not interested. Moving a little south, Maryland has many positives (aside from the fact they aren’t interested either). Combined with Rutgers, they would make a nice entry into markets, mainly giving a chance for Big Ten teams to play in the area.
We know JD is interested in a southern strategy. With Texas off the board, and nothing else promising in the west, that leaves the southeast and Florida. Maryland and Virginia (not interested and not interested) would focus in that middle region. North Carolina, etc., I see as being really not interested, which is a step up from just being not interested. That would leave GT, Miami, and possibly Florida State (and omitting Florida as I don’t see any real gain to them to make the move).
I can see the Big East schools making the move, I just don’t see nearly the incentive for the other schools to do so. Maryland I see as most likely of the others. Apparently they are somewhat on the outside in their conference.
At this point my guess is Rutgers and Maryland (if anyone), and hold for ND. Right now, ND can live with not being in a major bowl. They are not playing well. That will turn around and likely soon. The problem is that now more of the slots in major bowls are tied up the conferences. Will ND fans be content to see what they consider to be lesser teams getting bids over ND only because that other team or teams are the conference champion?
LikeLike
There is no rus right now. All forces are keep their power dry. Sure the BT is holding out for ND but i agree with you. for the reasons you mentioned Maryland looks real good to me. Rutgers/Syracuse to lock NY and GT might be the best fit for a southern school. as its not rural SEC/ACC but a big city school with some sound academicis. They also have pleyed ND a number of times over the years. ND will have to be flushed out but there probably be no thrust at 16 without ND. In fact I think they would perfer to stand pat at 14.So this makes 13 the only free pick they have left. ND may want a (eastern, Indipendent, academic etc) partner to come with from the East.
LikeLike
The more I think about adding Syracuse as part of an East Coast strategy, the more I think it is kind of like adding Fresno State to “get” Los Angeles. Yes, I realize that Syracuse has a basketball presence in NYC so the analogy doesn’t completely hold, but I just don’t see anyone outside of Western New York caring about Syracuse football.
I know you could say the same for Rutgers, but I see a few advantages of Rutgers over Syracuse. First is just the size of the alumni base, which is much larger for Rutgers. A second advantage is just the proximity to NYC–maybe New York doesn’t care about Rutgers, but they might care if Penn State or Michigan was playing just across the river. They won’t care if they’re playing all the way up in Syracuse. Finally, as a state school with a greater emphasis on research, Rutgers just fits in a little better.
I don’t think Syracuse would be a terrible addition to the B10 if we went to 16. But I do think Pitt, lack of footprint and all, would be a better 16th team.
LikeLike
The one thing that I think gets ignored with Syracuse and shouldn’t is basketball. Expansion is about football first and foremost, as it should be. But that doesn’t mean that basketball has no value and Syracuse is really one of the elite hoops brands, pretty much *the* elite brand in the Northeast (much like Penn State is in football). With the BTN, hoops makes up a big chunk of the premium content and adding a nationally recognized team would beef that up. Especially true as the traditional basketball power in the Big Ten (Indiana) is really slumping as of late. I’m not saying you add Syracuse because of hoops, but I think that should get more credit than it does. Also, I think you can afford to give a bid to a “basketball school” in a large (16 team) expansion if the rest of expansion is focused on football and expanding markets, just for diversity sake.
Furthermore, much much smaller issue, but Cuse is a top notch lacrosse program and that’s a growing sport. The Big Ten ain’t adding lacrosse anytime soon unless they add a number of teams offering that sport, but it could provide some additional programming in the spring on the BTN, which is light for the not-good-at-baseball Big Ten (some non-Big Ten sponsored sports by Big Ten schools does get carried on the BTN).
LikeLike
Yet we saw how important basketball was with Kansas starting down the abyss at a MWC invitation just a few weeks ago. Syracuse basketball may be huge, but so is Kansas basketball and that wasn’t helping Kansas.
As far as LAX goes, it’s a non-factor in the Big Ten. If they played hockey, that might help
LikeLike
@Josh Syracuse didn’t really become a basketball school until Boeheim. If you haven’t seen it, I recommend netflixing The Express. They have a rich history in football, which is one reason why I think they fit very well in the Big Ten.
And I disagree about lacrosse. I personally don’t watch lacrosse, but apparently it’s the fastest growing sport in the country. And Syracuse is one of the top 3 programs. While the sport isn’t huge, you could easily create a whole Big Ten lacrosse league around Syracuse. Which would be great filler for the quieter months of the BTN.
The only downsides to SU (in my opinion) are being private and research numbers. Research seems a lot easier to fix, to me, than say … prestige (which they have). And if Nebraska is any indication, brand name is looking more important that academics.
LikeLike
“than” not “that.”
And I’m not good at being a salesman, but for anyone wondering what Syracuse would bring to the Big Ten academically, I offer the following two links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_School_of_Citizenship_and_Public_Affairs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._I._Newhouse_School_of_Public_Communications
LikeLike
For anyone interested, the first in-depth, non-satirical look at what Bevo TV might look like when launched:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/colleges/topstories/stories/062010dnsporealigntv.196d38e.html
LikeLike
like this Last week on the Texas A&M athletics website, athletic director Bill Byrne pooh-poohed the idea of a school cable network. He wrote that the Internet is the place for sharing nonrevenue sporting events.
reminds me of my first job in banking with Manufacturers Hanover in the late 70s. ATMs were just being introduced and Citibank was making a big push in New York. Our chairman made a public comment that there was no need for ATMs. After all he could always cash a check at the local liquor store (that should have been a warning). We were the 4th largest bank in the country at the time and within 15 years they (I was long gone by then) they were an acquisition target and no longer independant. ATMs didn’t cause that but the ‘bold’ leadership did.
re the network one of the things about the Big Ten Network is the non football content. The football is better because there is more live football. Often it is Minnesota/Indiana but some times its Michigan/Michigan State. But what has developed into a real bonus is the amount of live coverage of other sports. There is a lot of soccer, volleyball, wrestling, swimming, track etc. It doesn’t get the viewership of football but it providers a lot of original content. Its becoming a valuable recruiting tool for those sports. how many conferences can promise volleyball recruits that their parents will see them regularly on tv. If Bevo TV can provide coverage of those sports to fill out the weekly content it could be pretty valuable adjunct to the overall AD for more than just revenue.
LikeLike
@ Hank:
The most interesting thing in the article to me was reading the AD of OU’s approving comments, even insinuating that OU would look at doing the same thing, while Bill Byrne seems to be stuck in the telegraph era.
As a Texas supporter, if I had to choose which AD of our two biggest rivals I’d like to see come out and be supportive of an idea like this, it’s OU’s in a heartbeat. As much as we dislike each other, it would be hard not to acknowledge that OU’s athletic department is very well run.
And, in a few years, after UT proves the concept, A&M will inevitably launch its me-too network. Suggested name: Ewe Tube.
LikeLike
There’s no doubt in my mind that Texas will be able to turn a sizeable profit on the network, but the important question is of what comes next.
Is the LSN enough to keep the Big 12-2 stable (keeping Texas/A&M/OU locked into the Big 12-2) or would it eventually push OU and A&M to the SEC?
Eventually, A&M and OU are going to look longingly at the SEC’s payouts, even if Texas alone can keep pace.
At that point, does Texas pull off a move into a Pac-16 and negotiate to keep the LSN or does it stay in the Big 12-2 and manage to force OU and A&M to stick with it…
Either way, the Big 12-2 is a powder keg, but Texas will come out fine regardless of what happens.
The only way I really can see this not ending well is if the Pac-12 rejects the LSN, but OU/A&M flee to the SEC anyways… That would be an interesting scenario, but I guess we’re in a holding pattern for the next 5-7 years.
LikeLike
Crazy thought…what if Mizzou is one of the schools if the BigTen decides to move to 16 after this football season?
Who cares if its likely, just assume it happened…
Does the Big12- even make it that 4-5 years you mention?
LikeLike
No. A single school leaving the Big 12-2 would collapse it at this point.
Maybe they’d move to a Big 9 with 8 conference game round robin like the MWC, but I think Texas/A&M/OU would at least consider their options.
Also, the SEC would push really hard at A&M/OU if the Big Ten goes to 16, we know that as a certainty, so it would be much harder to stay as a Big 9.
The Big 12-2 is a powder keg; the 4 schools in play are Mizzou, Texas, A&M, and OU.
LikeLike
At this point, given the way we saw the TV networks come to the rescue, I think the league could survive a Mizzou departure.
LikeLike
With only 1 (live) football game and a handful of bball games I just can’t see how Texas is going to be able to push for being on the same tier as ESPN, even if only in the state of Texas.
Part of what makes the BTN so profitable is that it can offer “top shelf” programming (live college football & bball games), and lots of it, to areas of interest. With most of that content being taped, the “filler” material is now going to become the prime content and really the question becomes is that enough to push it onto the tier Texas needs it to be on?
I think it will be profitable, but I don’t know if it’ll be to the levels they are predicting here.
PS – As an “oh by the way”, looking over Texas’ sports programs I see a lot of track & field, running, and swimming programs. I can’t believe that is going to help make the argument for pushing to that good tier. Baseball and softball will help, but I think Texas’ lack of soccer, wrestling, lacrosse, hockey and other “top collegiate sports” is going to hurt it in regards to conference tv time-fill.
LikeLike
I’d imagine Texas would attempt to buy the media rights of the other members of the Little 12, and own the Longhorn Network in lieu of being a member of the Big 12 network. None of them could get their own network, and many of their games won’t get coverage, thus UT could pay them more than they’d get otherwise. This might allow the Longhorn Network to be first tier in a few more states, although all that’s really important is being first tier throughout Texas, which alone could be worth over $100 million dollars annually.
LikeLike
With only 1 (live) football game and a handful of bball games I just can’t see how Texas is going to be able to push for being on the same tier as ESPN, even if only in the state of Texas.
I’ve always had the same concerns about Bevo TV, but at the end of the day, the very idea of Bevo TV, regardless of the content, might be what forces cable carriers in Texas to carry it on whatever tier UT wants it on.
In my heart, do I think I’d watch that much Bevo TV, given the projected line-up? No. But regardless of that, would I want my cable company to carry it? Absolutely. And would it be a last straw for me to consider switching to a satellite provider if my cable company failed to pick it up? Yes.
(And thinking it through today, I think I came to the realization that DirecTV would almost certainly pick up Bevo TV, but I’d be curious to hear what others thought.)
As an “oh by the way”, looking over Texas’ sports programs I see a lot of track & field, running, and swimming programs. I can’t believe that is going to help make the argument for pushing to that good tier. Baseball and softball will help, but I think Texas’ lack of soccer, wrestling, lacrosse, hockey and other “top collegiate sports” is going to hurt it in regards to conference tv time-fill.
I just had a very similar thought. Texas has historically been very conservative in terms of the number of varsity teams it has fielded. I wonder if the need for original programming for Bevo TV will be the impetus the school needs to start fielding varsity programs in sports like men’s soccer and volleyball and women’s gymnastics and lacrosse (Title IX implications taken under consideration, of course.)
LikeLike
Was really hoping the Longhorns would get into the PAC10 and start playing women’s beach volleyball…For that I would have called DirectTV and demanded they carry Bevo TV on the sports tier.
LikeLike
UT’s women did when the club beach volleyball collegiate championship a year or two back.
This does raise a good point — potential programming isn’t limited to strictly varsity sports.
LikeLike
Seeing as how club teams need to “pay there own way” and typically only get subsidized (at best) by the university I have to believe this would meet some legal challenges. Even if not, there’d prob be some seriously bad pr on the university “taking advantage” of students to create an extra buck.
In all reality, a conference (school) tv channel is probably going to be the vehicle by which MORE sports become official varsity sports.
LikeLike
@PSU Guy:
Does the BTN not show any club sports?
I know I’ve seen club lacrosse on cable somewhere before, albeit not on a school-controlled network.
LikeLike
@HopkinsHorn
I have never seen a club sport on BTN. With 11 schools, there is much wider variety of varsity sports to choose and many of the Big Ten schools have a very large number of offered sports. I can’t think why they would show club sports if varsity is available.
LikeLike
@HH
I have never seen any club sports on the BTN.
Speaking to my point however, PSU does have a club hockey team and a females rugby team (now THAT’S something I’d tune in to watch) that are likely candidates for “bumping up” to varsity level if the BTN could use more content.
LikeLike
The article indicates Texas could potentially generate $6.2 million in revenue from the LSN. The critical component of turning that revenue into significant profitability in my view is scale. A one school network will not have the scale that a BTN provides. How many HD camera’s do they need to buy to broadcast one live football game per year? Or would they lease/rent or outsource all the production costs to someone with that capability? At the end of the day it seems the profits from the LSN will be much smaller than initially forecast.
Without the live progamming the BTN would be on a sports tier or have been relegated to the internet.
LikeLike
A one school network will not have the scale that a BTN provides. How many HD camera’s do they need to buy to broadcast one live football game per year? Or would they lease/rent or outsource all the production costs to someone with that capability?
Kevin, I can’t remember exactly where I saw the article or discussion, but I’ve read that UT has spent two or three years making the necessary investments in the state-of-the-art infrastructure which will be needed to pull this up. There’s many reasons why this might not prove to be as profitable as Dodds may believe, but I don’t think this would be the reason why.
LikeLike
Texas has a big journalism school. Could be another side benefit of Bevo TV-on the job training.
The Texas philosophy on sports has always been to try to stick to sports it can be nationally competitive in. The Longhorns have women’s championships in all but 4 sports, 3 of which (rowing, soccer, softball) were relatively recently started. I don’t really see that changing. They will probably limit the number of sports. And with football, you always have Title IX issues, otherwise men’s soccer is a natural with the number of players in state.
LikeLike
SEC actually has an advantage is this regard. Their schools are able to hold 1 game a year from CBS/ESPN for local broadcast rights.
LikeLike
As pointed out by others, it’s having all of the extra football content and basketball content especially (not picked up by ABC/ESPN/ESPN 2) that really helps. The Northwesterns/Minnesotas/Indianas are what really helps to make this ship go as much as OSU/PSU/Michigan push the ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 deals to its heights.
The irony for a Texas is that they’re the main name brand of the Big 12 (moreso now that Nebraska is gone and it’s Texas/OU/A&M as the big brands).
However, I think it will be successful for the reason that HH says as well as that article. How does a provider in Texas especially say no to the University of Texas? It’s going to be hard to say no at the least, so Texas can probably book a couple million per year.
But you’re right, the BTN probably can produce more per school than Texas even though Texas will be in more households (than the BTN per school) because of the synergy that having inventory for 12 schools after the ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 brings to the network.
Either way this is just buying time. The Big 12-2 is fundamentally unstable due to the attraction of the SEC for OU/A&M and the Big Ten for Mizzou.
LikeLike
@Zeek:
Keep in mind, again, that I am writing this as one who is skeptical of the ability of Bevo TV being off-the-charts wildly successful.
What if it is? And in the process of being off-the-charts wildly successful, Bevo TV proves a concept about how successful single-school cable networks can be?
Leading to other schools (OU at the top of the chart) following suit. How far down the food chain could the concept be successful?
In other words, could Mizzou, through no intent of its own, wind up in a situation in a few years in which it realizes that launching its own network within the comfy confines of the Big 12-2 will almost certainly lead to greater profit than would its piece of the BTN pie?
And if that situation emerged, how would the big dogs of the Big 10 react?
Just a thought…
LikeLike
B10 big dogs would ask you for some of that Rutgers shit you’ve been smoking.
NO school that doesn’t sell out its football games could ever have its own viable “network.” Texas is a statistical outlier – big state with rabid school sports fans. The Illini can’t even sell out their stadium with Chicago a two-hour drive away. Mizzou network? NFW. Gimme some of that weed.
Swimming and Track? Really? Who, athletes’ family excluded, wants to see that snoozefest more than once every four years?
LikeLike
There are a lot of contradictory trends. Low power channels on broadcast TV are doing really specialized programming. But at the same time, TV news and newspapers are losing audience to the web. Byrne may be right that the approach is to go to the web. Cable TV has started losing customers for the 1st time. I know Comcast is really pushing rates up. The decline could partly be due to a change in strategy-accept fewer customers at a higher rate. And that strategy would be consistent with finding highly specialized programming that people will pay higher rates to get.
I’m still skeptical there will be much of an audience outside of Austin where UT is the local “pro” team. But everything in media is so fluid right now, in 10 years a lot of schools may be taking this route.
LikeLike
One thing to take into account about the longhorn network’s potential. Most college sports fans in the Great State of Texas are not UT fans. We have nine other D1A programs and significant numbers of LSU and OU fans in the state. If my cable company tries to put their network on basic cable, I will complain. And I won’t be the only one. With their duplicity in this process, I think they have burned a lot of bridges.
LikeLike
We fear the wrath of Rice alumni throughout Texas.
LikeLike
To elaborate, I really don’t think cable companies will care if alumni of other schools complain that they’re adding Bevo TV. Are Sooners and Red Raiders and Aggies going to be so upset that they’ll give up cable just because Bevo TV is included?
Methinks the number of Longhorn fans and alums who’d want the network will far outweigh the few who’ll actually bitch about this to their cable companies.
LikeLike
I don’t think you need to worry so much about other’s complaining as the it is the cable companies.
Imagine the cable companies asking something like…”So the tv channel isn’t going to have (hardly) any live football or bball, a majority of its sports are “quasi-competitive”, and oh by the way, of the 25+ million folks in Texas at most 450k (off the Texas website) are alumni (IMO non-alumni are much less likely to follow “non hi profile” collegiate sports)?”
IMO that’s how university diversity could hurt.
LikeLike
I don’t think getting Bevo TV on the air in Texas is the kind of slam dunk that people think it is. With the lack of live programming, the cable companies are going to just say “Do you want a $2 a month rate increase [even if that’s a lot more than UT is asking for] for one a Texas/Troy football game?” Even in Texas, that’ll be a tough sell. Look at the fights to get the NFL network on the air, and they had a good Cowboys game or two.
Bevo TV will have to partner with Time Warner or someone to get clearance, and that will cut into the profits.
There might be sneaky ways of getting clearance, however. Just like the NFL network has a few college football games, Bevo TV could air HS football games throughout the state. That would increase costs quite a bit, but it’s exactly the type of thing that would cause Texans to call up their cable company and demand it or threaten to switch providers.
LikeLike
May be more likely than you think. High School athletic competitiion in Texas is run by the University Interscholastic League, which was created by, and is a component of, the University of Texas.
LikeLike
@Josh:
I think the NFL Network analogy can be distinguished in a couple of ways.
First, I think NFL rules require local broadcast of cable broadcasts, so no one living in DFW was ever at risk of not being able to watch a Cowboys game on the NFL Network because a local station would have been given rights to the game as well.
Second, I think issues with the NFL Network were at a national, not state, level. With Bevo TV, TIme Warner won’t have to be convinced to carry the network on an all-or-nothing basis throughout the whole country. It’s an easier sell with the more concise geographic area.
LikeLike
@Josh – A partnership with Time Warner or other cable carriers is probably a good idea for Bevo TV even if it cuts into some profits. The MLB Network provided ownership shares to Comcast and Time Warner, which in turn launched that channel into many more homes off the bat (no pun intended) than the NFL Network (even though NFL football is by far this country’s most popular sport). Similarly, Fox was part-owner of DirecTV at the time of the launch of the Big Ten Network, which provided that channel with a ton of carriage right away along with leverage against cable operators.
LikeLike
With only 1 (live) football game and a handful of bball games I just can’t see how Texas is going to be able to push for being on the same tier as ESPN, even if only in the state of Texas.
TX is seeking 10 cents per subscriber in Texas for the LSN, quite different from the BTN demanding 70 cents to a dollar per in its member states. Despite what the poorly written article implies (and then contradicts itself) TX may settle for placement on a sports tier package.
TX can also do much of the work in house, using their student TV facilities and staff:
http://www.texasstudenttv.com/aboutus.shtml
Partner with Fox Sports SW for consulting and some production and they don’t have the same level of start up costs.
What I still don’t get is why the LSN and a P16 or B12-2 network can’t coexist. The conference network on expanded basic (same as ESPN and BTN) with individual school networks as affiliates in the sports package tier in their states. You’d be splitting pie one more way, but in a 10 team conference in theory the school channel only has to give up roughly 10% of its live 3rd tier content to the conference network. Reruns and non-sports content could be shared to cover the filler slots.
In fact affiliation with a conference network that carries more of the live events would leave room for more non-sports content and the student (non-athlete) recruiting packages that were specifically mentioned as part of the channel’s mission. And wasn’t a big reason for starting the channel to ensure live coverage of the lesser sports that often wouldn’t be picked up by existing sports channels or a conference-wide channel? Maybe a 10 school channel is starving for content, but I highly doubt a P16 channel would have room for every woman’s tiddlywinks match. Perhaps 5 days later at 3am, but a school channel could more likely fit it in live or available for TV within a few hours of the competition.
LikeLike
IMO the LSN NEEDS what little football/bball programming its going to get in order for it to even be picked up.
The Pac network is going to need that same programming to get itself up and running in Texas and to provide draw outside of it.
I just can’t see the two co-existing (at least for some time).
LikeLike
“using their student tv facilities and staff”
Hmmm, and not paying? Me thinks the IRS would want to look into this. There is a not so fine line between selling the television rights to a commercial entity for the performance of student athletes. Producing and televising for profit using unpaid students and public (ie university-owned) equipment and facilities is fraught with all sorts of labor and tax restrictions — for good reason. One could use students as unpaid interns up to a point, but the rules are pretty clear about unpaid students doing things that make a company money. They become employees.
If Bevo-TV happens, UT is smart enough to avoid these issues if they intend to make a profit and not compromise the legal status of the university. Remember, no small part of the value of Bevo-TV will be equity. It will be very hard to not deal with the question of who owns the facilities and the labor issues at the beginning. If Bevo-TV is an attractive business proposition (as it must be given the UT decision to stick with the Big-12ish) I think one can assume it will be set-up as a separate corporation (with UT holding equity) and handled professionally.
LikeLike
Question: What exactly is the Big Ten Network? Does someone understand exactly how it is structured?
Is it a separate for profit entity owned by the universities? Or are they running it as part of their athletic departments and treading the fine line others have mentioned? And just having a for-profit entity within a not-for-profit doesn’t jeopardize the university’s tax exempt status. If it is a business activity (assuming it is an ancilliary activity of the entity and not a main focus), the entity will pay taxes on their “Unrelated Business Taxable Income” as defined by the IRS. The line between not-for-profit hospitals and for profit hospitals is a whole lot more grey than what universities are doing.
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
Bullet
the Big Ten Network is structured as an LLC, a Limited Liability Company. So all financials would pass directly through to the owners of the partnership interests. That includes all tax implications.
LikeLike
Anyone know the html for the eyeroll smilie?
LikeLike
I wonder how A&M or TT fans will feel if their cable provider puts the LSN on their basica cable. Seems to me, there could be some backlash.
LikeLike
What would this backlash be? Canceling cable service because one of the 684 channels available is Bevo TV?
LikeLike
Direct tv?
LikeLike
I think DirecTV will carry it.
LikeLike
direct tv may carry it, but not as a basic package. If cable makes it optional, it will work. but I don’t see cable being able to force it on non Texas fans, at least I don’t think they will be able to do so… It would be like the aggies forcing it on texas fans.
LikeLike
Interesting interview with KSU coach Bill Snyder:
http://blog.newok.com/berrytrammel/2010/06/20/big-12-bill-snyder-speaks/
Mentions Dodds (who was at KSU many years) really was pained Big 12 was falling apart.
LikeLike
Well, Dodds got what he wanted, correct? No NU, no CU, easier schedule, publicly whipped and humiliated conference members, mo’ money! Nothing to be pained about. Snyder needs to check his memos from the Ministry of Information. The future is bright!
From the same writer, somebody down south is waking up to the reality of what perceptions will be of purposely lightening up the schedule:
http://www.newsok.com/berry-tramel-ou-needs-to-keep-nebraska-on-its-schedule/article/3469880?custom_click=lead_story_title
Sorry, Berry, but I think the time that Nebraskans are always interested in Oklahoma is long gone. OU made their choice a long time ago, and Nebraska owes OU and the Big 12 nothing other than what the eventual payment will be for leaving.
LikeLike
Somebody can’t let go…
LikeLike
Is that why you’re here on a Big Ten blog?
LikeLike
In his defense, this is a national expansion blog. The days of a provincial mid-west blog are long over.
LikeLike
Loki
unless Obama is eyeing Canada this is a national realignment blog not a national expansion blog.
LikeLike
loki,
I think this is still Big 10 heavy. We have had folks from the schools in the discussion of candidates, but little or no input from schools outside of the Big 10 sphere (current or expansion candidates). I do not remember tons of blogging from folks in the Pac 10, MAC, MWC, WAC, etc.
That said, I think this has been the BEST blog for serious discussion and has been the home for open thought and detailed analysis.
loki I know you are in CUSA, but not much commentary from a majority of schools in your conference. I care what happens to Rice since you have been on here. I have less thoughts about Tulane or Marshall because they do not have a voice here like yours.
just an observation.
LikeLike
@ loki
I’m not assuming the role of telling Hopkins to stay or go. I’m pointing out the silliness of him saying a Nebraska fan can’t let go when he is hanging around a conversation that is, for his previously stated interests, over.
LikeLike
@eapg:
You’re right. Silly me. I thought this had evolved into a rolling conversation about issues related to the recent round of realignment which affected colleges throughout the country. The potential profitability of the proposed Bevo TV had been one of the issues regulars on this blog had speculated about. I saw an article which explained this issue in-depth (for the first time, as far as I have seen) and posted a link to it.
Based on the complete lack of interest anyone else had in commenting upon what I posted, it was quite silly for me not to recognize that the discussion is over as far as my specific interests are concerned.
Please feel free to carry on your one-man jihad against Texas no matter the relevancy to the subject at hand.
LikeLike
@ Hopkins
I made no comment whatsoever on your Bevo TV link or concerns. My comment was in regard to Bullet’s link, which included Snyder doing a little spinning for his bud DeLoss, who, I am supposed to take it, is all torn up over the slow motion breakup of the Big 12. You guys really need to get your story straight, are you happy or oh so sad? You don’t get it both ways, at least not without comment that you’re trying to have it both ways. In the same vein, I included a link to a different article by the same writer that the Texas-centric Bullet somehow overlooked concerning schedule strength concerns for the remaining Big 12 powers. Apparently something in there got under your skin to the degree that you thought I was due another round of Texas snark. Might be good to not be guilty of what you’re accusing others of before thinking that you’ve dashed off the coup de grace. Because you should be off celebrating your good fortune, no?
LikeLike
HH,
in fairness to eapg not everybody thought UT to the Big 10 was a great idea in the first place. I was one of them, and have maintained the stance the whole way through. I was an early predictor of UT to a Pac 16 back when not a whole lot of folks were on here. It was not a popular position then, and there are those who still think UT in the Big 10 is a good idea.
The difference between then and now is that more people see UT the way I did back then. I still feel they are a destructive force in whatever conference they call home. Your “one man jihad” comment might have a little more weight if eapg was not looking out for the best interest of the Big 10. How he does it is his decision, but to remind us that UT does not play well with others should be kept in our minds, lest we let the $$$$ signs color our view to their obvious faults.
LikeLike
@ duffman
I’ve never had any problems with Texas to the Big Ten. I’ve had serious doubts it could ever be pulled off, for all the obvious reasons that have been discussed to death, and that events have shown to be essentially be true regarding “fit” in a variety of ways.
LikeLike
@duffman:
The idea that eapg keeps ripping Texas at every turn has something to do with “looking out or the best interests of the Big 10” is laughable. He hates Texas, and made this hatred clear very early in this process. The best interests of the Big 10 are irrelevant to this hatred.
Whatever. It merely amuses me to see this hatred continually manifest itself in his comments no matter how germane it may or may not be to the subject at hand.
LikeLike
eapg;
It is showing a different opinion. Some on here have the belief that Texas was glad to leave the B12 behind. Snyder makes a logical comment about Dodds not being happy about it as he was one of the “founding fathers.” There was also the Aggie’s comment that Texas was forced by the anonymous powers that be, so this is a different viewpoint from that. One’s belief in what Texas’s motivations were (other than getting more money) impacts your belief in what they will do in 2015 or 2020. If you read the article, there are also some comments by Snyder about expanding the B12.
I think almost all Longhorn fans would rather UNL be in the conference (except for Osborne’s whining-but he’s going to retire eventually). And we all are concerned that the B12 doesn’t become an ACC or new SWC as Hopkins has pointed out before. But everyone was predicting the quick demise of the BE, and, even with UNL, the B10 is behind the BE in the computer rankings for the last 2 years. I certainly didn’t think it even remotely likely they would improve as much as they have since Miami, VT and BC left the conference.
LikeLike
@HH
Just as it amuses me to see and point out the schizophrenic Texas spin machine in full Keystone Kops mode. Is Texas the badass who’ll finish what they claim they didn’t start, or given some chance to gauge public opinion, are they teddy bears who are completely misunderstood? Claiming the latter just because things didn’t break the way they would have liked, and expecting people to accept it, is just more of the usual Texas nonsense.
LikeLike
Another interesting point was his belief about relations in the b12 being better in the early years. They used to all be together, ADs, Presidents, coaches, and socialize more at the meetings. Lately, its been all business with no time for socializing. I thought that was an interesting comment about conference relations and about any business relationship.
LikeLike
Dodds got what he wanted? The Big 12 would still be at 12 had the Big Ten not started this process.
LikeLike
for kicks:
14 team bigten w/ Rutgers and Maryland.
no divisions, 9 game conf schedule,
5 yearly rivals, other 8 teams played every other year.
Five Yearly Rivals for Each Team:
Rutgers: UMD, PSU, UM, ILL, NW
Maryland: RU, PSU, OSU, MSU, Ind
PSU: UMD, RU, OSU, Iowa, Neb
UM: MSU, OSU, Minn, RU, Wisc
OSU: UM, PSU, ILL, UMD, MSU
MSU: UM, UMD, OSU, Ind, Pur
Neb: Iowa, Minn, Wisc, PSU, Pur
Minn: UM, NW, Neb, Wisc, Iowa
Wisc: UM, Ind, Neb, Iowa, Minn
Ind: UMD, Pur, ILL, Wisc, MSU
ILL: RU, OSU, Ind, Pur, NW
NW: RU, Iowa, ILL, Pur, Minn
Iowa: PSU, NW, Neb, Minn, Wisc
I’m hoping bball rivalries will transfer into football for maryland.
It’s tough to get reasonable schedules for NW, Pur, Ind, and ILL when they have many rivalry games with eachother.
LikeLike
skipped Purdue:
Pur: Ind, NW, ILL, MSU, Neb
LikeLike
Mostly I like dtw. But neither NW or IL get Wisconsin. 2 teams in the state and no Wisconsin? cant have that. There is a big GB Packer Chicago bear rivelry to that also plays into thecollege game. You gotta swap someone ou to get Wisc on the schedule regularly.On the NW rung add Wisconsin for Purdue.
LikeLike
from mrsec
“An official NCAA playoff would have to be sanctioned by the organization and would therefore require the money raised to be split among all the FBS schools — as is the case with the NCAA Tournament in basketball.
As we’ve stated time and again, THAT is the reason that a playoff has not come about.”
http://www.mrsec.com/2010/06/texas-politician-believes-big-12-troubles-may-lead-to-playoff/
Not that this is news on this blog, but it shows other blogs get the picture as well.
LikeLike
A note from an old computer geek.
FtT has been closer to where we wanted computer use to go. Free content and open discussion.
OB has been closer to where it actually went. Pay content and “spin” driven content.
Frank I am glad sites like this are around!
🙂
LikeLike
Totally agree duffman.
LikeLike
Unfortunately TV news is also going that way. I saw someone’s commentary criticizing CNN for not “deciding who they want to be.” They wanted them to have a slant (not that they don’t have some slant) to their shows like MSNBC or Fox. And its rare to see politicians on the air seriously discussing issues. Both sides are usually doing spin, throwing out red meat for their partisans. It may be entertainment, but its totally uninformative.
University presidents who are supposed to be about open debate do nothing but spin and spread hypocrisy regarding the BCS. You would think they would be embarrassed about the example they are setting. If you read what is said about the expansion of the field in any sport but FBS football, its always about how wonderful it is for the student athlete to expand championship opportunities. And its great to expand from what was once 16 to 32 in Division III where they have true student athletes. Yet in fbs fb it is a horrible thing, compromising eduation. Of course, they add an 11th and then a 12th game to the regular season. Its about control. They will not tolerate a playoff if they don’t control it.
LikeLike
CNNs problem is that they don’t have any integrity. I mean if they choose to have a left slat or a right slant I can live with or without it. There problem is in their attempt to play it down the middle they give moral equivalence to subjects that have none. Thus losing integrity. It funny that some university presidents and conference presidents do the same. Maybe an extra game does not mean much to a guy majoring in phys ed or sociology. But it means a lot more to someone who wanted to major in bio chemistry or engineering.
I think they should assume that all the student athletes are all majoring in bio chemistry or engineering. Who’s number one? What does it really matter in a situation where some teams perennially start of in the top ten and some rarely reach the top 30. It’s a rigged game to begin with. The SEC can recruit who ever and the Stanfords’, Dukes, Northwesters’ and Vanderbilts’ of the world have a much smaller list from where they can recruit. I think at this rate the interest of Div I college football is best serve by not having a so called national champion. As you mentioned correctly, Div III is where we have a true national Champion situation.
LikeLike
http://kentsterling.com/2010/06/21/big-ten-expansion-bcs-is-dying-playoff-is-coming/
LikeLike
Not to denigrate his overall point, but kentsterling.com seems to be about a half step up from Bleacher Report.
LikeLike
The really weird thing here is that is you (i.e. Texas/ND) knew this was going to come down to a 16×4 scenario with a 4-champion playoff (I personally believe there would be some wild card considerations eventually), if they were looking at it from a strictly competitive standpoint, you might make different conference affiliation decisions.
Texas might decide to not join the Pac-16 (thus avoiding USC) and try to create its own 16-team conference from the Big XII and be a perpetual king of the castle. Notre Dame might decide to join the ACC (thus avoiding tOSU, UM, PSU and UNL). In other words, there could be a race to 16 teams in order to solidify one’s position.
More likely, this might be the path toward a 16×5 (or 16×6) scenario with 3 (or 2) wild cards, which would work better (theoretically) if Texas and ND wanted to stack the deck in their favor (much as has been done under the current realignment/BCS situation).
Of course, this undercuts notions of academia playing a prominent role in affiliation, but it’s been made clear that academia and alone won’t move either of those two of the dime.
LikeLike
This seems impossible because there aren’t enough schools to fit 16×5 or 16×6.
Exactly who could the Big 12-2 add to get to 12 let alone 16?
Who could the Pac-12 add to go to 16 other than Texas and co.?
Adding schools has to make sense financially.
There just aren’t enough brand names to support more than 4×16.
LikeLike
I agree.
5X14 probably could be supported. But I don’t think the conferences will work together enough to make that happen.
LikeLike
Yeah, 5×14 could probably happen, but we all know that the Pac-12 will focus exclusively on Texas + 3 as its future path to the Pac-16.
The Big 12-2 won’t have an incentive to expand and won’t really have a shot at 14 barring some crazy scenario.
I just tend to think that the Pac-12 and Big 12-2 will force everyone to 16 unless Texas stays in the Big 12 forever.
LikeLike
@ Zeek: You said “This seems impossible because there aren’t enough schools to fit 16×5 or 16×6.”
Aren’t there 120-ish FBS schools?
I think this may be viewed as the best way to avoid charges of collusion, and it’s easier to be inclusive and avoid penalizing stronger conferences by allowing wild cards (e.g. for Big Ten and SEC); otherwise a strong team currently unaligned wouldn’t be incentivized to join a strong conference (maintaining these 5 conferences also has interesting ramifications for basketball).
Additionally, the 16×5 or 16×6 scenario allows the 10 top winningest universities/brands to be represented somewhere, such as the following 16×5 example:
ACC/BE: ND
Big Ten: tOSU, PSU, UM, UNL
Big 12: UT, OU
Pac-10: USC
SEC: Alabama, Tenn (winningest)/FL (brand)
Once you get past this, other concerns mentioned become important, such as:
1) is this a BCS/NCAA proposition or do the top 80 go rogue for football considerations (because of revenue sharing requirements) and leave the other schools to play for something other than the national championship (NIT analogy)?
2) How do you handle non-revenue sports and basketball? No reason not to leave NCAA in place for these.
LikeLike
My point is that the finances have to work.
The Pac-12 won’t take on schools that don’t add $14M each to the pot (since they’re expecting an average of $14M per school after 2013). What schools do that? Boise State doesn’. Only Texas + 3 makes sense for a Pac-16.
The Big 12-2 won’t take on schools that don’t add at least $14-17M to the pot (since that’s what Beebe’s estimates show), although the CCG would cut that in half for schools 11 and 12. But what schools could be 11 and 12 that would bring in at least $8-10M? Arkansas and Notre Dame = no way the Big 12-2 gets back to 12. And even if you could get Arkansas/Notre Dame, what other 4 schools would you get to go to 16? TCU/Houston don’t make sense in any monetary fashion.
The problem with your argument is that you’re not focusing on what the conferences will do individually in an attempt to maximize their profit. The Pac-12 will always go after Texas. The Big Ten will always go after Notre Dame. The SEC will go after A&M and the ACC.
This is an arms race. The Big Ten/SEC/Pac-12/Big 12-2/ACC will only expand if it makes financial sense.
Follow the money. The money restricts expansion of the biggest money conferences to only schools that will end up paying off, which is a pretty high bar to meet.
LikeLike
@zeek – Another thing that has to be taken into consideration was just how strong ESPN and other interests worked against the creation of the Pac-16. There is clearly a lot of opposition to the fast formation of superconferences within the moneyed interests in college sports, which is something that the Big Ten and other conferences might not have anticipated. When much of the value proposition of a large expansion is being opposed by the very entities that would make such expansion financially worthwhile, then that’s going to be a drag on future expansion prospects. That’s not to say that superconferences won’t ever form, but it’s apparent that a lot of powerful people within the TV industry aren’t ready for them today.
LikeLike
Thanks for the response, Zeek. I’m not disagreeing with you and am following the money. $10-11 million per 80 institution is about $900M, which is a commonly quoted number for the extra money a national playoff would bring. If the 5 superconferences opted out of the BCS and went this route, isn’t that a hell of a start toward the $14M/additional school threshold in your example?
I use the 90-school threshold as being inclusive enough and a necessary means to avoid the collusion claim.
By no means am I suggesting or predicting such a thing would come to pass. However, I do think there’s a path that TPTB could lay out along those lines.
LikeLike
@ Frank
Yeah, the fact that there was such force against it was an interesting twist at the very end.
The specter of a Pac-16 land grab followed immediately by Big Ten and SEC raids were clearly enough to galvanize a grassroots kind of opposition among the power brokers.
It will be interesting to watch and see where it goes from here.
I think we have to see Notre Dame join and take a conference above 12 in order for the superconferences to start playing out. If the Big Ten or ACC went up to 14, it might provoke a response from the SEC.
The Pac-12 is going to have to remain focused on Texas, but there’s clearly a lot of opposition to a massive Texas to California league at this point in time.
@ BigTenJeff
We’re not talking about positive sum players though; the Big Ten and Pac-10 have opposed playoffs before, and I don’t think there’s necessarily a movement among the haves in order to bolster the have nots.
I’ve made the argument before that the future superconferences would rather becomes superconferences before bringing in a playoff system as opposed to after (when it might not be possible).
Look at Wetzel’s article; there’s no doubt that Nebraska probably wouldn’t be joining the Big Ten if we had a 16 team playoff that was bringing in ridiculous amounts of money.
But why should the Big Ten and Pac-10 support this? Shouldn’t they get to 16 first before supporting a playoff? That way the conferences would each take close to 1/4th of the playoff’s total take as opposed to 1/5th or 1/6th if it were created now.
I just happen to think that this is much more of a zero sum game of sorts because the endgame is a playoff yet if you’re the Big Ten or Pac-10, you’d rather be at 16 before bringing a playoff system since you get a lot more of the benefit. Short term pain for long term gain.
LikeLike
What this says is that college sports are undervalued. ESPN did not want to get into a bidding war on the SEC and ACC contracts it just signed. Fox didn’t want to risk losing what it had in the B12. Neither wanted a 3 or 4 way bidding war on the Pac16. Nor did they want to lose tertiary rights on the P16 to the conference itself.
LikeLike
@Big10 Jeff
I think the 5@16 looks like collusion to the other 40. Only way it could happen is if other 30-40 were already gone. They would have had to given up the arms race. Still think the Big 5 would find ways to do the playoff w/o letting the last 15-20 schools be in their conferences.
LikeLike
@zeek: Once again, we agree. I think it’s great to opine on how this could end up, as opposed to making predictions; it’s certain a tall mountain to climb. It would be nuts to give up the demonstrated advantage the Big Ten has had in placing two teams into the BCS until the full pot has been developed; no playoffs until then.
Another thought. All of the superconferences won’t be created equal. I believe the Big Ten knows this and is moving to have first choice so it doesn’t have any financial bottom feeders. That certainly won’t be the case among some of the other conferences, which simply might be trying to assemble 16 in order to stay whole.
Finally, it’s pretty clear ND considers themselves able to sit it out until the very end, knowing their level of desirability. In my draft, they’d either be the 16th team in a Big Ten, or Big East/ACC (if they just wanted to assure themselves a playoff spot w/o regard to the academic big picture).
LikeLike
@Big10Jeff
Interesting that you bring up the 90 school threshold. When NCAA changed from University/College divisions to Divisions I/II/III, they dropped top division fb from around 140 to 90 to 100. When they expanded I-AA in the early 80s, they dropped the Ivy, Southern, Southland and half the MAC and got back down from 110-120 to 90 to 100. Then 1/2 the MAC moved back up, the Southland schools mostly either dropped fb or moved up and a couple of the Southern schools moved up and the rest were thinking about it. I-A got to 115 and they created (but haven’t really enforced) the new attendance rules, which, if implemented retroactively at that time, would have dropped membership back down to 90 to 100.
So, TPTB seem to be thinking the same numbers as you.
LikeLike
Thanks guys for the factual information. It’s amazing how much there is to learn on the board about this stuff.
LikeLike
@Hank – Same arguments that we’ve hard many times before. I’d personally love to see an 8-team playoff using the bowls, but I know it’s not happening anytime soon. As some other posters stated earlier (linking to the MrSEC post), it’s maintaining the class division between the BCS and non-BCS schools that’s more important than the total dollars at stake. When someone can figure out a way that the BCS schools can maintain their financial advantages over the non-BCS schools while also instituting a playoff, then you’ll finally see such playoff come to fruition. If a single advantage from the BCS schools gets taken away, though, then that playoff system is DOA. As MrSEC correctly noted, a full scale playoff would need to be run by the NCAA as opposed to the BCS conferences themselves, which is a complete financial non-starter. Thus, I think an unseeded plus-one is the most likely compromise.
LikeLike
@Frank,
I posted below, but with BCS Bowl Sponsors dropping like flies, what do you think is the eventual outcome of the BCS? Clearly, sponsors don’t want to pony up to the annual commitment and are thumbing their noses at the BCS and ESPN at this point. Do you think there will be sponsors lining up to fill those spots, and if so, why haven’t any of the 8 replacements stepped forward and coughed up the $495M?
(WARNING! Content from the Bleacher Report is always tainted and should be taken with a grain of salt…)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/392850-fedex-drops-orange-bowl-sponsorship-eight-candidates-to-replace-it
LikeLike
they should do an 8 team playoff.
give the bcs conferences 6 auto bids. Have one wild card for notre dame or, if they don’t qualify, the top rated non-conference champion.
Then, do a 4 team mini-playoff between the champions of the mac, wac, c-usa, & mtn west to determine the 8th & final seed.
LikeLike
It cannot be a true playoff without all 11 conference champions. And the BCS would never let that happen.
LikeLike
Of course not; that’s why IMO if it was going to happen, the option on the table would be opting out and keeping more of the money for themselves. Otherwise, this whole 16 conference exercise would be pretty lame from a financial perspective (assuming equal profit sharing, which of course isn’t a given).
LikeLike
http://www.tidesports.com/article/20100620/NEWS/100619565/1011?Title=College-athletics-budgets-continue-to-climb&tc=ar
LikeLike
Bullet,
That’s a good article hank. It points out the looming disparity we have in college football. Not only in Major conference vs a mid major but also with in the conferences themselves. Remember the Big IIX poorer relations in comparison to the top 3. There is also the problem of all the money being spent on sports as if it is the primary function of the university that makes me sick. I would have rather seen Alabama (or any school) spend more on upgrading its academics by hiring more renown professors and building up its student living environment. Soon, if not already, the big money from football WILL be the universities primary interest. This is not a good thing. One of the things I have suggested to even things out was to lower the amount of scholarships for football. This means that the best teams will not be able to hoard athletes and more schools will be able to gain more equality in the only arms race that really matters, recruiting. Then it will be more about coaching and not so much money once again.
LikeLike
Actually, Alabama did try to upgrade academics by hiring well known professors in at least one field. About 10-15 years ago, they pumped a lot of money into their ecology program and threw money at several internationally known professors. For a few years, Alabama was just behind UF, Duke, and UGA, as having the top ecology programs in the South. The problem was– and I was told this by one of those internationally known profs– they realized that even though Alabama compensated them extremely well and the program was well funded, it was still the University of Alabama. The cultural differences were tough for them to adapt to, and the students were not the same caliber as those at the universities from which they had come. One by one, these internationally known faculty left, and Alabama’s ecology program is about back to where it was.
LikeLike
To touch on another one of your points, I feel lowering scholarship levels is going to cause too many problems. As it stands, even the best teams can be crippled by one or two key injuries. Reducing scholarships is only going to exacerbate this. However, there is a way to spread the talent around more without cutting scholarships– give SAs 5 years of eligibility rather than 4 + a redshirt.
As an idealized example, if you assume half of any given recruiting class gets redshirted, each school can give out about 19 scholarships each year (19 in each of 4 classes plus 9 redshirting). If SAs are given 5 years of eligibility, only 17 scholarships can be given out each year (again, in an idealized scenario). While not much, those two scholarship players per year filter down to other schools and improve the quality of their programs. Over a 5-year period, a team like Indiana could have 10 players on it that otherwise would have gone to the MSUs and Wisconsins of the world, and MSU and Wisconsin would have 10 players that might have otherwise gone to the OSUs or PSUs of the world.
Should the argument for scholarship reductions again rear its ugly head in NCAA circles, I hope this option would be considered instead. It benefits the top programs in that they don’t lose depth, benefits the lower rated programs by increasing the quality of players they can bring in, and– most importantly– benefits the SA by providing him with a more realistic schedule over which he can accumulate the credits necessary to graduate.
LikeLike
Interesting thing about scholarship limits. After Pitt signed around 100 freshman and won an MNC scholarship limits were initiated. There was more parity and just about all the old powers had down periods. But now, after it has all settled in, its looking more and more like the 60s. Once again, its Alabama, Texas, USC, Ohio St., Penn St., OU, Nebraska, etc.
Recruiting is about $ now. That’s the reason for all the fancy new weight rooms. They try to impress their recruits with their facilities. You still have to have a coach who can close the deal and identify talent, but facilities are a big deal. A&M is in debt because they believed they fell behind in that area. Their weight rooms/locker rooms/training facilities weren’t on a par with their various rivals in the B12.
The reason coaches want to keep the 85 scholarships is to allow more room for error. I agree with you 70 or 75 would be plenty. Big schools redshirt nearly all their freshman now. If they lowered it, the marginal academic candidates would probably be the ones not getting offers. Schools wouldn’t have as much room to offer athletes who might flunk out. I think the administrators want it to continue dominance, but also to keep the fcs schools priced out of the top division.
Apparently having a football team helps in other areas. Its really surprised me the MAC hasn’t had anyone drop football. I thought Akron would surely at least drop down when they had to replace their stadium. Instead, they built a new stadium. Somehow, the bottom of FBS is holding on, as well as FCS which comparatively, hardly generates any revenue.
LikeLike
I think the scholarship limit is about perfect where it is at. It’s low enough that we do see all kinds of team competing that we wouldn’t have in the past and there is more parity (aided ironically, given so many people reactions, by the BCS). Lower it much lower though and I think you’ll see too much parity. For all that the sport benefits from so many teams with promise, it needs the big names to usually be good too. The ACC having Miami and Florida State be down together has not been good for league and I think you’d see a lot more examples of that with fewer scholarships.
LikeLike
@Ohio I think the big names already have an advantage in facilities and winning traditions at this point. I t only means they have to recruit a little harder and coach a little better. Is that too much to ask for an OSU, Florida, or USC? I don’t know why one must insist that it is in the best interest of college football to keep rich the rich and keep the status quo for the rest. It makes a mockery of competition. Of the OSU, Florida and USC s’ of the world, no one will be able to take their history away. But others should have a reasonable expectation of taking away a conference championship away one of them every 10 or 15 years. If not then there is something really wrong here. There is no reason other than commitment that Indiana or Washington State should not be in the running for a conference championship in the time frame I presented. There is just too much money being systematically funneled into the rich to keep the poor sisters poor.
LikeLike
I guess my problem is that I don’t like mandated parity, especially not in an open system where any team can move up and enjoy the successes that others built. I do see your point about having teams that never compete, but I think getting to the point where absolutely anyone in a league can compete on a fairly regular basis would seriously hamper the power programs to the point it would be in their best interest to leave the system.
That may be harsh, but they are the ones who built up the system and bring most of the viewers, ratings, and fanbases. If the rules are changed so that long term they must rely on luck (in the short term history and money will help, but eventually those even out as others experience success and they experience longer periods of failure) they have a big interest to start over in a league closer to the size of the NFL or MLB than the current I-A setup.
None of this is to say I don’t want to see some teams step-up, but I think 85 scholarships already accomplishes most of what we want without going too far. Since the rule change, we have seen a lot of new teams competing and sometimes winning the conference crown (Wake Forest, Northwestern), many power programs with long declines, and new teams no one could imagine being contenders on even the national scale (Boise State, Utah). I think going to 75 scholarships might just push things too far. There is only so many teams that can be relevant before interest on the national scale is going to decline.
LikeLike
I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally wrong with the 85/25 scholarship limit. I think the bigger issue is that schools still play by different rules within the defined limits. If there was actually a hard annual 25 scholarship limit, it would go a long way to improving things, IMO. You get to sign 25 guys on signing day, period. If you go after guys who end up not qualifying, too bad, no replacements. This eliminates efforts by some schools to sign 27, 28, 32 players in February, knowing that they can make it under 25 come August.
The other thing that has to be fixed is running off non-contributors. If you guess wrong when evaluating a kid, you shouldn’t be able to “encourage” them to move on from your school. Once you sign them, as long as the student-athlete holds up their end of the bargain, you’re stuck with them.
LikeLike
pezlion – agree with your comments – maybe sign 20 max per year with no total max. and no runoffs.
LikeLike
Interesting point of view. I felt like the BE, to survive after the ACC raid, needed to have 3 teams regularly ranked with 2 regularly in the top 15-and 2 of those 3 had to normally be the same team. The BE with WVU and Louisville managed to do that for several years, which was very helpful for recruiting. With UL now down, Pitt has replaced them.
P10 has faced that problem as its been USC at the top with a different team or two every year challenging them. The challenger one year might have a losing year the next.
LikeLike
Search,… uh,… Cincinnati has won the last 2 BE titles not Pitt.
LikeLike
Really gotta agree I think knocking the scholarship limits down by 5-10 would be another step towards seeing college football overall improve.
Do that and institute some serious over-signing penalties and I think you’ve got a winner.
LikeLike
problem is the scholarship reductions really didn’t hurt the schools at the upper crust.. it hurt the schools in the middle as the bottom caught them.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Yes, its true. Great facilities do impress the kids. That is where we are currently with recruiting. It’s a good equalizer as well if you don’t have a winning tradition the likes of OSU or Mich. But I still do believe strongly that if they only have 75 scholarships to give out will affect parody more than the financial and facilities arms race. At one time it was slightly over 100, now its 85 and I hope to see it brought down to 75 with a limit of 5 – 8 walk-ons. At this point I don’t really care if it affects marginal students more. They have little vested in the school except the same sweat the others do as freshman. While someone else’s freshman son or daughter has a $35,000 out of state tuition to pay for. About the MAC schools. We know they routinely play the Big Ten schools in preseason. Even they must feel the pleasure to upgrade. I don’t know if there are any true dynasties in the MAC though. They are all cyclical risers and fallers. I think for them this is a good thing.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Not only did Akron build a new stadium they are looking to position themselves for Conference USA. I suspect some other MAC teams are doing the same. Buffalo and Toledo would probably be good fits.
LikeLike
Putting aside the fact that I can’t believe Craig “hellicopter dad” James still has a job, why on earth would Arkansas move to the B12-2?
The best James can come up with is: “We’re really weak, so you could win here.” Wow.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/19/2277896/craig-james-get-back-to-a-12-team.html
LikeLike
They make some good arguments to go to the Big IIX, but I don’t care how many argument you have. Fundamentally you still will be going to the Long Horn conference. There is a fundamental problem here which will not change; in fact it might get worst. I think the fact that Arkansas have not won a championship in this league (SEC) since it been there is a legitimate question. If they are happy in that position, then they should stay.
LikeLike
Big IIX! I like that!
LikeLike
@GOPWolv – Any university president that willingly leaves the SEC for the Big 12 Lite needs to be removed immediately. Craig James still believes that the SWC was the perfect football conference model even though it completely collapsed.
LikeLike
frank,
arkansas reminds me of the saying “fool me once (SWC) shame on you” “fool me twice (the Longhorn Conference) shame on me”
LikeLike
Heard Ill. interim pres. Ikenberry today on a radio show…..as many of you know, he’s not very pro-expansion…..basically said BT might be at 12 for the ‘short-run’…but in ‘long-run’ he thinks further expansion will occur. Talked some about Mo. in reponse to reporter’s question…said Mo., RU, Pitt, and Syr. were other schools considered by BT…didn’t say anything about MD., Va, Miami, GT, UNC, Duke, Florida….as to ND, just basically said ND not interested…….
LikeLike
As to “why Neb.?”…..football tradition, AAU, state school, land grant, agric. school……still think 2 of the following 3 in a year or so: RU, Pitt, Mo…..then wait 5 years……..
LikeLike
I would be willing to bet that Ikenberry and the Big Ten Conference were realistically thinking about a 14 team conference expansion limit. This made the space issue crucial when considering ND and Texas +1. I would bet they would have taken Texas +1. There is also a matter of eastern expansion. I think depending on available slots (14 -16), Maryland is still on the list. As far as a southern strategy goes I give you one word, Texas. Georgia Tech might have been a best fit as well. I completely disagree that NC or Duke would have been considered.
LikeLike
Well, his comments may have been leading in a different direction than that though…
http://www.illinoisloyalty.com/GoIllini/20100620_stanley_ikenberry_on_nebraska_and_big_ten_expansion
According to that guy, he indicated that only ND might pay off and that we’d probably wait on ND to go to 14 (i.e. ND/Rutgers to 14).
LikeLike
Ikenberry is a big shooter or was.
I would be willing to bet that Ikenberry and the Big Ten Conference were realistically thinking about a 14 team conference expansion limit. This made the space issue crucial when considering ND and Texas +1. I would bet they would have taken Texas +1. There is also a matter of eastern expansion.
I think depending on available slots (14 -16), Maryland is still on the list. As far as a southern strategy goes I give you one word, Texas. Georgia Tech might have been a best fit as well. I completely disagree that NC or Duke would have been considered.
LikeLike
Personally, I see us waiting on ND to move beyond 12, but if Maryland ever opens up to the idea, I think Maryland/Rutgers is a possibility before ND gets on board.
As he points out correctly, the 12th team had a low bar because of the CCG. The 13th and 14th have to earn their shares…
LikeLike
I think that’s his preference…may not be others. He said he thinks “this will be it for awhile” and “for the immediately forseeable future” but also says he’s not the leading expert on the matter….thought he was pretty conservative in his comments given that he is thought to be an opponent of expansion…..didn’t mention any specific periods of time….
One interesting comment was his emphasis on NU as the “flagship” u. for the state…that would tend to favor RU and MO over Pitt going forward…
LikeLike
2 of following 3-Is that your comment or his?
LikeLike
mine
LikeLike
Also have to say that Frank appears to have been correct when he described the BT’s academic requirements as only having to pass the “smell test”……….I’ve not heard one substantive comment since Neb. was added about Beb.”s academic standing relative to the other BT schools……just the standard bs about AAU, stae school etc…..I think a year from now RU will be added, and the 14th team will be either Pitt or Missouri……Pitt would have the advantage in academics and research and its history with ND (assuming the BT will still consider ND a future target)……Misery will have the advantage in being a larger, state school with branch campuses, with a better overall sports program, a larger fanbase, and bigger TV markets…..
LikeLike
Doubt MO would leave B12 now or in the future. I would suspect B12 to get two more teams in a couple of years. Desire Ark and BYU/ND. ND long shot. Don’t need anymore Texas schools no matter how great they are. Need TV sets in other markets. Texas AD buddy buddy with ND AD. Who knows?
MO got burned, egg on face, wants to hide for while. Won’t be going anywhere. Doubt B10 will offer MO spot over Big East schools anyway.
MO will end Illinois football games in STL this year. Have Indiana scheduled in later years, but expect that to be dropped since with 9 conference games now, 3 will be cupcakes. Doubt any more B10 teams will be scheduled.
MO lost 2 teams it could beat, will have tougher time in B12 now. Look for MO to dive into obscurity even in B12 football. Basketball can hold its own. MO on the ropes.
LikeLike
I don’t think Mo. will be as up-front, but nobody has REALLY committed to the Big 12….Mo would jump if offered the chance, imo.
LikeLike
Remember that Ikenberry is an interim president and may not even be at Illinois by the time fall semester starts. I think he understands that expansion is no longer his concern, since clearly, nothing is imminent.
LikeLike
another take on expansion
http://www.mrsec.com/2010/06/conference-expansion-talk-all-bull-not-quite/
for anybody that thought coming here and discussing possibilities was a waste of time.
LikeLike
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/fbc/7063523.html
Article on recruiting. Notes that 48.1% of 287 Big 12 recruits in 2010 are from Texas. Florida with 18 of 287 was the 2nd biggest state. Only KSU and CU had more in-state players than Texans over the last 5 years. Notes that Nebraska has recruited TX heavily in the last 5 years, but recruited mainly elsewhere in the early years of the B12. Speculates they will go back to that pattern. SEC signed only 14 Texans. B10 only 10. Notes that in Pac 10, California had similar dominance-106 of the 226 signees were from California.
LikeLike
expansion discussion
http://www.mrsec.com/2010/06/the-pac-10-missed-it-by-that-much/
I do not have pay access to the street & smith article but..
“In fact, the Sports Business Journal writes, “if Texas had not been two-plus years down the road to starting its own network, the Longhorns could very well be a member of the Pac-16 Conference today.”
did catch my eye, anybody who can actually read the S&S care to comment?
LikeLike
FWIW,
Fed Ex has dropped its sponsorship of the Orange Bowl
Citi has now dropped its sponsorship of the Rose Bowl
is this the front end of a trend?
LikeLike
Makes you think about what they used to do to pay for these bowls before? I always hated seeing a sponsor’s name splattered all over an event that is 50 years older than the product they are trying to hock.
LikeLike
hope so. it is tacky.
LikeLike
I agree it is pretty tacky, especially when Tennessee won the NC game and they kept forcing bags of tostios in everybody’s hands.
No I was looking more at the “harvesting” end, and are corporations getting to the point where enough is enough! Which means if athletic budgets continue to climb instead of controlled spending or decreasing budgets, are we seeing a cracking point in college athletics?
LikeLike
citi dropping the rose bowl shouldn’t be a surprise, after tarp they were giving that one up as soon as the contract was up
LikeLike
Some of my big takeaways from reading the blog are as follows. College Football drives the revenue bus over College Basketball. While College Basketball is popular during March Madness but the NCAA has the monopoly on the revenue.
Some conferences are able to finance a good chunk of their athletic budgets through their football TV contracts (SEC $17 million plus non national tv rights). The Big 10 has their National agreements (ABC/ESPN) but operates off of a different model than the other conferences because of the Big Ten Network(BTN) where solid content allows the Big 10 to scale their revenue. The BTN provides a short term competitive advantage that is expected to be copied by other leagues over time (Pac Ten Network, Longhorns Network) and will disappear in the future.
There are a handful of National teams that people will watch outside of their regional locations based partly off tradition (Notre Dame) or off of sustained success (Ohio State, Texas, USC, etc…).
Academic Fiscal year ends on June 30th.
So here are my questions.
1) Does the end of the Fiscal year provide a real deadline to close any current behind the scene negotiations?
2) While the Big 10 has a current competitive advantage with the BTN (and CIC) does the fact that others are pursuing their own copycat networks provide the Big 10 with a sense of urgency to make one last play before other conferences begin to roll out their networks?
3) The BTN brings in money based on eyeballs (Subscribers and advertising), are there any national basketball teams that could lead to a higher subscriber base or higher viewership outside of the NCAA tournament?
I think that for college moves, that we leave a prime time after the 30th until next summer. At the same time, people have written off basketball teams as a whole because of viewership and the basketball revenue model. For future Big 10 moves, could we see a push for a college with a national basketball following over some of the above average football properties?
LikeLike
There really isn’t any deadline built into the process, but for teams leaving (aka Big East’s 27 month requirement and $5M or whatever it is), we’re probably not likely to see any movement until early 2011.
As to your second question, the Big Ten is right now at the peak of its earning potential relative to other conferences in terms of demographics and some other factors (recruiting, network up and running, etc.) and so the Big Ten is best positioned to strike.
Also, all of the variables like up well in terms of cable not yet being replaced by the internet more fully, so the Big Ten’s revenue streams are robust in a short term and medium term kind of sense. Thus, the Big Ten is best positioned to expand now (or any time in the past) as opposed to waiting and letting other catch up due to networks/demographics, etc.
The Big Ten is best off expanding now as opposed to in 5-10 or even 15 years, when we will probably be in a less favorable position. We also have a lot of stability in the Big Ten commissioner’s office, whereas the Pac-10 hired Scott to make their gambit, so we have relatively experienced leadership, which also helps when trying to make these 50-100 year term plays.
LikeLike
@JohnB
I’ll take a shot at these.
1) Does the end of the Fiscal year provide a real deadline to close any current behind the scene negotiations?
Not really. Assuming that the Big 12 and Pac-10 are done, the only potential targets are the ACC and Big East. The Big East has a 27 month waiting period and I’m not sure what the ACC rules are. I am almost certain that if nothing happens before July 1, nothing will happen until at least December.
2) While the Big 10 has a current competitive advantage with the BTN (and CIC) does the fact that others are pursuing their own copycat networks provide the Big 10 with a sense of urgency to make one last play before other conferences begin to roll out their networks?
The assumption you’re making is that other conferences’ networks would be as successful. The Big Ten is somewhat uniquely positioned as a conference for a network: very large alumni bases, very large base of regional support, fans who would demand the channel, and an egalitarian mindset. In short, a network is not some sort of magic bullet that will equalize revenue across the conferences. 5-10 years from now, the underlying factors of the Big Ten’s position will still be in place, regardless of what other conferences do.
3) The BTN brings in money based on eyeballs (Subscribers and advertising), are there any national basketball teams that could lead to a higher subscriber base or higher viewership outside of the NCAA tournament?
My guess is no. The viewership for regular season basketball is so low that I cannot see a great increase there. Subscribers are more possible but still seem like a stretch.
If the Big Ten invites Syracuse, we know the answer though.
LikeLike
With the end of the fiscal year, any jump by the 30th for the Big East means that they could join 27 months from now. If they join past the 30th, for the same penalty they would have to join 39 months from now. In 50 or 100 years time that is nothing, but is it a big enough deal for either the big 10 or someone else to make one last push in the next couple days?
My guess is that the SEC is most likely to have the next best channel, but every conference is likely to go a similar route. Especially now that other leagues can point at the trail the Big 10 blazed to project success for their own channel. The Pac 10 likely has enough fans in large market cities in the west to be successful with theirs even though they missed out on Texas.
Here is a link to the Nielson trends for sports with College Basketball being on page 9. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/press/FaceOfSports_US_rpt.pdf College Basketball seems to bring in about half the viewers of College Football, but unless it’s a big market then in order to justify a Bball team joining it would need to draw a national following.
Does Duke, Kansas, Syracuse, North Carolina, or Kentucky have enough national pull to bother with an invite? I know that Duke and NC are both mentioned for their research prowess and not for football.
LikeLike
#3 I understand that basketball revenue streams are close to maxing out. While college football’s stream has more room to grow from both the conference network and the established ones depending on factors increased viewership and expanding geographic regions. More TVs means more Money to the Big ten. So places like New York and Texas and a national name like Notre Dame would represent a huge gain.
LikeLike
Basketball revenue streams are close to maxing out because of the TV contracts through ESPN/CBS. But it isn’t maxed yet from a league owned tv channel based on subscribers or advertising if you have the right content, is it? Are there programs with a pull outside of their state borders?
Is there a Notre Dame of basketball, or a Nebraska of basketball? I honestly don’t know the answer and sit on the fence as to whether there should be a push for a basketball first team.
LikeLike
@JohnB – One of the other things to consider is that a top football program is very indicative of strong institutional support, whereas the fortunes of a basketball program can be highly variable depending upon a coach’s recruiting strength. Now, you obviously need both great institutional and coaching support to be successful in either football or basketball, but there’s a high correlation between football revenue/spending and football success, while it’s a weaker link on the basketball end. So, you “trust” a school like Nebraska to continue to be a football power for the long-term no matter what happens because it has such a high level of financial support for that sport, but we don’t know how, say, Syracuse is going to be once Jim Boeheim retires.
LikeLike
Maybe someone more informed can jump in here, but from what I understand, Mike Hopkins (who will most likely replace Boeheim) is doing a good chunk of the recruiting these days. Plus, the players really seem to like him. I personally think SU will be okay when Boeheim retires. Just an FYI.
LikeLike
Syracuse doesn’t excite me much from a football or basketball standpoint. My understanding is that they are weak in research also. The only redeeming quality is that they could allow for the Big 10 to triangulate on NYC.
Having said that, are there certain basketball properties that you do have a trust that they will continue to invest in?
My level of excitement over watching a Duke/NC/Kansas/Kentucky in football is low but I will watch their basketball games when they are on. The same question you ask about Syracuse could be asked about Duke, but they bring a ton of research dollars. NC/Kansas/Kentucky have a longer track record and history of finding those more successful basketball coaches.
LikeLike
good point Frank. but that should also put a question mark in our minds in regards to Rutgers. they don’t have a great history of institutional support for athletics and in the current economic environment support for Rutgers athletics is a political issue as well.
LikeLike
AND, they are the only team in the state. MO has 2 NFL teams..the chiefs and the rams to compete against Mizzou for foorball dollars. Neb football has no competition. They are it. Makes a HUGE difference.
LikeLike
Doogie, I once worked with a guy from Nebraska up in Chicago North Suburbs. In season we used to talk about college football and about Nebraska football. I know he had lived and worked in Denver and Houston, before coming to the Chicago suburbs. He was still a rabid Nebraska fan. At that time Nebraska was a fairly consistent winner. I was only a very casual Nebraska fan but I came to understand through him how strong the support for Nebraska football is from the folks in NE.
LikeLike
as a basketball guy I will take a shot here….
a) conference tournaments and expanded NCAA brackets mean less emphasis on regular season games.
b) ESPN and the ACC bias, as in there are plenty of good teams out there but it is the same old teams that are always on TV.
c) ESPN and the 9pm start time. If you are older, or have kids, and you live in EST you are screwed. Maybe put west coast games in that time slot but lord it is hard to stay up and then get work done the next day.
d) Cable and the dreaded media timeout. The whole purpose of cable was to get commercial free programming. I am old enough to remember this but many probably do not. Imagine a game flow not slowed up by commercials, If I was the BTN and wanted to pick up interest in second tier games I would go limited commercial or commercial free to spur more demand.
I am sure there other things, but those just came out of my head.
LikeLike
There is, in my mind, a certain urgency to Big Ten expansion. I think they should expand their footprint in key markets sooner than later because if and when the other conferences produce their own network, it’s in the Big Ten’s interest to already become entrenched in bigger, better markets. For instance, I can’t see a big advantage to waiting to add Rutgers (NJ plus whatever in NY and Philly) and Maryland (for pull in Baltimore and DC).
And if the BT does go south (Georgia Tech or Miami) into SEC territory, I’d think it would be best to get into those markets as far ahead of the establishment of an SEC channel as possible.
The better the population in the footprint, the better the BTN will thrive after the competing conferences set up their networks. If the BT region can expand so it has, say, 40% more people than the SEC, the BTN will thrive no matter what the SEC does.
LikeLike
I really don’t see a SEC channel forming anytime soon. ABC/ESPN & CBS already pays for a lot for their games, they are permitted to keep one game year for themselves, and they already have deeply entrenched local media rights contracts.
What’s more, the strength of a conference tv channel IMO is found in having large numbers of alumni in large population bases to market to. A few exceptions aside, I don’t think the SEC schools fit that bill.
To me, with that 15 year contract, making a SEC channel would be taking on a lot of rick for little gain (even though the model has been proven the SEC and BigTen are completely different institutional animals).
LikeLike
@djinndjinn – Good points, but I think the urgency for the Big Ten was really about how to get one or all of the 3 marquee names that it was looking to add: Texas, Notre Dame and Nebraska. Now that the homes for those 3 are settled for the near future and, just as importantly, the Pac-10 didn’t turn into a superconference because there are forces that are very against seeing them come to fruition, I think the desire for the Big Ten to expand further has been dampered. My impression is that the Big Ten was really looking at the Big East schools as a lure for Notre Dame or at least to get the Irish out of their comfort zone. The demographic argument, at least in this stage, was about Texas as opposed to the East Coast. I also don’t think that other conferences are going to start up networks very easily. The SEC was in the best position to do so, but it’s committed to CBS and ESPN for the long haul. The ACC actually was the next strongest candidate because its local basketball rights have long been extremely valuable (which translates into a natural base of regional cable subscribers), yet it’s going to finalize its own new deal with ESPN soon. The Big 12 Lite is alive today because it is allowing Texas to start its own network as opposed to having a conference network. I don’t believe that a Big East Network is going to work – it has good population bases on paper, but the fan intensity is low compared to other leagues, meaning that they’re much better off signing everything over to ESPN. Finally, the Pac-10 will likely start its own network, but there isn’t any school that the Big Ten is going to take from them.
So, other conferences starting networks is much easier said than done and far from a foregone conclusion. If the Big Ten wants schools like Rutgers or Syracuse in the future, they will be there willing to join no matter what the Big East tries to do, which means that there isn’t much urgency to move in that direction right now unless Notre Dame can be convinced to give up independence.
LikeLike
Unless the BigTen sees the shifting demographics causing the BTN to lose tv bargaining power in the mid-term.
At which point, expanding now while they are in a position of power, into new areas makes a lot of sense if for no other reason than to help force their way onto as many cable networks as possible.
Once the BTN is on expanded basic cable in NYC or other areas of interest, it makes it much less likely they get dropped from the channel line-up should the “shifting demographics” continue.
LikeLike
I agree that no one will start a BTN-like service in the near term.
In the longer term, though, as contracts expire, I can see conferences following the Big Ten’s model, especially if the Big Ten starts pulling away financially or in recruiting (because of the BTN exposure). Hence, while nothing is urgent to the degree that the BT has to expand this year, I do think they should add markets sooner than later to get a several-year lead in the larger eastern markets.
I’m sure you’re right about the Big Ten’s desire for Notre Dame, Frank, though I partiularly don’t share it. And certainly Texas is off the table.
So you move on. If the Big Ten could grab a couple large markets like Rutgers and Maryland would bring, I would do so now. New Jersey itself is 8.7 million plus whatever else it could draw in the Philly and NY areas. Let’s say a market of 10 million. Maryland is 5.7; Virginia is 7.9, though splits its market with V Tech. Those areas are roughly equivalent to Texas. I’m not sure what Syracuse’s market would be beyond that. The metro area is 700,000, unless you’re adding in a much bigger area like Buffalo (1 million). Georgia Tech is in a market of 5.5 million (metro Atlanta only). Miami is 5.3 million. Those cities alone represent a population base between Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Unless the BT wants to continue waiting (forever) for Notre Dame and (probably forever) for Texas, there would appear to be several attractive candidates out there.
LikeLike
I was under the impression that the Pac 10 had a cable network on their radar and would likely be the first to move to that model.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/10/sports/la-sp-pac-ten10-2010feb10
If the SEC can make more money off selling their games locally with their existing agreements than they can by earning money based on cable users and advertising, then I can see why they wouldn’t put a cable channel in place.
LikeLike
Rutgers certainly makes sense, but who would you pair with them? Syracuse would appeal re the NY market (football isn’t big there but BB is) and would give another area site for PSU, Mich, etc. teams to play games. But that would suggest that ND is off the boards. Maryland would be a good match, but probably isn’t ready to commit at this moment (or ever, for that matter). Pitt doesn’t add to the markets area (nor does MO, although MO does so more than Pitt — and MO has been mentioned over the years as an expansion candidate), so it is not a likely choice.
I think JD was forced to take NE early, at risk of loosing them. Does he feel the same way about Rutgers? Hard to say, but I doubt it. There the issue is more one of timing.
JD mentioned the idea of announcing all teams at once. I think they would benefit by having teams in place, but if the teams aren’t all ready to move, what do you do?
LikeLike
Also something else I read off a link posted here regarding BigEast teams…
Teams could leave the BigEast stipulation free starting July 2010 which fits nicely into that original 12-18 month timeline (after this upcoming football season).
Again, I think the BigTen is serious about going bigger to ensure geographical diversity among its member base. Do that while adding schools that fit its nominal profile (Frank’s “academic smell test”) and I think the BigTen (as a whole, not just athletically) gets stronger. The whole point of expansion…
LikeLike
Excerpts from a 2-hour interview with UT President Bill Powers:
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/decision-on-athletics-more-nuanced-than-horse-trading-757857.html
…Texas, he said, had no formal discussions with the Southeastern Conference, didn’t pursue a Big Ten bid and wouldn’t have gone anywhere without Texas Tech. He said that although he was “delighted” that Texas A&M stayed in the Big 12, an Aggie departure for the SEC would not have been fatal to the Big 12.
In fact, Powers said, UT chose the Big 12 over the Pacific-10 Conference without knowing what A&M would do…
—
…He said only three people in the UT camp had a full sense of what was going on: him, men’s Athletics Director DeLoss Dodds and women’s Athletics Director Chris Plonsky. Although Powers kept members of the UT System Board of Regents informed, major donors and boosters were not in the loop.
The UT president said he was struck by what he described as a widespread and incorrect assumption that the talks involved a kind of wheeling and dealing. “Sort of a sense that each side has its sheet. We gotta get that. We don’t want that. We need that. Will you trade that?”
That “is not the flavor of how our decision-making process worked,” Powers said.
Instead, Dodds and Plonsky approached the discussions in much the same way that a law firm or a corporation would consider a merger or acquisition, Powers said.
“It was very much to get out of the idea that momentum was going to sway us,” he said, adding that he never had the feeling that Texas was a lock to join the Pac-10 or to stay put…
—
…That grinding included a five-hour meeting,b> Sunday night with Pac-10 Commissioner Larry Scott and his deputy, Kevin Weiberg, at Bellmont Hall in Royal-Memorial Stadium. There the UT team got its first look at the Pac-10’s “term sheet” outlining basic parameters such as income projections and scheduling…
—
…”We spent a lot of time on the phone with Dan Beebe on Monday,” Powers said. “The evidence that emerged was that a 10-member Big 12 was a very powerful economic entity.
“We don’t have any deals or guarantees on that,” Powers said, “but we are very comfortable. We came out of this thinking the economic value was as good or better … in a 10-team Big 12 as in the Pac-10…”
—
…By staying in the Big 12, Texas could start a Longhorn network for broadcasting sporting events — an initiative that is at least two years away. Dodds said a Longhorn network might include one football game, as many as a half-dozen men’s basketball games and a multitude of nonrevenue sports like baseball, women’s basketball and women’s volleyball.
“The whole point of owning these rights is to exploit them,” Powers said. “Giving up our ownership of those rights is taking a huge asset and giving it up. So we would want to be cautious before giving them up. At the fork in the road, that was one of the primary parts of the thinking — not that we wouldn’t, but we wanted to know what we’re getting in return.”
Although the money was important, Powers said the negotiating team consistently considered the impact that the various decisions would have on the school’s athletes and even on their parents.
“Our student-athletes’ parents can drive to a lot of our games — not all the games, but to a significant number of games” in the Big 12, he said…
—
…Powers said A&M never told him whether it intended to sign with the Pac-10 or the SEC if the Big 12 collapsed.
“We are delighted that we’re in a conference together. We weren’t going to end the relationship with A&M, whatever they did,” Powers said, hinting that Texas and A&M would continue to play each other even if they were in separate conferences…
—
…Powers confirmed to the Statesman last week that he spoke with Gee and Delany but said he did not describe the situation as a “problem.” He said he simply explained that “we have playing partners in our part of the world that we’re committed to,” including Tech.
“We love being in with Tech,” he said. “It is a plus for us. It’s a complexity for the Big Ten. We did not sit down and talk with the Big Ten.”
Nor, he said, did Texas have conversations with the SEC.
“There was some outreach as to whether we wanted to talk. That was all. We did not,” he said….
LikeLike
Funny how he descrbes all the love for sticking by Tech, but expresses no particular interest in A&M. Sounds pretty much like he’s controlled by the Texas politicians.
LikeLike
Funny how nothing serious with the Pac 10 came up until after the Big 12 meetings. Orwellian=funny, right?
LikeLike
Doesn’t this pretty much substantiate the veracity of that guy who posted somewhere (here? a UT site?) a few months back who said that he had had a brief conversation with Powers about realignment?
— never considered dragging the softball team around a bunch of midwestern states (I think that’ show Powers phrased it)
— Texas wouldn’t leave Tech behind
— preference was to stay in the Big 12
— if the Big 12 collapsed, Texas would look west, and not north or east
Seems like the road map to UT’s decision was in front of us all along, and those of us who wanted or predicted a different outcome (or, in my case, wanted and predicted a different outcome) dismissed that evidence pretty quickly.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – Yes, it turned out that Bill Powers was telling the truth to that message board poster. I think everyone’s skepticism in his statements was rooted in the fact that virtually no one has been straightforward in this process.
LikeLike
Does anyone remember the link to that message board comment?
LikeLike
Re Bill powers interview (Playoffs Now!)
Very interesting extended interview. Always nice to get a glimpse of what a key decision maker is thinking in contrast to the many self appointed spokespersons who believe they are speaking for a specific school.
Interesting that the supposed advantages of the CIC wasn’t even mentioned as a consideration nor the Big 10 channel and the potential financial benefits that some have speculated about.
Apparently Powers sees this decision as a long term decision.
With respect to a 16 team Pac 10 option:
“The cost of that solution is it starts to look like the American League and the National League in baseball rather than a conference,” Powers said. “It’s less of a cohesive conference, both on the playing fields and in the relationships in the conference.”
Also interesting comments re A&M and Tech as regional playing partners.
LikeLike
And for those who are curious, here’s the real story of the first Bevo, including a video on how to fit a real Longhorn through a standard door:
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/06/21/bevo-the-real-story/
LikeLike
@ Playoffs Now!
Check this out: Citi dumps the Rose Bowl. As Frank would say – follow the money!
IF the sponsors of the BCS all start backing out of the BCS games due to this annual commitment and the BCS and ESPN can’t find sponsors, I for one can’t think of ANYTHING that will get us to a play-off system faster than lack of funding and sponsorship for the BCS. I think everyone has figured out that BCS is simply a glorified term for a higher payout bowl game. And who want’s to watch TCU and Bosie State battle it out when it doesn’t mean anything? Can Nokia, All State and Tostito’s be far behind?
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5311290
LikeLike
The Rose Bowl presented by GoDaddy.com
LikeLike
The Grand Daddy of Them All presented by GoDaddy? a sort of poetry
LikeLike
Awesome. The more the BCS hurts, the more it looks like they’ve maxed out that model and may have to move to a new one. My gut says that part of the pitch to TX to stay in the B12-2 was that big changes are coming which might make 12-school or less conferences more advantageous.
LikeLike
I don’t think the bowls hurting (if they are, Citi’s not in good financial shape) actually has much to do with whether a bigger playoff is started. The BCS has helped the BCS teams mostly because of what it has done to the regular season.
Think about it like this: If you are a baseball fan do you route for the other teams in your division? I know I couldn’t care less. What about with the NFL? NBA? Heck even in college basketball there is a lot less interest in inter-conference games during the regular season. That’s what the BCS has done. It’s turned fans of teams into fans of conferences because how their conference mates do matters. It’s also made each week have multiple important games as even one single loss is likely to derail national title hopes and put someone else in place to win one. Even if interest in the bowls fades by a lot, I would guess it’s not in the schools’ best interests to end the BCS.
On a side note, I don’t want a playoff, but for a different reason than I think there won’t be one (aside from maybe a plus one). I’m one of the few that legitimately love the bowl season and think it’s a great way to end the season. I wouldn’t want to end every sport to end like this, but it is such a unique and awesome part of college football in my opinion.
LikeLike
The University of Michigan Athletic Department recently released its budget for FY 2011. The presentation to the university regents is at http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-10/2010-6-X-17.pdf
Since conference expansion and the Big Ten Network has been such a big topic these past weeks, I looked at the conference distributions line first. Although the document doesn’t break down specific sources of football and basketball television revenue (BTN, ABC/ESPN, CBS, etc.), its clear that the trend has been moving upward (dollars in millions) with the difference between Actual FY 2007 and Budget FY 2011 being $7.226M with an increase of $1.710M between FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Actual FY 2007 – 9,371
Actual FY 2008 – 13,932
Actual FY 2009 – 14,429
Projected FY 2010 – 14,887
Budget FY 2011 – 16,597
The overall Big Ten conference distributions include the television funds mentioned above and NCAA basketball based distributions, football bowl games and other miscellaneous items. If you add these up, here’s the total amounts the Big Ten has given to Michigan:
Actual FY 2007 – 14,037
Actual FY 2008 – 18,790
Actual FY 2009 – 19,173
Projected FY 2010 – 19,968
Budget FY 2011 – 22,196
There is some basic information in the university’s press release if you don’t want to go into all the details in the communication to the regents at http://www.mgoblue.com/genrel/061710aaa.html
One thing you’ll note from the press release is that the Michigan Athletic Department will start FY 2011 with $35M in unrestricted operating reserves. While Michigan has undergone some major facilities building (such as the new indoor football practice facility–largest in college or the pros) and has renovated Michigan Stadium (approx. $230M cost), the Athletic Department has also been fiscally conservative and has gotten a lot of alumni donations/support.
LikeLike
Wow.
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/16/meet-the-texas-longhorns-the-biggest-coward-program-in-college/
LikeLike
Big ten Jeff, Nice. Just as interesting as this article of this guy torching Texas is the some of the comments. Don’t forget to read that folks to get some wider perspective.
LikeLike
Awesome. One can only hope that SOS will play into the voters’ (and computers’) minds.
LikeLike
It won’t. They neutered that portion of the BCS rankings years ago.
LikeLike
Ah yes, Clay Travis. A shock jock of a columnist who once asked Tim Tebow at a press conference if he was still a virgin.
I take Travis’ calling UT names as a badge of honor.
LikeLike
Nevertheless, he has a point. The difference in the degree of difficulty between an SEC or Big Ten team making it to the BCS championship game and Texas doing the same would be appear to be quite significant. All Texas has to do is sweep through the weakened Big 12, which only contains one other team of similar caliber. SEC and Big Ten teams will face a greater number of good teams in their own conference and then have to win a CCG in order to get where Texas or Oklahoma will be most years.
It is in the best interest of SEC and Big Ten fans to denigrate the quality of Texas’ opposition.
LikeLike
Don’t get me wrong: as I hope I have made clear, I am not satisfied with the decision UT made, though I am learning to live with it. (Sticking with 10 schools, and not adding two lesser replacement schools, has been helpful.)
And though I didn’t read Travis’ column — I stopped at his statement early on in the column which referred to McCoy not being able to last against an SEC defense, a statement so wrong in so many ways that it satisfied any concerns I had that he might have had anything intelligent to write — I understand the argument you are saying he and others are making: that this move makes Texas’ road to winning a championship game easier.
First, I don’t agree that the Big 12 is “weakened” by that much. Nebraska hasn’t won a conference title this century and spent most of the last decade fluctuating between Top 15 competitiveness and being barely mediocre on a good day. (Anyone remember the 70 Tech hung on Nebraska just two or three years ago?) In an era in which NU can no longer count on partial qualifiers, I think many on this blog are assuming that Nebraska will automatically be a power year-in and year-out when that’s not necessarily the case.
And Colorado has come close to being an automatic W for most of the good teams in the Big 12 the last few years — the fact that beating OU at home a couple of years back was such a huge upset speaks volumes about how far that program has fallen. Losing that near-automatic W isn’t helpful.
Additionally adding a ninth conference game, even if it’s Iowa State (right, Nebraska?!?) in lieu of the money game which will probably be sacrificed is more or less a wash, if not a slight boost in overall difficulty.
(And as a Texas-centric aside, we’re now playing Kansas State every year. There’s some seriously weird mojo in that series: they have our number. Not good!)
Yes, the CCG has been lost, but, first, I cannot recall Big Ten fans calling their schools “cowards” for all the years their conference failed to stage such a game. Second, I think many Michigan fans might argue that the lack of an opportunity to make a season-ending statement in a CCG can be just as injurious to a team’s chances to making the championship game as is the risk of an upset.
Finally, as I keep saying, everything is cyclical. We have no idea how difficult any of these conferences, or how good any individual school, will be in a few years, and basing conference affiliation on football-only 2009 SOS, as it seems Travis thinks Texas should have done, would have been one of the absolute ways to make a realignment decision.
LikeLike
I would disagree only because college football is at its base an arms race.
Yes, location is important for recruiting, but the amount of money that a football program pulls in is the best indicator of whether it is a power.
That to me is the best indicator of whether a team is poised to be a power in the future. Yes, revenue isn’t the only indicator, but it is probably the best indicator of potential.
Being able to woo recruits with better facilities is perhaps the strongest aspect that a program can have in the current environment.
Of course you need a good coach/staff to be able to get to a point where you’re effectively competing for championships, but losing Nebraska means that the Big 12 has lost one of it’s potential national championship teams.
LikeLike
HH,
Thanks for clearing that up! I thought TT was a virgin birth and the second coming of JC. Turns out he was just a virgin.
🙂
That said
The longhorns have assured an easy NC ride that those in the Big 10 and SEC will not share. As much as the Pac 10 runs third now, it is still well ahead of the Longhorn Conference. In losing CU and UNL, they have also lost 2 AAU schools so their “disdain” of SEC academics has got to be a bit bruised.
UT screwed the pooch, as they should have gone to the Pac 16 and been done with it. A&M was not holding them back, and this would be done. In pretty much everything I have read the folks at the top of UT were the ones in control. If this is correct, it does does beg the question of UT’s final actions.
Individual teams may be cyclical, but not so much with conferences. The thing I did note in all of this was UNL’s change in stature when it stopped recruiting its traditional base and depended more on recruiting texas. It will be interesting to see how UNL will do in the future after it has returned to its traditional recruiting base.
B10J,
thanks for the link man.
LikeLike
About what you said about the conference championship game I would agree. I see that game as a more dangerous venture for the participants; I would rather see a conference rivalry game in the frame of the season than setup one of these. With 14 – 16 teams a CCG is an absolute must. Even with 12 the benefits of a CCG include;
• A highly competitive tune-up game late in the season before the bowls
• Media exposure and fan excitement
• The money is cash out of thin air for the conference
• It settles who the conference champ really is
• An undisputed conference champ makes the NC a clearer pick
Texas strong team traditionally but is in a weaker conference now. A CCG would help to legitimize their position.
LikeLike
Texas strong team traditionally but is in a weaker conference now. A CCG would help to legitimize their position.
If these words due prove to be true, tinkering with the strength of OOC games can be a remedy.
Texas seems to have taken a position over the last few years that its conference schedule should be strong enough that adding strong OOC games would be more harmful than helpful. As a result, UT’s OOC the last few years hasn’t been great, but it hasn’t seemed to harm championship chances.
If UT senses that it needs a scheduling boost, it can resume scheduling OSU-type games to compensate for what proves to be a weaker conference slate. There are indications that Texas might think this to be the case, despite my arguments to the contrary:
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/6/20/1527820/looking-at-scheduling-usc
LikeLike
TTech hung 70 on Nebraska in 2004 (6 years ago). Other than that, I agree with what you’re saying. The new UTen conference will both help and hurt the Longhorns chances of reaching the title game. The path to being undefeated is probably easier in the UTen. But if 3 undefeated (or 3 1-loss) teams are left at the end of the regular season, UT might be the odd man out due to their perceived easier schedule. UT could schedule some competition in the OOC schedule to help itself, and bowl victories against quality competition the previous year helps that perception also. I don’t think it’ll hurt the UTen teams very often – maybe once a decade the conditions will be right for one of them to get left out.
LikeLike
Who the hell is Clay Travis? Ignorant dumbassery not seen since Skip Bayless.
TX had Utah and Arkansas both back out of multiple games recently, hence WY and FL Atlantic as relatively last minute replacements. TX plays BYU and at UCLA back to back next year. They have upcoming series with Michigan, Cal, and Ole Miss. Trying to add ND and USC. Have gotten plenty of turn downs from schools they contacted (though hopefully they’ll take Boise up on their rumored offer.)
Last time I checked, Utah, Cal, USC, Michigan, and Ole Miss road games are far away from Austin. When’s the last time FL played OOC out of state? 20 years ago. FL is far and away the biggest pussies in college football, but this SEC shill conveniently ignores that.
Pretty consistent that most of the accusations like this against TX are rooted in major ignorance of the facts.
LikeLike
Minnesota, not Michigan, FYI.
LikeLike
Nope, Michigan. May not be official yet or maybe they since backed out, but I distinctly remember reading that they had agreed to play. The article wasn’t recent and a quick google didn’t bring it up.
LikeLike
I also remember the Michigan discussion (mistakenly put Ohio St. in an earlier post). Don’t know whether it got finalized, but was being discussed.
LikeLike
http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/fb-future-schedules.html
Who knows whether Michigan and Texas are negotiating a series behind the scenes, but if we’re talking about definite, on-the-books upcoming OOC series in the same way we’re talking about Cal and Ole Miss, then Minnesota (in 2015-16), not Michigan, is in fact correct.
LikeLike
If this is an SEC guy he’s not saying anything about Charleston Southern on Florida’s schedule and Chattanooga on Alabama’s last year? Those are bad FCS teams. Certainly they could find someone better than that. I guarantee Troy or FIU would buyout a game to get Alabama or Florida.
And Alabama vs. Georgia State this year? Don’t know if they are really doing former coach Curry a favor. It was this year or never, so he said yes. For those who don’t know, this year is Georgia State’s FIRST year of football, and they are in FCS. It’s one thing to schedule a team with the same # of scholarships that you can beat 70-0. Its quite another to schedule a team with fewer scholarships that your scout team could beat 70-0.
LikeLike
Last out of state non conference game for Florida was 1985. They played at Rutgers. Even Georgia is leaving the Southeast a bit now.
LikeLike
I think Clay was flaming UT but here is how I summed up their (Texas) choices.
Texas> Pac Ten-This seemed like the most comfortable move for Texas. They get to go with 5 others from their former conference and basically become the old SWC again while vying for a NC, a Rose Bowl and a slight upgrade academically than their current. The drawbacks were that they would no LSN and horrible scheduling. They also inadvertently destroy this conference from within.
Texas >Big Ten- They would reap $22.000 based on pre Texas participation, association with CIC and AAU increase academic standing, play most games in Central time zone, play in the most stable conference in the country continue to play Nebraska or add ND who would have joined with Texas. Drawbacks, no LSN, no four team tag along (A&M only) lose a lot of power and control but are better off over all.
Texas > SEC- play in the strongest football conference in the land and possibly get their LSN. Drawbacks- play in the worst conference academically of the big 6 and take a step down. They will not dominate this league as they did the Big IIX. Start losing more recruits to SEC schools like FL, LSU and ALA. Lose a lot of power and control.
I do not think it would have been in Texas best interest to go to the SEC. Texas A&M is a different story.
LikeLike
oops, it’s $22,000,000
LikeLike
Texas not seriously considering B10 surprises me given administrations’ actions in the past. They always liked the B10 and have always tried to make as much money as possible. I wasn’t very enthused when they parked the Mercedes on the field (this was during the Mackovic era) in order to generate advertising $.
I suspect no tag-alongs and softball teams flying all over the midwest were the big problems. Combined they made it a non-starter-like the B10 considering a non-AAU school not in South Bend. Don’t know how much Tech issue is enforced from the state capitol, how much is simply perceived future political issues or perhaps a “you scratch my back (in the legislature), I’ll scratch yours (in athletics). Don’t need to pull A&M along-they can land on their own feet.
Suspect the P16 deal came down to $. Powers made the comment that the more you minimized student travel, the more you made it two conferences linked by a TV deal. Well you can do that without joining the other conference (although that is certainly a control issue). And the B12 now makes more than the P10 and the projections are a little better in the B12-2 over the P16.
Personally my preference was B12-0. It was an exciting league at the start. CU & UNL just off MNCs, UT and OU down but national powers, KSU and A&M rising national powers. Not surprisingly, those are the 6 schools who have won championships. And until Mizzou a couple of years ago, won all division titles as well. I think CU, UNL and A&M will all be back. B12-2 is my preference over P16 because I just don’t like 16 team conferences and if A&M went to SEC I think it would hurt everyone.
LikeLike
I have taken a bit of a break from expansion mania. But today I took the time to read some of the reports on the Knight Commission web site.
http://www.knightcommission.org/
Check out the “College Sports 101” and “Restoring the Balance” reports. Some of the data and projections are really disturbing. Schools of all sizes, but especially the non-BCS schools, are increasingly dependent on academic resources being diverted to support sports. At the rich end of the spectrum it is like the Cold War arms race with athletic department budgets on pace to be above $250M at the top 10% schools by 2020. With the current economy, especially as it impacts donations, the entire system seems to be headed for trouble.
With these reports I became all the more convinced the Big Ten needs to be very careful in further expansion steps. College athletics looks a helluva lot like a bubble ready to burst.
LikeLike
I think Texas didn’t join the Pac-10 not because of being cowards, but because (in order) a) they’d lose the complete control they now enjoy, b) political expediency, not just in terms of what the politicians want but also the hit that would come with abandoning the other Texas schools, c) path to national championship is easier in the Big 12, (whether that makes them cowards or just pragmatists is debatable) d) easier scheduling in the Big 12.
I think they didn’t seriously consider the Big Ten primarily because they couldn’t take the lesser schools along.
LikeLike
@Djinn Djinn:
I whole-heartedly agree that Texas sought control to a greater extent possible than many anticipated, but I would flip (a) and (b) in your list, given that Texas did seem set to move west, despite the loss of control, until the last-second infusion of television dollars.
LikeLike
You may be right on the order of a and b.
Personally, I hold no ill will towards Texas. I like Texas well enough, and I’d have loved them in the Big Ten, but I can see where the Pac-10 deal would have been more appealing.
And given the new TV deal and the larger piece of the pie they’ll see with the new Big 12, I can see why they ended up deciding to stay in the Big 12.
With that said, I have to admit to being a bit disappointed in them that this was their decision. Not just on the athletic side, but on the academic side too.
LikeLike
My disappointment is mainly on the academic side. I’m not really that disappointed on the athletic side. The main athletics reason I preferred a move to the Big 10 or Pac 10 over staying in a Big 12 which lost members was a fear that the Big 12 would become weaker as a result of plugging in two inferior schools as replacement schools.
Staying at ten greatly alleviates that concern. And I understand that reasonable minds can differ, but I’m not seeing Texas’ path to the championship game being weakened in terms of the quality of the conference competition. (This is disregarding the CCG issue. I sense people are arguing both that the Big 12 is now a noticeably weaker conference during regular season play and that shedding the CCG also eases Texas’ path. I discussed the CCG issue above.)
Texas still has OU, Tech, A&M and a resurgent OSU on the schedule each year. Basically, we’re losing half a game a year against Nebraska and Colorado and adding half a game a year against KU, KSU, ISU and Mizzou. Given the on-and-off quality of Nebraska over the past decade, and given that KU and Mizzou have both been in national championship contention past Thanksgiving in very recent history, I don’t think this is too much of a change one way or another.
(BTW, did anyone point out what a kick-ass basketball conference as emerged from this, with the two weakest hoops schools out of the way and an 18-game, double round-robin schedule to follow? That’s all that needs to be noted about this, though, as we saw how little basketball mattered!)
LikeLike
HH,
can’t fault you for trying to diss the watering down of the BXII with Nebraska’s departure.
Give me a break, they made a bad hire with coach Callahan and took a brief “hit” after 50 years on the top–now all of a sudden they’re irrelevent? Even at their worst, they’ve been pretty good, top 20 wp @ 65%.
As much as everyone fawns over the Horns now that they’re back, they went 20 YEARS at a 65% clip. Enough with the spin.
LikeLike
And didn’t Nebraska go 20 years in the 40s and 50s pretty bad? I haven’t checked the records, but that comment came from a die-hard Nebraska fan. I expect UNL to come back, but other than the championship game, the path through the Big 12 is not significantly easier. No championship game does make a major difference. Nebraska, KSU, Texas, OU and Missouri can all testify to that.
LikeLike
For you B10 fans about to enjoy the excitement of championship games, #3 Nebraska was upset by Texas in 96, #3 KSU (and 1 and 2 lost also that day) was upset by A&M in 2000(?), #2 Texas was upset by CU in 2002 (but UNL went to championship game over post championship game #3 CU), #1 OU lost to KSU in 2003(?) but still went to championship game and 2 years ago #1 Missouri lost to OU.
LikeLike
Let me phrase this argument in a different way:
If, five years from now, Nebraska and Purdue left the conference, and the Big 10 responded by sticking at 10 and implementing a true regular season round robin, would it be fair for me to argue that Ohio State’s path to the championship game, in terms of the quality of the conference regular season schedule, just became significantly easier?
LikeLike
It would depend on how they set up the divisions, but I don’t think so.
I believe that there were three elite programs in the Big XII – Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas.
By losing Nebraska, Texas now only has one elite opponent every year.
There will be four elite programs in The Big Ten – Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, and Penn State.
I’m assuming that Ohio State will play Michigan annually, but alternate Nebraska and Penn State every two years.
So Ohio State has two elite opponents every year.
If The Big Ten loses Nebraska and Purdue in your hypothetical, then Ohio State would play Michigan and Penn State annually. So they would keep two elite opponents every year.
Also, I think Colorado has more potential than Purdue. Colorado is down now, but they did win a MNC 20 years ago. Colorado has a much better chance than Purdue to become a regular participant in BCS games and have 10 win seasons.
LikeLike
@Cliffs:
By losing Nebraska, Texas still only has one elite opponent every year.
There. Fixed. 🙂 Win a conference title this century and we can reopen the “elite” debate. (I sense many Big 10 posters see all of the great intangibles which come with picking up Nebraska and are confusing that with thinking that, as of 2010, Nebraska is still an elite program on the field. Pelini very well might bring them all of the way back, but one cannot look at NU’s record over the past decade and think of them as currently “elite”.)
LikeLike
@ChicagoRed:
The slide began before Solich was fired.
My point was not that Nebraska is irrelevant — Nebraska’s importance to a conference goes beyond its impact on a field.
My point was that losing half a game a season against a team which has struggled (by its own standards, I would assume) for nearly a decade and losing half a game a season against a team which is clearly in the tank nowadays hardly makes Texas’ path to a conference championship and a berth in the BCS championship game that much easier.
And trust me that I know very well what it is like for the Horns to be mediocre. Everything is cyclical. In five years, the Big 12 could be the toughest conference in the country. Or it might be passed by the Big East. You never know.
LikeLike
“clearly in the tank nowadays” ?????
LikeLike
clearly in the tank nowadays
There are two schools leaving the Big 12, remember.
LikeLike
so it’s July then?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/409867-hazards-for-future-big-ten-expansion
http://www.projo.com/pc/content/projo_20050224_24beast.23704bb.html
LikeLike
Spartakles, Link one is slightly smarmy anti Big ten link. I can read between the lines like any book of interest. At the end there I get the feeling they are trying to bait big ten fans and officials into taking them some Missouri before its all gone?!? Someone clearly wants to preserve the big east conference. Even if they have to dump on Rutgers to do so. Oh and Syracuse should be afraid to go along with those big Land Grant Midwestern Universities. They could get their feelings hurt by the big boys. Lol!
LikeLike
I thought article #1 was pretty good.
What this reinforces, in my view, is that there are not, and not been, any readily achieveable alternatives that satisfy all of the BT’s objectives.
I think the Big Ten took quite an academic hit in adding Neb. As others have documented the difference between Neb. and Iowa/Ind./MSU is very substantial. Not only is Neb. some 16000 smaller in enrollment than the smallest of the other BT’s public schools other than Iowa, its programs have achieved much less national recognition.
I’m not saying Neb. shouldn’t have been added–for a lot of reasons I think it was a good fit and a good addition…….but
the question now is “what next”?
Those who pine for Maryland would favor waiting until some outside force shakes the present structure so much that MD. would come running to the BT. Problem is, the SEC would most likely be that outside force, and its not going first.
I think the Ikenberry interview demonstrates that the BT presidents have been much less ambitious in their expansion schemes than the typical Frank blog poster. The only schools he mentioned were Mo., RU, Pitt., ND, and Syr.
How seious was MSU’s Simon when she said that academic considerations were the highest priority? Neb. may have been too good to pass up, but does Neb.’s addition affect what kind of schools are added next? If so, it would seem to bode well for RU and Pitt., and less well for Mo. But if Frank’s “smell test” is the real standard, Mo. remains very viable.
But Pitt and RU are clearly lesser athletic programs right now than Mo., with smaller fanbases. And Pitt is not the flagship state school that Ikenberry said the presidents prefer.
Unlike others here, I do think the BT will act again in a year or so. I think the big debate will be who comes along with RU–Mo. or Pitt. Pitt is the best academic fit available, Misery the best athletic fit. Syracuse always gets mentioned, but is generally mentioned last, for good reasons. Ii is not a good academic or athletic fit. Nor is it a good cultural or geographic fit. The article was correct in asserting that Syracuse belongs in the ACC, not BT, and that it would suck for the BT if Mo. ultinately winds up in the SEC.
LikeLike
I’m with you on the academic vs. athletic brand issue. It’s something that has been discussed from the beginning on this blog. What is the best balance? UNL was just too good of an athletic brand and had to be accepted. If Pitt were brought in before the 16th slot, then we know that academics prevailed over a new TV DMA, current athletic revenues and any other bennies in the athletic column.
The size and rep of Northwestern actually helps their peers get a serious look for membership. Anyone who saw the physical beat down that Stanford gave SC knows what coaching, recruiting & institutional support can do for a program.
LikeLike
Pitt is a lesser athletic brand than Missouri?
LikeLike
Definately. Bigger fanbase, bigger budget, in the 30s and 40s in the Director’s Cup, while Pitt is in the 90s.
LikeLike
dont know if this has been linked yet
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/06/22/so-what-happened/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
still can not figure out how this “undisclosed” cabal has gone unreported, as much as the press was on this story. You would think by now somebody would have some FOIA filed and we would know more by now.
LikeLike
I read on the one of the PSU websites two days ago that the Meadowlands is in talks with Texas and Penn State for a two year home-and-home series at the Meadowlands as a season kickoff game. I can’t remember what years were mentioned but it was in this decade (2010-2020).
LikeLike
That would be very cool. Although I’d put in the category of “I’ll believe it when I see it,” as it’s hard for me to see Texas scheduling two neutral site games (especially two which would essentially be home games for PSU) without getting a home game out of it.
(That being said, if the money’s right, apparently we’ll do anything.)
By the way, as a Texas fan, I have to ask if there’s any, um, historical reasoning behind your user name, or is it just the year you were born/graduated?
LikeLike
JoPas second undefeated team?
or the one he quoted on
“I’d like to know how could the president know so little about Watergate in 1973 and so much about college football in 1969?” – gotta love the guy!
🙂
LikeLike
He knew enough. 🙂
LikeLike
Paterno’s desire to go to Miami instead of Dallas in January lead to Notre Dame’s return from bowl hibernation. I can’t really blame him for choosing Miami and Missouri instead of Dallas and the Texas wishbone, but you can’t complain if you won’t play the game.
LikeLike
Perhaps a bit of perspective is needed. The decision on which bowl to attend was made before it was clear that it would be the de facto championship game.
To suggest Paterno was dodging Texas is simply untrue.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1989/11/11-18-89cm/11-18-89cm-09.asp
LikeLike
Good article C.
Reminds me of one thing the BCS is doing well. Teams are not tying themselves to bowls in mid-October.
LikeLike
I might reveal the answer in the next 12-18 months.
LikeLike
Shades of the old “Kickoff Classic”!
Still miss it.
LikeLike
Chip Brown had an interesting column on OB today arguing that IF ND ever decided to join a conference, the Big XII would be a serious candidate. After reading his reasons and considering his source(s) and the relationship that Swarbrick and Dodds have, it struck me on the athletic side as actually very reasonable. However, he made no mention of academics, which is a huge oversight in terms of a hypothetical ND conference affiliation.
And of course, the next shake-up may occur long after either or both Dodds and Swarbrick have moved on.
LikeLike
I’ve always thought that people calling for BT teams to stop playing ND was silly….but if ND decided to join some conference other than the Big 10 it would be a direct bitchslap, and would justify denying the ND its midwestern stage.
LikeLike
I’m not going to worry for one second that ND may somehow spurn the B10 to join their brothers in arms Kansas State, Okie State, Texas Tech…
LikeLike
I completely agree. Because of “institutional fit” If ND joins a conference (in football) other than The Big Ten, it would be the ACC.
One remote possibility I could see (and I’m talking less than 1%) would be the Pac-10. It works from an institutional fit, and clearly keeps ND from being labeled a Midwestern School, but I think distance and time zone works too far against it.
Another microscopically remote possibility would be a new conference of smaller private schools. Some grouping of schools based around Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, BC, Wake Forest, Rice, TCU, Stanford, Duke.
But I don’t see SEC or Big XII getting Notre Dame
LikeLike
@greg – I agree. What’s been made clear over the past few months is that ND’s stance is that independence is an identity issue as opposed to a financial one. There’s truly no combination of schools, geographic regions and TV contracts that will satisfy the ND alumni base to ever give up independence. They want to be independent for the sake of being independent. (I do believe ND’s administration has a different and less hardline stance on this issue.) It makes sense that ND wants to get games in the state of Texas on a regular basis (which they are doing in the “home game at a neutral site” model they’re currently using), but if ND fans express disdain at traveling to places like Madison and Iowa City in the Big Ten (which are really nice college towns), I could only imagine a conference slate that includes trips to Ames, Stillwater and Manhattan KS.
LikeLike
I don’t care if Swarbrick and Dodds take saunas together, the ND faculty would burn the place down before they allowed ND to go to the Big12.
That article is laughable, but since I like sharing a laugh, here’s the link.
http://www.kiowacountysignal.com/sports/x1314975732/Hogs-and-Irish-to-Big-12-more-than-a-dream
LikeLike
Reading the first paragraph of this link was like watching the first 3 minutes of Fox News.
LikeLike
Oh my God, that made my night.
LikeLike
a frog take on the Longhorn Conference
http://www.killerfrogs.com/msgboard/index.php?showtopic=117142
enjoy
LikeLike
I don’t care who you are…that right there is funny.
LikeLike
Funny stuff…….sounds like that guy might have had an interesting life……..
LikeLike
Funny stuff duffman. I don’t know if this guys trying to get into college or into someones pants.
LikeLike
StvInILL,
my college experience was mostly about getting into someone’s pants (or at least getting said pants, bra, undies, etc off said person or persons) so it seems like a moot point.
I think Jimmy Buffet said something about going off to college to gain a little knowledge, but all you want to do is learn how to score.
🙂
LikeLike
It occurred to me there are a couple of other winners and losers. With the Big 12-2 going to 9 conference games, Pac 10+2 likely staying at 9 and Big 10+1+1 seriously considering 9 games, the SEC comes out a big winner. The cost of their money games will go down. That escalating cost was a factor in everyone’s decision to go to 9. The SEC will benefit from the decisions of the early adopters. The have-nots who use the money games to fund their departments will be the losers.
LikeLike
reportedly the Big Ten is still split on whether to go to 9 conference games. saw Michigan and I bleieve Illinois were in favor while Ohio State and one other were definitely oppossed.
LikeLike
@Hank – I believe JoePa has said that PSU wants to have seasons with 8 home games as much as possible, so that’s a school that’s likely opposed to the extra conference game.
LikeLike
yea I have a feeling there is a big consituency for the 8 conference game/more home game approach. but I’d rather give up that half a home game to avoid mid season games against Delaware State.
LikeLike
This trend is killing me. Eight home games? Whatever happened to fairness in college sports? The NCAA needs to mandate a balanced schedule.
LikeLike
I agree with you Loki. So you are a big program. You schedule 8 home games with three cupcakes that will never see your rich @ss in their stadium. You pummel those guys and go into conference play 4-0 or 3-1 ranked in the top 25 based on your wealth and advantaged situation.
LikeLike
if that happens Loki I guarantee that the major conferences go to more conference games. if you have to accept more road games might as well do them in conference or with another major conference where you can get larger attendance. The Michigan, Alabamas and USCs of the world aren’t travelling to TCU regardless of a rule limiting home games. so all it does is cut those schools out of potential pay days.
LikeLike
Well hank, that’s why there are neutral sites. Someplace large but somewhere in between that is not specifically a home venue.
LikeLike
just don’t see it happening Steve. and would the NCAA be satisfied with an obvious effort to circumvent the spirit of such a ruling? I doubt they require balanced schedule in any event.
fwiw I would rather see a move to more home and homes with similar level opponents. It was not that long ago that most Big Ten schedules routinely included 2 of 3 nonconference games as home and homes with BCS level conferences.
LikeLike
@loki:
You might be pleased to know that the nine game conference schedule of the Big 12-2 will almost certainly mean that Texas will only play six games in Austin a year, since a “home” game is lost to Dallas every other year and since Texas always plays at least one OOC away from Austin (or at least Texas has as long as I have followed them, and future OOC schedules, though now subject to change, seem to indicate this pattern continuing).
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn
Texas will find a way to play one OOC away every other year. And it will probably be at Rice…
LikeLike
FWIW
USA!! USA!! USA!!
no thanks to the FIFA refs, but we survive and advance!
LikeLike
@duffman – Incredible goal!
Agreed about the FIFA refs – they’re right up there with NBA and Big Ten/Michigan football refs.
LikeLike
hey hey steady now with that Michigan ref stuff. are you an Illini fan or a BWI poster?
LikeLike
Obviously, he’s seen a Michigan game. That’s all the requisite information that someone needs to make that statement.
LikeLike
alias noted
LikeLike
hank,
watching IU football last season, I have a beef with the refs. Especially two games in particular! If you were watching the games, the FIFA guys were less obvious than the Big 10 refs.
LikeLike
duff, everyone has ref horror stories. as a Michigan fan we have our fair share as well. but they just happen. they happen to everyone. I don’t buy conpiracy theories.
LikeLike
@Hank – Illinois-Michigan 2000: The Reason Why the Big Ten Instituted Instant Replay Reviews
LikeLike
everyone has horror stories
LikeLike
@hank – True, but I will say in that particular case, the mistakes were so egregious that the Big Ten took the step of publicly apologizing for the blown calls and saying that they were wrong:
http://a.espncdn.com/abcsports/bcs/s/2000/0925/777481.html
LikeLike
well Frank the Big Ten never apologized to Michigan for the Spartan Bob incident even though they responded by changing the rules.
so are you saying Big Ten refs are biased in favor of Michigan?
LikeLike
if he’s not, he should be.
LikeLike
W/out reading the thread, I fully agree w/ Hank.
LikeLike
@Hank, the whole sequence before the Spartan Bob moment, was really the problem that refs blew. State would have had a timeout available if the refs had not been so confused when Blue tried playing with 12 men on defense. While they sorted it out, a timeout was charged to State. Blue sealed their fate when they pulled Charles Rogers down by the face mask to the ground at the line of scrimmage on a previous 4th down play.
LikeLike
Other events that transpired influenced the Big Ten’s decision to adopt instant replay, and then further refereeing caused the change to allow calls to be made by the coach at the risk of a timeout.
The influence of Joe chasing down a couple of shitty refs (natch, Michigan Man Dick Honig)
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2002/10/10-19-02cm/10-19-02dsports-15.asp
“This lack of input as to who calls games is one of the primary concerns voiced in Penn State’s complaint. The officiating crew that worked the Michigan game was the same group as last season, a game that featured disputed calls that went against Penn State. Three of those refs live in Michigan and all spoke with Honig, an Ann Arbor resident, following Paterno’s chase-down. This differs greatly from the NFL policy of preventing referees to work games in their hometowns and also sets limits on the number of a team’s games an official can work in a single season.
“Having three Michigan natives call a Wolverines game stands in sharp contrast to the case of Bob Bassett, one of the three officials that live in Pennsylvania and a former Lion who has never worked a Penn State game.
LikeLike
Frank,
I had both games on. It was a going nuts because it looked like Slovenia was going to get that goal in the second half and come out with a tie, which would have made me more comfortable with a tie with Algeria. After that they just ran out of gas, so England had them for the last 10 – 15 min. After England won, I was like can it get any worse. Then we got the goal and I am still buzzing. It was a hard game to watch tho, between the refs and several near misses the US was driving me crazy.
LikeLike
FWIW, Shatel’s lawyering contacts say Nebraska will likely not have to pay the fees.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100622/BIGRED01/100629859
LikeLike
Oh, those mean old Texans trying to take corn out of the mouths of good huskers. Now they’ll be able to feed their chillins and maybe expand the stadium. ;- )
LikeLike
Check out Oklahoma’s president confirming that OU and Texas A&M had invites from the SEC:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gOHeEEDI8W17vnrqoAhPEAcrDnyAD9GH3MO00
We’ll see if they rue the decision to stick with the Big IIX in 5 years.
LikeLike
frank,
not sure if it is spin or not, as it is not confirmed by the SEC camp. Interesting tho as it would confirm that the SEC was happy to have A&M by itself, and they did not want oSu.
the more I study it tho, it seems like Va Tech would be best team to add if/when the SEC gets A&M.
Both are southern
Both add new markets
Both are CoC
Both would bolster academics
Both are good schools forced to reside in shadows (UT & UVA)
LikeLike
You are correct Duffman but strategically taking two additional teams from the Big 12 further destabilizes that conference. Seeming these Big 12 and Texas teams do not like to leave the next alone. So maybe that is another factor. A destabilized Big 12 may channel Texas to the SEC in the end.
LikeLike
yes, but an acc raid opens the Big 10 northern strike.
🙂
and so far we know texas does not play well with others and is a conference destroyer.
😉
LikeLike
@Frank,
I was just getting ready to alert everyone to this…I was extremely surprised to see this comment and wanted your take.
FWIW, I believe that this “safety” net is exactly what kept A&M and OU in the Big 12. They now believe they can go “where ever” and the only reason they stayed was because Texas stated we’ll make it worth your while.
But if things (money) don’t materialize the way Beebe predicted, well, things will start to deteriorate very quickly in the midwest…
LikeLike
The SEC option certainly gives OU and aTm more options and thus more leverage during the next round of expansion.
These offers also emphasis UT’s relative position of weakness in the next round of expansion. Unless UT really wants to be an independent or it wants to be the only major player in a conference of secondary schools, UT will have to seriously consider joining one of the three existing major conferences. With the Utah addition to the Pac, the new Pac 12 can only offer admission to 4 schools (assuming we are going to conferences of 16).
This means if UT wants to get into the Pac it can only bring 3 friends along. Maybe UT, along with OU, aTm and Tech. But this leaves a oSu problem for OU.
But it looks like the reality of the situation is that aTm and possibly OU will bolt for the SEC if the Big Lite doesn’t’ work out. This leaves fewer ‘friendly’ schools for UT to bring along with them to the Pac.
It seems to me that the Big XII Lite must work for UT or it’s palatable options become slimmed down.
LikeLike
did not see this coming..
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/409937-sec-attackstake-tcu-and-stick-a-fork-in-the-big-12s-eye
the biggest stones in texas may belong to… frogs!?!?
LikeLike
A convincing argument to add TCU to the SEC. I think they sold me. But how would the culture at TCU mix with the SEC? To me this only works well for all if they can become a consistent middle of the pack and not a perennial 3 division performer.
LikeLike
This is brilliant. I live in Fort Worth and can attest that it would be an easy fit with the SEC West. This is such an obvious win, I can’t believe it hasn’t gotten more play prior to this. What a win, win (and “blow me” to the Big IIX/UTen/Texas Ten).
LikeLike
Sharing the market with Texas Tech, UT, and most importantly, the Dallas Cowboys, I’m just not sure that the local demographic cares enough to pack the stadium every week. I do think TCU could become a Miami(FL)-like team, but if they aren’t a top team in the SEC, this seems very unlikely.
LikeLike
Art, I’d respectfully disagree. Fort Worth has no love for Texas Tech or most anything Dallas (FWIW, the Cowboys are in Arlington, Texas, Tarrant (FW) County – not Dallas County). FW is the 17th larges US city (by population) with tons of money and industry on its own (world headquarters to American Airlines, Pier 1, Lockheed Martin, among others), and I believe the chance to further differentiate itself from Dallas would be enjoyed by many, and not just as a dig on Dallas (not a lot of love between the two).
If you believe this is about the SEC getting a grab into a rich recruiting state and obtaining yet another quality football team, it’s a brilliant grab. The SEC has enough flagships, so it matters less that TCU is smaller than Baylor and doesn’t matter to Houston. There’s not a stadium in America that won’t fill when Bama And Florida come calling. UT is the only Texas university that commands cache in the total Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio and elsewhere, which is why it’s so unique. TCU doesn’t need to be important in Houston. Simply entering the 5th largest media market alone (D/FW) still is a very attractive proposition.
The logic of grabbing TCU for the SEC really isn’t any most preposterous (all things considered) than the Big Ten looking at Rutgers. The biggest question IMO (and a very uncertain one) is whether TCU would jump at the opportunity with the risk of sinking out of its current Top 10 status.
LikeLike
BTJ-You clearly understand Ft. Worth and Dallas. The point is that TCU really just brings Ft. Worth-Tarrant County-about 1 million people. And then they are 3rd in Tarrant County behind UT and A&M. Not sure how important Tech is. They clearly have a lot of alumni, but you don’t hear much about them.
And I think the comparison is Baylor, not Rutgers. Rutgers is at least #1 in their state.
And I don’t think UF and Alabama fill any stadium. UT/Rice games in Houston have consistently drawn anywhere from 45-55k with a slightly more than 50% UT crowd in stadiums that seated 65-70k. UT didn’t fill the Cotton Bowl vs. SMU once the Cowboys came to town(65k capacity). Florida and Alabama aren’t going to fill a college stadium in what is a pro sports market.
LikeLike
Bullet, you make sense and may (or may not) be right, but as a strategy, I’ve heard a lot worse. In some things, supply creates demand, and I believe this is one of them.
Moreso, I’m frankly surprised by the news that the SEC could have had UT/TAMU/OSU/OU and turned it down. I find it hard to believe any better combination exists or plants seeds for them with respect to the future.
LikeLike
bullet and B10J,
here is my question to both of you.
how would texas the state view a move by A&M and TCU to the SEC?
as a follow up what market would each school bring?
My point being if the SEC went to 16 by taking TCU and A&M in the west and Va Tech and NC State in the east could they bring enough to the table to make such a move make sense from a financial place.
(ie, franks 11+1= 13 argument)
LikeLike
I don’t think the 11+1=13 paradigm applies as much to the SEC, which currently makes its money on network contracts instead of a conference owned network. The SEC’s value to networks is is ensuring their dominance as a football power; thus entry into Texas recruiting seemingly would bode well for that strategy.
TCU’s value thus would be in allowing a portal of entry for SEC recruitment first, as well as setting up an eternal cinderella story in the SEC, which makes for good tv. Plus they’ve been a damn good team this decade, with a good overall commitment to athletics (see the baseball team’s current success).
I think the State of Texas would be well served. UT has to stop being threatened by anyone else in the state gaining prominence; there’s more than enough recruits, and wouldn’t the state benefit by having multiple powers?
LikeLike
Duffman, think how preposterous UT’s life is. They have Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, Houston, and Austin (all top 25 population cities) without any of the multiple FBS schools in Texas really challenging that dominance. It’s not much of a stretch to say a successful TCU in the SEC could siphon off at least its home market of D/FW (Dallas #9 market, FW #17 market; combined #5 market), although Dallas might be a stretch given Dallas/Fort Worth dynamics and the Cowboys mindset.
As Texans might say, this state is big enough for more than one rodeo (Did I just say that? Get me back on a plane to Chicago, quick).
LikeLike
Texas the state wouldn’t care whether A&M and TCU went to the SEC or stayed where they are.
As discussed, TCU doesn’t bring a whole lot, only a distant third in one part of the DFW metroplex.
A&M is one of the 10 largest schools in the country. They are a solid 2nd just about everywhere but Austin and San Antonio. They were invisible in SA 20 years ago, but their student body has grown enough, they now have some presence there. So A&M brings virtually the whole state, just not as much of it as UT.
If the SEC were to take a gamble on a school, Houston would be a better bet than TCU. They have had more success historically, cover all of Houston, not just a part and with over 30,000 students have a big alumni base. So they have more upside. But why should the SEC take a gamble? They won’t.
LikeLike
TCU’s 35k attendance will fit right in.
LikeLike
35K, 100K does it really matter if they 1) pack their stadium with people rooting against Bema, LSU and Florida? 2) Win! In a football crazed state like Texas or any other state, winning is their strongest pillar of success.
LikeLike
35,000 people or 100,000 people doesn’t matter?
Huh?
LikeLike
Baylor was the 3rd or 4th best program in the SWC. They have outdrawn TCU 11 of the 14 years since the SWC broke up. We all know where Baylor is now. I believe TCU’s coach implied he was happy where he was. He knows that TCU would be another Baylor in P10/B12/SEC. Maybe not in year 1, but in the long run it would crush the football program.
TCU is a small school, smaller than any BCS school except Wake Forest. Smaller than anyone else except Tulsa, Rice and the military academies. They’re #3 in Ft. Worth and probably not in the top 5 in Dallas. They might as well be Washington St. for all the interest they generate in Houston.
If they have trouble filling their stadium when they are unbeaten and ranked in the top 10, they aren’t going to do any better in SEC. Another Bleacher report article without any understanding of what they are writing about.
LikeLike
greg,
vandy is a small private as well with similar size stadium, to Vandy’s credit they have academics and good men’s and women’s basketball (my argument for opposites in conference play – so BAMA has good football , and UK has good basketball.
A&M has strong track and field, and equestrian which fits well with Arkansas (track) and SEC (equestrian). What would TCU bring in academics or secondary sports. Baseball is HUGE in the SEC and TCU has done well in this years college world series. In the Big 10 IU had basketball, and Michigan had football so it balanced bragging rights in a way.
LikeLike
If you think the Big 12 is stronger without Nebraska…
LikeLike
Careful now. If you don’t accept the as currently amended Texas version of events, Hopkins will pull out the dreaded “hater card”. I think you get a whole deck of them free with an Orangebloods subscription.
LikeLike
I’m not arguing that it’s stronger. I’m arguing that it’s pretty much a wash, at least for Texas and OU. For schools like KU and KSU, it did in fact just become a noticeably more difficult conference.
LikeLike
That’s because Kansas State has been so much more successful against Nebraska lately compared to Texas. You could look it up.
LikeLike
Well considering KSU’s 4-2 record against UT since the B12 was founded and UNL’s 1-8 record, maybe it got easier for UT?
LikeLike
I would agree, it got easier for UT. It’s not as though Nebraska hasn’t been competitive with Texas, even through the worst of the post-Osborne down cycle. At the same time, the idea that Texas and Oklahoma are going to waltz through the remaining competition to a date at Jerryworld is wildly optimistic. But that’s what is going to be required of them. No chink in the armor in a weakened conference is going to get them into position for an NC shot.
LikeLike
LikeLike
^@HH^
LikeLike
Oh, I knew it was directed at me. Something about telling a lie rather than merely having a difference of opinion, I’m gathering.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s weak. I couldn’t find a more appropriate clip.
LikeLike
Yee haw, how ’bout them Horned Frogs! Into the Final Four, are they this year’s Fresno State, the team of destiny? The longest tennis game every played and our soccer team beat the refs, what a day.
LikeLike
some people are just nosy…
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/D2/20100624/NEWS09/6240359/Grassley-Harkin-ask-for-Big-Ten-expansion-details
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/D2/20100624/NEWS03/6240348/Hansen-U-of-I-president-s-vote-on-Nebraska-seen-as-proper
raise you right hand…
how many people on this blog are here to talk about the past?
LikeLike
This is actually going to be a real problem and ironically its going to be a problem for the states that have been trying to do the right thing.
For a long time, northern and mid-western states have sunk large amounts of money into public universities and those schools have each developed their own sports programs. Conferences were a natural outcome of trying to create regional interest in the schools by establishing rivalries and competition between regional competitors.
The problem came in that some states ended up having 2 (or more) top level sports schools in states where the population barely supported one. And conferences, chasing better tv contract dollars, better national interest & greater regional diversity, have tried expanding the conference footprint as far as possible.
Fact is a school like Iowa St, while excellent academically, doesn’t really (and has never) been a large draw from an athletics stand-point. As a member of just about any conference its going to be an anchor, as opposed to helping raise the average (the BigTen IMO might be a slightly different take due to the CIC, but I speak mainly to athletics here). Why exactly is it that Iowa St still plays, and spends the money to support, football at the highest level? Last I checked, plenty of (good) schools don’t play at that level, or take part in conferences more commensurate with their historic success.
I guess my point is, we’re quickly reaching a point where the “big boys” of the collegiate landscape are getting tired of dragging along “the smaller brother” of their state university system and vested interests of the “left behinds” are trying to maintain the status quo (even if that means they continue to be doormats for the rest of the league).
Personally there IS a very good way to help level the playing field…start putting certain stipulations on athletic activities. The highest paid sports coach can’t make more than X% more than the lowest or coaches cannot be paid more than X% more than academic staff of equal tenure, etc. Sports dedicated infrastructure can only be constructed/donated via approved methods…
Of course this will never happen. Those kind of ideas might actually help the folks below and just might hurt the folks above, but then again why improve collegiate sports when you can maintain the status quo?
LikeLike
Is it me or would you think Harkin and Grasley would be as quiet as two church mice if Iowa state was invited into the Big Ten along with Nebraska?
After wich they would settle in next to Indiana’s football team for the 12th or 13th spot in the conference.
LikeLike
So were the Senators reading this blog, or were several posters prescient of what was coming regarding tax exempt status?
As much as I hate what could have happened to Iowa State, I really dislike their letter. It was clearly nothing but an intimidation tactic asking for things that were none of their business. It was government acting as a mobster.
And I disagree about ISU needing to step down. Yes, there are the #2 school in a small state, but they have twice come w/i 1 win of winning the B12North and averaged 47k in attendance over the last 4 years, 46th in the country, one spot behind Maryland. And that’s better than nearly 1/3 of the BCS autobid schools. They have outdrawn Minnesota and Illinois occassionally and almost always outdraw Indiana and Northwestern.
LikeLike
I don’t advocate any particular school stepping down (and actually I think Iowa St, due to its reliance on top notch academics, is one less likely to step aside because it has strong alumni support), but I think the facts concerning the escalating “arms race” in college football are making it harder and harder for the big time conferences to justify keeping, let alone adding, smaller schools that only bring “marginal” viewership.
My point still stands, if people (Congress) want to show their “concern for the smaller schools” and look into tax exempt status, stop the further monetization of the collegiate landscape and enact rules to help level the playing field.
Lower the scholarship #’s.
Eliminate over signing.
Find ways to normalize coaches salaries.
etc…
Don’t just talk about fair then push an agenda that only inside your constituency.
LikeLike
Bullet,
I won’t knock your pros on ISU. I would add though that the MAC is a good football league/conference. No one objects to their existence but all acknowledge that they are a step below your top 50 football programs with the occasional acceptation. This is the direction Iowa State should look to in the future if they cannot fund this program like the middle of their conference does.
About having out drawn Illinois and Minnesota occasionally? The University of Minnesota dwells with a twin city metropolis that offers a lot more than just university extra-curricular activities. It’s a pro town for goodness sakes. Illinois (Champaign Urbana) while not as big a twin city has a student population around 38,000 many of which will find other things to do if they don’t feel the football team is worth supporting. Mind you the team has to be pretty bad for them to go that route and it has been for half of the past decade but there was a Rose Bowl during that time.
Northwestern has the smallest student population in the conference and it is definitely located right next door to a Pro town (Chicago) with many other distractions. No excuses for Indiana besides they have not been legitimately close to a Big ten championship since 1993 and before that 1979 and before that, pay dirt in (Rose Bowl)1967.
Iowa State in a separate conference from the University of Iowa should own enough of Iowa to fill the stadium as the only game in town type of team with Nebraska, Texas, Colorado, Missouri, Texas A&M and Oklahoma coming in this only adds an exclamation to their little sister complex.
LikeLike
So since their fans aren’t interested Minnesota and Illinois should step down to the MAC? Ohio St., Michigan and Penn St. play such boring football you can’t expect anyone to show up in Champaign or the Twin Cities when they come to town.
The best drawing MAC schools draw half of what ISU (and Minnesota and Illinois) do. Almost all are commuter schools that don’t have significant fan support. And probably have ticket prices significantly below the B10 and B12 prices.
LikeLike
Bullet,
The dynamics are simply different in Minneapolis and Evanston/Chicago. More so in Chicago.
Minneapolis/ St.Paul have 3 pro teams that people support in addition to the gophers. There are many restaurants and tourist attraction in addition to the gophers which is a public school. NU is a private school with a smallest student body in the big ten next door to Chicago which has the bears, Blackhawks, cubs, wolfs White sox. 3 other universities to support, UIC, Loyola, DePaul as well as the University of Illinois downstate and Notre Dame. There are restaurants and nightclubs galore and entertainment like amusement parks and the lakefront and large city parks. There are also great museums and music here. There is just no comparison in the other distractions between aims and Chicago and Minneapolis.
When I suggest that Iowa State should join the MAC it may feel like it but its not meant to be an insult. I respect the MAC . We realize that the MAC though is the younger brother to the Big Ten which will always be thus. It would be insult though to suggest that Northwestern join the MAC or Minnesota join the MAC. Both are charter members of the Big Ten conference. NU is THE academic anchor of the conference and Minnesota has significant historical contributions to the Big Ten Conference. They were the Michigan of yester year in football and compete well in other sports and is the states only flagship university . By comparison Illinois would not surprise you by being Big ten champions and 3rd division finishers in any five year period.
For Iowa State I believe they are too complacent being arguably the least significant team/school of the conference. They might just as well be a perennial contender in the MAC or Big East in football. No slight intended.
LikeLike
@Bullet: You’re partially right about the MAC. Ticket prices are significantly cheaper and the crowds/fan support significantly smaller.
They’re not mostly commuter schools, though. Ball State, NIU, CMU, WMU, Miami U, Ohio U, Bowling Green, and Buffalo are all true residential campuses; all but U Buffalo are in communities far too small to support commuter schools with enrollments in the 18K-22K range.
LikeLike
@StvinIll
I understand your attendance point. I just don’t understand why ISU should be held to a HIGHER standard because its in a small town in a small state with a student population 1/2 to 2/3 of Minnesota and Illinois. And ISU was an early member of the Missouri Valley conference a hundred years ago(probably a charter member)and then a charter member of what became the Big 8.
LikeLike
@Bullet,
No worries mate. To be honest my thoughts were more fraternal than antagonistic. I don’t know how long you have been on this blog but when the moves were hot and heavy and it looked like the Big XII was done, it seemed like Poor ISU would be in a quandary. And I did feel bad for ISU. Then things were on again but with Texas holding more of the cards than they did before over ISU, KSU, KS and Mizzu. Of the four Mizzu had the strongest card to play for new conference membership. And ISU had the weakest individually.
My thoughts were that it would have been better for ISU to go to the MAC or Big East and get out from under a bad situation in to a possibly brighter one than to continue its current path in the Big XII. ISU seemingly wields no power in the Big XII. A new conference could have been a new beginning.
In the case of the MAC, ISU could be a perennial conference contender. Unless something changes, for ISU rather drastically, nothing will change. But if ISU fans are happy where they are at, who am I to question? I thought I was giving some perspective from outside the Big XII bubble.
LikeLike
I’m not an ISU fan. I’m just arguing that they deserve better than death in the MAC. They belong in a BCS conference as much as half the current 66 schools do. Unfortunately for them, they are in a bad geographic position. B10 and B12 are only reasonable options for them. The BE,CUSA and MWC aren’t very good georgraphically were the B12 to fall apart, only the MAC, which might not be around (at least in FBS) in 10 years if the spending continues on its current trajectory.
LikeLike
bullet,
i brought this stuff up early on, and made several posts a few days before the “cabal” bailed out the Longhorn Conference. If I could figure this out I feel sure somebody with more $$ or grey matter could to. I said I knew this part pretty well and knew there was some serious issues here. I felt early on media $$ and political $$ was going to have a say here. I am still amazed more FOIA forms have not been falling like snow, especially after the ESPN report.
Congress has some real power if they go after the tax exempt status, and there is enough “hazy” issues in “donations” that a person in law enforcement could not give me a straight answer. The economy is tight, athletics have been “harvesting” for too long, and the “live” audience folks are getting older. You have a real storm on the horizon. I am the go to the event and see it live group, but many around me that are younger are the stay at home and watch TV crowd. A fan that clicks a switch is probably less valuable than one who will travel in good and bad times. It will be interesting to see the future.
LikeLike
StvInILL,
Think you misspoke. The Big Ten is the little brother to the MAC.
LikeLike
Whatever MAC. Much respects to the MAC in any case.Seeya in pre season. 🙂
LikeLike
Someone made the analogy of Reagan spending the Soviet Union into oblivion. The little guys are holding on, but even some of the “big boys” like Nebraska have cut sports in recent years. The little guys don’t have many more men’s olympic sports to cut.
LikeLike
Question for the masses—-are their any limits to Congress’ ability to investigate such matters? (other than 5th adm. crim. protections) In other words, is Congress free to subpeona the financial records of non-profits at any time, for any reason? Or at some point can private citizens or organizations say “f*** off”?
LikeLike
I believe if they get approval from a committee they don’t have many limits. Individual congressmen can’t, but their committees can.
LikeLike
From a State run university, i believe that the sky is the limit. There is legitimate reasoning for wanting to know how the public’s money is being spent given that the mission of a public university should be wholly or in large part to educate the public, who pay taxes.
LikeLike
If they take money from the feds then the feds can pretty much do as they wish.
LikeLike
@sparkles78: I saw the link was from the Asheville (NC) Citizen-Times. Just curious: Are you from there or do you live nearby there? I grew up in Greenville, SC and went to Appalachian State, both of which are just over an hour from A-ville. It’s a fun, beautiful little city.
RE: Iowa State and the MAC… I mean no disrespect to the MAC, but I think it’s unfair to suggest ISU should look into joining that league. Any member of the MAC would join the Big 12 or Big Ten in a heartbeat, not the other way around, and no other MAC member would fault them for it. Iowa State just has to fight to protect its interests as best as possible.
LikeLike
@ Michael in Indy…no I live on the left coast, just happen to run across this link while looking for something else. With family all over, I’m sure to have some distant relatives in the Carolina’s.
re: the Mac It has always been a nice conference that fits a great niche. Unfortunately, here in California, a number of CSU schools have dropped football which leads to Fresno St.; San Diego St. & Sac St. belonging to Western Hemisphere locales. UC Davis plays in 2 different conferences. High school football is very good in this state. There are a lot of kids who could play in the MAC but are stuck going to Community College and have to hope to transfer such as Seneca Wallace did to Iowa State.
LikeLike
I thought Central Michigan (along with Cincy) were the two most exciting (Midwestern) teams to watch last year. Hopefully LeFevour can translate into an NFL player.
LikeLike
On spending in college athletics’. If they are not graduating 75 % then I really don’t see why they get to spend so much. It’s funny that at the schools that you would expect a higher dropout rate because of the high quality academics, they have way better graduation rates.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/rice/7058500.html
LikeLike
IMO its because they understand and enforce the idea that “student” comes before “athlete” in “student-athlete”. If they don’t think you can make the grade they (for the most part) don’t recruit you (and lets be honest, even the “good” schools have their fair share of “basket-weaving” majors for the athletes).
Something interesting I stumbled on regarding this topic…http://stanford.scout.com/2/827873.html
LikeLike
@PSUguy
That’s a great study there from your link. I see that 67% is kinda the watermark. That still is not good enough in my book. And all the schools that are sub 60% should not be eligible for bowls or NCCA basket ball competition. I think doing this would make them take seriously the process of graduating student athletes.
Even the phys Ed and Sociology majors should be graduating. In some really high profile basketball programs where the best athletes’ do one or two years just to showcase for the NBA, they must really hurt the numbers of the university.
Then again one can argue that state universities who give out these scholarships should expect a better effort from the recipients of these scholarships. I would be on board with that one. 4 years and a C/2.0 and a degree for someone who came from a poor performing high school is much more respectable an effort than 2 years and a # 1 draft in the NBA.
LikeLike
This is the most current version of the Stanford analysis:
http://stanford.scout.com/2/952555.html
LikeLike
Maryland’s AD, Yow, is on the verge of accepting a position at NC State per FoxSports.com
“@goodmanonfox: Source has told FOXSports.com that Maryland AD Debbie Yow on the verge of leaving for N.C. State. ” via twitter
Maryland’s long time AD and anti-Big 10 mouthpiece suddenly is looking for a new job. Curious.
LikeLike
Link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5325697
LikeLike
Well, a lot of people have been speculating for months now that she wanted another job in the ACC as AD so that was another reason for her to maintain as strong a denial of interest as possible for Maryland as per the Big Ten.
Still, I don’t get this move; it seems at best a sideways step unless she’s looking for another challenge or to fulfill her sister’s legacy or something like that. Maryland to me seems like the better job (larger enrollment, dominates state as opposed to a distant 3rd draw in a large state, I would guess it has a larger athletic budget), but I guess you never know what the other considerations are.
LikeLike
There are rumors (nothing substantiated) that Connecticut athletic director Jeff Hathaway, a Maryland alum who spent several years in the Terrapin athletic department, could be her successor. Not sure how that would affect Maryland’s chances of going to the Big Ten (a lot will ride on who succeeds C.D. Mote as president of the College Park campus), but it would certainly please Brenda Frese to have an AD who was behind the building of the evil empire of women’s basketball. And for Hathaway’s part, he’d probably be happy being at a place where the men’s and women’s national title-winning basketball coaches get along.
Of course, part of me also hopes that Yow (whose work I respected) has been told by higher-ups that Maryland would accept a Big Ten bid if offered, and so is moving on to remain in her ACC comfort zone. (Has there ever been a female AD of an entire Big Ten program? I believe schools such as Iowa have had separate men’s and women’s athletic departments, but I don’t recall a woman overseeing men’s sports in the conference.)
LikeLike
Merrily Dean Baker from ’92-’95 was @MSU
LikeLike
gopher,
not really.
her sister coached there and was beloved by all. died of breast cancer. debbie was the UK women’s coach back in the late 70’s and early 80’s when they had a good team.
makes me wonder tho
*puts on tinfoil hat*
could it be foreshadowing of NC state to SEC
*takes off tinfoil hat*
LikeLike
Bohl’s article on Scott. Scott says he’s not sure why there isn’t a Pac 16-yet.
http://www.statesman.com/sports/pac-10s-scott-is-a-commissioner-on-the-765651.html
LikeLike
NBA draft-5 Kentucky players in 1st round-4 freshmen and a junior. Looks like only one B10 player-Turner. Since basketball doesn’t matter, I guess it doesn’t hurt the B12-2 that much that they led with 7 draftees (even Iowa State and Baylor had 1st rounders). UK & SEC-5, ACC-5, BE-4.
LikeLike
That’s because they’re all staying at Michigan State to win a National Championship for Izzo next year.
LikeLike
GLS,
as a basketball guy it does matter. the big 10 is a football conference (as evidenced by taking UNL over KU) and will continue to be that way. While I am quite happy to have Izzo stay, and have someone get IU back on track. I still feel like a minority voice in the Big 10 conversation. History just sometimes is what it is. Case and Wooden were both Indiana guys and the Big 10 let them get out of the conference. Most folks know what Wooden did at UCLA, but folks forget that if Case had not gone to the ACC there would be no “tobacco road” today.
bullet is correct in the observation about the draft, as it screams don’t go to the Big 10 if you want to go pro. I know I am a bit cranky here but the Big 10 does not have a Big 4 in basketball the way they do in football (tOSU, UM, PSU, and UNL) and as a basketball guy it is frustrating. How can the Big 10 get one out of 30! Especially when the other major conferences averaged about 5 each! sorry to be the fly in the ointment but it is frustrating.
LikeLike
Actually, Case’s arrival at N.C. State came several years before the ACC. Under Case, State won a number of titles in the Southern Conference; ironically, the ACC was really founded for football purposes.
Case played a major role in making North Carolina a college basketball-crazy state, as UNC responded to his success by hiring Frank McGuire and Wake Forest brought in Bones McKinney.
LikeLike
vincent,
agreed that is why it is frustrating.
folks now think the ACC and its predecessors were always the home of college basketball. the real history is in the indiana / kentucky corridor.
LikeLike
Don’t forget Phog Allen in Kansas who tutored Adolph Rupp-the long time UK coach.
Surrounded by Kansas, Kentucky and Indiana, Missouri underperforms in basketball also.
LikeLike
@duffman – I’m a hoops guy at heart (which partially explains why I like Syracuse as a Big Ten candidate a lot more than some others), so I didn’t like seeing the Big Ten coming up so short in last night’s draft. That being said, the talent is going to cycle back to the Big Ten next year. Michigan State and Purdue have their lineups largely intact and Illinois is adding a great recruiting class on top of all 4 of their top scorers coming back.
Part of the Big Ten’s perception problem is tied to Indiana’s issues over the past several seasons. We’ve seen the SEC and Pac-10 struggle with perception problems recently when Kentucky and UCLA have been down, so it’s not necessarily a Big Ten issue. Outside of the ACC and Big East, it is very cyclical as to how strong the leagues are in any given year.
On the flip side, Ohio State has really become a consistently top tier basketball program and is a model for leveraging football revenue into pulling up the basketball side. Texas and Florida are two other good examples of this. Hopefully, Nebraska can take notes with their new basketball arena.
LikeLike
In rating conferences, a few schools can make a big difference.
Most importantly, when (and I think its a “when”) Crean turns around IU, the Big 10 will look much better. I don’t think Beilein is going to get the job done at Michigan, so that’s another glamor program that off its game.
And the “football schools” need to take basketball a little more seriously. At least as seriously as they take volleyball.
Penn State needs to look at what Bo Ryan’s done at Wisconsin (a state with a lot less hoops talent than Pa.) and decide whether DeChellis — who has improved the program a lot — is ever going to get PSU into at least occasional contention for the conference title. They had an elite point guard and were horrible this season. No excuse for that.
Nebraska has to hire a coach who knows his way around the courts of Chicago and LA, get the three-stars and coach them up (like Ryan or, say, Brian Kelly at UC in football).
A couple of turnarounds combined with continued excellence at OSU and MSU will return the Big 10 to the top of the heap.
LikeLike
Agree Mike. In public perception, top 3 or 4 teams are what matter. ACC got underrated during FSU dominance era because noone else challenged them. SEC got underrated in bb during late 80s and 90s when a lot of schools were really improving, because it was still viewed as UK + some other teams. The top 25 are what drive public perception.
LikeLike
Duffman, who cares, obviously you do butsending a bunch of freshman and sophmores to the NBA may be the mission of the Big East or KU or the memphis of the world. I dont think Big Ten schools aspire to such low graduation rates. If your the one guy in the next ten years type talent (Majic Johnson), then you have my blessings.
I kinda like the fact that even Iseah Thomas left early and came back to get his degree while still in the NBA.
LikeLike
StvInILL,
not quite true as Greg Oden at tOSU showed the Big 10 is just as vulnerable to “one and dones” as anybody else. UK and KU just had their first one and dones this season (for those that did not know, Oden played his HS ball in Indy for the wildcats – ironic in that he neither went to IU or UK for college). Bobby went to tOSU, but at least came home to coach at IU in the Big 10. His big apprentice (coach k) wound up at Duke, but suppose he had landed at Purdue instead (yeah as an Indiana guy these thoughts occur 🙂 ).
frank,
I know you want the cuse, because there will be two orange teams in the Big 10. 😉 I agree with your cycle argument, but even in up basketball years for the Big 10 they usually only have 1 or 2 teams to watch (on the national level – you know I am not disrespecting the orange & blue). My point sorta goes back to the “brand” argument. Look at the Big 10 in football and you have 4 of the top 10 brands in UNL, UM, tOSU, and PSU. In basketball you have 1.5 in IU and MSU. IU is a definite top brand, and MSU is a current “brand” that had their coach flirting with the pros. tOSU is a good program in basketball but not a “brand”.
We know that football revenue is driving the bus, but I still think the Big 10 letting KU hang in the wind was a long term mistake. They got the UNL “brand” in the Big 10 fold but let the KU brand slip away. I guess I look at the ACC letting the Jayhawks get away if they were in the state of South Carolina instead of Kansas.
My point is I wish the Big 10 was just as eager to add basketball “brands” as it is to add football “brands”.
ps. it is Magic and Isiah (can’t tell if you were being funny there or not).
LikeLike
4 one and dones is a bit much. But it can be a tough balance for coaches. Tubby is at Minnesota because he wouldn’t recruit anyone he thought was a one and done. As a result, UK’s talent was lower than ever. Calipari is going to the other extreme. Talent off the charts, but can’t win a tourney because the experience isn’t there (or a lot of the basics like free throw shooting and consistently hitting open shots). Michigan’s fab 4 in the early 90s got them to the final 4 but didn’t win it that year.
LikeLike
By the numbers..
BE = 11
Big 12 = 10
ACC = 9
SEC = 7
Pac 10 = 2
Big 10 = 1
it is depressing..
LikeLike
It’s still COLLEGIATE basketball Duffman. Maybe these guys should just shoot on the local court until they are eligible to go to the NBA. Having an expectation that 80% of your freshman will not see a junior year to me is the more depressing and different levels.
LikeLike
@StvInILL
Come off your academic high-horse. It’s not the fault of any top tier program that the one year waiting period is in place. Many of these kids are good enough to go into the league out of high school, but have to abide by this silly rule. If you had to drop out to pursue a $1mm/year job, would you finish your degree?
Michigan, Penn State, NW, etc. would gladly accept one and dones with open arms.
LikeLike
@Gopher86
You have to admit that one-and-dones is just a horrible setup. There really needs to be something like for baseball: either you go pro right out of high school or you agree to not go pro for a certain number of years in you go to college.
LikeLike
for the continuing “one and done” basketball debate, I realize it’s a bit old, but it is topical.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-abdul-jabbar-boystown
LikeLike
@duffman
Why measure the strength of Big10 basketball only on this year’s draft? I would argue the Big10 has a fairly strong basketball conference traditionally and currently. And this is with Indiana being down. I would venture that at least 2 Big10 teams will be contenders for the NCAA championship in Purdue and MSU. Sure, only one player was drafted this year, but I am not sure if that is indicative of how strong the conference truly is.
Top Twenty in:
NCAA wins
SEC – 2
ACC – 3
Big10 – 4
IN, MSU, IL, OSU
Big12 – 3
Big East – 6
Pac10 – 2
Others –
NCAA Games Played
SEC – 2
ACC – 2
Big10 – 4
IN, MSU, IL, OSU
Big12 – 2
Big East – 7
Pac10 – 2
Others – 1
Final Four appearances by conference in past 10 years
Big 12: 6 Total appearances
2008: Kansas
2004: Oklahoma State
2003: Kansas
2003: Texas
2002: Kansas
2002: Oklahoma
Big East: 6 Total appearances
2010: West Virginia
2009: Villanova
2009: Connecticut
2007: Georgetown
2004: Connecticut
2003: Syracuse
ACC: 9 total appearances
2010: Duke
2009: North Carolina
2008: North Carolina
2005: North Carolina
2004: Georgia Tech
2004: Duke
2002: Maryland
2001: Maryland
2001: Duke
Big 10: 7 total appearances
2010: Michigan State
2009: Michigan State
2007: Ohio State
2005: Illinois
2005: Michigan State
2002: Indiana
2001: Michigan State
Pac 10 4 total appearances
2008: UCLA
2007: UCLA
2006: UCLA
2001: Arizona
SEC: 3 Total appearnaces
2007: Florida
2006: Florida
2006: LSU
LikeLike
I think the Big 10 takes a hit in perception because of the style of play. Defensive play and organization is better in this league than in many others, but folks like to take potshots at all the games that stay in the 50s. So some of the criticism the Big 10 takes is purely cosmetic.
LikeLike
Can anybody (e.g. FTT) an earlier thought that the end of the fiscal year has important financial implications for a Big East team moving to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Greetings, all. Does anyone have information on any conference’s ability to unilaterally expel individual member universities (eg. after athletic ‘death sentences’)? Not that it would ever happen, but I’m curious if such a thing is spelled out in bylaws of the various conferences and any compensation consideration that might be in place. Thanks.
LikeLike
the Big Ten Bylaws are not public record. The Big 12 Bylaws are and a qucik review shows no specific language for expeling a member institution. It does however include certain requirements requiring member institutions to maintain certain conditions. Among those are compliance with NCAA guidelines and maintinaing certain minimum participation in a list of sports. An athletic ‘death sentence’ could put someone in violation. The Bylaws don’t mention a specific remedy but refers to the conference articles of incorporation which do not appear to be public and a standard requirement of a 75% vote for any measure not specificly mentioned in the Bylaws.
so expulsion possible I would think but not directly addressed.
LikeLike
B10J,
not sure about the bylaws, but the “death penalty” will not happen to big market teams. U$C got busted in football, basketball, and tennis and “lost institutional control” but missed the death penalty. If IU had been in a similar situation, they would have been the next SMU. The chance of U$C, UT, tOSU, UM, UF, UNC, etc are about 0% of ever getting the death penalty.
IU was texting and got probation, U$C was giving players gobs of cash in multiple sports and they are still alive. Just an observation.
LikeLike
Thx, Hank & Duff. So… is there any circumstance (particularly in the new realignment world order) under which any of the major conferences would attempt to buy out/expel a member? If you buy the articles on the Big East’s football team considering a split from the basketball teams, it’s not an impossibility (and no I’m not additionally referencing the rumors about the ND ultimatum).
LikeLike
Didn’t they kick temple out? It’s kind of a public/private club. I am not sure the university would go to court and spend a lot of money on legal fees if the conference did not want them. Fatal Attraction was such an ugly movie situation
LikeLike
So can we expell Iowa for electing senators counter-productive to the well being of the conference?
LikeLike
Frank,
watching the draft last night looks like some folks are opening some cap space, any thoughts on who is trying to do what?
LikeLike
@duffman – It’s ALL about cap space with this free agent class. As many of you know, I’m a huge Bulls fan, so the deal sending Hinrich to Washington was massive on that front. If the Bulls don’t do anything else, they can sign one of the mega-star free agents (LeBron/Wade/Bosh) and another at the next level (Joe Johnson/Boozer) for max money. I don’t think the Bulls are done yet, though, since they can sign both LeBron and Bosh outright if they can clear another $3 million or so in cap space, which can be achieved by moving Luol Deng’s contract. There are also sign-and-trade possibilities. In the ultimate dream scenario, the Bulls could actually sign LeBron and Joe Johnson and then do a sign-and-trade to get Bosh (moving Deng in the process). A LeBron/D-Rose/Bosh/JJ/Noah lineup could be kept intact for the next 7 or 8 years and surpass the ’90s Bulls dynasty for championships.
Miami is going to look at doing the same thing. I’m fairly certain Wade is going to stay there, which means that the Heat can also sign one other top of the line free agent along with another in that next tier. The main advantage that the Bulls have is that they have D-Rose and Noah already, whereas the Heat and Knicks have very little else to offer.
Cleveland is in a bind. They went all out to win over the past couple of years and are now saddled with a lot of bad contracts that will be very tough to move. There’s not much that they can do to improve their situation to be more attractive to LeBron. So, the Cavs are going to have to bank on LeBron wanting to stay in his own hometown over anything else. Honestly, I don’t think that will be the case. Otherwise, LeBron would’ve strongly indicated that already just like Wade has done with Miami. LeBron knows that he’s the best recruiting chip available for other players and a top-of-the-line coach, so I would be extremely worried if I were a Cavs fan seeing how silent he has been and how he never met with Tom Izzo. I’m loving life as a Bulls fan, though. Even if they can’t sign LeBron, we’re going to get 2 front-line guys added on top of Rose and Noah.
LikeLike
Frank,
great info. what about teams outside the heat and bulls?
would you rather have johnson or boozer for the bulls?
LikeLike
Frank, re: your twitter on what the Wizards are doing … I’m pretty sure they’re aiming at next summer. They want Carmello. If they bring in a guy like Hinrich and then move him and others for Vince Carter, that’s a huge expiring contract (I believe Carter’s deal has a team option for ’11-’12). Carmello is a local product (Baltimore), and putting him on the floor with Wall would be huge for the franchise. Freeing up enough cash would also give the Wizards a chance to pair Carmello with a David West or a Troy Murphy next summer.
LikeLike
@Pezlion – Makes sense if they’re positioning themselves for Melo. Wow, that would be something to see Melo and Wall together.
LikeLike
@duffman
That Greg Oden fellow was a big talented center who was unfortunately frequently injured. It was really in his best interest to go and macerate in the NBA money rather than a Big ten scholarship. He seems to be on a path to a cycle of perpetual injury and healing.
The state of Big ten basketball is Indiana, down Illinois underperforming but looking up, Michigan down, Iowa Who? Wisconsin good but not final four quality, Minnesota rising. MSU and OSU are the only two marquee BB teams.
I think over the years the emergence of the BE has stole a lot of Big Ten’s attention. The Media people as well as the populous on the east coast have reveled and supported this. There has also been an emergence of some teams that have not really been big in basketball consistently anyway.
The good news is that you don’t need 6 or 10 guys to build up your basketball team the way you need them on a football team. One or two guys is really all you need to make your program really competitive. Ok now let’s get Maryland and Syracuse in here to hedge the bet.
LikeLike
StvInILL,
why i was on the maryland bus early
🙂
LikeLike
Guarantee Maryland a home-and-home with SU once both enter the Big Ten (the Orange could be the new Duke in College Park eyes) and you have a deal.
LikeLike
The big ten’s real hoop issue is with the last two senior classes. As a conference we just put together to really bad classes. Things turn around. This year’s senior class, as a conference, is loaded, and the big ten will be back.
The real strength of the conference is in the coaches, however. Right now it reminds me of the 80s with the coaching talent. Guys like Tubby and Carmody have really upgraded the depth of the conference.
LikeLike
I think over the years the emergence of the BE has stole a lot of Big Ten’s attention.
And yet, in the latest NCAA tournament, the Big Ten out-performed the Big East, despite all of the highly seeded Big East teams.
LikeLike
@StvInIll & Duffman:
I still am confused why you guys think the state of Big10 basketball is so bad. Maryland and Syracuse are great programs. So is Michigan State. Duffman you say that the Big10 only has 1.5 brands in basketball. If MSU is only half a brand, there must only be 5 total brands in Men’s basketball (there are only 5 programs with 3 or more NCAA championships and 6 teams with more final four appearances than Michigan State and Indiana). I don’t know what criteria you are using but there are only 14 teams with multiple NCAA basketball championships (Only 5 with more than 3). Michigan State and Indiana are the Big10’s representatives on that elite list. I would say at the minimum the Big10 has two elite brand basketball squads although one is down currently. This doesn’t include teams such as Illinois, OSU, Purdue and Michigan. Furthermore, those two elite teams have more championships as well as final four appearances than both Maryland and Syracuse. The Big10, as I noted in a post above, also has 7 final four teams over the past 10 years, more than any other conference except the ACC with 9 and 4 teams in the top 20 in NCAA tournament games played as well as won. I think you guys are grossly exaggerating the state of Big10 basketball because of a draft in which one Big10 player was selected. These things are cyclical as Frank noted.
LikeLike
Things go in cycles.
Under Crean, IU will be back, probably pretty soon. That’s one of the all-time top 6 programs in the sport.
Much of the problem is cosmetic, folks don’t like 50-point scorelines, even if what it represents is well-organized defense.
Aside from tOSU, the football giants need to step up their game. Michigan will be better under the right coach (don’t think Beilein’s great-on-the-clipboard, sluggish-on-the-court motion offense is going to get them there). And when PSU (which needs to create inroads to Philly and NYC) and NU (with great facilties) take basketball as seriously as they do volleyball, they’ll be tough outs every year and contend occasionally for the conference title.
LikeLike
Its Really tough for Northwestern to recruit top basketball talent. But perhaps they will do it the way the football team does; coaching and development. I must say things are looking up. Seeing them in the NCCA would be a huge step for them. They will have the talent to do it next season but they will still have to fight in conference to get to the 20 – 23 wins they would need. Penn State? I have no clue why they are not a better basketball team. You can’t tell me they can’t beat the bushes in Philly to find more than one good player at a time.
I can’t see Nebraska not getting a massive upgrade. Kids from Illinois and Indiana can make a difference for them. Going away to Nebraska will be OK now that they will be visiting the homeland regularly in league play.
LikeLike
prophet,
I am a MSU fan but they are a one coach school like Duke with coach K. When thinking of “brands” you are looking at longer windows. Sure MSU and Duke have been good in the last 10 to 20 years, but they are not full “brands” yet as they have yet to follow up after their big coach. The top brands IU, UK, UNC, and KU have the history. A team like Arkansas has been to the NCAA since the 40’s and have had success with multiple coaches. The top draws in 2008 – 2009 were [North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisville, Syracuse, and Kentucky] (this was pre calipari, and shows no Big 10 schools in the top 5, even when MSU was in the NC game).
My point is in “public” perception the Big 10 is a football conference, not a basketball one. If Izzo stays for life and hangs a few more banners, it will kick MSU into the “brand” category. tOSU, PU, and UM are not basketball brands the way Kansas, Louisville, Georgetown, and others are. If duke follows up coach K with another coach who can keep duke basketball where it is now they will get moved up a notch as well (they still need work on their fans tho). A top 10 – 20 historic “brand” in basketball usually means being at the top with multiple coaches.
Football Top 10 Brands..
OU, UT, USC, BAMA, +1 SEC, UNL, tOSU, PSU, UM, and ND
Basketball Top 10 Brands..
IU is the only Big 10 school on the list, If delany had added KU with UNL, the Big 10 would have 2 of the Top 10 brands.
I am not denying cyclical nature of things, I am saying there is a deeper issue. Yes this years draft is a one time thing, but it does not affect that the Big 10 does not have more of the top brands in basketball.
LikeLike
MSU did win a national title under Heathcote. And I think Magic Johnson is a major booster of the program, whose name and personality still carry weight with recruits. I think they’re a lot more than a one-coach brand, as truly great as Izzo has been.
LikeLike
mike,
I agree, that is why it would be nice to see Izzo hang another one. There are multiple teams with 2 titles including UL, UC, and oSu. If Izzo gets another, or the coach that follows him gets the 3rd banner it would put MSU in the top 10 for sure.
Look at oSu, they had one of the great coaches of all time with Henry Iba and won 2 titles in the 40’s, and yet with Sutton they back as a Final Four contender just a few years ago (impressive considering the plane crash). They have hired Travis Ford so they are making the effort to remain as a top basketball school. But the point is had Sutton won the 3rd NC for oSu, they would be in select company.
even tho UC’s 2 NC’s were awhile ago, Huggy Bear kept them in the spotlight while he was coaching there. Just asking about the Big 10 and Top 10 “brands” in the conference when is comes to basketball.
my point is your list of the top 14 only has 2 Big 10 schools. The reason I would not put Duke in the top is that they have had success under 1 coach, and their fans DO NOT travel. As I have stated many times, you want to be in Dukes bracket if you are seeing the game live as they have the cheapest and easiest tickets to get. This is from years of experience.
Just to be clear a “brand” can garner value over multiple generations not just a decade or two. it is one of the issues I have with Miami to the Big 10.
LikeLike
Thinking about basketball brands, I think its very clear from my list of 14 (not meant to be definitive) that the Big East and ACC have the best overall brands in that sport. The Big 10 is on a level with the SEC (or slightly above) but ahead (as a brand) of the Big 12 and Pac-10.
When it comes to the quality of play, top to bottom, I think there are years when the Big 10 is the best conference, and there are years when it is in the top 3 or 4 but not in the lead. But it has always been an elite conference.
The league’s style of play, however, has given naysayers a field day, however.
As for my top 6: I think Duke has to be there. There fans non-traveling ways aside, the Blue Devils bring TV ratings, even in down years. And since Duke has a large alumni base on the east coast, its been my experience that they’ve drawn well in NY, NJ and Philadelphia.
LikeLike
@Mike R – I think that’s a pretty good representation. Also, I agree about Duke. They’ve really turned into the college basketball equivalent of Notre Dame football with a ton of fans across the country (along with an even larger contingent that just wants to see them lose). People everywhere have opinions about Duke basketball in the same way that they have opinions about ND, Yankees and Cowboys, so they’re definitely a top basketball brand. From a national TV perspective, they are the #1 basketball brand for sure.
LikeLike
My take on best brands in men’s basketball, in no particular order.
Top-6
Duke
North Carolina
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
UCLA
Next tier:
Connecticut
Georgetown
Louisville
Syracuse
Villanova
Michigan State
Maryland
North Carolina State
LikeLike
The B10 has a bunch of bb schools like WI and IA are in fb. MSU, UM, IL, tOSU are near the top, but not quite there. I would lump Arizona, Arkansas, OU, Maryland and Florida in there with them in the close but not quite group. UCLA, KU, UK, IU, UNC, Duke, UConn, Georgetown, Villanova, Louisville, Cincinnati, Syracuse, maybe Marquette. MSU doesn’t have the “brand” that those schools have.
LikeLike
Florida is an interesting case as a basketball brand. I’d say they were a very good one if they enjoy success under a 2nd generation of players, following the Noah-Horford-Brewer group. But you can’t say that yet. For now, a single golden generation of talent.
Arizona might be part of that second tier.
We haven’t talked about Purdue but I think they’re pretty close to that second tier also. The program has a great history (Wooden is part of that history) and sustained success over a long period of time, under Keady and now his protege, Painter.
LikeLike
Mike;
I posted my list w/o seeing yours. Note that we had the same top 6. Your next 8 and my next 7 include 5 of the same names. And the 2 you don’t have, UC and Marquette were at the bottom of my list. So its seems pretty safe to say that those 11 are definitely “brands.”
I didn’t list NCSU at all, but just forgot about them. I would include them in the “almost” group with Arizona, MD, etc..
LikeLike
@duffman – The one thing about Big Ten basketball is that it actually draws the best out of any conference top-to-bottom from year-to-year. UNC, Louisville and Kentucky have massive arenas that kick up their attendance numbers, but for all of the talk about the Big East and ACC having basketball schools, the Big Ten has had the best average basketball attendance for 3 decades in a row.
LikeLike
Prophet,
Maybe just just perception based out Big East and SEC fans input in the national media. I feel that the conference has gotten its share of the Blue chippers. If not they have not stayed home (in the Big ten) lately. We have had kids leave the state of Illinois to go to Duke, Memphis, and Kansas and others for example. And we have had some just go pro like Eddie Curry who was committed to De Paul and never came. I know the situation at Indiana which prompted the departure of Kelvin Sampson was a big setback for both the university and to the conference. Sampson was building some talent again at IU, doing it honorably? Not so much.
On Illinois part if they just kept the best talent in the state, you can pencil them in for 2 levels into the NCAA each year consistantly and perhas more.
LikeLike
FWIW the latest and nearly final (baseball not yet included) Director’s Cup standings are out:
3 Virginia
5 Texas A&M
6 Ohio State
9 North Carolina
10 Duke
11 Penn State
15 Nebraska
18 Wisconsin
20 Texas
21 Minnesota
23 Michigan
26 Notre Dame
27 Maryland
34 Illinois
37 Michigan State
39 Indiana
41 Virginia Tech
43 Georgia Tech
48 Missouri
49 Northwestern
53 Purdue
55 Iowa
56 Syracuse
59 Boston College
62 Miami (Fla.)
64 Connecticut
65 Vanderbilt
66 Colorado
72 Kansas
75 Utah
93 Rutgers
109 Pittsburgh
As an aside, there should be some sort of minimum number of schools participating for each sport; winning water polo against the 6 other schools that participate shouldn’t count.
LikeLike
Or, you could look at it this way: if only 6 schools have Water Polo programs, you’re stupid as a program not to add the sport and pick up some easy Director’s Cup points.
LikeLike
adam,
great point!
what I noticed from the list was A&M being in the #5 spot, which makes me think slive had multiple reasons for adding them to the SEC outside of football.
FWIW, UK uses rifle that way – people think basketball, but they get good director cup points from rifle.
FWIW II, TCU won rifle this year and is still in the world series so can still pick up more points
LikeLike
Are you telling me a national championship in rifle or water polo gets you as many Directors Cup points as one in basketball?
LikeLike
something like that..
not sure exactly, but the UL folks were all excited a few years ago about being ahead of UK, but UK got the rifle boost and the UL folks were not that happy.
LikeLike
A real Directors’ Cup would have weights then, based on how many schools sponsor a program. Otherwise all the DC measures is how many unpopular-sport teams your school is willing to field. As it is, as an evaluative tool, I hope college presidents and ADs ignore it.
LikeLike
A national championship in any sport is 100 points. After that, it depends on the size of the bracket. E.g., in all sports other than Men’s Volleyball and Men’s Water Polo, a runner-up finish is worth 90 points, but in Men’s VB and WP it’s only worth 70, because there are only 4 teams invited to those tournaments.
Generally, 3rd place is worth 85 points and 4th is worth 80, but in a bracketed sport where you have 2 teams tied for 3rd (i.e., the Semifinal losers), they split the difference and both get 83 points (except in Men’s VB and WP, where it’s 25 each).
That’s basically how it works. They have all kinds of special rules for handling FBS Football, and it works a little differently for individual sports than bracketed sports. Each school can only count its 10 best performances for each gender. It used to be that they only let you score either Indoor or Outdoor Track & Field (but not both), but I think they changed that, too.
LikeLike
Here is the average Directors’ Cup ranking, for the teams on your list (not including this year’s ranking):
North Carolina 6.3
Michigan 6.4
Texas 7.5
Penn State 12.5
Ohio State 12.6
Nebraska 17.9
Notre Dame 17.9
Virginia 18.5
Minnesota 18.8
Duke 19.6
Wisconsin 22.9
Texas A&M 25.9
Maryland 35.4
Colorado 35.8
Indiana 38.3
Illinois 38.6
Michigan State 38.6
Iowa 42.4
Miami 44.3
Purdue 45.4
Northwestern 50.9
Connecticut 53.9
Georgia Tech 57.4
Utah 59.9
Kansas 60.6
Missouri 63.4
Boston College 67.1
Syracuse 74.6
Vanderbilt 76.9
Virginia Tech 77.5
Pittsburgh 85.6
Rutgers 86.7
LikeLike
Looks like Ole Miss is heating up
http://www.mrsec.com/2010/06/official-mrsec-ole-miss-mascot-suggestion-the-fighting-faulkner/
for all the folks that though Admiral Ackbar was in the bag!
“Harass them, my good boys, relieve them of the ball,”
vs
“It’s a trap!”
I have never been there, but the grove is supposed to be one of the top tailgate college football spots in the US (My understanding it has more to do with the view than the football).
LikeLike
and you thought conference realignment was tough
Click to access graph2.pdf
the D day invasion looks easier than this thing
🙂
LikeLike
This could take more than 12- to 18-months.
LikeLike
William Faulkner? This image would also work quiet well should those old boys in Oxford want to start up a good cricket and rugby team. Bully!
My suggestion below
LikeLike
Frank, my suggestion for your next post is to address when there might be a new round of expansion.
1) Does JD have any plans for the end of his original 12- to 18-month window?
2) What will be the length of any new Big 12(-2) TV deal? You would think Texas would once again explore its options toward the tail end of such a contract.
3) Will there be revenue jumps for Big 10 and SEC schools that will tempt some of the less-committed members of leagues like the Big 12.
4) Will Scott make cash registers jingle for the Pac-10 (+2) and seek new partners for CU and the Utes?
LikeLike
FWIW
went over to see UK site about last night, already all over their site but found this more interesting….
http://www.ukathletics.com/index-main.html
what you are looking at is NOT the men’s team, but the women’s team (pretty good size crowd for a women’s game). the picture is the sixth one.
LikeLike
Re the tier discussion in football
Mandel had an article dividing BCS teams into prestige levels:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/08/08/cfb.bag/index.html
Kings
Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Tennessee, Texas and USC.
Barons
Auburn, Clemson, Colorado, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Washington and Wisconsin.
Knights
Arizona State, Arkansas, Boston College, Cal, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas State, Maryland, Michigan State, Missouri, N.C. State, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Oregon, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Stanford, Syracuse, South Carolina, Texas Tech, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington State.
Peasants
Arizona, Baylor, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Duke, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State, North Carolina, Northwestern, Rutgers, South Florida, Wake Forest and Vanderbilt.
It’s a few years old, but almost by definition this sort of thing shouldn’t change much in a couple years.
LikeLike
M,
I hate the medieval reference it’s a great example. I can’t complain much about the selections either. I have often thought about this myself. In terms of upward mobility and the money that is being funneled into a national championship direction. There is s sense of entitlement by the Kings. The senator from Utah is mostly a douchbag but he has some legitimate things to complain about when it comes to teams being systematically excluded from the national title and the money bowls that surround it.
Your Kings list represents a group that won’t lose from decade to decade and will always be in a preseason top 20 even by those who know little about College football.
Your barons are expected to see a bowl game of some type each year. A good season means they beat and swap places with your kings for a year.
The Knights are your classic up and downers or middle of the pack in conference. They can be up high a couple of years and down for another 3. When the 3rd division teams beat these on somewhat regular, they know that they are make a move in the right direction and probably have swapped roles in conference.
The presents in a major conference are in a considerably better situation than the others. They might get their own group. They WILL play major competition and have an opportunity to shine but will mostly lose to them. Still yet this group should have a once in a decade championship year when the coaching, recruits and the stars align.
I kinda like Iowa with the barons better by the way and I am not a Iowa fan.
LikeLike
If I were to change it around, I would probably move Iowa to a Baron, Colorado and Washington down to Knight. There are probably other changes in the Knight/Peasant level but it’s not worth discussing. The Kings are pretty much exactly what I think almost any college football would come up with.
LikeLike
I was thinking similar but Washington wasn’t the one I thought could be demoted, they have a long history so despite recent history still have good brand value.
I was wondering if T A&M was a bit overvalued but I’m not that familiar with them so wasn’t sure.
LikeLike
I have a hard time seeing Miami in the “Kings”. They had a good run. But they can’t even win a division of the ACC.
LikeLike
This is mostly about brand value, not winning. While winning is obviously important, I would definitely argue that Miami is one of the top brands in college football. Also, though down a little down the past 5 years, Miami has the best winning percentage of any team in the last 25 years. That has to be worth something.
As for Washington, if you lose every game in a season you get knocked down a peg in my book.
LikeLike
M,
this all sort of goes back to “brand” value I have been discussing. it also points out my “inverse” theory as most of the “peasants” have the top basketball programs. this sort of explains my perception that good conferences have inverse programs. (ie IU = bad football good basketball offset by UM = good football bad basketball).
LikeLike
It is interesting that Iowa was three years ago considered a mere Knight, as was Oregon. I checked back and Iowa did win Big Ten co-championships back in 2002 and 2004. Oregon also has finished 1st or 2nd in the Pac-10 4 times in the last decade, not exactly chopped liver.
I think much of this does correspond to that “brand value” discussed. Obviously the “brand value” is rather subjective, but in general it seems to me that if your team is in the South or a high population state, or wears red somewhere in the uniform, you do a lot better if your program is half-decent.
Oh, and I would also question Northwestern as a mere peasant. They did win three Big Ten conference championships (one outright) between 1995 and 2000. Much as it pains this Nittany Lion alum and fan to admit, NW and Penn State have the same number of Big Ten titles since PSU joined the Big Ten.
If Rutgers is considered a “peasant” it may explain why they haven’t received a Big Ten invite…and may never.
LikeLike
84lion, I didn’t want to toot Northwestern’s horn but I feel like I agree with you on the move up. I have been watching NU football since the 70’s and the decade of the 70’s and much of the 80’s were not really good. The 70’s were a lost decade.
since the scholarship changes from 100 to 85, some good coaching, the spread offense and financial commitment to football NU has really done the best you can expect for a high academic institution in a football strong conference. In a similar situation, nationally only Stanford does better.
For those who only remember the 70’s and 80’s they would have a point in disagreeing. Thanks for the object voice.
LikeLike
“Stanford does better”
Not in football at least. There’s a lot of stats but the most telling might be that in the last 7 years, Stanford has 31 wins to Northwestern’s 46. Stanford’s more like Rice (31), Vanderbilt (27) and Duke (17) than Northwestern.
LikeLike
jumping the shark warning.
LikeLike
A St. Louis writer’s take on expansion:
http://www.freep.com/article/20100625/SPORTS08/100625054/1356/sports/What-will-future-bring-in-conference-expansion
Its a look back at the causes, more than a look at the future, despite the title.
LikeLike
Divisions by August? Presidents gun shy?
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/06/big-ten-decision-on-divisions-expected-by-august.html
LikeLike
interesting last paragraph
Meanwhile, sources indirectly involved in the expansion talks tell the Tribune that they expect the Big Ten to remain at 12 schools. League presidents, they say, have little or no appetite to expand to 14 or 16.
LikeLike
“Joining Penn State in the West would be Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Nebraska. This proposal would split the Illini away from Northwestern, which would be in the East along with Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Indiana and Purdue.
Big Ten associate commissioner Mark Rudner will spearhead the project and present data to the ADs when they gather in Chicago for the Big Ten’s media days Aug. 2-3, according to ESPN.com. A resolution is expected by September.”
Wow! No Minnesota and no Wisconsin for NW. These have been the most enjoyable over the last 12 years. And no annual recruitment game with Illinois. Willie the wildcat gets screwed again! I guess somebody has got to get screwed out of all this.
LikeLike
Maryland’s AD Yow leaves to go to NC State…
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5327714
LikeLike
UGLY GAME ALERT!!
US give up yet another early goal, but this time does not pull it out.
*sigh*
no revenge for 2006, and FIFA still hates the USA
LikeLike
very disappointing game. there is some room to question Bradley’s lineup choices but Ghana played tough. I always like rooting for underdogs but will now have the two I like, Ghana and Uruguay, playing each other next. Ghana because its Africa and they are the last African team and Uruguay because I love any country that takes its national anthem from opera (the Gondoliers chorus from Donizetti’s Lucretia Borgia I believe).
LikeLike
I think people have misinterpreted Delany’s comments about the population shift to the Sun Belt. To me, what he was trying to do was to justify the Big Ten’s decision to expand. “Look, everyone, we’re at a long-term competitive disadvantage, so we have no choice but to raid other conferences, so please don’t think of us as ‘robber barons’.”
I don’t think Delany is really giving serious thought to taking Miami or Georgia Tech. I think those are smoke screens. From reading the Maryland boards, Terp fans feel isolated from the rest of the conference (except BC), who feel that Maryland is a northern state. The Civil War is still on in the south, and I can’t imagine anyone except transplanted Yankees turning on a Yankee channel in the Deep South, in the heart of SEC country. Sure, taking Maryland, Virginia, or Virginia Tech might fly, but if you dig any farther south, you’re slapping southern pride in the face.
LikeLike
If the Jets wander too deeply into Shark territory, they drown. The Big East couldn’t hold onto Miami. Any school the Big Ten takes in the Deep South will be isolated in Rebel territory, which is why Georgia Tech has apparently asked the BT to include another southern school with them before they’d consider joining.
I just don’t like the idea of taking random schools in isolated regions. Expanding in a contiguous block into the Northeast makes sense because it adds a regional Northeast feel to the Midwestern Big Ten feel, and the two areas are contiguous and fairly compatible. Boston College apparently would want the BT to add a neighbor if the BT wants to take them, which is understandable because schools want to feel they belong in that conference.
One problem with BC might be that they’re considered traitors by some of the Big East people, after braking off from the BE to join the ACC. Someone at UConn (the AD?) said they’d never play BC again.
And BC is a small school with a small fan base and football stadium, and it ranks fifth in Boston, behind the Red Sox, Bruins, Patriots and Celtics. But Boston is a top ten market and holds the key to New England, with a little support in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. And BC would be an obvious draw for Notre Dame. BC has an excellent undergraduate program, but it will never get AAU status because it’s Catholic. Catholics don’t believe in a lot of the research that goes on in universities, particularly research into genetics and cloning (which is probably why Notre Dame doesn’t have medical research facilities).
BC is probably the most isolated university in the country, in more ways than geography, but I think they’d feel somewhat at home in a BT that had Syracuse, Rutgers and Notre Dame.
Maryland had good rivalries with Syracuse and Penn State, and Rutgers is fairly close to them. Maryland feels fairly isolated in the ACC, and might feel only slightly less isolated in a BT with Rutgers and Syracuse.
I think regionalism is a big issue and is the basis for developing strong rivalries. I don’t like putting Penn State into a western BT division, especially since we’re probably going to expand eastward. PSU has developed decent rivalries with Michigan, MSU and OSU, and I can’t see throwing those away, even temporarily. Penn State has felt isolated enough in the BT. Why irritate their fans any more? When they joined the BT, PSU asked to play Michigan and Ohio State every year, and now the BT is considering not to honor that request anymore? OSU, Mich and PSU want to play each other every year, so if they don’t mind playing in a competitively unbalanced division that’s stacked against them, why should anyone else mind? And heck, it isn’t like Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin are chopped liver, or Michigan isn’t down right now.
Stick with geography, and put Penn State, OSU, Michigan, MSU, Indiana and Purdue in the Eastern division. You’d keep all the natural rivals together, with the following teams playing on rivals weekend: OSU-Mich, PSU-Mich St, Indian-Purdue, Iowa-Nebraska, Illinois-Northwestern and Minnesota-Wisconsin. I think it’s crazy to break up any of those natural rivalries, especially when competitive balance is a fleeting factor, with teams rising and falling year-to-year. Rivalries are forever– or should be, anyway.
LikeLike
Boston College really hasn’t brought that much benefit to the ACC. Part of that may be due to cultural isolation; had ACC expansion gone as originally planned, with Syracuse rather than Virginia Tech joining BC and Miami, things might have been different.
However, I should note that Chestnut Hill, Mass., is actually geographically closer to College Park, Md., than Coral Gables is to Tallahassee.
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that the cable agreements the Big Ten has signed specify that if the BT has a school in the state, the BT gets 70 cents to a dollar per subscriber, and if not, they get 5-10 cents. So why can’t people see that taking Syracuse is an absolute necessity? I can’t imagine that the cable company is going to say: “Hey, we’ll count Rutgers as being in both NJ and NY, just because we want to give you as much money as we can.” What good is taking NYC if we only get a plug nickel for each subscriber? Sure, a big part of the NYC DMA is in NJ (and a small part in Connecticut), but we need to take both Rutgers and Syracuse to capitalize on that market. And, as people have pointed out, NYC is a Bball town first. And I don’t see any reason for waiting past the date (sometime in July) when the Big East teams can leave the conference without penalty. Let’s start developing and capitalizing on the NYC market now, and maintain our big lead over the other conferences in terms of TV revenue. If we develop the BTN to the point where people get into the habit of watching it, they won’t want to switch to watching another conference except to see their own team play. And the more teams we can get on there now, the more games we’ll have and the more demand they’ll be for the BTN.
LikeLike
there’ll be (correction)
LikeLike
those payouts are only the average for the current contracts. new contracts will be negotiated on a cable system by system basis. in a state like Nebraska where there is high demand for Nebraska sports there will be strong demand and the BTN can negotiate a good deal. There may be many more households in New Jersey but given demand for Rutgers games, at least initially, I doubt the BTN could negotiate anywhere near what they get in the current footprint. at least at first.
LikeLike
@Doug – It’s an average of 70 cents per subscriber per month in the footprint. Depending upon the intensity of the fan base in a particular market, the rate is different. It’s going to be higher in Columbus compared to Philadelphia. So, it’s common error that people believe that the Big Ten will automatically get the 70 cents just by adding a school in a particular state. If there’s relatively weak support in a market, then the Big Ten Network is going to get a rate closer to the 10 cent per subscriber range. However, if there’s very strong support in a market, the Big Ten Network can charge a premium. My belief is that this was a huge factor in adding Nebraska despite the small number of households. In that market, the Big Ten Network can basically name its price (i.e. close to ESPN’s sub rate) and it will receive it. It’s interesting that there were 2 schools in the old Big 12 that looked at starting their own networks: Texas and Nebraska. That shows that being able to charge a high price per sub in a small market is just as, if not more valuable, than a low price per sub in a very large market.
LikeLike
Thanks Frank’n Hank.
LikeLike
And that’s yet more reason to concentrate your schools into a solid regional block, to build regional rivalries that increase fan interest within that region. No one in the ACC gives a hoot about Boston College, and they’re a terrible fit culturally. An SEC poster awhile ago complained about how Penn State had no business being in the Big Ten, and the BT, being a Midwestern, had no business expanding eastward. I disagree, but I can see the point of his argument. The SEC and BT are strong because they’re regional, both culturally and geographically. Except for BC, the ACC is, too. And the Pac 10 is pretty good, two.
The Big East was a complete mess, spread from Miami to Boston, crossing strong cultural boundaries. Now it’s composed of seven basketball schools, eight football schools and one semi-independent. And the Big 12 is another joke, as everyone knows, with constant in-fighting for years.
I really hope the BT doesn’t get crazy and go after Miami or Georgia Tech. Maryland or Virginia would be terrific in a lot of ways, or maybe Va Tech. But the BT would need to make sure they were integrated into the mix with compatible neighbors and rivals. Gotta have those love-hate relationships.
LikeLike
a little on non conference scheduling
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/mizzou/article_fcd078eb-0aa9-5311-ad08-3f8c68772d06.html
indicates the Big Ten has asked schools non to schedule beyond 2012 although several schools already have as many as for non conference games scheduled as far out as 2017.
also mentions basketball and the Big 12(sic)
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
I’ve compiled a lot of data about ten of the most likely candidates for BT expansion. I’ve ranked them 1-10 in fourteen categories on a spreadsheet, but I don’t have a web site. Maybe Frank or someone could take this data and post it on a site for people to look at, in a better format than I’m able to do here. I could email the spreadsheet to someone, maybe. I also have all the raw data on the spreadsheet.
My ten candidates are: Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia, Maryland, Notre Dame, Connecticut, Pitt, Boston College and Virginia Tech, in no particular order.
For example, I’ll show Missouri here as (1) 8, (2) 9, (3) 6T, etc. In other words, in category #1 (state population), Missouri ranks eight among the ten candidates. In category 3 (AWRU rating), they’re tied for sixth best.
My categories are:
(1) State Population
(2) DMA (Local TV Market)
(3) AWRU academic rating
(4) US News academic rating
(5) Forbes academic rating
(6) Research Expenditures
(7) Football Stadium Size
(8) Total Campus Enrollment (2008)
(9) Director’s Cup (2007/08 Season)
(10) Director’s Cup (2008/09 Season)
(11) Total Sports Income (2006/07 season)
(12) Endowment (2009)
(13) Football attendance in 2006 (per home game)
(14) Football attendance in 2008 season
MISSOURI (1) 8, (2) 9, (3) 6T, (4) 10, (5) 7, (6) 6, (7) 2, (8) 4, (9) 4, (10) 4, (11) 8, (12) 5, (13) 4, (14) 3.
RUTGERS (1) 3, (2) 1, (3) 3, (4) 7T, (5) 10, (6) 4, (7) 7, (8) 2, (9) 10, (10) 9, (11) 7, (12) 7, (13) 7, (14) 7.
SYRACUSE (1) 1, (2) 7, (3) 8, (4) 6, (5) 6, (6) 9, (7) 8, (8) 8, (9) 9, (10) 7, (11) 9, (12) 6, (13) 10, (14) 10.
VIRGINIA (1) 4T, (2) 10, (3) 4, (4) 2, (5) 3, (6) 5, (7) 5, (8) 6, (9) 1, (10) 1, (11) 2, (12) 2, (13) 3, (14) 4.
MARYLAND (1) 9, (2) 3, (3) 1, (4) 4, (5) 8, (6) 2, (7) 6, (8) 1, (9) 6, (10) 3, (11) 6, (12) ???, (13) 5, (14) 6.
NOTRE DAME (1) 7, (2) 8, (3) 6T, (4) 1, (5) 2, (6) 8, (7) 1, (8) 10, (9) 2, (10) 2, (11) 1, (12) 1, (13) 1, (14) 1.
CONNECTICUT (1) 10, (2) 5, (3) 5, (4) 7T, (5) 9, (6) 7, (7) 10, (8) 7, (9) 5, (10) 6, (11) 5, (12) 9, (13) 9, (14) 9.
PITT (1) 2, (2) 4, (3) 2, (4) 5, (5) 5, (6) 1, (7) 4, (8) 5, (9) 8, (10) 10, (11) 10, (12) 3, (13) 6, (14) 5.
BOSTON COLLEGE (1) 6, (2) 2, (3) 9, (4) 3, (5) 1, (6) 10, (7) 9, (8) 9, (9) 7, (10) 8, (11) 3, (12) 4, (13) 8, (14) 8.
VIRGINIA TECH (1) 4T, (2) 6, (3) ???, (4) 9, (5) 4, (6) 3, (7) 3, (8) 3, (9) 3, (10) 5, (11) 4, (12) 8, (13) 2, (14) 2.
NOTES: Virginia Tech, Boston College, Notre Dame and Connecticut aren’t AAU.
I don’t have Va Tech’s AWRU ranking and couldn’t access the site.
The endowments for the U of Maryland College Park was listed separately from the U of Maryland Systems Fund, so I didn’t know what to make of that. Is the Systems Fund separate, and does it get split up among the others? Or is it simply the total of all the separate U of Maryland individual parts.
And no, I don’t have a life.
LikeLike
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39077.html
“The big college conference scramble”
What in the world is this doing on Politico? Interesting angle.
LikeLike
@Big Ten Jeff, think this would have been a much bigger political story for the state of Texas had UT and Texas Tech gone to the PAC10, Texas A&M gone to the SEC and Baylor fallen off the conference map. Its not at all a sure thing Baylor could have even gotten a Mountain West invite. The current governor’s race between incumbent Republican Rick Perry and Democrat challenger Bill White has been fairly close in polling. I’m convinced that the conference realignment would have been seen as a high profile failure by the governor (Perry appoints the university regents and has been in office since George W. Bush left the Texas governorship to become president, so this would be a reasonable conclusion for voters to draw). Since Perry is also a Texas A&M grad, it could also have raised questions of why he couldn’t even keep A&M together with UT as well as failing to take care of Baylor. If anything, this Politico story really under-reports the potential effect this could have had on state politics. Rick Perry may have dodged a bullet with the survival of the Big XII.
LikeLike
Ron, great points; I was just about to try to post the same. The article really underreports a lot, but it’s fascinating to start shining light on the behind-the-scenes political factors involved with conference alignments. It’s jobs, patronage, university appointments, money, and control.
For all of UT’s bluster with its conference mates, UT has a shocking lack of control of its own business affairs within the state.
LikeLike
Know there’s been a lot of criticism of UT (even just here on this blog), but I thought they did a masterful job of nearly pushing the PAC10 plan through. Chip Brown at Orangebloods had a fascinating postmortem where he claims the PAC10 actually played a huge role in killing the deal when they tried to replace Oklahoma State with Kansas… http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094753
What makes that interesting is the PAC10 already had a slot open with Texas A&M bolting for the SEC and could have plugged Kansas into that slot. But no, they really, really wanted Utah. Summary, the PAC10 screwed up or we’d be looking at a PAC16 right now instead of a PAC12.
Had wanted to post this earlier, but was convinced it would be buried under an avalanche of anti-UT and anti-Chip Brown commentary. Do understand the sentiment and am not personally a Longhorns fan, but geez…
LikeLike
Interview with Kent Hance, Texas Tech president and former US Congressman. Says Texas was under a lot of political pressure. Also comments that TT, UT and A&M work closely together in state capitol. Says he will try to make sure Tech is ready in case something happens in 2 to 8 years.
http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/2010-06-27/hance-details-hectic-weeks-trying-save-big-12
LikeLike
My podcast summary of the past six months with predictions about the current “calm” around expansion and the Big 10’s future plans. Episode is about 30 minutes long. Shout out to Frank the Tank and this blog as well!
http://strangersinkenya.blogspot.com/2010/07/one-month-until-kickoff.html
LikeLike