1,523 thoughts on “After the Conference Realignment Maelstrom”

1. Is this like every movie where the bad guy is supposedly dead except that he is not and comes back at least once before the movie ends?

   Frank,

   I am thinking more and more that the Bulls are getting Lebron!

   LikeLike

   June 27, 2010 at 10:20 am Reply

   1. ps. now that this is calming down how are the wife and kids?

      LikeLike

      June 27, 2010 at 10:22 am Reply

   2. You can have LeBron. The dude hasn’t hit a clutch shot in the playoffs in 7 years and we don’t give a sh!t about basketball anyhow.

      LikeLike

      June 28, 2010 at 1:18 pm Reply

      1. You mad?

         LikeLike

         June 29, 2010 at 1:58 pm Reply

2. There is only one problem with your suggestion about the Big Ten divisional split: it directly contradicts what Delaney and others have repeatedly said.

   According to them, geography is the lowest concern, after competitive balance and preserving rivalries (in that order). Those MUST be code words for saying that Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State won’t be in the same division. I cannot imagine what else they could mean by that, given that an East-West split would otherwise be so obvious.

   The ACC analogy doesn’t quite work, because the Big Ten doesn’t consist of two traditional powers and “everybody else,” the way the ACC (at the time) did.

   LikeLike

   June 27, 2010 at 10:23 am Reply

   1. @Marc Shepherd – True, but the Big Ten also talked for months about demographic shifts, Eastern candidates and multiple additions. It then proceeded to add Nebraska and that looks like the lone addition for the foreseeable future. So, we can only take so much from public comments at face value. I think the pure geographic split is going to be the ultimate outcome.

      LikeLike

      June 27, 2010 at 10:30 am Reply

      1. @Frank – the difference between what the Big Ten has said about demographic shifts, eastern candidates and other options is this: why would MSU, Indiana and Purdue accept a realignment plan that includes them in the same conference as 3 of the top 4 teams? I know it’s happened in other conferences, but that doesn’t mean it’s best for the Big Ten. While I agree that it’s cyclical as you said, we also have to acknowledge that over time it’s very likely that PSU, UM, OSU and NU are going to be the 4 best programs in the conference.

         Competitive balance matters to the fans. Baseball fans have complained for years about the competitive balance and they’ll continue to complain. That doesn’t have to happen here.

         I grew up an Iowa fan and will be for the rest of my life, but I want Iowa in a division that has 2 of the top 4 teams in the conference. If Iowa and UW revert back to the type of programs they’ve had in the past, NU runs away with that division every single year. Having 2 of the top 4 makes most games in the division something that is going to be watched nationally. If you don’t do that you create a lot of games that has nothing more than a local audience. That can’t be good for the conference.

         They may not be able to add a southern school so they need as much national exposure as they can get. That means splitting the 4 powerhouses so you create more games of national interest.

         LikeLike

         June 27, 2010 at 11:26 am Reply

         1. Fans complain about a lot of things. Fans complain about the BCS even though the ratings are very good. What fans complain about really has very little to do with what makes good business sense.

            The Big Ten kills the goose that lays the golden eggs if it spends so much time worrying about “balance” that it creates a divisional structure that robs the season of the rivalries that make college football worth watching. I challenge any argument that the East/West alignment is imbalanced, but even if it is, I would still say that’s a better business move. Assume it’s wildly imbalanced and the Big Ten Championship Game is a mere formality, with the East Division champion always winning. What that means is that the 33 games that East Division teams will play (15 intra-divisional games and 18 inter-divisional games) will be extremely important. Would you rather have people paying attention to 33 games spread over 9 weeks, or 1 game played on one Saturday? I’d take the former every time.

            Besides, how much different would it be for Michigan State? Their locked-in annual rivals are already Michigan and Penn State anyway. And I have spent enough time lurking on this message board to see that even the bottom-dwellers in the Big Ten like to play the national brand perception “royalty” on a regular basis, even if they lose.

            LikeLike

            June 27, 2010 at 7:00 pm Reply

            1. You’re right, fans complain all the time and businesses try to avoid to avoid that. Apple refunded customers who were complaining several years ago after the iphone went on sale. Complaining works. Businesses listen.

               As for the complaints about the BCS, those complaints are very different from the type of complaints I am talking about. Most people saw the BCS as a step in the right direction. They saw it as the next logical step to what will inevitably be a playoff system at some point. Many of the complaints have centered around how they rate the teams and you know what? They’ve changed how they’ve done that in response to that. Still, there’s a big difference from a vocal minority (BCS complainers) and an entire fan base or university that complains.

               I agree that business can’t just do whatever the people want and that some complaining is going to happen no matter what, but the Big Ten needs to minimize that. The networks aren’t going to want 3 elite teams in one division and only 1 in the other. What is the incentive for them to pay for it? It’s like many in the Big Ten have said over the last few years, why should the networks pay the Big 12 when they’re really only wanting to see the Big 12 South?

               More importantly than any of that though, competitive balance matters. While we can’t ensure that the top 4 so far will remain the top 4 there is a damn good chance that those 4 will remain at the top over a long period of time. Any alignment that doesn’t factor that in has failed. I don’t think the Big Ten gets this right just as I doubt professional sports in this country will ever do away with the current structure they have even though it would drastically improve competitive balance.

               As far as rivalries go, I like then, but I really couldn’t care less. I’d much rather there be a fair divisional set up that ensures as best as possible that each team will play a similarly tough schedule in conference. Rivalry games are fun, and they’re worth money, but the fact that is even a factor in this is a poor decision by the Big Ten. The only factor that should be considered is setting up the most fair divisions possible. Everything else is secondary.

               LikeLike

               July 3, 2010 at 3:20 pm

            2. mb21, I think you are just profoundly, epically wrong on this. The single most important factor in college football (college sports generally, in fact) are rivalries. They are what makes college sports different from pro sports. Anybody who could care less about rivalries in college sports just doesn’t get it. If anything, an imbalanced structure that preserves rivalries is more important than the alternative. I don’t think there’s any indication that the concentration of attractive teams in the Big 12 South is what affected their rights fees: it had to do with market sizes (nothing to speak of outside of Texas).

               When you worry too much about “balance,” you make for a lame regular season. I’d rather it be a foregone conclusion that the East Champion will win the CCG than have a “balanced” schedule that makes it a foregone conclusion who will appear in the CCG. That is to say, I’d rather have a dull CCG and an exciting 13-week regular season leading up to it, than an exciting CCG and a dull 13-week regular season.

               A lack of “balance” is only a problem if you aren’t interested in watching the regular season. Of course, I reject the notion that the geographic alignment is imbalanced, but even if it were, it doesn’t matter.

               LikeLike

               July 3, 2010 at 5:16 pm

            3. Adam, you’re stating these things as if there’s only one way to go: exciting regular season schedule followed by boring CCG or boring regular season schedule. it’s not that simple and it’s certainly not that black and white.

               Stating things as you have make it clear which is preferable, but what you stated isn’t reality. You could never have a boring conference schedule unless you reduce the number of games. That’s not going to happen.

               It’s a pet peeve of mine to see someone simplify something as you did to pretend there are only two options. People do this far too often when they try to support their opinions with logical reasoning, but while doing so they are not being logical. Your presumptions here are simply not logical.

               There’s no either/or type of decision that has to be made. The plans, as you put it, are these:

               1) balanced schedule, no rivalry games
               2) rivalry games, unbalanced schedule

               You can accomplish both and that’s what the Big Ten will try to do. They aren’t looking at this from the simplistic angle you are and nor should they. The Big Ten would be doing each university, as well as each fan, a disservice if they simplified the options as you have. It’s just not that simple. There are alternatives that accomplish both and that’s what we’ll end up seeing the Big Ten do, because it’s right.

               The Big Ten can have a balanced schedule while also maintaining the rivalries. That’s what they’ll do. There’s no either/or decision to be made as you implied. It doesn’t exist.

               You’re more than free to reject the notion that a geographical alignment isn’t unbalanced, but keep in mind it is an opinion unsupported by the data. It is an opinion that requires one to create either/or scenarios to support the claims. It’s a position that also requires one to ignore factual information, which I won’t do.

               LikeLike

               July 12, 2010 at 10:08 am

            4. It’s false, false, false to say that that is unsupported by the data, and there is an enormous amount of data in this thread to that end. “Competitive balance,” if you consider it a target with pursuing (and I don’t, but let’s say that we do) is not solely accomplished in the alignment that makes the 2 groups as close to each other as possible; it is instead any of the range of outcomes that fits within an acceptable spectrum. And there is an enormous amount of statistical data that the so-called geographic alignment (which I prefer, although not for geographic reasons, as I’ve also stated here) that they are not especially imbalanced.

               I think you fail to understand the argument from the worst-case scenario. At no point did I say those were the only two options. The idea behind competitive balance is to have an exciting CCG. My point is that an exciting CCG is completely unnecessary, and if forced to choose between an exciting CCG and an exciting regular season, I’d choose the exciting regular season every time. I didn’t say “balanced schedule, no rivalry games” or “rivalry games, unbalanced schedule.” I said maximize rivalries and stop worrying about balance because it doesn’t matter. And the reason it doesn’t matter is because even in the most unbalanced league you could divine (say, Nebraska, OSU, UM, PSU, Wisconsin, and Iowa in one Division), that would still be better than any alignment which sacrifices inter-divisional rivalries, because it is far better to preserve those rivalries and maximize regular season interest, even if that comes at the expense of the CCG (which will be followed regardless, because of the size of Big Ten schools).

               I am arguing that the league should make no compromises in maximizing rivalries played because the “balance” question is totally irrelevant. It doesn’t matter. And the reason it doesn’t matter is because a totally unbalanced league with a CCG that is a scrimmage, a foregone conclusion, is still better than an alignment which sacrifices a single inter-divisional rivalry that can be preserved.

               LikeLike

               July 12, 2010 at 1:07 pm

         2. As Wisconsin fan (and UW is in roughly the same position as Iowa in all this), I have to disagree. I think Wis and Iow are probably the biggest winners in a pure goegraphical setup. While UW or Iowa would have fewer games against the usual “big three” of Mich, OSU and PSU, a pure geographical split would provide a golden opportunity for Iow and Wis to bump up the prestige of their programs even further by avoiding the three traditional powers. A string of divisional (and then conference) titles is the kind of thing that can push these schools up from the “Baron” category that has been discussed, and a pure geographical setup makes it much more likely to happen. Somebody has to win the west, and Nebraska is not obviously looming over that division like OSU is in the East. Also, this isn’t the B12 North; Iow and Wis are huge-revenue programs. It’s not like you;re trying to cultivate an athletic department at Kansas State or something. If Iowa or Wisconsin rips off a bunch of divisional titles, they’ll have a chance to join the big boys.

            LikeLike

            June 28, 2010 at 9:22 am Reply

            1. What are we trying to accomplish here? Bump up the prestige of some programs or crown a true champion? THe model I suggested which was debated above, balanced the conferences based on how they finished the last 17 years win percentage wise and preserved 13 of the 16 most commonly cited rivalries in the conference. I did drop Wisconsin-Minnesota, a game that has been played for a long time but has turned into a dud for going on two decades now. Here is what I’m trying to avoid, from another article that I wrote:

               Consider the results of the Big 12 conference in recent seasons. In 2009, North division winner Nebraska faced South division winner Texas for the conference championship. Texas was 8-0 while Nebraska was 6-2. Texas won the game when an incomplete pass with one second left on the clock allowed them to kick a winning field goal. In other words, the Big 12 was one second or one missed field goal away from crowning a two loss team its conference champion (over what would have been a one loss Texas team). Things were even more bizarre for the Big 12 in 2008, when three teams tied for the top record in the South conference at 7-1, with Texas Tech beating Texas, Oklahoma beating Texas Tech, and Texas beating Oklahoma. That is, the three teams tied at the top had each beaten and lost to one of the other teams. Based on a tie-breaker, Oklahoma was declared the winner, culminating in a scintillating 62-21 win over a three loss Missouri team in the CCG. Want more? In 2007, the winner of the South, Oklahoma, at 6-2, was pitted against 7-1 Missouri in the conference championship game, while 7-1 Kansas in the South was left out of the mix altogether, meaning that a team with a worse record was invited to the championship game because they happened to be in a weaker subdivision. The same thing happened in the Big 12 in 2000, 2003, 2004, and 2005. And lest you think that the underdog winning is but a hypothetical, Kansas State at 6-2 knocked off 8-0 Oklahoma in 2003 to win the Big 12 Conference Championship. The BcS voters were so impressed, they sent Kansas State to to the Fiesta Bowl and put Oklahoma in the National Championships game anyway (in other words, the BcS voters treated the result of the CCG as a fluke and disregarded the game altogether). And these flawed conference championship games have lead to some lopsided contests. In the last ten years alone, these CCGs have resulted in the following one-sided contests: Oklahoma 62, Missouri 21; Texas 70, Colorado 3; Oklahoma 38, Missouri 17; Oklahoma 42, Colorado 3; Kansas State 35, Oklahoma 7; Oklahoma 29, Colorado 7; Nebraska 22, Texas 6; and Nebraska 54, Texas A&M 15. In other words, some fans were forced to digest some pretty bad football under the guise of a championship contest.

               I’m willing to lose a few rivalries to avoid that nonsense above. And, people shouldn’t act like these rivalries would be permanently lost; worst case scenario under my model, these teams meet every other year.

               LikeLike

               July 12, 2010 at 3:23 pm

            2. We are certainly not trying to crown a true champion. Any divisional structure will fail to accomplish that, because there’s no way of knowing whether your best 2 teams in any given season will end up in the same division. And this is why “balancing” the divisions is a waste of time: you can try all you want, but you still won’t be right all that often, which means the divisional alignment should be based on some other, independent criterion than “balance.”

               The point about the schools “joining the big boys” is simply observing that an obsession with balance looks only to the past instead of to the future; if Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska are in a division together, they’ll have an opportunity to blossom. The obsession with balance is determined to base the alignment on, and is therefore an effort at locking in, the past rather than acknowledging the malleability of the future.

               LikeLike

               July 13, 2010 at 12:51 pm

            3. Notwithstanding the nonsense you describe, no amount of that nonsense justifies sacrificing a single inter-divisional rivalry.

               LikeLike

               July 13, 2010 at 12:53 pm

            4. Adam, I think that is the source of our disagreement. Historically, if more often then not it came down to Ohio State-Michigan, one can reasonably conclude from some fifty years of evidence that Michigan will return to power and such a result could occur again. I understand that if you are not a fan of those teams, a model centered around them at the very least annoying. I am not certain why you think it has to be a great season/boring CCG or vice-versa. I could draw up all kinds of scenarios where that won’t be the case. I’ve read alot of your posts on here, and many of them present black and white either/or possibilities that have little bearing on the way things actually work in the real world. I for one can’t accept the mockery that became the Big 12, and instead, want to focus on the success of the SEC the last few years (knowing that trying to predict such a thing consistently is very very difficult to do). The great Florida-Alabama CCG’s did absolutly nothing to ruin the SEC regular season. This should be the model.

               LikeLike

               July 14, 2010 at 1:24 pm

            5. Seems like you are arguing against your own point MichaelZ:

               KSU 35-7 over #1 OU was an upset. So was OU 38-17 over #1 Missouri. UNL over Texas 22-6 was not an upset, but was a rematch-Texas won the 1st game in Austin. You could make the same argument about a lot of the BCS championship games. Several have been very one-sided. What you are demonstrating is that the results are very unpredictable.

               LikeLike

               July 14, 2010 at 6:12 pm

            6. First, I’d note that the SEC uses a geographic alignment. So I think the lesson I learn from the SEC is that if you stick to natural rivalries and let things shake out the way they do, you can get a great title game. As has been said many times in this thread, for much of the SEC’s history since going to divisions, the strength of the league was in the East, with Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia all in the same group. Until quite recently, Alabama’s football program was a shambles.

               As I have noted elsewhere, 50 years of evidence are totally irrelevant to projecting future competitive dynamics. The 50 years of dominance of those programs is driven by historical factors which are no longer present. For much of that history, only a few games were shown on TV; now virtually every game is. For much of that history, teams could offer (essentially) as many scholarships as they could afford; now there are tight scholarship restrictions which have produced measurable gains in even the MAC’s competitiveness, let alone the bottom of the Big Ten. This notion of “50 years of history” is driven almost entirely by memories of the “Big 2, Little 8” Woody & Bo era, which is gone never to return. Planning around that is an effort at locking in something that has, in fact, died off.

               And I don’t see where the Big 12 was a “mockery” at all. Even the so-called worst-case scenario, the 2008 3-way race with Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech, was an absolutely thrilling campaign which had the nation glued to the games. The fact that the CCG was essentially a foregone conclusion (whoever won the South was obviously going to crush whoever won the North) meant that the race for the South Division title was must-see TV, creating 3 mega-games (Texas-Oklahoma, Texas-TTU, Oklahoma-TTU). You also had major upset bids when Missouri played Texas and Oklahoma State tried to derail Oklahoma’s national title bid. If that league is “balanced” better, you don’t get that; the reason it happened was because the stakes were so high, with all of the strength of the league in the same group. College GameDay came to 5 different Big 12 games that year. I’d rather have that than an exciting CCG.

               It’s not that it’s an either/or; it’s that the worst-case scenario of an unbalanced league is still awesome, not a mockery. Since that’s the case, I’d much rather preserve natural rivalries with the league alignment, and that means playing games within divisions whenever possible (not merely guaranteeing an annual game). Moreover, because even the worst-case scenario of an unbalanced league is still awesome, there’s no good reason to chase the un-findable notion of “balance.”

               LikeLike

               July 15, 2010 at 3:02 am

            7. @Adam – I agree with you. It would’ve been one thing if the Big Ten only added Missouri, which meant that the west would not have any marquee national school, or Notre Dame, which doesn’t have any real rivals in the Western half of the conference. With Nebraska, however, the balance of power in an East/West split isn’t so lopsided where I see much of a compelling reason to break up natural geographic divisions. I also fail to see how the Big 12 was really that imbalanced – the people that believe that have fairly short memories. Missouri and Kansas were playing for a potential national championship spot in 2007 and for the Big 12 North was the much stronger division for the first several years of the conference’s existence.

               Above all else, I absolutely cannot stand the ACC’s divisions, which were specifically gerrymandered to set up a Miami-Florida State championship game. Of course, that matchup has never happened and it all came at the expense of removing drama from the regular season. I’m far from a complete traditionalist, but on this issue, I hope the Big Ten just keeps it simple and realize the ACC made a bad mistake.

               LikeLike

               July 15, 2010 at 3:15 pm

            8. Incidentally, Frank, the best mnemonic I’ve been able to devise to remember the ACC’s Divisions is that one of the groups has the 2 Virginia schools, as well as the (in)famous pair of “Tobacco Road” schools (UNC-Duke), and it also has both of the “Tech” schools. That gets you 5, and since the ACC’s divisions were designed to split up Miami and FSU, and there’s no room for FSU anywhere else in the mnemonic, by default the last one is Miami. Still doesn’t help in remembering which is the “Atlantic” and which is the “Coastal” Division, though.

               LikeLike

               July 16, 2010 at 4:29 am

            9. Frank,

               The ACC split North/South would have been painfully lopsided in favor of the South.

               In terms of prestige & television demand, the only two teams that are anywhere close to the Big Ten’s “Big Four” are Miami and FSU. VT is the only program that could compare to Wisconsin or Iowa. GT, Clemson, and UNC probably carry more TV value than, say, Minnesota but less than Purdue (when Purdue’s good). The rest of the league is somewhere around the level of Minnesota & Indiana.

               So, four of the six most prominent ACC programs would be in the South, while the North would have four programs that carry almost no TV demand (BC, MD, UVA, Duke) even when they’re good.

               It wasn’t just about splitting FSU & Miami. It was about making as even a split as possible among FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, and UNC while maintaining the most valued rivalries. (UNC and UVA, for example, have the oldest rivalry in the ENTIRE Southeast.)

               I like the ACC divisions, except I’d switch GT & BC so Miami, VT and BC could play annually and FSU could have a closer geographic rival.

               LikeLike

               July 16, 2010 at 2:17 pm

            10. I think any ACC alignment ought to put BC, MD, VA and VT together, and MIA, FSU, GT, and CLEM together. Puts FSU and MIA together, puts BC and VT together (the Big East defectors), etc. You can split the NC schools however you want, and I don’t know what would be geographic. If I were doing it, I’d probably split them WF and DU going with the northern group, and UNC/NCST going with the southern group. It’s not my understanding that UNC/Duke is a rivalry anybody cares about in football, and depending on how you set it up your league scheduling rules, splitting them between divisions could be an improvement in basketball (a sport where rematches are routine).

                LikeLike

                July 16, 2010 at 3:33 pm

      2. I think they’ll do geography and adjust it if they expand further. Remember, the most likely additions they’re looking at in the next ten years are Notre Dame + an Eastern school. If you put Notre Dame in the west and a patsy in the East, it’s pretty well balanced.

         East:
         Michigan
         Michigan State
         Ohio State
         Penn State
         Indiana
         Purdue
         Rutgers

         West:
         Minnesota
         Illinois
         Wisconsin
         Nebraska
         Notre Dame
         Northwestern
         Iowa

         East: OSU, PSU, Michigan
         West: ND, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa

         It’s a bit more balanced, but it may be difficult to put ND in the West. They’d probably want fewer conference games, couldn’t do all protected rivalries with Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue, and the New York Game goes away.

         LikeLike

         June 30, 2010 at 7:29 am Reply

         1. Why do people still insist on breaking this up by geography? When broken up this way, your model has a 34-44 breakdown (1 point for each place the school ranked in winning pct the last 17 years), with the lower number reflecting the stronger division. You correct this by adding Notre Dame and Rutgers to the mix, a very uncertain development given ND’s determination to remain independent. I just don’t understand why people are stuck on geography, other than it appeals to our sense of an ordered universe. God I hope they don’t do this, it will make the CCG an after thought.

            LikeLike

            July 12, 2010 at 3:37 pm Reply

            1. There is no chance Notre Dame would be put into a West division if it joined in a couple of years.

               With the current 12 team setup, a pure geographical setup might very well work. Add in ND and Rutgers and there’s no way. There would have to be some other setup in a 14-team league.

               LikeLike

               July 12, 2010 at 5:29 pm

            2. I want the CCG to be an afterthought. If the CCG is an afterthought, that means that the regular season was likely really exciting, because so much is riding on the outcome of who wins the division.

               LikeLike

               July 13, 2010 at 12:54 pm

            3. Note, though, that it shouldn’t be a manufactured afterthought. The alignment shouldn’t be trying to make the CCG anything other than it is. The alignment should be based on some other, independent factor that is totally unrelated to whether the CCG ends up being an interesting game or not.

               LikeLike

               July 13, 2010 at 1:02 pm

   2. The ratings from annual matchups of PSU, tOSU and UM are a huge bargaining chip for Delaney and the big10. Competitive balance would be a galactically stupid move, jeopardizing $$ and national interest. Hopefully this is one aspect of the conference where Delany follows the SEC model and recognizes the mistakes of the ACC (and they are mistakes, to the point of being irrelevant on the national scene). ONE protected annual matchup can be arranged cross division, to maintain “cherished rivalries”, but splitting up the trioka of PSU, tOSU and UM would be killing the golden goose which has truly established the current ratings and annual $$ take that ALL the teams enjoy. Time for Iowa, Wisky, and Nebraska to step up the big10 west with 3 strong programs, with quality, perennial rivalries that would bring additional NATIONAL interest, higher ratings and more $$ to be divided up for the athletic departments of those that whine and pine for their quaint “cherished rivalries” and balance, which don’t add to the ADept balance sheet or satisfy every increasing demands of title IX enforcement.

      As a PSU fan, I will be hugely disappointed and angry with Delany and the conference if PSU is put into the big10 west – a move which would be as stupid, imbecillic and shortsighted as the big12’s idiotic and mornoic split of Oklahoma and Nebraska into the big12 north and south, and the end of their annual match up which brought great NATIONAL interest to the old big8. The big10 should not mess with the 1990 expansion success that got it where it is today, and as Frank says “KEEP IT SIMPLE”.

      LikeLike

      June 27, 2010 at 1:46 pm Reply

      1. Frank,

         There´s one very important point about divisional alignment that´s been overlooked. Whatever we decide upon, it is, in all likely hood, temporary!

         If Delany and co. see the Big 10 expanding to 14 or 16 in the near future, then it makes no sense to divide the divisions in any way other than an East/West split. Maintain rivalries and bide your time until the conference moves to a four team four pod system.

         LikeLike

         June 27, 2010 at 2:15 pm Reply

   3. The most common solution that I have read to the problem of East/West imbalance is move Penn State west.

      All that does is move the imbalance from one division to the other. With Michigan being what it currently is, there is no way that divisions would be balanced as follows:

      East:
      Michigan
      Ohio State
      Michigan State
      Indiana
      Purdue
      Illinois or Northwestern

      West:
      Penn State
      Nebraska
      Wisconsin
      Minnesota
      Iowa
      Illinois or Northwestern

      This is an even worse imbalance than straight East/West.

      LikeLike

      June 27, 2010 at 4:31 pm Reply

      1. Totally agree.

         Yes there is a “big 4”. But we need to dig just a tad deeper to understand how the other 8 teams affect this.

         Wisconsin and Iowa are clearly the 5th and 6th best teams. If there is one thing the big ten needs as much as anything, is for both of these programs to breakthrough to the next level and become competitors on the national stage. The SEC has at least 6 nationally competitive teams. (FLA, UGA, Tenn, Bama, Auburn, LSU) and add in Ole Miss and Arkansas as solid.

         For the Big Ten to match the SEC, it needs to get past having only 4 “big” schools. Wisconsin and Iowa being in the same division with Nebraska, can expect to get that opportunity to breakthrough. This helps the Big Ten more than anything, in fact it is very much needed for the conference.

         Yea, if you focus on the “Big 4” sure, 3 of 4 are in the East. But if you look at the top 6, Three are in the West and Three are in the East. The gap is not big. It is small and one that would only be visible over a long period of time, provided Iowa and Wisconsin fail to breakthrough—–which I highly doubt.

         Throwing Penn State to the West is simply dumb.

         East – West is very balanced. Stop worrying about 4 teams, this is now a 12 team league.

         LikeLike

         July 18, 2010 at 1:02 am Reply

3. Pingback: Tweets that mention After the Conference Realignment Maelstrom « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT -- Topsy.com

4. I think you are right about the “No more expansion without ND”, though I would have thought that a year ago as well.

   The fact that ESPN and Fox would intervene to stop super conferences lets me know that it is a good idea, at least financially.

   I really like the geographical divisions. As a Northwestern fan, having relatively close games increases attendance. Also, Northwestern has a winning record against everyone in the division (except Nebraska) since ’95.

   My first real meta-sports experience was Albert Belle signing with Chicago, which began my slow disenchantment with baseball. I was never really a big basketball fan, but I definitely watched more because LeBron was on the Cavs. I can’t say I would be surprised if he left though.

   LikeLike

   June 27, 2010 at 10:51 am Reply

   1. I like divisions East West too.

      It keeps every single rivalry in-tact. It does. After Ohio St v Michigan (which by the way is not a trophy game) the group of games that need to be preserved is Minnesota-Wisconsin-Iowa. These teams cannot be broken up. Then you realize they have to be with Nebraska.

      Further, you want Nebraska to come to Chicago every other year to ensure a sell-out.

      I do think the first Big Ten home game for Nebraska should be hosting Wisconsin. The first road game should be @ Minnesota.

      LikeLike

      July 18, 2010 at 1:07 am Reply

5. Frank, I agree the Big Ten is done expanding until they will be able to secure another national power. However, once the next round of TV negotiations begin, if the Big Ten is able to secure much higher revenues than the Big XII, won’t this talk about the Big XII splitting begin again? I think that Texas is always going to be the goal for the Big Ten, but if they potentially join the Pac-10 in the future, you will have schools raiding smaller conferences to replenish. This will force Notre Dame into the Big Ten, after the Big East ceases to exist

   LikeLike

   June 27, 2010 at 10:57 am Reply

   1. After the way TX manipulated and played everyone in this round of realignment, I hope the Big Ten would be incredibly wary of flirting with the Longhorns in the future.
      I can’t blame the TX folks for getting the best deal for themselves, but they left a trail of bodies in their wake, especially in the B12 north.

      LikeLike

      June 28, 2010 at 7:43 am Reply

      1. Unless the thinking changes between now and the next round, BevoTV is the sticking point between the Big Ten (or Pac 12) and Texas. The Texas point of view appears to be that once it is up and running, it becomes something any conference interested in them must accept. One wonders how much consideration they have given, if any, to the idea that BevoTV makes Texas a non-starter for those two conferences. It’s not like other conferences can’t eventually continue to nibble off important chunks of the Big 12, effectively forcing the Big 12 to further retreat geographically into Texas.

         LikeLike

         June 28, 2010 at 8:18 am Reply

      2. Texas played everyone and chewed up the B12N? How do you figure? Texas put the B12 back together, and doubled everyone’s TV take (so they expect).

         They saved the B12N bacon, at least for five years.

         Texas didn’t come to a deal with the B10. If the LHN made the deal undoable, was that “playing” the B10?

         You could argue that the Pac-10 was played, but it was the Pac-10 that offered Colorado in order to avoid having the stigma of Baylor attached to it, and also talked about ejecting Oklahoma State in favor of Kansas (thereby changing the deal late in the game).

         LikeLike

         June 28, 2010 at 2:43 pm Reply

         1. We will see what’s been saved once expectations meet reality.

            “Maestas projects the remaining 10 Big 12 schools will receive $13.5 million each, but again, that’s before bargaining.

            “It’ll be similar to the Pac-10 per school,” he said. “It’s not realistic that Beebe’s going to give Texas and Oklahoma and (Texas) A&M $20 million (each) and all the have-nots $14 million to $17 million. They can distribute that kind of ratio, but the total pie won’t be large enough to add up to that.””

            http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_15334642

            LikeLike

            June 28, 2010 at 5:59 pm Reply

         2. @Bob in Houston,

            “Texas put the B12 back together, and doubled everyone’s TV take (so they expect).”

            More like the Pac 10 wouldn’t agree to assigning media rights to individual schools rather than the conference so Texas decided to Stay in the Big XII-II, thus “saving” the conference.

            As for the doubling everyone’s tv take (or so the expect comment)… The so they expect part is the key there. Right now the only thing immediately holding the conference together is the fact ESPN (and thus ABC) and FSN decided not to reduce the value of the existing contracts, and the promise of the buyout money from NU and CU that may or may not ever come.

            “They saved the B12N bacon, at least for five years.”
            Time will tell about this. You are likely correct, but what happens in the next year with the FSN portion of the Big XII contract could doom the conference.

            The details leaked of the Fox master plan for the future were a joke. Even if the Big XII finally makes the right call by extending their FSN contract only to 2016 to bring up all of the rights at the same time in 2016; then all they’ve done is decided to go head-to-head with Delany. I’ll take Delany over Beebe in that one.

            LikeLike

            June 28, 2010 at 6:40 pm Reply

6. Missed the posts! Thanks Frank.

   LikeLike

   June 27, 2010 at 11:02 am Reply

   1. added

      LikeLike

      June 27, 2010 at 11:04 am Reply

7. You’re right about the fevered following in Nebraska. Perfect example of this is the spring game. A lot of press gets written about the attendance and how great it is for a spring practice, second only to Alabama. They forget to mention the fact that Husker fans actually pay for their tickets. All the more impressive.

   LikeLike

   June 27, 2010 at 11:15 am Reply

8. The B10 may be done, but I don’t yet buy that for everyone else. Rumors today that Hawaii may go independent and Fresno State may go to D1AA.

   LikeLike

   June 27, 2010 at 11:23 am Reply

   1. loki,

      does this mean rice stays put for now?

      LikeLike

      June 27, 2010 at 11:27 am Reply

      1. As far as I can see, yes. Unless the MWC goes to 12 by raiding CUSA West (Houston?, UTEP?) to do it.

         LikeLike

         June 27, 2010 at 11:59 am Reply

         1. loki,

            good, I am going to make a serious effort to find at least 1 Rice game to watch on TV this fall because of you!

            LikeLike

            June 27, 2010 at 12:04 pm Reply

            1. The Texas game on 9/4 is slated for ESPN, but I’m not sure I would recommend watching that one…

               LikeLike

               June 27, 2010 at 12:07 pm

            2. loki,

               agreed, i was wanting to see one where Rice can win in a fairly competitive game.

               suggestions? I have BTN and can get ESPN 3, but I have cable not satellite so my primary markets are Cincinnati, Louisville, and Indy.

               LikeLike

               June 27, 2010 at 12:11 pm

            3. I am going to make a serious effort to watch a Rice game as well. Any idea if the Northwestern game will be televised?

               LikeLike

               June 27, 2010 at 2:52 pm

            4. The only three that are currently scheduled for TV are:
               9/5 Texas ESPN
               9/25 Baylor CBS College Sports
               10/16 Houston CSS

               There may be more added. Thanks for the interest, guys.

               LikeLike

               June 27, 2010 at 3:05 pm

            5. CBS college sports carries a lot of CUSA games. Of course, with Rice, you always want to see the halftime show if they show it and watch the MOB (Marching Owl Band). They are a satirical scatter band like Stanford and UVA.

               LikeLike

               June 27, 2010 at 7:16 pm

9. I agree with a straight East/West divisional split. While conferences may become national, divisions should remain local/regional. The simplest way to create rivalries is geography. Non-geographic rivalries can form, but little elevates two institutions like geographic proximity.

   LikeLike

   June 27, 2010 at 11:29 am Reply

10. add

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 11:35 am Reply

11. It would be such a slap in the face to Penn State to ask us to take one for the team and play in a western division. We were treated awfully in public and probably in private when we were first added to the conference (check out Black Shoe Diaries, a great PSU site, for a recent breakdown of how things went when the Nittany Lions were added to the conference).

    Now PSU would have to suffer and play teams they have very little historical connection with (except for Nebraska)? Not to mention the impact on the fans and traveling for away games.

    Look closely at what would be left in the “East” if Penn State was not there. It would be a bunch of tune up games that give Michigan and Ohio State a cake walk to solid records every year. I understand the protection of “the game”, no matter how unfair it is to everyone else, but there is no reason Penn State has to bite the bullet and be put at a disadvantage to make everyone else feel better.

    If “the game” is so important, put Michigan in the west and let it be set up so they can possibly play twice a year. If the conference caters to one Mich/OSU matchup, they’ll wet their pants for 2.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 11:36 am Reply

    1. Here is the BSD post about the reaction to PSU joining the Big Ten:

       http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2010/6/22/1523717/penn-state-history-joining-the-big

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 2:30 pm Reply

       1. I read that about a week ago. Very curious situation there, for sure.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 10:26 pm Reply

       2. Wow. Wow.

          I remember some of that, but at the same time forget it was that contentious.

          Nebraska owes Penn State for being a trailblazer here and getting J Delaney to prepare better.

          Of course going from 10 to 11 was odd and part of the issue.

          LikeLike

          July 18, 2010 at 1:30 am Reply

    2. Great article, Nittanian (although not from a PSU standpoint – still most instructive).
       If PSU takes the attitude that playing in the same division as Nebraska is “taking one for the team” I think this will be very self-defeating. Whether PSU fans want to acknowledge it or not, Ohio State-Michigan is the traditional top match-up in the Big Ten. If PSU continues to play MSU as their end-of-season rival, that matchup will almost certainly be relegated to a third-tier status behind whoever Nebraska plays. In short I think PSU would be flirting with becoming irrelevant as far as season-ending games are concerned.
       I suppose one could say, “when Notre Dame enters the Big Ten, they could be PSU’s rival.” Maybe. Then again they might be paired up with MSU, and PSU might be paired with an eastern school like Rutgers. Besides, suppose ND stays indie? Then PSU will either be locked into the MSU game or, again, an eastern rival.
       One of the divisional splits I considered was based on each school’s entry into the Big Ten. An exception or swap could be made to allow Michigan and Ohio State to be together in an “Olds” division (consisting of the schools in the Big Ten the longest). I think it would make a great championship game to pit the “oldsters” vs. the “new kids on the block.”
       If I were PSU I would try very hard to align with Nebraska, if for no other reason than to maintain relevance. Based on last year’s BCS selections, it’s pretty obvious that the Big Ten is pushing Iowa . If Tom Osborne wants PSU as his season-ending rivalry game (as I believe I’ve read elsewhere in one of the other blog entry comments), if I were PSU I’d take ‘em up on that one.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 6:29 pm Reply

       1. The problem with doing divisions based on how long teams have been in the Big Ten is that Nebraska, Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan all end up in the new teams division.

          Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Purdue have all been in since the start in 1896. Chicago was also an original member as was Michigan who later left and rejoined.

          Iowa and Indiana joined in 1900.

          Ohio State joined in 1912.

          Michigan rejoined in 1916 after leaving in 1907.

          Michigan State joined in 1953 and Penn State in 1990.

          LikeLike

          June 27, 2010 at 10:41 pm Reply

       2. IMHO, if PSU replaces MSU with NEB as its protected rivalry, staying in the East Division gives PSU everything they could want; get to keep the budding rivalries with MI and tOSU and get to start what may be a blockbuster annual event with the Huskers.

          I would schedule “the game” at noon and then “the new game” at 3:30 on the last saturday of the season. “the game’s” ratings would feed the ratings of the “new game.” everyone would be watching and then we’d have the CCG the following week. B10 in the public eye for two weeks.

          and even though there’d be a possible PSU/UNL rematch, I say “so what.” I know many have decried the idea of a rematch, but you can’t let the CCG drive the divisional decision like it did in the ACC. The CCG is definitely the tail; pay attention to the dog.

          in short, I 110% agree with Frank that geographical divisions are best.

          also, I don’t think anyone has mentioned, but geographical divisions almost perfectly protect the various rivalry games without the need for cross-divisional “protected rivalries.” I think the only ones “lost” are between the IL and IN teams and the long history between tOSU and Illinois (the Illibuck Trophy). But, those are not really lost; just some breaks are taken. A year or two off here or there is okay. That’s how it works now anyway. Example: tOSU cycles off of the Illini schedule now. So that can continue.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 10:57 am Reply

          1. oh, and with MSU and PSU still together in the east, even if not the last game of the season, they can continue to play for the prettiest trophy ever made (note: lots of sarcasm).

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 11:00 am Reply

             1. As a non Big 10 fan, the logical E/W divisions make sense. Settle it on the field.

                Plus, you don’t need protected rivalries anymore. Just play your own division and 1/2 the other division. = 8 games.

                Every other year the Eastern teams would get Nebraska and the Western teams would get Ohio St.

                Plus, you don’t need to divide Indiana/Purdue or NW/Illinois.

                Solve it on the field.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 11:25 am

12. I couldn’t agree more about the expansion talk being ‘on ice’ until Notre Dame can be lured. It’s all in Kelly’s hands now.
    I also believe that the expansion process (if it proceeds) will be signed and sealed behind the scenes then delivered once the deal’s done. All of Delany’s early bluster was counter productive.
    Nebraska is a home run add that will pay dividends for the Big Ten for decades. I agree that only ND, TEXAS (and FLORIDA) would be ahead of them.
    Great job on this blog Frank the Tank, your posts are informative, well reasoned and (since I agree with them almost verbatim) correct.
    Great Job! – And yes, Lebron is headed for Chicago.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 11:37 am Reply

13. Penn State vs. Ghana?

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 11:51 am Reply

14. You preserve the rivalries by setting up protected rivalries. These protected rivalries are played each year.

    I think it is much more important to arrange divisions by competitive balance. This way you avoid what happened to the Big 12 where one division dominated. You also get a more interesting conference race. If one division is dominant then the other division suffers from a lack of attention not only nationally but within the conference, too.

    That means you will have to change the divisions periodically. I would use some kind of formula that calculates performance over the previous – oh, let’s say four years. This way you don’t change after every season yet you have the ability to adjust the competitive balance every four years.

    You can’t have PSU, OSU and UM in the same division because those are three of the four national schools and that would tend to pull focus away from the other division. Again, see the disaster that was the big twelve.

    I also think that you could set divisions each season based on projections. But there are problems with that. One, if you use the media projections, well, those are just so often wrong. Two, using some kind of panel made up of coaches or ADs might seem more appropriate but you would have schools angling to get paired with certain other schools. Some might want easier competition. Some may want a home game vs. OSU or UM for example. So I don’t think that would work. It must be objective and that means past performance. Maybe four years is too long. Maybe two years is more appropriate. Not sure.

    Anyway, based on previous four years’ records, here is how I would set it:

    Red Division
    OSU
    WIS
    IOWA
    NW
    PUR
    MIN

    Blue Division
    PSU
    NEB
    UM
    MSU
    ILL
    IU

    The protected rivalries that I would always protect under any alignment:
    OSU/UM
    MSU/UM
    NEB/IOWA
    MIN/WIS
    IU/PUR
    NEB/PSU
    ILL/NW
    WIS/IOWA
    MIN/IOWA

    You may notice that I’ve designated some schools with multiple protected rivals. That is because of certain unique relationships and potentially good rivalries. If by my formula a school ends up in the opposite division of all its protected rivals, then I’d have to adjust the alignment accordingly. The rules would have to be written in such a way to allow for these kinds of adjustments. For example, in the last four years, MSU and PUR both have 14 conference wins. I didn’t use any tiebreaker to decide which division to place them. But if MSU had ended up in the Red division and PUR in the Blue, both MSU protected rivals would have been in the other division. I would therefore have traded MSU and PUR.

    For schools that have two protected rivals, I would designate a primary rival. That’s whom they would play in the final game of the season. When a conflict arises like UM/OSU/MSU where UM/OSU must be the final game, I would have to make decisions based on what’s best for the conference. Obviously OSU/UM is a bigger rivalry than UM/MSU.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 11:59 am Reply

    1. Protected rivalries across the divisions are a pale imitation of an actual rivalry. An actual rivalry exists because both teams want something that only one of them can have. Their game is robbed of that significance if they can play a rematch in the title game.

       Cross-divisional rivalries are a last-ditch solution. They’re how you preserve rivalries like Michigan/Minnesota or Ohio State/Illinois, not Michigan/Ohio State.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 7:08 pm Reply

    2. the BXII North is NOT the correct historical reference here. I think this is a mistake that a lot of people (including Delaney) are making and, again, this is a tail wagging the dog.

       unlike the BXII, there is equal revenue sharing in the B10; consequently, Minn, Illinois, NwU, Indiana, Purdue are NOT going to whither away.

       THAT was the problem with the BXII North. Other than Neb, there was a huge danger that the other teams in the BXII North would starve financially leading to perpetual cupcake status.

       That is not going to happen in the B10 because of the equal revenue sharing. The “lesser” B10 teams can still compete in the “arms race” by building facilities, etc. Minn for example, just built a new stadium; Indiana just revamped its stadium, etc.

       the point: the B10 West does not equal the BXII North.

       Neb, Iowa, Wis, Minn, IL, NwU

       greater than

       Neb, Mizzu, KS, KSstate, IowaState, Colo

       so, I again support 110% the idea of geographical divisions.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 11:12 am Reply

15. Frank,

    on your post.. good points..

    (1) I am going to throw out a wild card with almost no chance of success, but if the Big 10 goes to 16 maybe ND and USC instead of Texas, and then add 2 basketball schools (Kansas + Maryland) to capture some basketball brands that can lose to the football “brands”. It goes back to my argument that you have to have some balance of power which means you have to have some football losers as well.

    (2) I feel you are 100% right on this one. I really expected you as a lawyer to be filing some FOI requests. 🙂 This ‘cabal’ for lack of a better word should not be able to stay out of the public eye in light of all that has happened.

    (3) In expansion football “brands” are driving it all. Academics are important, but in the end you better have a football program of note.

    (4) Amen! I kept saying Duke had no shot because of their football team, and I will stick with this till I turn blue or some major conference proves me wrong.

    (5) As an IU homer I disagree. That said, I think going forward you will have to at least try to balance the divisions. The problem is the historic rivals are sandwiched in between the new additions. No easy answer, but IU and PU might become another U of Chicago if they feel even more futile in football than they do now. If IU can not return to basketball greatness again, this could be a problem in the future.

    (6) Homer or not, I think you are correct about Lebron. If for no other reasons than Cleveland has cap room trouble, and Chicago is closer to Ohio than Miami or New York – in feel as much as actual mileage.

    (7) Okay I know you did not have a 7 but I am still pained by yesterday as a repeat of 2006. Since soccer will never have the TV timeouts that the US market demands I feel we may never be a serious contender for the World Cup. This is one place where the ESPN’s need to take some advertising losses for the betterment of the US on the world stage. Major media could chalk it up as pro bono work or write it off as an expense and get on the world bus here.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 12:01 pm Reply

16. adding

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 12:21 pm Reply

17. Nutella crepes.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 12:22 pm Reply

    1. are they good? never had one.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 2:33 pm Reply

18. FWIW,

    http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5332135

    when it rains it pours in the Pac 10 football world

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 12:25 pm Reply

    1. the next step for UCLA

       http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5340069

       not a good time for southern california football, too bad UT and OU did not make the jump as they would have the next few years at the top of the Pac 16.

       Losing the scholarship for a purse, what idiots!

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 3:47 pm Reply

19. As an Illinois basketball fan first and foremost I take exception to the keep it simple solution to conference divisions. The Fighting Illini’s closest geographic rival is actually the Purdue Boilermakers, so that tremendous rivalry should be broken up so that Nebraska always gets to play Wisconsin? I don’t think the college presidents think that way, nor does it have to be an obstacle.

    A roughly North/South division breakdown with two dedicated cross-rivals once we inevitably move to a nine game conference slate is the way to go.

    Great Lakes:
    Minnesota: Iowa & Nebraska
    Wisconsin: Nebraska & Iowa
    Northwestern: Purdue & Illinois
    Michigan State: Penn St & Indiana
    Michigan: Indiana & Purdue
    Ohio State: Illinois & Penn St

    Great Plains:
    Nebraska: Wisconsin & Minnesota
    Iowa: Minnesota & Wisconsin
    Illinois: Ohio St & Northwestern
    Indiana: Michigan & Michigan St
    Purdue: Northwestern & Michigan
    Penn State: Michigan St & Ohio St

    This achieves the competitive balance the league desires with the lack in disruption in long-standing football trophy games.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 12:26 pm Reply

    1. That’s a very interesting alignment. It is very similar to the alignment I have suggested but for different reasons. Looking strictly at competitive balance and trying to keep some geographic sanity I suggested the following:

       Black:
       OSU
       UM
       MSU
       Wiscy
       Illi
       NW

       Blue:
       PSU
       UNL
       Iowa
       Minny
       Purdue
       Indy

       I am ignorant to the rivalries so I don’t know how much of a difference this is from your alignment. What I was trying to accomplish was set the book ends of UNL and PSU in the Blue division. To help PSU with travel I included the Indiana instead of the Illinois schools in the Blue division. Next for competitive balance I split Iowa and Wiscy. I chose Iowa for the Blue because it seems to be a natural rival for UNL and has become, at least to PSU fans, a rivalry game for PSU. The next thing I considered was the MSU and UM rivalry. That left Minny for the Blue.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 1:57 pm Reply

    2. My guess is that there would not be divisions in basketball. But even if there are, football would presumably drive these much more than basketball. PUR isn’t even a protected rivarly game for ILL now, is it? Thsi particulr rivalry isn’t going to carry any weight in the divisional setup.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 8:57 am Reply

       1. The SEC uses divisions for basketball effectively, making their tournament the crowning of the champ.

          As for football and basketball, the inclusion of Penn St has screwed up the continuity of rivalries for 17 seasons and now finally, by the addition of the Huskers we can restore some semblance of tradition.

          Did you know that Illinois plays for the Cannon with Purdue? Nor is the Illibuck game with Ohio State protected, but it should be. Nine game schedules allow all trophy games but the Governor’s Bell game between Minnesota and Penn State to be protected.

          Many fans don’t appreciate the cordial relationship between Big Ten institutions. Michigan may be the most storied football program in history, but they don’t make decisions for the league. I believe the consensus about decision-making is one of the many reasons Nebraska was attracted to the Big Ten.

          So even if Indiana is the weakest football program, equal time will be given to making sure that their stadium is packed by providing the most alluring match-ups for them. So let the Old Brass Spittoon be played for annually.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 1:09 pm Reply

          1. Even in 12 team leagues, the tourney champ is never the real champ. The best record over the regular season determines the champ.

             LikeLike

             June 30, 2010 at 7:40 am Reply

             1. The Big East calls their tourney the “Big East Championship” and the winner the “Big East Champions.”

                I’ve always envied how cool the Big East’s event is and wondered why the Big Ten Tournament can’t be similarly cool.

                LikeLike

                July 1, 2010 at 7:47 am

             2. It varies by league custom, not size of league. The Southern Conference and the ACC (which grew out of the Southern) deem the tournament winner its champion, not the team finishing first in the regular season. Conferences that later adopted tournaments never took this angle, perhaps fearing the regular season would be devalued.

                LikeLike

                July 1, 2010 at 8:04 am

       2. They don’t have any protected rivalries in basketball, which seems absurd to me. It wouldn’t astonish me if they went to a divisional structure in basketball too, although I may think that simply because the fact that they don’t protect any rivalries in basketball now makes no sense to me. Adding a 12th team is an opportunity to bring back sanity to basketball scheduling.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 1:11 pm Reply

          1. The way the SEC schedule works for basketball is to play two games against each divisional opponents and one game against each team in the other division for a 16-game regular season, with 8 home games.

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 1:17 pm Reply

             1. That’s how I’d work it in Big Ten basketball, too. Seems perfect, doesn’t it? In fact, if the NCAA just wanted to trim those 2 games off the length of the season overall and start the NCAA Tournament a week earlier, sign me up. Nobody needs 2 more games against Coppin State and the University of Jacksonville in mid-December.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 1:24 pm

          2. @Adam – I completely agree with you re: basketball scheduling. I’d handle it by having 3 geographic pods:

             POD A
             Wisconsin
             Minnesota
             Iowa
             Nebraska

             POD B
             Illinois
             Northwestern
             Indiana
             Purdue

             POD C
             Michigan
             Michigan State
             Ohio State
             Penn State

             In an 18-game conference schedule, each team would play all of the other teams in its pod home-and-home every year (effectively protected rivalries). It would then rotate through the other schools 2 -years on/2-years off in terms of home-and-home within seasons. That is, you have 2 years on where you play a school outside of your pod twice per season, and then 2 years off where you play such school once per season.

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 2:29 pm Reply

             1. This is more or less what the ACC should have done when it went to 12 teams (North: BC, Md, Va, VT; Central: Duke, UNC, NCSU, WF; South: Clem, FSU, GT, Miami). However, it didn’t happen because 1) the conference decided to retain its 16-game schedule, and 2) Maryland screamed to high heaven about preserving its “precious” home-and-home with Duke.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 5:25 pm

             2. As a Big 12er, I’d say that the 16 game schedule works fine. No need to complicate things by bringing in rotating pods.

                The only downside to doing 5 home and homes and 6 alternating road/home games is that you miss a few great revenge games. KU vs. Texas determined the league champ more years than not– the Big 12 could have made a lot more money by making it a home and home game.

                LikeLike

                June 30, 2010 at 7:49 am

             3. With the last few years, the B10 went from 16 to 18 games, so I don’t think they are going back to 16 any time soon. Any time you throw the words “pods” out there, old-schoolers seem to blanch, but you could achieve the same result by announcing certain protected rivalries much like exists for football.

                LikeLike

                June 30, 2010 at 7:55 am

20. FOR THE NEWEST MEMBERS OF THE BIG 10 FAMILY:

    for the PSU and UNL bloggers only please.

    How would you guys like the divisions to look?

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 12:27 pm Reply

    1. Here’s my take as a Nebraska fan, I’m familiar with a lot of the Big Ten rivalries; but admittingly not all…..this takes care of most of the rivalries I know AND it keeps geography and competitiveness fairly convenient as far as I can tell:

       West
       Iowa
       Nebraska
       Michigan
       Michigan St
       Indiana
       Northwestern

       East
       Ohio St
       Penn St
       Minnesota
       Wisconsin
       Purdue
       Illinois

       From what I understand; they are considering playing a 9 game conference schedule; if they do, this opens the door to the possibility of one permanent cross-division rival. So you’d end up playing the 5 teams in your division/your permanent cross-division rival/and 3 rotating games against the other teams in the opposite division. With that said, here are what I’d like to see the permanent rivals be:

       Iowa (Minnesota)
       Nebraska(Wisconsin)
       Michigan (Ohio St)
       Michigan St (Penn St)
       Indiana (Purdue)
       Illinois(Northwestern)

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 12:32 pm Reply

    2. I suspect most UNL fans (like me) would like to see divisions based on geography (east/west). At least based on K Manns post above, PSU fans feel the same way. When you are on the geographic fringe, travel to away games is easier on average with the geographic split. Not sure of its significance, but the conferences that have had problems with divisions (ACC and Big XII) are/were laid out north/south while the SEC (and Big Ten) are naturally east/west.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 1:23 pm Reply

       1. The Big Ten can be divided “naturally” North/South, only the two Illinois schools would go to different divisions of the states with two representatives. It isn’t considered natural because it divides Ohio State and Michigan, the number one rivalry that will be preserved. I suspect there are a number of ways of dividing that can easily be justified geographically but will be rejected out of hand because of such historical considerations.

          LikeLike

          June 27, 2010 at 3:54 pm Reply

          1. The east/west distance of the Big Ten is much greater than the north/south distance. If you divide the conference north/south, some of your division rivals are probably a long way away.

             LikeLike

             June 27, 2010 at 4:06 pm Reply

             1. Agree. I’m just pointing out that geographic logic is not the deciding factor here. History is. Ohio State/Michigan and Michigan/Michigan State are untouchable, whether the geography of any particular split makes sense or not.

                LikeLike

                June 27, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    3. Black:
       OSU
       UM
       MSU
       Wiscy
       Illi
       NW

       Blue:
       PSU
       UNL
       Iowa
       Minny
       Purdue
       Indy

       I am ignorant to the rivalries so I don’t know how much of a difference this is from your alignment. What I was trying to accomplish was set the book ends of UNL and PSU in the Blue division. To help PSU with travel I included the Indiana instead of the Illinois schools in the Blue division. Next for competitive balance I split Iowa and Wiscy. I chose Iowa for the Blue because it seems to be a natural rival for UNL and has become, at least to PSU fans, a rivalry game for PSU. The next thing I considered was the MSU and UM rivalry. That left Minny for the Blue.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 2:02 pm Reply

    4. I think for most Nebraska fans geography outweighs rivalries since we lack special history with BT teams, there’s some with PSU and UM but not enough to base a division preference. Iowa makes sense, even though we haven’t played in a long time, think it’d generate interest.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 2:14 pm Reply

       1. As a Big 10 grad (minny) and Husker fan, I prefer East West. It is balanced, contrary to what people say. The top 6 teams are clearly (OSU, NU, PSU, Mich, WIS, IOWA). 3/3

          The Big Ten NEEDs Wisconsin and Iowa to become national contenders of the B10 ever wants to match the SEC. Also, every rivalry is maintained with E/W split.

          The following teams need to be paired in any conference alignment.

          Ohio State-Michigan-Michigan State
          Wisconsin-Minnesota-Iowa
          Indy-Purdue

          These trifectas need to be together. Next up is Nebraska. They need to be with UW/Minny/Iowa.

          From here I think it is foolish to try and engineer anything but geography.

          The E/W split is even. It is balanced. Sure, 3 of the “big 4” are in the East, but this is a 12 team league and the top 6 are split evenly. Also, the West gets Chicago in its footprint.

          I do not like anchor games much. But I do like 9 game schedule. More games the better.

          LikeLike

          July 18, 2010 at 1:49 am Reply

    5. I like a simple east/west split. Trying to balance divisions seems futile since team strength is cyclical.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 2:33 pm Reply

       1. Agreed with the straight geographical setup.

          For guaranteed cross-division games, play these:

          Penn State-Nebraska
          Ohio State-Illinois
          Michigan-Minnesota
          Michigan State-Wisconsin
          Indiana-Northwestern
          Purdue-Iowa

          That insures the PSU-Neb game everyone wants, along with trophy rivalries such as Mich-Minn and OSU-Ill

          BTW, one problem the Big 12 had was that it didn’t insure an annual Nebraska-Oklahoma game. Had each team had a guaranteed interdivisional game, the conference might have had a bit more stability.

          LikeLike

          June 27, 2010 at 5:38 pm Reply

          1. um, some of the trophy games are not essential to protect every year; right now, many of those games (IL/OSU) take breaks when the teams cycle off each other’s schedules. In that regard, from earlier comments, maybe IL would prefer a protected rivalry with IN or Purdue?

             i think the schools themselves should have a lot of input into the divisional split and what becomes a “protected rivalry”

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 11:20 am Reply

             1. You have a point there; I just noticed that Michigan and Minnesota did not face each other last year, nor will they this year. I always assumed the Little Brown Jug was a “protected,” annual game, just as Alabama-Tennessee or Auburn-Georgia are. Heck, one of the reasons for the way the ACC divisions are set up was so that Clemson and N.C. State could meet every year (the game is called the “Textile Bowl”).

                Perhaps Wisconsin could get a guaranteed game with Ohio State, and Iowa with Michigan. Then, with PSU-Nebraska, the top half of the Big Ten would be assured of playing at least three games against its competitive peers. (As others have stated, strict geographic divisions would boost the visibility of Wisconsin and Iowa, programs that over the past decade or so are the virtual equal of Michigan on the field.)

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 1:06 pm

          2. One thing about tbe B12 interdivisional game history. I can’t think of any game other than OU-NU that anyone wanted or that would have mattered. Baylor v who? aTm vs who? Texas Tech didn’t care about any of the north. Adding a fake rivalry for ISU/Baylor would have done nothing to help the conference.

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 12:25 pm Reply

             1. Texas Tech did care about beating Nebraska the last four times they’ve played, including by 21 last season in Lincoln.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    6. 1. Iowa
       2. Penn State
       3. Wisconsin
       4. Michigan

       For Nebraska, if possible you nail down Iowa/Nebraska as the regular season ender. There is history there and two fan bases who already bicker at one another. Nebraska @ Iowa City, Iowa @ Lincoln, pardon the oxymoron, is an instant classic.

       Penn State. Yes, rivalries are organic and must grow naturally. To ignore the potential and the draw of this rivalry, which is already 28 years old, is…I really can’t think of a word for what that is. I guess it’s really up to Penn State, if they would feel slighted somehow to get put in the same division which would have to ignore geography to some degree. But yeah, Nebraska would be all in on Penn State.

       3. Wisconsin is probably our rude awakening rival. A lot of Nebraskans feel a kinship with Alvarez and Wisconsin, and feel some obligation to repay the help they have already provided, if that’s what Wisconsin wants. I suspect it would rapidly develop into an intense rivalry and we wouldn’t be singing Kumbayah for long.

       4. Michigan. Some history and bad blood. Just because they’re Michigan. Love to see them on the schedule as much as possible.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 3:01 pm Reply

       1. WRT Wisconsin, not much recent history, but back in ’74 we went to their place with a #4 ranking and came out on the short end. I think shortly afterward, we hired their DC, Charlie McBride. Plus, Madison is one of the best road trips for us in Big Ten, when you factor in mileage.

          LikeLike

          June 27, 2010 at 3:30 pm Reply

    7. Nebraska fan:

       I want to play (in no particular order) Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin every year. After that, bring em on. If you wan to throw in Penn State, Michigan and Ohio State into our schedule every year, so be it. The year we go undefeated and win the NC with a schedule like that will be a team that will be remembered for a long time.

       I think keeping as many rivalries together is the most important thing the conference can do. If you value your rivalries, just look at the UNL-Oklahoma rivalry and what happened to it. They create excitement and viewership and it’s what people want.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 4:44 pm Reply

21. Frank,
    thanks for posting the picture from the end of the Nebraska-ND game, never get tired of it or the “Sea of Red” in ND’s house from the same game that you posted earlier.

    By any chance did you attend that game?

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 12:31 pm Reply

22. I grew up a huge penn st fan and now started liking michigan as well. I like the balanced conferences versus an strict east/west split. I have come to enjoy the PSU/IOWA game as much as the PSU/UM game. I think there should be as many OSU/PSU/UM/UN games as possible in each year. I am not a fan of these divisions in any other sport though if there would be a need for divisions.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 1:31 pm Reply

23. Add

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 1:42 pm Reply

    1. add3

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 6:21 am Reply

24. Add

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 1:52 pm Reply

25. Frank,

    A couple good reads:

    First: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/mizzou/article_fcd078eb-0aa9-5311-ad08-3f8c68772d06.html

    The Big 10 has apparently asked its AD´s to hold off scheduling anything in football past 2012. I´m guessing this has more to do with the uncertainty regarding the number of conference games and the timing of the conference championship, but it could also very well be an indication that a new expansion strategy is being discussed internally. For the record, my money is still on the ACC raid: GTech and Miami first and then Maryland, Rutgers and Notre Dame.

    As for the LeBron rumors, if you haven´t seen this yet, you´re going to love it:
    http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=5333896

    According to an unnamed exec, LeBron and Bosh to the Bulls is already a done deal.

    Whether there´s any truth to it or not, you have to imagine LeBron and company already have a good idea of where they´re headed. I think this is why he took the circus aspect out of it and told all his suitors that they had to come to him.

    I also tend to think that Paxson and company must have been given pretty strong affirmations through the grape vine, so to speak, that things are going their way for them to make the Hinrich trade. At this point, they´ve moved all in and I don´t see them doing that unless they have a pretty good feeling about how it´s playing out.

    All in all, it´s been an exciting summer. Keep the blog posts coming!

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 2:28 pm Reply

26. question for A&M bloggers

    tu = sips = texas, but what does OP mean? I keep seeing OP on the A&M blogs, and am not sure what it means.

    thanks

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 2:31 pm Reply

    1. Add2

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 2:37 pm Reply

    2. Original Post. Usually refers to the first entry in the discussion chain.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 2:59 pm Reply

    3. Probably Original Post…

       but possibly Okie Pride, if some renegades north of the River wanted to use code words.

       But probably Original Post.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 4:52 pm Reply

27. While I do like the idea of Nebraska playing Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin every year. I just don’t think it’s going to happen. Based on what Purdue AD, Morgan Burke stated and coupled with Delany’s memo on priorities (1-competitive balance, 2-rivalries, and 3-geography), I believe it’s safe to assume Penn State and Nebraska will be grouped together.

    From Adam Rittenberg’s ESPN Big Ten blog:
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “We weren’t sure how the expansion thing was going to pan out, but we did talk about the notion that geography doesn’t always work,” Burke said. “The one thing we talked about, and it’s actually in our bylaws, is comparative parity. You have to make sure you protect the rivalries as best you can, and I think we’ll be able to do that, but you don’t want either of these divisions to be imbalanced.”
    Source: http://es.pn/ddkoS8
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    So, let’s look at the past 50 years. From Stassen’s Major Team Win/Loss Database, I pulled the following ranking of Big Ten teams (1960-2009) sorted by wins:

    1. Nebraska (468-130) (Overall #1)
    2. Penn State (436-149) (Overall #2)
    3. Ohio State (434-130) (Overall #3)
    4. Michigan (415-154) (Overall #8)
    5. Michigan State (290-257) (Overall #49)
    6. Iowa (286-269) (Overall #52)
    7. Wisconsin (282-271) (Overall #53)
    8. Purdue (280-266) (Overall #55)
    9. Minnesota (255-292) (Overall #69)
    10. Illinois (232-310) (Overall #83)
    11. Indiana (204-339) (Overall #95)
    12. Northwestern (189-356) (Overall #100)

    http://bit.ly/8BNSM

    Now, from these rankings create some tiers:

    Tier I: Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State
    Tier II: Iowa, Michigan State, Purdue, Wisconsin
    Tier III: Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern

    To create historical competitive balance, we’d want to take two from each tier in a division.

    To help maintain rivalries, we’ll have to follow an SEC model where there is a protected cross-division rival. From this I would guess the following divisions make the most sense:

    Division A
    ~~~~~~~~~~~
    Michigan (I)
    Ohio State (I)
    Michigan State (II)
    Wisconsin (II)
    Illinois (III)
    Indiana (III)

    Division B
    ~~~~~~~~~~~
    Nebraska (I)
    Penn State (I)
    Iowa (II)
    Purdue (II)
    Minnesota (III)
    Northwestern (III)

    The cross-division rivalries would be as follows:

    Michigan-Nebraska
    Ohio State-Penn State
    Michigan State-Iowa
    Wisconsin-Minnesota
    Illinois-Northwestern
    Indiana-Purdue

    This will create more games between the Tier I schools than putting Penn State in an “eastern” division would. Also, it would give Penn State a true division rival to complement Michigan-Ohio State. Imagine ending the season with Michigan-Ohio State and Nebraska-Penn State.

    Also being mentioned by the athletic directors is the possibility of moving to a 9-game schedule. With that you could add another cross-division rival which would nearly eliminate rivalry loss.

    I doubt the Big Ten will actually use this setup, but I’d imagine it would be somewhat similar.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 2:41 pm Reply

    1. There are other ways to look at the tiers. One could look at the number of BCS bowl games each team has played in during the last 12 seasons when the BCS has existed.

       8 Ohio State
       4 Michigan
       2 Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Penn State, Wisconsin
       1 Purdue
       0 Indiana, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 11:13 pm Reply

    2. I like your idea of the tiers. But going back 50 years is crazy. 12 to 20 would be better. Going back 50 years takes a snapshot of something that is not relevant to current trends. For one example imaging ND in the past 12 years and ND in the previous 12 years. Imagine if our armed forces take recon pictures of bombing sites from 50 years ago?

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 8:43 am Reply

28. I agree with going geography instead of competitive balance on division alignment. The East might seem loaded with UM, tOSU, and PSU but what that does is insure that one of these 3 teams play in the Big 10 championship game year in and year out. This is a huge problem with the ACC where the goal might be FSU/Miami the likelihood of this is low when if you have both in the same division the likelihood of one of them making it each year increases and more importantly winning and going to the BCS. A Big 10 sending UM, tOSU and PSU to its championship game every year also has other benefits. Even if one of these teams lose they will almost certainly get a BCS at large bid as each are rating and traveling powerhouses. It bumps up the perception of the conference where any team that can beat the other two to land a slot will be seen as a very good to great team and get poll voter support.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 4:18 pm Reply

29. For the divisional split, the Big Ten should learn from history.

    Lesson 1: Learn from the Big 12’s mistake in splitting Nebraska-Oklahoma. Don’t split UM and tOSU into separate divisions.

    Lesson 2: Learn from the ACC’s mistake in splitting based on competitive balance (which has produced jumbled divisions) and from the SEC’s success in emphasizing geography over elusive competitive balance (which has produced popular CCG’s).

    The obvious conclusion is an east-west split.

    Practical question (since this is ultimately going to be decided by the presidents): Which schools, if any, would object to an east-west split? My sense is that all of the west schools would approve because it would preserve important rivalries. I think UM-tOSU-PSU-MSU would approve for the same reason. The only schools I could see objecting are Indiana and Purdue.

    If you are a fan of a school that would object to the east-west split, what is the basis?

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 4:46 pm Reply

    1. I know its a rhetorical question but why would Indiana or Purdue object?

       fwiw I’m starting to come around on the geographical split. My initial reaction was that putting Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State in one division was overweighting the east but that may be undervaluing the recent accomplishments of both Wisconsin and Iowa.

       Frank’s stab at a division alignment is as good as any, creates some potential natural rivalries and provides a good framework for both Wisconsin and Iowa to estabish them as counterwieghts to Nebraska in the west. I like it. Its better than gerrymandering the divisions based on the view in the rear view mirror.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 5:18 pm Reply

       1. hank,

          you answered your own question on IU and PU. Having PSU, tOSU, and UM you are looking at 0 -3 every year in your division, and if IU loses to PU and MSU every year they are 0 -5. Not the way to get to a bowl anytime soon.

          look at this link

          http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3849468

          not that it is the end all and be all, but it is a reasonable place to argue “brand” value with the top teams being:

          (1 – 5) OU, USC, tOSU, ND, UNL
          (6 – 10) BAMA, TX, UM, FSU, Miami
          (11 – 15) PSU, TN, LSU, UGA, UF
          (16 – 20) UCLA, WU, GT, Ark, A&M

          if you look at 50 year windows instead of 10 yr or 20 yr teams like FSU and Miami would drop considerably, but teams like OU and USC would not (which would move PSU into the top 10). Now you are IU or PU and you have 3 of the top 10 “brands” in your division. Good luck recruiting against that. On top of it all your basketball team has not been up to snuff the past few years and Izzo is staying at MSU. Call me crazy but if I am the AD for IU, PU, and possibly MSU I am not real happy about that.

          LikeLike

          June 27, 2010 at 5:50 pm Reply

          1. To placate Indiana and Purdue, have them and the Illinois/Northwestern pair swap divisions every two years. Aside from that, the East/West geographical integrity would be retained.

             LikeLike

             June 27, 2010 at 6:22 pm Reply

             1. As an IU fan, imo the Big 10 shouldn’t spend 10 minutes considering what IU and PU want in all this. The Indiana schools need to get their s*** together when it comes to football anyway…….

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 6:40 am

          2. well Duff

             Indiana maybe but not so sure about Purdue, they have been more competitive over the years. but that said would the other division be any friendlier for them? Wisconsin, Nebraska and Iowa would start them the same way.

             As to the arguement that its tough for them to recruit facing that. Well to be honest so would the other division. If you are a school in their position in football you have to develop a strategy that allows you to build a successfull base. Purdue has done that in the past. Northwestern used to be a complete doormat and they have build a credible program over the years. It can be done. They are going to face tough competition anyway the conference goes.

             btw I’m open to any sensible approach to divisions. I just am getting to the point where it seems like trying for artificial parity arrangements are just transitory anyway. Go for the natural geographic fit.

             LikeLike

             June 27, 2010 at 6:33 pm Reply

             1. hank,

                I agree, there is no simple way..

                the problem is the 2 newest ‘brands’ are the farthest away, and the big ‘old’ rivals would be near impossible to break up. If the Big 10 had gone to 16, my solution was:

                PSU + 3
                tOSU + 3
                UM + 3
                UNL + 3

                but with 12, and 2 divisions it makes it harder because of the old rivals vs distance thing. I guess if you have 4 “brands” and 2 divisions, an optimal way would be to split 2 and 2:

                Division 1
                Brand 1 + Brand 2 + 4

                Division 2
                Brand 3 + Brand 4 + 4

                for balance along the way Scott C did, but I know it will not make folks happy. The SEC got the balance to work, but some of it may have been because the additions of Ark and USC were not the top brands..

                SEC EAST

                UF + UGA + 4

                SEC WEST

                BAMA + LSU + 4

                I guess what I am trying to figure out is the long term strategic planning so if the B 10 goes to 16, you can make the “new” rivals now as opposed to later to allow more time to grow.

                LikeLike

                June 27, 2010 at 7:23 pm

          3. Purdue went 2-0 vs (Ohio St and Michigan) in 2009, in a down year, finishing 5-7.

             To say they would go 0-3 is absurd. I thought the case against East/West was unbalanced, if so they why the automatic 0-3 each year?

             LikeLike

             July 18, 2010 at 1:56 am Reply

30. When you look at the current Big 10 yearly rivalries (not necessarily TROPHY games, but protected yearly games), it’s SO easy to split things up. Frank’s original lineup “east west” is perfect.

    WEST
    Minny, Iowa, Wiscy have protected games with each other.
    Illini and NW are rivals, so they can go with these geographic three.
    Only “loss” of rivalries…NW/Purdue and Illini/Indiana. NEITHER are Big 10 football homeruns.

    EAST
    UM has MSU and OSU.
    OSU has PSU and UM.
    PSU has OSU and MSU.
    Those four must stick together for tradition sake.
    Purdue and Indiana are rivals.
    Only “loss” of rivalries…NW/Purdue and Illini/Indiana.

    Now, if the league institutes ONE interdivisional rival, then this loss is neutralized.

    The following yearly interleague games would create “big” games for the networks and maintain difficulty of schedule for all.
    Neb/PSU
    NW/Purdue
    Illinois/Indiana
    Minny/MSU
    OSU/Wiscy
    UM/Iowa
    (last two could be switched, let OSU and UM fight for Wiscy)

    As a PSU fan, I’ll be ticked if it ends up OTHER than this.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 5:25 pm Reply

    1. A big advantage of the east-west split is that you maintain almost all rivalries with an 8-game schedule. The other six teams can be played every other year. Adding a cross-divisional rival to an 8-game schedule messes things up by making some teams go longer than a year off from each other. If they go east-west, I hope they do not add one more fixed game.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 6:26 pm Reply

       1. I forgot to add that the protected cross divisional game (especially when the big teams are paired against each other, i.e., PSU-UNL) increases the chances that the CCG will be a repeat.

          LikeLike

          June 27, 2010 at 6:28 pm Reply

       2. That’s fair. No offense to Indiana/Illinois/NW/Purdue fans, but them losing one rivalry game (not every year, mind you, simply every three years), is a small sacrifice to pay.

          I even wonder if those schools would GLADLY sacrifice games with each other. Think about from Indiana’s perspective. They can have a guaranteed yearly game with Illinois (meaning two home games with a meager opponent every four years) or they can rotate through and get “western foes” Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska more frequently (one home game with good old Illinois every four years but one premiere opponent at home every four years as well).

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 9:21 am Reply

31. Pingback: Latest word from Frank the Tank

32. While I have no dog in this hunt, I think geographic East/West divisions is the way to go. Can anyone tell me who is in the Atlantic and the Coastal divisions of the ACC? Almost every college football fan could recite the members of the SEC East and the SEC West. Part of the interest for true Big Ten fans would be preserving the geographic and traditional rivalries. Part of the interest for casual Big Ten fans, like me, is understanding the organization of the league.

    You may see Iowa and Wisconsin step up in a Western Division. Getting Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State will probably help. Frank, I have never understood why Illinois isn’t more consistent. From the outside looking in, Illinois appears to be a sleeping giant as the flagship school in such a high population state.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 7:22 pm Reply

    1. I almost wonder whether you copy/pasted that from an earlier post. I am almost certain I’ve used that same phrasing with respect to reciting the SEC East/West members. I could not possibly agree more.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 7:32 pm Reply

    2. alan,

       I was looking at a north / south, but it would mean splitting up tOSU and UM. I agree the Atlantic and Costal thing was terrible. Maybe Frank can offer better insight, but I thought early on U of Chicago was the early football power in the Big 10 (back when A A Stagg was coaching). It might have been like tOSU and Cincinnati in Ohio. Hard to play second fiddle in your own state. If Chicago was good maybe it made it harder for Illinois to be good early on. LSU is lucky to have no state “pair” as Tulane is private (like Cincinnati used to be). No matter how good Auburn does, it is always in BAMA’s shadow.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 7:39 pm Reply

       1. Duff – I suggested the same thing (splitting UM & tOSU) several blogs ago and that suggestion appeared to be blasphemous. In the SEC, Bama & Tennessee are in different divisions, as are Auburn & Georgia, but they play every year as the cross-division rivalry games.

          The more I have thought about it though, a North/South split in the Big Ten would still be somewhat confusing. A North/South split works for the new 12-Pac, should work for the ACC, and did work for the old/current Big XII. From a geographic standpoint, an East/West split just looks better for the SEC and the Big Ten+2.

          LikeLike

          June 27, 2010 at 8:05 pm Reply

          1. alan,

             yeah, which is why I have never pushed the issue about tOSU and UM. 🙂 which is why I was suggesting that if the Big 10 was going to 16 with 4 pods as outlined before, maybe this is the time to start making the breaks.

             If the SEC ‘brands’ were BAMA, LSU, UGA, and UF it would unbalance the SEC if 3 were in the West and only 1 was in the East (not saying that these 4 SEC teams are the ‘brands’ but saying they are to illustrate the point). The problem with the Big 10 is the 2 newest ‘brands’ are also the two farthest away from the center of the conference (if you look at a US map – UNL & PSU are the ‘wings’ or ‘arms’ of the Big 10).

             LikeLike

             June 27, 2010 at 8:30 pm Reply

          2. I think the issue with UM and OSU is that they traditionally play at the end of the season. Alabama/TN and Ga/Auburn were not the final games. So if you split them, either you risk them playing 2 weeks in a row or you change the final game tradition which would really get fans upset.

             It is interesting, however, how infrequent rematches in the championship game are. The fact that one team must win reduces the chance of the other team winning their division. Rematches are the exception, not the rule, in the many games played by the MAC, Big 12, SEC and CUSA.

             LikeLike

             June 27, 2010 at 9:12 pm Reply

       2. Your U of Chicago idea isn’t true. University of Illinois had 5 national championships between 1914-1951, 4 of which came between 1914 and 1927. So, U of I did have a good tradition starting out.

          Illinois does absolutely horrible recruiting the state of Illinois.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 4:44 am Reply

          1. george,

             thanks for the info, I never knew they were good early on.

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 8:23 am Reply

    3. Great point. I know a lot of college football, even lived in the ACC footprint and still can’t tell you their division set up.

       Knowing the divisions is critical to any sports fan. I can name divisions of all 32 NFL teams, all 30 MLB teams, god-even the NBA, and every B12 and SEC team….but can’t do it for the ACC.

       LikeLike

       July 18, 2010 at 2:02 am Reply

33. By my math, there are 15 noteworthy rivalries in the Big Ten (please correct my math if I’ve miscounted; I’ve run through this several times and it always seems like I produce slightly different numbers):
    Michigan-Ohio State
    Ohio State-Penn State
    Penn State-Michigan State
    Michigan State-Michigan
    Michigan-Minnesota
    Minnesota-Penn State
    Michigan State-Indiana
    Ohio State-Illinois
    Wisconsin-Iowa
    Iowa-Minnesota
    Minnesota-Wisconsin
    Illinois-Indiana
    Indiana-Purdue
    Purdue-Northwestern
    Northwestern-Illinois

    I believe in maximizing the number of these games that continue to be played. That means you try to put as many pairs into the same division as possible. It’s likely that there will be 1 guaranteed rivalry game across the divisions, with 2 games that rotate, and you don’t want to burn that 1 guaranteed game unless you have no other choices.

    I think there are a couple of obvious building blocks in those rivalries: Michigan-Michigan State-Ohio State-Penn State is one, and Wisconsin-Iowa-Minnesota another. Just putting those sets of teams into divisions with each other gives you 7 out of those 15 rivalries annually. When you finish off the “East/West” split, you’re up to 10 of the 15. You can get a few more with inter-divisional guaranteed games: Michigan-Minnesota, Ohio State-Illinois, Purdue-Northwestern. So, I’ve been on the geographic bandwagon from the start, albeit for non-geographic reasons.

    I have nothing to add to Frank’s excellent observations (and those of everybody echoing Frank on here) about the quixotic nature of trying to create “balanced” divisions and the utter failure that has been the ACC as a result. I would just add this: it isn’t good enough that two teams play in a given season; it isn’t a meaningful rivalry unless only one of them can get something they both want as well as a strong likelihood that they will play for that sought-after outcome. This is why the Patriots and Colts have a big rivalry: they have to go through each other to get to the Super Bowl. They do not have significant rivalries to speak of with anybody in the NFC. This is why the Yankees and Red Sox have a big rivalry with each other, and not much to speak of with anybody in the National League. It’s why the Red Wings had a major rivalry with the Colorado Avalanche, but not all that much to speak of with Pittsburgh, even though they played Pittsburgh in consecutive years in the Cup Finals. It just matters more when you’re on the same side of the competitive structure; the likelihood of facing someone from the other side is too attenuated. (The Celtics/Lakers rivalry is a bit of an anomaly, but only developed because they’ve played each other so often in the Finals, and came into many other seasons with an expectancy of playing each other in the Finals.)

    Delany is wrong to put rivalries as the 2nd priority. It should be the first. And a rivalry-based alignment produces a geographic alignment.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 7:30 pm Reply

    1. I would also note that it’s totally bogus to say that the East/West arrangement is imbalanced. It’s not based on anything other than people drawing the knee-jerk conclusion that Michigan and Penn State are a class ahead of everybody else. It just isn’t true. Wisconsin, Penn State, and Michigan are statistically identical since Penn State joined the conference. Iowa is a bit behind, but well ahead of the next pack of teams (Michigan State, Purdue, and Minnesota). It’s the same nonsense that the poll voters use. Michigan or Notre Dame starts 7-0 and it’s a BFD, but Minnesota starts 7-0 and it’s ho-hum because the presumption is they’ll run out of steam sooner rather than later. The so-called experts say “I don’t need a formula to tell me what my eyes tell me about how good a team is,” but I think the actual evidence suggests that what people’s eyes tell them is indelibly affected by the biases and expectations they bring to the table as shaped by history. What was happening in football even as recently as the 60s or 70s is not even relevant in this age of scholarship limitations which have made the MAC dramatically more competitive against the Big Ten.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 7:37 pm Reply

       1. Adam,

          I agree about your knee jerk comment. The problem is TV is catering to “joe” football, and his inherent bias. Someone else posted about this, and I think it affects viewing more than the reality of how good teams actually are. While some guy in Madison that has been watching the badgers all their lives may know how good their team actually is, some guy in Durham will still tune in the tOSU vs UM game because that is what the media has reinforced him to think is the better game (even if both were having an off year).

          LikeLike

          June 27, 2010 at 7:47 pm Reply

          1. You can’t stop “joe” from thinking that, but I expect a little more out of the league office.

             Frank: by now we all know that you’ve established something along the lines of sources at the league office. When you say you think a straight-up E/W split is what will happen, is that speculation or is it based on actual information?

             This interests me substantially more than the identity of who they added; so long as they didn’t add a geographically and culturally unacceptable team, I was happy with a 12th (I probably wouldn’t have voted for Nebraska, but I wouldn’t have voted against them, either), but the manner in which the league divides itself greatly interests me.

             LikeLike

             June 27, 2010 at 8:16 pm Reply

             1. adam,

                I agree once again, but “joe” drives ratings. Ratings drive revenue. So in the end “joe” drives the bus and any league office will have to bend to “joe” to drive revenue.

                As I said before, I am not happy with this. It just is.

                LikeLike

                June 27, 2010 at 8:20 pm

             2. As I noted above, though, what Joe says he wants and what he buys are two very different things. The fact that people are complaining about OSU/PSU/UM in the same division is meaningless. People bitch about the BCS too, but it’s a ratings and financial success.

                LikeLike

                June 27, 2010 at 8:38 pm

34. This has been brought up for awhile..

    http://www.kentucky.com/2010/06/27/1325645/separate-college-sports-from-academics.html

    but all this expansion stuff may bring it to a head.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 7:53 pm Reply

35. Agree wholehearted Frank on KISS and all your points. I would add one other point-don’t give Penn St. the shaft. Its one thing to move them west for Notre Dame. Its quite another for Nebraska.

    For schedule balance (mostly for the bottom 6), to give Nebraska a true marquee game, and TV reasons, you could do a 5-1-2 like the SEC. UNL/PSU, UM/IA, OSU/WI, IU/MN, MSU/NW, PU/IL. If you make PSU play Nebraska, it would be unfair to them to focus on trophy games and let UM play MN and OSU play IL.

    My 2nd choice for keeping rivalries together would be Chas’ Lake/Plains which is basically just a north/south except that Ohio St. is in the north. But that alignment still takes the 3 closest schools to PSU and puts them in another division.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 8:03 pm Reply

    1. Penn State would still get to play its current protected rivals of Michigan State and Ohio State in my scenario. While Iowa and Wisconsin fans are salivating at the chance to play the Huskers at the end of the season, I imagine the glorious battle of Penn State-Nebraska to close out the Plains opposite the Michigan-Ohio State game of the Lakes.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 10:16 pm Reply

36. Entrenched TV interests don’t want superconferences now. I think the key word is NOW.

    Most interpretations I saw said that ESPN didn’t want to renegotiate the deals they recently completed with the SEC and ACC. Fox didn’t want to lose out totally and/or face new competition (there are a couple of entities interested in college football-one was Comcast). So in 10-12 years when the 12 year ACC deal and 15 year SEC deals are nearing completion, we could see more interest. Right now in a recession, the networks are taking a big risk in guaranteeing money for a long time. It will be interesting to see if ABC/ESPN try to get the B10’s next deal to expire in that same general time frame (2022-2024).

    In Kirk Bohls article he said DeLoss Dodds thought the B12 would be together a long time. When asked to define a long time, the answer was, “5 years, 10 years. If we live long enough, we’ll see all this happen again.” (sounds like something out of Battlestar Galacatica-Its all happened before, it will all happen again).

    There was an interesting perspective that sometimes gets lost when the entire structure of college football is changing in a 2 week period: one of the “unknown powers”-an AD or President of a college not directly impacted-wondered how all this fit in with the mission of the colleges. Does it make sense for Texas to travel all the way to Los Angeles-1,225 miles (let alone Seattle)? Its about the same distance from Austin to Atlanta (819 miles) as it is from Austin to Tuscon (789). And you could fill 3 or 4 conferences with the teams within 819 miles north and east of Austin, instead of having Arizona as a team in your division.

    And as it all played out, its pretty clear that w/o Texas in the Pac and A&M in the SEC, there just aren’t viable options for those two conferences to get to 16. The Presidents in the PAC and B12 may be the powers that stop the superconference next time, wondering if it really makes sense based on the mission of the university. As we all know, all it takes in the Pac is Stanford’s president to vote no.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 8:42 pm Reply

37. Basketball-

    A lot of people comment on the devaluation of the bb regular season. The reason bb doesn’t matter to expansion is that the regular season is the money the conferences control. The NCAA controls the tourney $. When they expanded the NCAA tourney to 64 and everyone implemented conference tourneys, they really crippled the regular season. And with 64, the conference tourneys don’t matter much for the top third of the teams (who would normally have the fans most interested). I know personally, my interest in the regular season really dropped after the expansion to 64. And unless my team is on the bubble, I’m not especially interested in the conference tourneys-its just an exhibition until we get to the games that matter.

    So besides the unimportance of bb, it also says that a 16 team tourney in football just isn’t going to happen for a long, long time. 4 or 8 maybe, but not 16.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 8:58 pm Reply

    1. bullet,

       agreed, they have ruined college basketball for easy money. In a perfect world they would eliminate the conference tourneys, or limit it to maybe the top 4 teams. Then go back to the old 16 team format so the regular season games become important again.

       This will never happen of course and will probably go to 128 teams in the next decade or so. It would have been one nice side effect of the “super conferences” as they could have gone to a format as outlined in my first paragraph and kept the revenue “in house”.

       I mean seeds 13 – 16 are just chum games, and many of the 9 – 12 teams are the ‘bubble’ schools anyway. Why reward average, when the NC game should be for the best of the best. A team that gets hot for a game or two knocking off a top team and then gets the NC, you know that would never go down in football.

       LikeLike

       June 27, 2010 at 10:00 pm Reply

38. I posted my division thoughts in the other thread a week ago but I’m reposting them. I think one of the main things that will determine how the divisions are split is how many conference games the teams will play. Ikenberry stated a desire to make the 9 game schedule possible as a main reason for voting for expansion and I believe Michigan is also in favor of the 9 game schedule so it cannot be dismissed.

    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. I wanted Nebraska to play Michigan every year to keep the big 4 playing 2 of the other 3 every year.

    LikeLike

    June 27, 2010 at 11:07 pm Reply

    1. I am highly suspicious of a 9-game schedule. I would not say that has been an unmitigated success in the Pac-10. It means half the league plays more home league games than road league games, distorting the championship race. And it is essentially lighting money on fire, because league games are a zero-sum system: for one team to have a home game, someone else must play a road game. Non-conference games allow everybody to play at home (if they wanted to). You’re just giving away a ton of money playing 9 league games.

       And once you play 8 league games instead of 9, there is no way in hell that they protect 2 games across the divisions. The SEC did that for a few years and it flopped. Now they protect 1 game across the divisions.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 6:43 am Reply

    2. Excellent, I have the same division line-up. I just switched the protected rivalries for Nebraska and Michigan, so The Huskers get an annual game with the Badgers and the Wolverines get the Boilers.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 1:16 pm Reply

39. How does one determine the “right” number of seasons to adequately measure the performance of 12 college football teams for the sake of comparing their competitiveness? Do we zoom in too far if we only review the last season or two? Does a decade or two provide an adequate perspective? Does 50 years place too much importance on the past? Or not enough? Short of calculating moving averages, maybe all of those are valid measurements that should be considered?

    From my perspective, I would prefer that a distinction be made between competitive balance and brand balance, both of which should be taken into consideration but with more weight of importance placed on the former since it has been specifically addressed by Delany on various occasions. I also suggest such a distinction between the two can be quantified whereby we use a wider perspective for brand balance, since it is subject to less volatility, and a narrower focus for competitive balance, which can be more cyclic in nature

    A previous post by Scott C provided a 50-year span of football records for the 12 teams as well as an assessment of how those teams could be split into tiers. Rather than wash, rinse, and repeat, I will simply borrow his great work and pass along many thanks to him for his effort (Thanks Scott C.!). I will also point out this a perfect example of the brand balance that will exist in the Big Ten and there is a definitive difference between the three tiers. Like it or not, it has been this way for a decade or two and it will probably be this way for the new generations of college football fans that follow:

    Tier I: Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State
    Tier II: Iowa, Michigan State, Purdue, Wisconsin
    Tier III: Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern

    As it relates to competitive balance, I think it is fair to measure the winning percentages from various dates to the present which gives more weight to the most recent seasons and their relative ranking compared to other conference teams. In doing so, I chose 1993 as the original starting date since that represents the most complete records of the 11 teams in the Big Ten against each other while still maintaining relevance to today’s competitive balance. I then also chose the periods from 1998 to present and 2004 to present, splitting the original start date into thirds as best possible. Finally, I also looked at the records of the last two seasons and compared those rankings to the rankings in 2004 to formulate any distinct trends in the rankins. I used the same time period for Nebraska, without accounting for any disparity in Big 12 strenght or weakness. Below are the wins, lossed, winning percentages and respective rank for each team in each period.

    Source: http://bit.ly/8BNSM

    Since 1993 W L % Rank
    Ohio State 170 43 79.8 1
    Nebraska 165 52 76.0 2
    Penn State 147 62 70.3 3
    Michigan 146 64 69.5 4
    Wisconsin 145 65 69.1 5
    Iowa 119 86 58.1 6
    Purdue 105 97 52.0 7
    Michigan State 101 103 49.5 8
    Northwestern 97 105 48.0 9
    Minnesota 92 111 45.3 10
    Illinois 75 121 38.3 11
    Indiana 69 126 35.4 12

    Since 1998 W L % Rank
    Ohio State 119 32 78.8 1
    Wisconsin 107 46 69.9 2
    Nebraska 105 49 68.2 3
    Michigan 101 48 67.8 4
    Penn State 96 52 64.9 5
    Iowa 84 63 57.1 6
    Purdue 83 66 55.7 7
    Michigan State 76 70 52.1 8
    Minnesota 75 72 51.0 9
    Northwestern 67 78 46.2 10
    Illinois 56 85 39.7 11
    Indiana 47 92 33.8 12

    Since 2004 W L % Rank
    Ohio State 62 14 81.6 1
    Wisconsin 57 20 74.0 2
    Penn State 55 20 73.3 3
    Iowa 49 26 65.3 4
    Nebraska 46 30 60.5 5
    Michigan 44 30 59.5 6
    Northwestern 40 34 54.1 7
    Purdue 37 37 50.0 8
    Michigan State 36 38 48.7 9
    Minnesota 34 41 45.3 10
    Indiana 26 45 36.6 11
    Illinois 24 47 33.8 12

    Since 2008 W L % Rank
    Penn State 22 4 84.6 1
    Ohio State 21 5 80.8 2
    Iowa 20 6 76.9 3
    Nebraska 19 8 70.4 4
    Wisconsin 17 9 65.4 5
    Northwestern 17 9 65.4 6
    Michigan State 15 11 57.7 7
    Minnesota 13 13 50.0 8
    Purdue 9 15 37.5 9
    Michigan 8 16 33.3 10
    Illinois 8 16 33.3 11
    Indiana 7 17 29.2 12

    The following is a summary of the rankings from each of the 1993, 1998, and 2004 periods, an average of those periods, and the difference in ranking between the 2004 period and the 2008 period used to identify any current upward or downward trend in performance. I have also taken the liberty to divide them into East and West, since such geographical division seems to also support the argument for competitive balance (as far as average, #1, 4 & 5 on one side and #2, 3 & 6 on the other) as well as all the other advantages that Frank made clear.

    Division 93 98 04 Avg Trend
    East Ohio State 1 1 1 1.00 -1
    East Penn State 3 5 3 3.67 2
    East Michigan 4 4 6 4.67 -4
    East Purdue 7 7 8 7.33 -1
    East Michigan State 8 8 9 8.33 2
    East Indiana 12 12 11 11.67 -1

    West Wisconsin 5 2 2 3.00 -3
    West Nebraska 2 3 5 3.33 1
    West Iowa 6 6 4 5.33 1
    West Northwestern 9 10 7 8.67 1
    West Minnesota 10 9 10 9.67 2
    West Illinois 11 11 12 11.33 1

    As a lifelong Husker fan, I was not a fan of losing Oklahoma as our every year rivalry game. Having been without a true rival for that long though, I have adapted to the schedule with the Big 12 South in which we play 3 teams for 2 years and then switch to the other 3 teams for 2 years. In my mind, getting that opportunity to play everyone in the other division frequently is preferable to having a cross division rival or two and not getting that opportunity to frequently play every team in the conference.

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 12:29 am Reply

    1. MC,
       You mentions Scotts 50 year span of football records. I too appreciated his work and the thought on the tiers. But 50 years is way too long to the point of not being relevant. 12 – 24 will give a more accurate trend I believe. 25 years is on generation. Take Notre Dame. The past 12 years 91W – 67L. This is a period of unhappy fan base, less bowls and less All Americans and more coaching turmoil than they were used to. The previous 12 years 105W – 36L and a national championship. All but one under Holtz.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 10:14 am Reply

       1. Actually take Notre Dame. If you used the past 12-24 years, the Big Ten wouldn’t want anything to do with Notre Dame.

          It is when looking at the past +50 years that makes ND so special.

          Long term in college football really does matter. You do rise again.

          LikeLike

          July 18, 2010 at 2:14 am Reply

    2. Personally, I’d rather look back at the past 20 to 25 years when judging this. The reason I used 50 was because of what Purdue’s AD was saying in regards to the competitive balance they were looking at achieving.

       When it comes down to it, you can try to place Iowa and Wisconsin as equals to Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, and Ohio State all you want, but 0 national championships speaks for itself. They do not come close in # of wins in comparison to the tier I schools. Those two teams have a long way to go before they can reach the level of the big 4. Splitting the big 4 only makes sense.

       As for playing the other division frequently. This can be corrected by adding a ninth conference game, which has already been eluded to by Dr. Tom and other Big Ten AD’s. You can either make that ninth game a regular entry in the cross-division rotation or make it another permanent cross-division rival. Either way, you’re going to play ever team in the opposing division at least twice every 4 years.

       As a Husker fan myself, MC, I’ve always viewed the divisions of the Big Ten as a complete failure. When Nebraska hit its low point under the dreaded BC, where were the other North teams to compete with the South in the title game? All together in the history of the Big XII the North has claimed 4 wins to the South’s 10. That’s not exactly even. Wouldn’t things have been more competitive with Oklahoma in Nebraska’s division and the Red River Rivalry a protected cross-division game? It’s all hindsight at this point, but it’s interesting to think about.

       The point is, if you had to put your life savings on a team to stay consistently competitive over the next 20, 50, or even 100 years, you’re going to bet a tier I school over a tier II.

       That being said, with Nebraska in the Big Ten starting next year, they could be in a division with Northwestern, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, and Purdue, and I’ll still be happy. Getting out of the Big XII was the best thing Nebraska could do for its long term prosperity.

       On a side note, is it wrong to insinuate I have a Big Ten degree after Nebraska joins the Big Ten? 😛

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 11:25 pm Reply

       1. I don’t understand why the number of national championships is relevant to an issue of balance. “Balance” refers to how competitive the division is. That’s a question of what is typical. Since PSU joined the league, they have exactly the same number of conference titles as Northwestern (3). Does that make them the same? Of course not, because the fact that a team put it all together in one (or more) years in the past such that they achieved the singular distinction of a championship is not necessarily any indication of typical performance over time.

          All of the measures of typical performance over time indicate that Michigan, PSU and Wisconsin are inseparable; that Iowa is behind them, but well ahead of the MSU/Purdue/NW group; and that OSU is the class of the league. This notion of a “big 4” exclusive of Wisconsin is a product of selective thinking: counting Big Ten Championships matters . . . except when you need to exclude Northwestern. Win percentage matters . . . except when, over a relevant period of time, they’re all pretty much the same (then, “a win is not a win is not a win”). Perception is not matching reality here.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 7:08 am Reply

          1. It’s not selective thinking. It’s taking the parameters of what the AD’s and Delany’s office have stated and analyzing it. If you look at that past 50 years as has been stated, the Big 4 are far ahead of the tier II schools. There’s no debating that. National Championships are important because it is an indicator of past success. Wisconsin has been great the last 20 years, but that doesn’t change the fact that most people would expect Michigan to be more dominant than Wisconsin over the next 50 years. If Wisconsin won a National Championship, that perception might change, but that’s the way it is

             You may think your parameters are how we should be looking at all of this. Your welcome to your opinion, but don’t get mad at me for using parameters stated by school and Big Ten officials. Maybe they’ll change their mind and use something similar to what you’ve been stating, but currently that doesn’t appear to be their thinking.

             Honestly, what is so horrible about my divisions that people are getting so bent out of shape on? Let’s look at the rivalries if we move to 9 division games with two permanent cross-division rivals:

             From my previous post:

             Division A
             ~~~~~~~~~~~
             Michigan (I)
             Ohio State (I)
             Michigan State (II)
             Wisconsin (II)
             Illinois (III)
             Indiana (III)

             Division B
             ~~~~~~~~~~~
             Nebraska (I)
             Penn State (I)
             Iowa (II)
             Purdue (II)
             Minnesota (III)
             Northwestern (III)

             The cross-division rivalries would be as follows:

             Michigan-Nebraska
             Ohio State-Penn State
             Michigan State-Iowa
             Wisconsin-Minnesota
             Illinois-Northwestern
             Indiana-Purdue

             Second cross-division rivalry games:

             Michigan-Minnesota
             Ohio State-Northwestern
             Michigan State-Penn State
             Wisconsin-Iowa
             Illinois-Purdue
             Indiana-Nebraska

             Saved Rivalries and Other Old Protected Games
             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             Illinois-Indiana
             Illinois-Northwestern (Sweet Sioux Tomahawk/Land of Lincoln Trophy)
             Illinois-Ohio State (Illibuck)
             Illinois-Purdue (Purdue Cannon)
             Indiana-Michigan State (Old Brass Spittoon)
             Indiana-Purdue (Old Oaken Bucket)
             Iowa-Minnesota (Floyd of Rosedale)
             Iowa-Wisconsin (Heartland Trophy)
             Michigan-Michigan State (Paul Bunyan Trophy)
             Michigan-Minnesota (Little Brown Jug)
             Michigan-Ohio State (No Trophy, but Ohio State football players receive a gold pants charm if they win the game)
             Michigan State-Penn State (Land Grant Trophy)
             Minnesota-Penn State (Governor’s Victory Bell)
             Minnesota-Wisconsin (Slab of Bacon/Paul Bunyan’s Axe)
             Northwestern-Purdue
             Ohio State-Penn State (No Trophy)
             Penn State-Iowa (No Trophy)

             Rivalries and Other Old Protected Games that won’t be played yearly.
             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             None…

             So, not only are the divisions fairly balanced, plus all those trophy games not played every year will be played every year, and the permanent match ups will be saved. As for the other 4 schools in the opposing division, they would be cycled in the remaining two conference games. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

             LikeLike

             June 29, 2010 at 10:49 am Reply

             1. Also, for those who didn’t read the ESPN article by Adam Rittenberg, this is where I’m getting 50 years from:
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                “You have to look with a wide lens,” Burke said. “You have to look over a 50-year period and look at who’s been consistent. If you take a snapshot of a five-year period or a 10-year period, you may miss it. Clearly, Michigan and Ohio State and Penn State and Nebraska, if you look at a 50-year history, are your four biggest brands. It doesn’t mean they win all the time, but they’re your biggest brands. I don’t think there’ll be any disagreement among all the Big Ten ADs about that.
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                http://es.pn/ddkoS8

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 11:12 am

             2. I don’t doubt that most people expect Michigan to be better than Wisconsin over the next 50 years. It’s just that I think those most people are wrong. They’re making a prediction about the future based on inapplicable past results.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 11:34 am

40. Those Nebraska PPV numbers are especially impressive when you look at the games that were on PPV for the Huskers. Last season, the Huskers had three PPV games: against Florida Atlantic, Arkansas State and Louisiana-Lafayette. Yep, that’s right–over 30,000 Nebraska households shelled out $29.95 for the chance to watch the Huskers destroy Louisiana-Lafayette 55-0. The cable companies won’t be able to flinch over $1.50 a month or more for the Big Ten Network, or they’ll lose their whole subscriber base to DirecTV.

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 2:33 am Reply

    1. Sorry, my math is wrong. That’s closer to 65,000 Cornhusker households paying $30 to watch Florida Atlantic lose 49-3, although one has to assume a lot of that money came from bars that I assume were charged a higher rate.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 2:36 am Reply

       1. Neb fans love their team. They will pay to watch them. I think people don’t understand the level of passion the fans feel for the huskers

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 12:22 pm Reply

41. Frank

    So what was up with the Memphis and UCF to the BE rumors from last week?

    Was there ANY truth to them or were they simply being considered as replacements if Rutgers, Syracuse, or Pitt left for the Big Ten.

    The BE really is screwed in all of this. If they do nothing, they will inevitably be raided. If they make a move like adding the 2 aforementioned teams, they will be ridiculed…and then be raided anyway.

    I hope that Pitt and WVU land somewhere on their feet. Nebraska fans, did you have a soft spot for Kansas and Missouri when it looked like they would be left out of a major conference. As a PSU guy, I still want our former rivals to survive.

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 6:05 am Reply

    1. Frankly, the general tone you’ll find from Nebraska fans is that the Big 12 North schools made their bed with Texas, and now they can lie in it. With the football CCG issue gone for now, we’ll see how long it takes before the basketball tournament moves to Dallas and the baseball tournament to Round Rock. Personally, I wouldn’t mind it at all if things broke in a way that Kansas eventually wound up in the Big Ten, but that’s been my position all along. Missouri, less so, but that would also be OK. Iowa State and Kansas State might benefit from finding a level more sustainable for themselves.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 8:55 am Reply

       1. I had a long discussion with Bullet about Iowa State in particular moving to, as you put it, a level more sustainable. He and other bristled at the thought of not languishing in the Big XII basement. I suggested the MAC or the Big East.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 10:33 am Reply

          1. Seems to me that schools like ISU and KSU need to get over the illusion that what has taken place is anything more than a stay of execution.. Texas and Dodds aren’t promising anything, in fact they publicly expect this process to repeat in 5-10 years. That’s what they’re putting out there for optimistic. That’s not a commitment to anyone but themselves, to get BevoTV running and profitable, then it’s off to a new conference or independence, and the remaining Big 12 North schools aren’t on the buddy list. You’d think that taking control of their future would be more important than some short term gain Dan Beebe has promised, which may or may not come to pass.

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 11:46 am Reply

             1. What gain? they are still in a vulnerable situation because nothing has changed for them. And last I heard they will be forking over the leaving money from NE and CO to Texas and OU. There is neither a fraternal or symbiotic relationship going on here. So why not try to chart their own course in better situation for them?

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 12:08 pm

             2. What gains Beebe can deliver remain to be seen. So far it’s nothing but a ballpark proposal arrived at by taking revenue from schools that they customarily keep for themselves. From what I gather it’s important to UT, OU and A&M to bring home the 20M or so that Nebraska will get by making the move, and the rest can divide what’s left. About as durable as a house of cards.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 4:38 pm

42. added

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 7:39 am Reply

43. I want to take a poke at number 4.

    Going into the Big 12 shakeup, the thought was that Kansas and Kansas State were inseparable. It’s possible that the Big 10 felt that this was the case as well. Having only a limited amount of choices and some higher “wants” on their list made pursuing Kansas a lower priority. The Kansas/KSU marriage may have been true when the Big 10 started discussions but discarded when it seemed likely that the Big 12 was disintegrating.

    At the same time, Kansas is undergoing investigations around a university ticket scalping scheme run by athletic department employees. The allegations may have been enough to make the Big 10 pass over Kansas at the time.

    I will watch any college football game that’s on regardless of teams but outside of the NCAA tournament for basketball, there are only a couple teams that I’ll watch when I see they are on. Kansas, Duke, North Carolina, Michigan State games are generally always worth watching in my opinion. Kansas has seemingly always been good in basketball and had some national success in football. Had they not suffered from the KSU marriage perception and the real threat of illegalities in their athletic department, perhaps they would be in the Big 10 today.

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 8:59 am Reply

    1. Where it has already been established that Football drives the expansion bus, why would you select Kansas? Kansas is essentially Indiana, which I don’t dislike, but would not be a choice for expansion. And traditionally is Kansas even as strong an academic choice as Indiana. The viewrship is probably strong but the overall numbers do not compare to a typical Big ten state.Indiana with 2,818,747 possible viewers and Kansas with 2,818,747.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 10:46 am Reply

       1. Sorry Indiana has 6,423,113 possible viewers.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 10:47 am Reply

          1. 6 million divided by 2 schools in the state of Indiana, right? 3 million per school versus 2.8 million in Kansas isn’t that big of a difference. But beyond that, if there are such things as schools with national followings in Basketball I believe that Kansas is one of the first schools mentioned. If the Big 10 wanted to lose that stodgy style reputation then it’s one area in which it could. At the same time, I believe that Kansas is one of the very few basketball schools that people will watch if their game is on TV because of the belief that year in and year out they play a good game.

             As far as academic standing, it’s an AAU school and has 200 million in research with being a leader in pharmacy research (#2 nationally). They have a list of their bragging points at this link.
             http://www2.ku.edu/~distinction/cgi-bin/182#

             What I am saying though is that it may be too quick to write off the Big 10 as unwilling to pass over schools with rich traditions as the sole reason when it’s weighed down by 2 glaring issues, one real and one perceived. Could those 2 reasons have factored into how the Big 10 moved when their chess by email transformed into speed chess?

             If the Big 10 was sitting at 11 right now with Purdue as a member but not Indiana, I would think that the Big 10 would have Indiana high on their list even though the Big 10 already owns the state with the Boilermakers.

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 11:38 am Reply

44. a what if article

    http://blog.al.com/tommy-hicks/2010/06/always_fun_to_consider_bigger.html

    on A&M and OU to the SEC (not really exciting)

    but then comes the big news out of Mississippi!

    Land-o-Links – 10/27/2006

    looks like Ackbar and the Fightin Faulkners did not make the cut, but looks like Disney wants a piece of the action as they keep talking about “muppet like” choices several times.

    Who knew all this conference realignment stuff was just a cover for Disney to get in the mascot business. It seems like Mickey and Donald might be getting closer to copyright expiration so the folks at the castle are looking at new revenue streams.

    😉

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 10:33 am Reply

    1. Here’s an update for the Ole Miss “Rebel” mascot finalists.

       http://mascot.olemiss.edu/

       I vote for the Louisiana Black Bear.

       LikeLike

       July 21, 2010 at 1:12 pm Reply

       1. @Alan from Baton Rouge – Bleh. They’re all so ho-hum after the prospect of Admiral Ackbar. It’s not as if though George Lucas never licenses images and names to third parties – Lucasfilm is collecting a nice royalty from Motorola for the use of the term “Droid” for its smartphones.

          In a tangential story from a few months ago, Disney relinquished its Donald Duck-related copyright claims to the Oregon Duck mascot:

          http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Disney-loosens-60-year-grip-on-Oregon-s-outgoing?urn=ncaaf,226222

          LikeLike

          July 21, 2010 at 1:24 pm Reply

          1. Alan and Frank,

             thanks for the updates!

             the 5 finalists are lame, and extra lame. might as well keep the rebel!

             They had a chance at:

             1) Admiral Ackbar

             2) The Fightin Faulkners (William attended Ole Miss and lived in Oxford)

             They could have been contenders with a media icon or a nobel prize winner, but alas they will now drown in mediocrity.

             ps.. had they adopted the Fighin Faulkners would they have the only nobel prize winner for a mascot in the nation?

             LikeLike

             July 21, 2010 at 2:23 pm Reply

             1. Frank & Duff – I’m with you regarding Admiral Ackbar. He is definitely the most PC rebel one could think of, since Ole Miss has done such a good job of offending people in the past.

                But of the remaining candidates, I would vote for the Louisiana Black Bear, even though they won’t call it by its official name.

                The Ole Mississippians will probably refer top their new mascot as Rebel – the fighting Black Bear of Ole Miss.

                LikeLike

                July 21, 2010 at 3:06 pm

             2. alan,

                my issue is, are modern students just bland? The 5 best choices were:

                1) horse!?!?!?!?

                2) land shark – SNL retread!?
                wwjd – what would jimmy do? (buffett)

                3) lion!? (in mississippi?)
                think monty python skit

                4) bear! not another animal mascot
                (no offense to bears)

                5) Hotty & Toddy
                (hooker & ghey – for those unfamiliar with ole miss history, how well can you translate a cheer to inanimate objects – would one be dressed as a soco bottle, and the other a coke can).

                Have we lived in bland architecture and shopped at Wal Mart too long to still have a sense of style and humor.

                Frank,

                thanks for the duck link, but after looking at the video, I guess we can assume that Disney does not want to revive the boy band craze, as much as putting Donald Duck out to pasture.

                🙂

                LikeLike

                July 21, 2010 at 4:20 pm

       2. Auburn and LSU are both the ‘Tigers’; LSU has a real, live one to purr at visiting Ole Miss players. It would appear to be a serious case of ‘mascot envy’ if they actually choose a big cat decades after their division rivals.

          LikeLike

          July 21, 2010 at 9:20 pm Reply

45. Frank the Tank > Chip Brown and the entire staff at Orangebloods.com combined.

    Must sting a little to MIZZOU fans to realize that even with all their magical, mythical television sets that their own apathy contrasted with our voracious love of all things Nebraska Football (which they love to mock) basically cost them a spot in the Big 10.

    As they like to flaunt, they have more residents & more tv’s. If they supported that program even half as well as Nebraska fans support ours, they’d be in the Big 10 right now and NU would be skulking back to the Big Texas conference. Thank God for apathy in Missouri!

    I’d like MIZZOU fans to think of this every time they make fun of NU fans for paying so much attention and puting so much emotional equity into the football team. Look where it got us.

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 11:17 am Reply

46. Frank the Tank > Chip Brown and the entire staff at Orangebloods.com combined.

    Must sting a little to MIZZOU fans to realize that even with all their magical, mythical television sets that their own apathy contrasted with our voracious love of all things Nebraska Football (which they love to mock) basically cost them a spot in the Big 10.

    As they like to flaunt, they have more residents & more tv’s. If they supported that program even half as well as Nebraska fans support ours, they’d be in the Big 10 right now and NU would be skulking back to the Big Texas conference. Thank God for apathy in Methsouri!

    I’d like MIZZOU fans to think of this every time they make fun of NU fans for paying so much attention and puting so much emotional equity into the football team. Look where it got us.

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 11:18 am Reply

    1. No need to troll here, don’t think there are any Missouri fans present.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 12:07 pm Reply

       1. well, maybe one fan here.

          Im going to take the high road here and just say that I, for one, enjoyed the Nebraska-Mizzou games immensely. I looked forward to it every year, win or lose, because it was a very passionate game that sold out 71,000 in Columbia everytime I went.

          It was great for business, the fans, and everyone else involved in Columbia and I will miss seeing Big Red come to town.

          Good luck in the Big 10. You will need it.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 1:53 pm Reply

          1. OK, I can’t resist one jab:

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 1:59 pm Reply

             1. Let’s not play this game. We have a lot more videos than you. 😉

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 11:18 am

       2. well, I got a little tired of hearing about all those tv’s stretching from kc to st. louis from the tiger fans. when you even mentioned NU’s national following, it was inevitably followed by some crack about a “fading dynasty”. Well, guess that national following still holds a little sway.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 1:56 pm Reply

          1. You guys must be lost, you’re on the wrong blog.

             Think you made a wrong turn in Albuquerque

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 4:07 pm Reply

    2. Nebraska fans should be applauded for their support of the state’s lone football program.

       But I doubt too many sports fans in the state of Missouri are losing too much sleep over the situation. Instead of living and dying with the fortunes of one football program they also can chose to follow as many or as few of these teams as they want: an up-and-coming college basketball program, two major league baseball teams, two NFL teams and an NHL team in addition to a college football team.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 4:27 pm Reply

       1. We follow pro teams also, if you count the Royals as a pro team. The east end of the state follows the Royals and Chiefs, the west end the Rockies, Broncos and Avs. But the state flagship school is first in everyone’s heart, win or lose.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 4:48 pm Reply

47. eggs

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 11:56 am Reply

48. Weiberg (formerly helped start BTN and former BT deputy; now Pac-10 deputy) and Silverman (BTN president) comments: http://www.omaha.com/article/20100626/BIGRED/706269803/-1#barfknecht-big-ten-a-good-investment-for-nu

    Silverman’s comments should be the most reassuring in terms of financial impact of Nebraska on the Big Ten because he runs the network and know the ins and outs of the TV world.

    “We’re beyond happy that Nebraska is coming aboard,’’ Silverman said. “It increases the growth we have. Nebraska is a nationally known entity that increases the relevance of our network across the country.’’

    Critics such as Oklahoma State benefactor Boone Pickens have been dismissive of Nebraska’s potential impact because of its relatively small population (1.8 million) and TV households (700,000).

    Silverman sees it differently.

    “It’s not all about how many TV homes are in the local market,’’ he said. “It’s much bigger than that.’’

    Nebraska’s national reputation can motivate Big Ten alums and students — the league has more of both than any other conference in the country — to watch more events involving the Huskers.

    Also, NU’s highly motivated and far flung alumni groups may stir interest in areas where the Big Ten Network isn’t currently available. Their phone calls to request service from local cable companies are another avenue for growth.

    “Bringing on Nebraska,’’ Silverman said, “helps us in every way — distribution, more advertisers and bigger ratings.’’

    Speculation continues that the Big Ten might expand from the current 12 teams to 14 or 16. Silverman said his growth projections and long-range plans aren’t necessarily tied to a specific conference size.

    “There is plenty of growth at 12 teams for us,’’ he said. “We’re no different than any other network — we expand our distribution over time.

    “We’re the top-rated cable network in our eight-state region on football Saturdays. The way we’re going to grow is for our viewers who are coming for games to realize there is other stuff on the network that is interesting.’’

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 12:17 pm Reply

    1. He’s not saying anything new, but it is worth noting that he’s looking at the value of the BTN in national terms as opposed to state-by-state terms, so in that sense his focus would entirely be on Texas/Notre Dame/Nebraska.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 12:20 pm Reply

49. Frank, you said “Believe me – if the Big Ten was convinced that Rutgers and/or Syracuse could deliver New York/New Jersey households for the Big Ten Network, then they would’ve been added already.”

    On July 1 don’t the penalties for the BE schools change? Could this be a reason to wait?

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 12:31 pm Reply

50. @Frank – How does the Big Ten’s TV contract change with the addition of Nebraska? Was there set increases for expansion in the contract? Will there be a negotiation with ABC for the football title game and additional inventory?

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 1:56 pm Reply

    1. Mike

       I believe the ABC/ESPN contract gives them a fixed number of games during the year. so the increase in the number of regular season games caused by expansion will not result in more games for ABC/ESPN but just give them the added choice of Nebraska. the extra games/inventory will go into the BTN pool.

       the understanding is that the championship game is negotiated sepeartely and not covered under the current contract.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 2:32 pm Reply

51. As a PSU fan, I’d love to see them play Nebraska on a yearly basis, but I feel it makes the most sense to do this geographically. That just happens to mean no Nebraska.

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 2:04 pm Reply

52. I have been thinking some about alignment lately.

    Taking into account the usual criteria we have all talked about, but I believe the importance of the OSU v. UofM rival, and the spotlight that game has put on the league over the years may carry a bigger role than we suspect.

    I believe that annual game may help drive what the league does in terms of alignment.

    The winner of that game historically had a say in who won the Big Ten. Now if you add say Penn State to that mix, putting them in the same division (geographically) as UofM and OSU, “The Rivalry” may lose some luster long term.

    In addition if you add Wisky or Iowa you will be screwing a long term rival. Such as Rittenberg did dumping Wisconsin-Iowa? in his example.

    By keeping U of M and OSU in the same division say paired with MSU, Purdue, NW, Illinois. “The Rivalry” will still have meaning, but instead of the Rose Bowl, it will often decide who gets a chance to play for the Rose Bowl. (historically speaking) Thus keeping the game very crucial to deciding the Big Ten. (historically)

    That is why I believe the league will look something like this.

    U of M Nebraska
    OSU Penn State
    Purdue Indiana
    MSU Iowa
    NW Wisconsin
    Illinois Minnesota

    With the across game being protected. (subject to change)

    Of course Illinois and Indiana could be switched, or something like that. But I believe the relevance of “The Rivalry” has been very important to the Big Ten historically, and I believe that may be one of the reasons the league will decide to align in this fashion.

    Some may point to travel with Penn State. But lets look at the regulars.

    PSU-OSU—–Away—-Home
    PSU-NEB—–Home—-Away
    PSU-Iowa—-Away—–Home
    PSU-INDY—-Away—–Home
    PSU-MINN—-Home—-Away
    PSU-WIS—–Home—–Away

    The rest of the schools are close. I don’t see a big problem with travel. especially with their intersectional game being close.

    I just think the Big Ten will want the last week to look as much as a semi-final as possible. with OSU-U of M—-NEB-PSU…..Wis-Iowa historically filling that bill. If they always meet on the last week.

    I know it is not perfect by any means. But I do believe this is a legit option that will be considered.

    Especially with the insistence that the game not be moved up in the schedule. Like the UT v. OU game which is always Big because of the timing. (early in league play)

    The game will always be Big. But something is automatically taken away because a Rose Bowl will not be on the line. Now if you lessen the chance of even a shot at the Rose Bowl is taken from that game, it could become a problem for the Big Ten.

    Does anyone think it could go this way?

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 2:26 pm Reply

    1. We worry too much about “brand names” and not enough abut the quality of the program. As of 2011, the six dominant football programs in the Big Ten will be Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and nebraska. Three east, three west.

       Divide by straight geography, perhaps making sure one of the big three in each division is guaranteed an annual game with one of the other three. Not to divide geographically is asinine — and frankly insults what Wisconsin and Iowa have accomplished in recent decades.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 3:10 pm Reply

       1. I doubt it highly that PSU, OSU and U of M will be in the same division. (But I have been wrong b4)

          Especially after what Delany has said about the importance of Geography. (not very)

          The more championship games with OSU, U of M v. PSU, Nebraska. will bring better numbers. the harder question will be do you split Iowa and Wisconsin?

          I’m sure the Big Ten doesn’t want a Big 12 Championship game problem.

          That it why the historically national programs will be split. OSU, U of M…..PSU, Nebraska. The Big 12 showed blind geographic division splitting was probably even more asinine.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 3:31 pm Reply

          1. You’re severely underestimating Wisconsin and Iowa. Frankly, you’re thinking more like an ESPN executive, who’s so obsessed with Yankees-Red Sox/UNC-Duke/Brett Favre/TO/Tiger that he can’t see the forest for the trees.

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 3:45 pm Reply

             1. It seems you may be over estimating those teams.

                You propose to anchor a division with a new team (NEB) coupled with Iowa and Wisconsin arguably the 5th and 6th most relevant teams in the league.

                So they get a shot at a CCG without a meaningful game v. PSU, OSU or U of M?

                How does that make sense besides geographically which is basically irrelevant because it is a mid-west league. It is already geographic.

                split the big 4 and then decide if you should split Iowa and Wisconsin.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 4:34 pm

             2. willarm1, you chose the word that’s right and wrong here: “relevant.” It really encapsulates everything that’s wrongheaded about how people are talking about this issue. Somehow, Michigan is “more relevant” than Wisconsin, even though their performances have been statistically identical for the last 20 years.

                It’s this notion of “relevancy” that makes a 7-0 Notre Dame or Michigan team more “relevant” than a 7-0 Minnesota team, for no particular reason. The fact that a lot of people buy into this nonsense doesn’t make it any less nonsensical.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 6:01 pm

             3. Adam if you mean identical record with Wisconsin in the last two years than yeah your right. But a win is not win is not a win.

                Like you would have everyone believe.

                Since 1988 U of M has won 10 Big Ten championships and one national co championship. (thank you Phil Fulmer and instant replay for the co)

                Like it or not UofM, OSU, PSU and Nebraska have national chops. I’m sorry but that is the way it is.

                Call your therapist or start your playoff now blog, but that is reality.

                Big 4 UofM 877 wins and winning % of 737 Neb 827 701% OSU 819 717% PSU 811 691%

                Next 5 Minn 635 560% Wis 614 542% MSU 592 570% Iowa 580 513% Purdue 571 516%

                Bottom 3 Ill 563 500% NW 458 416% Indy 433 405%

                Again I think Iowa and Wisconsin are great programs…..but there is a pecking order here. and a Neb Iowa, Wisconsin geographic anchored division is not competitively balanced correctly IMO and it can be proved statistically many different ways.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 6:39 pm

             4. Comparison with all-time statistics is silly and pointless. What happened 60 years ago (or even 30 years ago) isn’t relevant now that teams face real scholarship limitations and have to make hard choices on who they’ll give a scholarship to. Additionally, with the proliferation of football on TV, many talented players elect to start for teams with lesser pedigrees than provide depth at the top programs. The perceptions of “national chops” are perpetuated by lazy sportswriters whose impressions were shaped by the Big Two/Little Eight days of Woody and Bo, and Penn State coasting on judicious use of their Independent scheduling flexibility.

                Since PSU joined in 1993, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn State are separated by approximately a game and a half. Nebraska alone has as many national championships in that time frame as all 11 Big Ten teams combined.

                This notion that Nebraska-Iowa-Wisconsin is “imbalanced” vis-a-vis Ohio State-Michigan-Penn State is based on lazy stereotypes, not actual on-field performances.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 7:11 pm

             5. So now those statistics are irrelevant?

                because they don’t fit your argument of only now matters?

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 8:14 pm

             6. willarm1,

                you keep arguing that such a B10 West alignment “wouldn’t play a meaningful game against PSU/UM/PSU until the CCG”. But the West would play half the East every year, so, on average, a west team would play 2 of the big 3 one year, and 1 of the big 3 the next year.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 6:15 am

             7. Let me ask you this. What will happen with Iowa when K. Ferentz retires? Are they still going to be a top team or not? They are not attracting top recruits, they are not a top academic institution, they are not a top destination for a coach candidate and they basically rely on their coaching staff to get the most out of their players. Even their DC is old and close to retiring.
                If they don’t get it right with their next coach they will become MSU or Illinois. This is why you have to account for the brand names and not look only at the past few years.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 2:57 pm

             8. Where will Iowa be when Ferentz retires? Ok, in about 2020, Kirk will retire and it will be, at that point, 40+ years of success under two coaches. They aren’t guaranteed anything, but I like their record.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 3:15 pm

             9. What will happen to Iowa when Ferentz retires? Didn’t that used to be “What will happen to Iowa when Hayden Fry retires?”

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 9:12 pm

             10. Good rip. Thinking like an ESPN executive will get you nowhere. Overly focusing on Ohio St v Michigan is small minded old Big Ten.

                 The SEC also has Bama v Auburn and it manages to play that game without shutting down the SEC conference over it. To many, Bama v Auburn blows away OSU v Michigan. It may not have more national appeal, but it is way more intense.

                 Let’s get used to the fact a 12 team B10 with Nebraska will have a bunch of competitive games. To pretend a Mich/OSU division without Penn State preserves anything is silly. OSU and Michigan will still have to play 2 of Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa/Penn State every year.

                 Just go East/West. Grow up Big Ten.

                 LikeLike

                 July 18, 2010 at 2:28 am

       2. I am a Midwestern guy. I like the Ohio St Michigan State game like the next guy. But I am really getting irritated over the OVERPROTECTION of this rivalry. The think that really made this game the most relevant was the fact that all the other teams were done as far as the Big ten championship goes.
          I really don’t know why this game has to continue to have the same significance with Penn State, Nebraska and a couple of good teams like Wisconsin and Iowa capable of upsetting the apple cart. I’m beginning to think it will be a good thing if this games loses some of its relevance.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 3:42 pm Reply

          1. OSU MSU?

             Has there been a ground swell for this game?

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 3:47 pm Reply

             1. Not that I know of. But I myself will watch any of the teams that can win the conference in the last 2 – 4 weeks. If its OSU vs MSU, I’m in. I won’t be lamenting the insignificance of OUS MU. There are 10 other teams in the conference for goodness sakes.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 3:55 pm

          2. assuming you meant Ohio State Michigan I’ll doubt you’ll get agreement from fans of either school or many in the Big Ten. Its just a great traditional game for rivalry week. The idea is to increase the marquee games and not diminish the ones we already have.

             The idea that it determines the championship is just left over rhetoric from the Woody Bo era, which is the last time the talking heads on networks had an original thought. Its a quality matchup that fans love. keep it and try to encourage others.

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 3:56 pm Reply

             1. So yeah it’s another big ten game to watch late in the season. The last couple of years it has not meant that much in the big scheme of things. That’s not saying people don’t like an OSU MU matchup. Its just not deciding anything besides one game. I think the more this happens the better for the conference. That means maybe Iowa vs. Penn State contest is significant late or a Penn State vs. Wisconsin games has more meaning. You can also throw a late season game in evolving Nebraska and any other upstart from the middle of the pack. Big 2 and little 10 RIP.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 4:28 pm

             2. StvinILL

                If you think U of M OSU is just another Big Ten game.

                I would ask what color is the sky in your world?

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 4:41 pm

             3. William, the ski here is blue today and late in the football season it’s gray from Nebraska to Pennsylvania.
                Like said it’s a good game to watch but maybe a lot more for Michigan and Ohio State fans. If it does not decide the Big ten championship and its not the Rose bowl then it’s not a 10. Yeah sure its not Kentucky vs. Indiana at Kentucky. It’s a much bigger game than that. But without a conference championship in the balance, it’s less of a game. Gimme Penn state Iowa or Nebraska or Wisconsin if it will decide the conference championship/Rose bowl over OSU vs UM.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 4:50 pm

             4. I can’t believe I have to write this.

                Show me the Iowa v. Wisconsin game for the Big 10 title.

                Show me the Penn State Iowa game that decided the league.

                Iowa v. OSU was great last year and meant something, but those games are the exception not the rule.

                PSU v. OSU has been huge. but not deciding anything, because there were plenty of games yet to be played.

                U of M OSU always means something in a 10 – 11 team conference even if one of those teams are down. Because a loss at that time of year could cost you a rose bowl or worse. But in a 6 team division that may not be the case. especially if you have three of the four major brands in one division.

                I doubt the Big Ten will risk making that game irrelevant by putting three of the four major Big Ten Brands in one division.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 5:09 pm

             5. Well William if you construct it that way then form follow function. It no secret OUS and UM have been the two best teams in the conference over time. Then you go ahead and set the OSU UM game for the last conference game. Viola! An instant yearly classic. Now times they are a changing. For my money they can go ahead and “setup” Iowa vs Nebraska for the finally or Penn State vs Nebraska or Wisconsin vs Penn State. And from here on out lets see who people tune into.
                Of course they don’t want all those games “setup” at the same time. Because they can stretch out fan interest if they stager these machups over the course of the season. So it may not happen. But pay attention. If it were setup, especially the past two years, the OSU UM game would lose the support it once had because the relevance to the conference championship would not be sure bet like in the Big 2 and Little 10 days. Some other peering would be of great interest though. And this is the point.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 5:24 pm

             6. U of M v. OSU is always the last game and it has been made clear by the Big Ten it will stay that way.

                I’m not talking about them being the best teams or not. It is irrelevant. but that game either directly or indirectly almost always effects the Big Ten Championship in one way or another.

                That is because the league played a round robin (sort of ) schedule.

                So that last game almost always had an effect on the championship. even if one of the teams were down.

                In a divisional format assuming that OSU, U of M, and PSU, are in the same division, makes it more likely that the game could be less relevant. Because you would have 3 of the 4 major programs in one division.

                This leads me to think, the 4 majors will be split 2 and 2. For competitions sake.

                With that said I’m not sure Wisconsin and Iowa will be split.(to keep rival games between Iowa, wisconsin, minnesota and Neb a given.) this added to Indy and Penn State makes a very tough division.

                Leaving u of m OSU, MSU, Purdue, Illinois and NW. (or some combination)

                But some may think this is a non-competitive split.

                since 1998 the Neb/ PSU division would have 514 wins to 502 wins from the OSU/ U of M division, and that is with Neb playing a totally different schedule.

                I’m saying the more games like the 2006 game, the better it is for the Big Ten and its partners.

                and I believe that will be taken into consideration when the divisions are formed. I’m not dissing any teams or trying to disrespect anyone, I’m saying that rivalry game has been huge to say the least, for the whole league in terms of exposure.

                And I believe it will not be compromised by a geographic divisional alignment, that hurts competition.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 6:01 pm

             7. Wasn’t there a period around the 80s where IA/Michigan decided the conference title something like 8 out of 10 years? Ohio St. was irrelevant. There are cycles.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 6:18 pm

             8. I don’t believe the two, OU UM will be split up but I think the answer to the divisional thing IS the simplest. East West regardless of strength. It also will serve in not antagonizing PSU by sending them and those who travel with them east of the Indiana Illinois border every other week.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 6:28 pm

             9. East west does not seem to be fair competitively.

                Wisconsin has a career 542 winning %
                and Iowa has a 514%

                So them coupled with Neb a newly added team gets to compete for a chance to play in a CCG, without playing a meaningful game v PSU, OSU, or U of M?

                I still think the big 4 will be split.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 6:47 pm

             10. ugh. if i hear any more about the um / osu game, i’m gonna puke.

                 let those guys have their hand-job fest and leave the rest of out of it.

                 why don’t they just form their own conference and noodle on about how their game decides everything known to mankind.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 7:05 pm

             11. will, if you aren’t “talking about them being the best teams or not,” then why are you complaining about balance? Balance is basically an empirical question. If you aren’t talking about them being the best teams or not, it doesn’t matter what the media chooses to hype; what matters is on-field performance. And on-field performance is that the Ohio State-Michigan-PSU triumvirate is only appreciably stronger than Nebraska-Wisconsin-Iowa because Ohio State is appreciably stronger than every other team in the league. Whatever group they get placed in will appear imbalanced unless it’s OSU, Indiana, NW, Illinois, Michigan State and Minnesota. You have to set them aside and compare the rest. Michigan, PSU, and Wisconsin are not meaningfully separable. Iowa is a step back but well ahead of the next pack of teams (Northwestern-Michigan State-Purdue).

                 Ohio State/Michigan/PSU and Nebraska/Iowa/Wisconsin are balanced just fine.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 7:18 pm

             12. I also don’t buy this notion that putting PSU in with UM and OSU somehow detracts from the UM/OSU game. The UM/OSU game will be a big deal in exact proportion to how well the teams are doing (or whether one having a bad season remains a legitimate upset threat). The last 2 years when Michigan was bad, the game was not shown in the prime broadcast slot (3:30) and was predominantly a big deal to those fan bases. Penn State/OSU was a much bigger game: nationally televised night game which everybody could see was going to have the league title on the line (even if not the last game of the season).

                 I wholly agree that OSU/UM is important from a business standpoint, but in some years it is important because of what’s on the line. In other years it’s important because it’s important. Either way, it isn’t losing anything by having PSU in that Division.

                 I’d also note this: how in the world does the game become less important because it likely has the division title on the line, rather than the league title? As soon as you have a CCG, no game (other than the CCG) has the league title on the line. But the likelihood is still there that, if those 3 teams are in the same group, they all, or 2 out of the 3, go into the final weekend of the season wanting to know what happens in the other game.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 7:24 pm

             13. oh, god, they’ll just demand that the big ten call it “the game” or “the f’ing game” or “the dickhead invitational” or something. whatever they want to call it.

                 they’re ending up in the same division no matter what because only these two fanbases want to see a rematch.

                 thank god for the rest of us.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 7:33 pm

             14. As you and others continue to focus on the rival game, the post is really about realignment, and specifically about Iowa and Wisconsin not being in the same category as the big 4 Historically and how a division divided east west based on todays results would be a long term mistake competitively.

                 But apparently if a discussion includes talk of said rivalry and its importance no matter how big or small it may be to the subject of realignment, many have resorted to acting like some sort of special treatment has been asked regarding the game.

                 The game will be the last game like it always has been. Nothing new, but I have raised the question about PSU being in their division and how that would be competitively unbalanced, and may have an effect on the game because the league would have three of the four major players in it.

                 All that has been said is that unbalanced division would be the same mistake the big 12 made.

                 So I believe the big 4 will be split when divisions are created.

                 From there the difficult decision will be wether to split Iowa and Wisconsin up? and I believe that would be a mistake with the possibility of killing some major rivals. (Iowa v. Wisconsin) being one of the games possibly being lost.

                 So before you start complaining about the uofm/osu game it is only being used as an example why psu will probably not be in their same division.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 7:38 pm

             15. The comparison with the Big 12 North is totally misplaced. First, the Big 12 did not last very long as a league, and even in its short lifespan, the Big 12 North had a heyday where it was far and away the stronger of the 2 Divisions. The first 8 years, the game was 4-4 between the Divisions. It was only the last 6 years that the South came to dominate. And (big surprise), it’s been the last 6 years that you heard Myles Brand and the Knight Commission talking about the “arms race” in college sports and the rich-get-richer business model. Which, of course, was only exacerbated in a league where the money wasn’t split equally, like it was in the Big Ten.

                 The Big 12 North is simply not a pertinent example. The pertinent example is the ongoing failure that is the ACC’s divisional alignment, which has balanced the ACC into irrelevance.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 7:50 pm

             16. Now Adam if you cannot see after over 100 years of data that Wisconsin and Iowa are not in the same class in winning %, wins or national following than so be it.

                 But I believe it would be a huge long term mistake to anchor the west division with a new team in Neb, flanked by historically just over .500% teams.

                 But that is why Delany gets paid the big bucks and we will see what happens.

                 As for PSU, OSU and U of M being in the same division. if you think 3 of the top 6 winningest programs belong in the same division and that will provide competitive balance I think you are dead wrong.

                 Now if you are an Iowa or wisconsin fan I would love the east west divide. No OSU, PSU or U of M. in a meaningful game until the CCG.

                 I still believe when it is said and done the big 4 will be split.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 7:58 pm

             17. Why do all-time stats matter? What happened before contemporary scholarship limitations and broadcast opportunities came about is meaningless. In the days of only 3 channels and cartel-like control of what got shown, the top talent had a very narrow choice of schools if they wanted to get on TV and exposure for the next level. They had to accept a spot as depth on the bench in exchange for their best chance at getting ahead, and the schools could hand out as many scholarships as they could afford.

                 Now, by contrast, there are scholarship limitations: even Texas has to compete for players, because nobody wins a national championship solely with starters. You have to have depth, especially along the lines, and guys who would only provide depth at Texas or Ohio State can start at Cincinnati or Baylor. Moreover, with so many games on TV, a school like Central Michigan or Troy can put together some consistent success because their games will be on television.

                 Nothing that happened before those factors were in place has anything to do with whether the Big Ten’s divisional alignment is “balanced.”

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 8:17 pm

             18. Adam

                 “how in the world does the game become less important because it likely has the division title on the line, rather than the league title?”

                 This was not said in any way or form.

                 UofM will play OSU and PSU will play MSU if they were in the same division the last week of the season. (yippee!)

                 Wouldn’t the powers that be rather have PSU playing NEB for a shot at the other division during this week? of course they would.

                 They could also have Iowa v. Wisconsin playing or Purdue v. MSU or NW v. Illinois.

                 But the big four teams move the needle, and you know it, that is why they will be split up.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 8:30 pm

             19. I would disagree that the powers that be want that, for a couple of reasons. First, it’s a bad idea to try to engineer stuff like that. It never works. Ex. A: ACC. Moreover, it cuts directly against the sort of comity that exists in the league. There’s plenty of precedent for the OSU/UM game being what it is and getting the treatment it gets from the league (guaranteed spot on the last week of the season, always nationally televised), but engineering a PSU/NEB matchup on the final weekend for the purported justification you’re presenting smacks of the league office more or less picking winners in advance (or at least designing league operations with an expectancy of particular outcomes) — something anybody who is not a fan or administrator of those 4 programs should (and would) find very offensive, no matter how much money is at stake.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 8:38 pm

             20. So we should judge Iowa by only the Farentz years! Ha.

                 They have possibly the best all-time player development coach in history. yeah all the schollies in the world will not make him easily replaced.

                 So lets judge Iowa by Farentz and Wisconsin by Alvarez?

                 The league ebbs and flows the big 4 have done it better than Wisky and Iowa have through all the time periods.

                 Wisky and Iowa have almost equalled a couple of the programs during their best years. This is why history is important.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 8:39 pm

             21. There’s also zero reason that a Nebraska/Wisconsin game (or Nebraska/Iowa) won’t “move the needle” if the teams are in contention for the title; conversely, if they aren’t, it won’t (just as the Michigan/OSU game has been a non-event the last couple of years with Michigan being bad and having no chance of upsetting OSU’s apple cart).

                 What moves the needle is being in contention for the league title — especially when you have a franchise like College GameDay which comes to campuses and spotlights important games. Fans aren’t passive recipients of the network schedule à la the MLB Game of the Week on FOX, NHL Game of the Week on NBC, or the NBA Games of the Week on TNT and ABC. No doubt, it gets moved more when your so-called “big 4” are in contention, but only when they’re in contention, and drawing the alignment around them to accommodate the years when they’re in contention is not just foolish, it is in tension with the Big Ten’s mantra of being a league of equals.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 8:42 pm

             22. I’d also note: what “moves the needle” and “balance” are 2 totally different things. “Balance” speaks to fairness. What you’re talking about has nothing to do with fairness and sounds more along the lines of what TV executives are interested in. The Big Ten holds the cards. People will watch Big Ten football regardless. Do not kowtow to the TV executives. They’re idiots.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 8:43 pm

             23. Offensive?

                 Ask the PSU fans if they would trade the MSU end of season game for a Nebraska end of season tilt with the division possibly on the line?

                 Please….

                 The league can’t do a study and make a strong competitive two division league.

                 Nope lets have a map decide? do you know how riduclous that sounds. You have 4 powerhouse teams….split them and make divisions.

                 It is a midwest conference. Travel can be worked. This is not the NFL.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 8:46 pm

             24. The Big Ten, and all college sports, ebb and flow in fundamentally different ways now than they did in the past. I’m not saying ignore history; I’m saying draw a relevant period if you’re actually worried about balance. But I don’t think the people who talk about balance are really concerned with fairness at all. They’re more worried about perpetuating the stereotype of the Big 4. There’s no doubt that’s a stereotype that exists in the popular mind, it’s just that the on-field performances do not back it up over a meaningful time period.

                 Why do the ebbs and flows of the 30s, 50s, or even 70s matter? The ebbs and flows relate to a school’s ability to attract talent. A qualitative (not quantitative) shift has occurred since then. Comparing today’s ebbs and flows to then is nonsensical.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 8:47 pm

             25. Save me the balance argument….you are proposing 3 of the top 5 winningest programs ever in a single division.

                 And another division with two good teams and one historically great team entering a new league for the first time?

                 Balance you say. Tell that to the other three teams that have to play in the east.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 8:50 pm

             26. Nor am I a “only now matters” person. I am the guy who is championing the one-time strength of the Big 12 North, after all. (The North Division champion came into the Big 12 CCG as the higher-ranked team the first 4 years it was played; the North Champion was, on average, 13 positions higher. Not only was the North Division stronger over the course of the season, it wasn’t especially close.) There is no doubt that 1996 is relevant now. It’s just that 1976 is not.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 8:51 pm

             27. Go back 20 years the answer is still the same.

                 There are outliers but the big 4 is just that. You don’t have over a 700 winning % because you had a good 40’s and 50’s.

                 winning% is a marathon stat.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 8:53 pm

             28. References to their all-time records are irrelevant! What difference does it make how Fielding Yost was able to get players into school? What difference do the peculiarities of schools willing to admit servicemen in and around World War II have to do with the likelihood of teams succeeding today? How on earth do the grainy, smeary telecasts of the CFA era tell us a single thing about what the competitive dynamics are like in an era when every Big Ten game is accessibly televised?

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 8:54 pm

             29. William, history is history because everyone in it is dead. The current players in this theater though are not. Yes I agree with you Ferenz is an outstanding developer of talent and Alvarez has done an outstanding job recruiting at Wisconsin. I would also point you to 3 successive coaching and developing individuals at Northwestern in Barnett, Randy Walker and Fitzgerald. Your all time winning records really don’t mean a thing to these guys or the players that play for them. Coaching and defense is what will win in the new millennium. And if your defense spends too much time on the field they are not likely to win.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 8:56 pm

             30. again winning % is a marathon stat. Just because realignment happens while a program is doing well doesn’t mean those schools with just above 50% winning % should be given the keys to the city and ruin the long term viability of the conference. You talk like Wisconsin and Iowa are leaps and bounds above Purdue and MSU. They are not.

                 They are closer to them than they are to the top.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 8:58 pm

             31. nobody is saying it means anything to the coaches. But it does mean something when you are realigning a conference.

                 You are crazy if you think Delany isn’t looking at these programs histories while deciding. If it was as easy as looking at a map it would be done already.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 9:00 pm

             32. I never said let a map decide; as I noted elsewhere here, I think it should be about maximizing rivalries. As it happens, you do that with the East/West split.

                 The notion of an engineered Nebraska-PSU season-ender for the sake of having a division title on the line offends me on behalf of everybody else. I am less interested in what PSU would rather than Indiana, Purdue, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, et al. They matter just as much. The Big Ten is (and should) be willing to leave money on the table to do right by everybody.

                 You said: “Go back 20 years the answer is still the same.”

                 Since PSU joined the league, here are their winning percentages:
                 1. OSU 170-43 (.798)
                 2. NEB 165-52 (.760)
                 3. PSU 147-62 (.708)
                 4. UM 146-64 (.695)
                 5. WIS 145-65-4 (.687)
                 6. IA 119-86-2 (.580)

                 As I noted elsewhere, there is no doubt that Iowa is behind that pack, but also significantly ahead of the next group of teams (MSU, NW, PUR, all floating around .480). And PSU, UM and WIS are simply indistinguishable. That’s separation by a game and a half over almost 20 years.

                 Of course, if you don’t buy “a win is a win” (and in college football, that’s a legitimate objection), this blog did a more sophisticated analysis with the Sagarin Ratings. But it produces very similar results: the top teams can largely be shuffled in any order you want (other than OSU) because their performances have been very similar. http://www.theonlycolors.com/2010/6/14/1518125/big-ten-12-divisions-keep-it

                 Perception does not match reality on the “balance” debate.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 9:09 pm

             33. Adam

                 “There’s also zero reason that a Nebraska/Wisconsin game (or Nebraska/Iowa) won’t “move the needle” if the teams are in contention for the title; conversely, if they aren’t, it won’t ”

                 again this was not said at all.

                 but PSU NEB for first or fourth place will move the needle.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 9:12 pm

             34. sure it does.

                 a win is not a win is not a win.

                 Like you would have everyone believe.

                 Since 1988 U of M has won 10 Big Ten championships and one national co championship. (thank you Phil Fulmer and instant replay for the co)

                 There is a difference.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 9:15 pm

             35. Willaim, I think your winning percentage has some relevance but not going back 60 years. You would do better to work with 12 years at time limit 25. (My rule) because you can more clearly see the most recent trend and 25 years is just one human generation. Anyway OSU and Mich simply dominated back in the day. Even if either wins a mother Big Ten championship they will actually earn it from here on out.
                 I believe those 10 -1 or 11-0 seasons for OSU and Mich are more a thing of the past. Besides the new muscle in the conference there will always be a capable upstart from the middle of the pack to blemish a perfect season. Throw in a CCG and it will be tough to get out of here without 2 losses.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 9:18 pm

             36. In addition this is Iowa and Wisconsin at there best.

                 they still rank below the big 4.

                 What is your point.

                 that is a great argument for them being the 5th and 6th best teams in the conference.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 9:20 pm

             37. again nobody is saying UofM and OSU is the end all be all.

                 I’m saying the Big 4 have an advantage over the rest of the league and in the best interest of competition should be split.

                 Neb Wis Iowa looks good on a map, but is not a competitively balanced league.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 9:23 pm

             38. “In addition this is Iowa and Wisconsin at there best.
                 they still rank below the big 4.”

                 You seem a bit ideologically flexible here. Sometimes a win is not a win is not a win. But now you’re seizing on the fact that Wisconsin is less than 2% behind Penn State (with Michigan wedged in between) over 20 years and Wisconsin is clearly “behind” them. That is clearly within the margin of error! 2 games over 20 years???

                 Also, if a win is not a win is not a win, then just look at the breakdown of the Sagarin ratings. Very similar results.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 9:27 pm

             39. 12 years doesn’t tell the story. Otherwise ND would be a nobody. OU would be a nobody in 2000. Texas unimportant in 97. 25-30 is needed to get a feel long term. And 50 years does tell you something. Look at the national champions starting in 1961:
                 1961 Alabama
                 1962 USC
                 1963 Texas
                 1964 Alabama/Arkansas
                 1965 Alabama/Mich. St.
                 1966 Notre Dame
                 1967 USC
                 1968 Ohio St.
                 1969 Texas
                 And the 70s champs are Texas/Nebraska/Alabama/USC/Notre Dame/OU + Pitt one year. You could be talking about the 2000s.

                 I agree with Frank that there is not a big difference w/the E/W split. Iowa doesn’t have that good a long term %, but their program was completely turned around by Hayden Fry and they became a very good fb school. Barry Alvarez created a personality and tradition in Wisconsin.

                 Yes, the E will probably be a little better over time, but not that much.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 9:29 pm

             40. Bullet, “we don’t need no stinking” story. :- ) we need the trend. Notre Dame for instance. The Last 12 years 91W-67Ls. Upset fan base, less bowls, less important bowls, no all Americans, no NC. The previous 12 years 105W – 36Ls. Plenty of all Americans, national championships, significant bowls and coaching fidelity under 11 years of Holtz.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 9:42 pm

             41. One last thing.

                 Nebraska will be new to the league. And some growing pains could easily happen..

                 So Now you may have a freshman Neb with Wis, Iowa who are not year in year out contenders. In the same division. Here is how that league would look stacked against the east in terms of wins.

                 since 98.
                 ———————————

                 geographic divison

                 unl,wis,iowa,minn,indy, purdue-485wins

                 osu,uofm,psu,msu,nw,ill-535wins

                 ———————————
                 here is a division splitting the 4 big boys while also keeping many of the west rivals in tact. In terms of wins.
                 ———————————

                 unl,psu,wis,iowa,minn,indy-512 wins

                 uofm,osu,msu,purdue,nw,ill.-502 wins

                 ———————————

                 Now this example is without splitting Wisconsin and Iowa. I’m sure you could split them up and get closer in terms of wins. But you would be losing a possible rival or two out west.

                 So I would not split them.

                 It seems obvious to me that the big 4 should be split for long term competitions sake.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 9:55 pm

             42. And Adam;

                 When I’m talking about wins. Championships and Conference titles as well as BCS games should be in that equation.

                 It is obvious the west without another power besides Nebraska would be less of a division competitively.

                 20 years ago 10 years ago, 30 years ago. It is obvious.

                 LikeLike

                 June 28, 2010 at 10:01 pm

             43. You keep saying “it’s obvious,” but you point to no actual explanation for why it’s so obvious.

                 Nor do I see any per se reason why BCS appearances et al. are independently relevant. Certainly they’re indirectly relevant, in that if you’re consistently having good years you’ll qualify for those. But the question is whether you’re consistently having good years (and how good your years are), not the number of discrete times you’ve happened into 1st place. “A championship is not a championship is not a championship” as far as that goes. Years when the Big Ten Champion has 2 or 3 league losses are much different than years when it has 1 (or 4). Just tabbing up the number of titles won is irrelevant to how typically competitive a group of teams will be. And there is no reason to think that the “West” group will be appreciably less competitive than the “East,” given that their statistics are so similar over the relevant era of scholarship limits and saturation television.

                 LikeLike

                 June 29, 2010 at 7:12 am

             44. Recruiters tell stories. And those stories create trends. Notre Dame is one great coach away from being a regular national power again in just a few years (I’m not saying it will definitely happen). Indiana can’t say the same thing. After you lose a Woody Hayes, Lou Holtz or Hayden Fry, it doesn’t take that long to rebuild if you make a bad coaching hire.

                 LikeLike

                 June 29, 2010 at 8:19 am

             45. Obvious to everyone but you Adam;

                 Wisconsin is a fine program but doesn’t stack up with the big 4.

                 Even your example has them and iowa as the 5th and 6th best teams and that analysis leaves out the 70’s 80’s and half the 90’s.

                 Wisconsin has not won even a share of the Big 10 in this decade and have never won a nc. and as far as I could find have never been ranked number 1. that is not elite.

                 the 90’s were great and they still had less big 10 titles than UofM (5) and tied with OSU (3)

                 I’m talking balance for a division that stands the test of time, and you continue to try to force Wisconsin as an equal to the big 4 in terms of wins. they still fall short. Now when you add following, championships, history, NC. wisconsin falls farther behind.

                 I’m advocating a more balanced division split. Neb, Iowa and Wis do not accomplish this goal on their own.

                 LikeLike

                 June 29, 2010 at 8:26 am

             46. Adam;

                 Blaming Wisconsin’s lack of record during the 70’s,80’s and part of the 90’s on tv and schollies is weak at best.

                 Were talking Wisconsin not CMU.

                 If Alvarez were there they would have won. that is a Wisconsin problem.

                 The man didn’t hold them down those years. they made bad decisions.

                 LikeLike

                 June 29, 2010 at 8:36 am

             47. You’re fixating on their ordinal ranking in “my example” rather than the fact that they are statistically inseparable. Any time you ordinally rank teams, only 1 can be 1st, but that doesn’t mean that the team in 2nd is so close to 1st that their performance is effectively identical.

                 And as I noted elsewhere, counting Big Ten championships makes no sense. That’s 1 season, and not all titles are created equally. A 1-loss Big Ten Champion and a 4-loss Big Ten Champion are not qualitatively identical, even if they both get the same title. If we’re interested in balance and competitive equity, the number of discrete times a team finishes in 1st place is less relevant than how well they do on average. As I said before: is Northwestern the same as PSU because they both have the same 3 league titles? Hardly.

                 I keep trying to come up with ways to demonstrate my point. The Only Colors blog did a fascinating analysis of the Sagarin rankings. Win/loss percentage also bears out my conclusions (you’re overrating ordinal ranking rather than noting that 3 teams are separated by 2 games over 20 years — they’re effectively tied). You count league titles — except in the case of someone you want to write off, like Northwestern. (Nor does this consider whether a co-championship is different from an outright title, or whether a 2-loss league champion is different from an undefeated league champion.)

                 It’s lazy thinking. I know a lot of people (including people with platforms) are indulging in it but that doesn’t mean I have to have any patience for it. What measure are you using other than league titles or national titles, which, as I’ve noted, shows very little about a team’s average performance? What’s your methodology for separating a 1-loss league champion from a 3-loss league champion? How do you go about comparing co-champions to outright champions?

                 LikeLike

                 June 29, 2010 at 8:57 am

             48. Champions don’t make sense….. O.K.?

                 A co -champ is not different than a outright champ in the big ten. (no CCG) Bowls are distributed but they are equals in the eyes of the league. until 2011. CCG.

                 With that logic a 2nd place 8-1 1990 wisconsin team is better than a champ in 1989 who lost three games. that is garbage.

                 But that is what a wins and losses argument gets you.

                 A teams avg performance means nothing!

                 yea! we have won almost as many games as the big guys ON AVG? But we haven’t won anything in a decade in terms of the league. Steady as she goes…..

                 Yet they are supposed to treated as equals to teams that have won championships? and competed for NC.

                 That doesn’t make sense.

                 You are putting the cart before the horse. wins are not enough to be considered elite. Champions play here.

                 Methodology for separating a 1 loss league champ to a 3 loss champ.

                 really?

                 spoken like someone who wants every win to count the same.

                 ” A 1-loss Big Ten Champion and a 4-loss Big Ten Champion are not qualitatively identical, even if they both get the same title. If we’re interested in balance and competitive equity, the number of discrete times a team finishes in 1st place is less relevant than how well they do on average.”

                 Again really?

                 This is so funny. Spoken like a non-competitor, yes the one loss champ will have more wins, but a champion is just that. You are better than the rest of the league that year.

                 Hey Coach; our championship team last year only lost one game. I know we came in third this year, and we have one 1 championship in the last 11 years, but On AVG our championship team was better than the two loss co champion this year, even though they have been champs 10 times in the last 20 years.

                 “Son go run the stairs and than turn in your jersey”

                 If you don’t see the value of being a champion as opposed to wins and losses I can see why you believe Wisconsin is on par with the big 4. But your interesting sample size coupled with your W&L argument is not very convincing.

                 LikeLike

                 June 29, 2010 at 10:06 am

             49. I’m a Wisconsin alum, and bottom line is, UW isn’t Michigan. I’m not sure where this 20-year “identical record” argument is coming from, but over the last 20 years in conference play (which seems to be the most equitable way of looking at it), Michigan has a .719 wp and Wis has a .534 wp. Not even close.

                 Iow and Wis are defintely ##5 and 6 in the Big Ten, and if there is a pure geographic split, they will have an opportunity to raise their profile even further by being in the less top-heavy division. PSU, Michigan and PSU have something to lose if they are only getting into the championship every three years or so.

                 LikeLike

                 June 29, 2010 at 10:16 am

             50. I have to stop here….

                 Wisconsin and Iowa are wonderful programs and I would never miss a home game vs. either of them. Alvarez and Farentz are all-time greats.

                 I believe if competition is going to drive Delany’s alignment. A freshman league member in Neb, coupled with Wis and Iowa is not as competitive as if the big 4 were split.

                 LikeLike

                 June 29, 2010 at 10:26 am

          3. Within any given season, the goal is to win the race. Get across the finish line with more wins than anybody else. In the eyes of the record books, all championships are created equal.

             We aren’t working in the eyes of the record books. We’re (supposedly) concerned about “competitive balance.” That has to do with average performance over time, not who crossed the finish line 1st the most times. And if you’re worried about “competitive balance,” you can’t just lump in all non-champions together and compare them against the league champion. That has insufficient granularity. If you’re worried about balance, it makes a difference if a team finishes in 2nd every year; and in fact, you have to meaningfully compare the team that finishes in 2nd every year to the team that wins the championship every 3rd year but finishes in 10th the other 2. Which is better? Hard to say, but you’re automatically saying the team that gets across the finish line 1st in any given year automatically has something on the team that is consistently finishing in 2nd. That is nonsense if you’re actually worried about balance. But the people who talk about balance aren’t worried about it at all. They’re worried about one of two things (a) maximizing their school’s chance of getting to the league title game, or (b) perpetuating the lazy stereotype that a good Michigan team is always better than a good Indiana or Illinois team, because it’s the sort of romantic nonsense that the purple prose writers from the early 20th century liked to promulgate (the “Four Horsemen” and such nonsense) and keeps sportswriters from having to think too hard about the narratives or “storylines” that they’re pushing in their columns and articles.

             LikeLike

             June 29, 2010 at 11:31 am Reply

             1. Romantic notions?

                Good god. Why don’t you prove how Neb, Wisconsin and Iowa will provide a better competitive balance than say.

                1. UofM OSU Iowa vs. Neb PSU Wis.

                2. UofM Wis OSU vs. NEB PSU Iowa.

                Stop thinking in terms of the map. and how easy it will be for your team to make the CCG…..you can keep telling yourself that Iowa and Wisconsin are just as comparable as UofM PSU in terms of competitive balance, now show me an historical sample that proves your point. your last one failed.

                If OSU and Neb were drafting teams how do you think it would go?

                OSU picks U of M

                Neb picks PSU.

                OSU picks Wisconsin or Iowa

                Neb picks the team left over.

                would the draft go any other way?

                Your blind ambition to try to bring down any of the big 4 is pointless, Because they have wins, championships, and history on their side, and not only ancient history. saying the 70’s and 80’s do not count shows your contempt for the big 4. Look at some of the players that came out of that era? NFL Hall of Famers. The schollie argument would work if your were a MAC school but Wisconsin was not. so stop hiding behind that as well.

                Blaming the media is as lazy as it gets. very transparent. Like it has been a media cover-up that U of M PSU, Neb and OSU are on a different level than Wisconsin.

                If you want a geographic alignment just say so, but stop hiding behind the balance argument it doesn’t work. putting the arguably the 3rd best team along with the 5th and 6th brands in terms of competition in one division and somehow magically that is parity, doesn’t make sense.

                (I rank Neb 3rd or possibly 4th because they have not competed in the Big 10. This is not your Osborne Huskers but Bo is doing a great job, and they are on the rise. with that said The big 10 will pose a tougher challenge than the Big 12 did.)

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 1:15 pm

             2. “Balance” is never going to be precise; there’s a spectrum of outcomes that will obviously have to be satisfactory. And I don’t see where the E/W split is so “imbalanced” as to be outside that spectrum. Wisconsin, Michigan, and PSU are inseparable, whether you go by winning percentage since PSU joined or a more subtle analysis like their Sagarin ratings. So if those 3 are equal, you can split them any way you want. No doubt, OSU is well ahead of the pack. Nebraska also seems to me to be clearly the next-best team. After that you’ve got a pack of 3 statistically identical teams. Then you’ve got Iowa, which is well ahead of the teams at or below .500 (Purdue, MSU, Northwestern), and behind the UM/PSU/Wisc group.

                Given those facts (along with the fact that an E/W split puts the worst team in the league, Indiana, into the E with the programs perceived to be “too strong”), I don’t see how an E/W split (or, as I would rather see it, a rivalries-based split) is so imbalanced as to fall outside the range of principled outcomes.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 2:08 pm

             3. You asked to show a historical example, and I have: their records are nearly identical since PSU joined (within about 2 games of each other). Or you could look at the Sagarin analysis at http://www.theonlycolors.com/2010/6/14/1518125/big-ten-12-divisions-keep-it, where the teams are so closely bunched that different methodologies put them in different orders (indeed, Iowa’s weighted 10-year average is better than Michigan’s!).

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 2:10 pm

             4. If you go by conference winning percentage since PSU joined, you get this:

                OSU .783
                Mich .691
                PSU .632
                Wis .592
                Iow .526
                Pur .474
                MSU .467
                NW .434
                Ill .335
                Minn .324
                Ind .243

                Note that Michigan is about .100 better. I know UM has really struggled recently, but I don’t think Wisconsin can be called statistically identical to Michigan. Which isn’t to say that an East-West split is automatically too imbalanced, but I think it’s clear that 3 out of the top 4 would be in the East in that scenario.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 2:57 pm

             5. Really Adam?

                A Ten Year AVG.

                apparently college football began in 1993 which just happens to be when the hey day of Wisconsin College football began.

                Since 93
                PSU 3 titles.
                Wis 3 titles
                U of M 5 titles and a NC.

                basing everything on a record from 93 on, under there greatest coach is less than genuine.

                And with that they still don’t stack up are the 5th best team.

                Thank God Delany is aligning the conference.

                I will let JC answer your wis is virtually identical to psu and u of m question

                “I’m a Wisconsin alum, and bottom line is, UW isn’t Michigan. I’m not sure where this 20-year “identical record” argument is coming from, but over the last 20 years in conference play (which seems to be the most equitable way of looking at it), Michigan has a .719 wp and Wis has a .534 wp. Not even close.”

                since 1970

                U of M 20 titles 1 NC
                PSU 2 NC 82,86
                Wisconsin 3 big ten titles highest rank 4. (90’s run)

                Wisconsin and Iowa are not U of M PSU, OSU or Neb.

                And subsequently do not have the historical chops to carry the western division without the help of two of the big 4.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 3:06 pm

             6. Going just by conference record is a much smaller sample size (4 fewer games per year) and offers no way to compare against Nebraska. If you’re disinclined to use the 11/12-game win-loss records, then I would point to the analysis of the Sagarin ratings (which are all about the notion that a win is not a win). And in those, again, they shake out very similarly.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 7:31 pm

             7. can we all agree that wisconsin is s fraud and michigan is obnoxious? just askin.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 7:35 pm

             8. The reason I used conference records is because that more or less equalizes things. Teams schedule non-conference quite differently. The reason Michigan’s record looks so close to Wisconsin’s is that from the years 1993-2009, Michigan played 31 auto-BCS-bid conference opponents (inlcuding ND and not including bowls) while Wis played 16. UW’s record looks better because they larded up on weaker teams. As for Sagarin . . . that only takes into account 10 years, which happen to be UW’s best recent decade and Michigan’s worst. In the 90s, Michigan won 77% of all games, while UW won 61% . . . against weaker schedules. Michigan won a national championship in 97. If the argument is that 2000-2009 means everything, and 1999 and back means nothing, then perhaps Wisconsin is equal to Michigan, and that’s only because of two abysmal seasons that no one thinks will be a permanent state of affairs. For Michigan. On the other hand, the entire UW 70s and 80s looked like Michigans 2008-09.

                LikeLike

                June 30, 2010 at 8:47 am

             9. I, too, wish the Sagarin analysis had gone back further than 2000, but I think that it would have produced comparable results.

                I just don’t see how the OSU/PSU/UM group is so much stronger than NEB/WIS/IA that it would warp the league’s competitive structure into irrelevance. I’ve never argued that Iowa is the equal of PSU or UM, and OSU is clearly ahead of everybody (including Nebraska), but it seems close enough.

                LikeLike

                June 30, 2010 at 9:57 am

53. Hey Frank:

    Nice post. The E/W division makes the most sense and the imbalance already exists per the annual matchup games. For example, Wisconsin and Iowa are widely regarded by the OSU/UM crowds I interact with as frauds in years they skip out on playing at least 2 of the UM/OSU/PSU triangle, with at least one of those being on the road.

    I, as a state man, am being told that state’s schedule this year is total crap because state doesn’t have OSU, just UM and PSU. State also has WI and Iowa, so how’s that for “total crap”.

    I guess the point is, that the inbalance already exists. The east-side teams have it hard enough already and hopefully pushing Nebraska and a championship game on the west-siders will even things out a bit.

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 2:57 pm Reply

    1. Further, if PSU feels like the odd man out now, just pair them up with nothin but corn country for 4 games that the penn-dutch crowd would have to leave home 3 weeks in advance to get to. That will make them feel right at home? Just stick with E/W.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 4:01 pm Reply

       1. 3 weeks to follow I-80W signs to Lincoln? Only a little hyperbole there. 😉

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 4:20 pm Reply

          1. With a horse and buggy, yes.
             Maybe 2 weeks to Iowa and Illinois corn country.

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 4:47 pm Reply

             1. CLOP CLOP

                BOOM

                amish drive by

                🙂

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 4:54 pm

             2. Having read a thread on this subject on Black Shoe Diaries, I think it’s probably best for Nebraska’s interests to stay as far away from this hornet’s nest as possible. The Big Ten can set things up any old way they please and it will be fine with us.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 5:09 pm

       2. we all know the best part about amish jokes on the internets is that they’ll never catch us!

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 6:54 pm Reply

          1. Live & let live the Amish way of life. They don’t make fun of our technobabble.

             LikeLike

             July 24, 2010 at 6:24 pm Reply

             1. I wish I were Amish most days at work.

                LikeLike

                July 27, 2010 at 7:47 pm

54. Will Yow’s departure open the door to the Big Ten?

    http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/12137/will-yows-departure-open-the-door-to-the-big-ten

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 3:51 pm Reply

    1. I am wondering if her going to NC State (aside from sister) is to plan a move by NC State to the SEC

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 4:56 pm Reply

       1. I’d be shocked to see that happen. The only way it does would be if UNC and Duke moved to the Big Ten in a package with Maryland and Virginia (something that’s now extremely unlikely to happen) and the SEC decides to pick up the ACC leftovers.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 5:19 pm Reply

    2. I am one of those who do not believe expansion is done yet. Don’t think it will happen soon but within the time frame of 6 to 12 months.

       I also believe Maryland & Rutgers will be two of the prime candidates, they would help secure parts of the east coast market. Both are AAU universities. Maryland academically and research wise is on par with Ohio State (a little above average in the Big Ten). Rutgers is another good research school.

       Like baseball, games are won not with Home Runs but singles and doubles. You can not have peaks without valleys. Both schools are not great in football but are solid in athletics. And again think like a university president, they are more concerned about academics and research. This would further the inclusion of solid academic universities within the Big Ten. Further the Big Ten’s territory, reach and market. It also seals off the SEC.

       Plus the addition of these two schools will not destroy either conference (may make them a little unstable), a concern of the Big Ten.

       By going to 14 schools, it shows other parties that they are serious about expansion. And 14 may be just a way station to greater numbers (16, 18, etc).

       I believe that the expansion of the Big Ten is more than just about athletics but academics as well. That is the difference between the Big Ten and other conferences.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 5:53 pm Reply

       1. I hope you’re right, despite my skepticism. I hope the Big Ten has sworn off Texas as more trouble than it’s worth, especially given UT’s apparent insistence on BevoTV. If so, bring in Maryland and Rutgers to go to 14, then let Notre Dame select a suitable partner for #16 (Syracuse? Pittsburgh?) once it decides to join.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 6:14 pm Reply

       2. One of the articles linked about pointed out that Maryland is 4-44-1 against the Big Ten in football.

          The academics had better be stellar.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 7:52 pm Reply

          1. Take the Penn State game out of that, and Maryland has only a handful of games against Big Ten teams. I believe a few of them were games at Michigan State during the Jim Tatum era, and IIRC, the Terps split two games. (I’m pretty certain no team has played at Byrd Stadium while it was a member of the Big Ten.)

             I should also note that Maryland is 2-0 against the Big Ten in bowls, beating Minnesota and Purdue.

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 8:19 pm Reply

       3. “And again think like a university president, they are more concerned about academics and research.”

          With all due respect to Nebraska, if they were more concerned about academics and research, it would have been Pitt who was admitted into the league. Academically, Pitt fits better than any other rumored candidates besides, arguably, Texas or Maryland.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 6:23 am Reply

    3. Maryland’s Athletic Department under Debbie Yow took a nearly $50M deficit and brought the figure down to about $6M over sixteen years. She also submitted balanced budgets for each of those seasons.

       There are problems though. In August 2009, Maryland Athletics announced budget cuts across the department with a little over 3% taken from football and men’s basketball. See http://www.testudotimes.com/2009/8/12/986763/maryland-athletic-department. According to a recent article, the football and men’s basketball budgets have been restored–go to http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bs-sp-maryland-sidebar-0629-20100628,0,6607584.story. Randy Eaton (Maryland AD CFO) is now the interim athletic director–see http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/bs-sp-maryland-eaton-0629-20100628,0,6329311.story

       Maryland is also having difficulty selling out the luxury boxes and premium seating for football that were built at Byrd Stadium. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/10/AR2009091003834.html This is coupled with a drop in the sales of seasons tickets.

       Maryland supports 27 sports with a budget of approximately $55M (in contrast, Michigan supports about the same number with a budget at $100M that includes debt financing for Michigan Stadium renovations). See http://www.knightcommission.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=333:september-25-2009-maryland-could-consider-cutting-sports&catid=1:content&Itemid=11

       According to the linked article, Yow last year submitted a budget that was smaller than the previous year. See http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/college/maryland_terps/blog/2010/06/eaton_a_logical_choice_for_interim_ad.html

       Maryland’s current president, Dan Mote, ends his tenure on 31 August. His replacement hasn’t been named. Obviously, that person will be responsible for naming a permenant AD and for helping to decide what Maryland’s future course might be.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 7:46 pm Reply

       1. This is why Big Ten membership is so crucial for Maryland. No matter how good ACC football gets, it simply doesn’t have the cachet of the Big Ten — especially since the D.C. metro area is teeming with alums of those schools. (It explains why Indiana moved its Nov. 20 home game with Penn State to FedEx Field, not Lucas Oil Stadium.) You bring in any of the now six top-tier programs of the Big Ten (not four, as per willarm1’s broken record), and not only will those Byrd Stadium suites be filled — suites that were planned following ACC expansion, when it appeared the conference would finally have a football brand — but the stadium itself could be further enlarged to at least 60,000 or so. While some may scoff at the football prowess of Maryland and Rutgers, that’s within the context of the ACC and Big East. Put the Big Ten brand on both of those schools, and while they may not become top 10 powers, they would improve considerably.

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 11:14 pm Reply

          1. Yeah, I’m a big believer that adding Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten would be able to convert their football atmosphere to that present at Purdue or Michigan State over a period of 15-20 years.

             As you stated, those areas are full of alums, and a part of the problem is that NJ and Maryland are Big East and ACC areas right now, but they make much more sense as Big Ten areas.

             LikeLike

             June 29, 2010 at 11:26 am Reply

55. 1) I don’t know about that. I’ve already gone on record as saying ND won’t join a conference because quite frankly, it doesn’t need to. Even without (or in a decimated) the BigEast, ND can survive. If worse comes to worse I’m sure they could find another conference (ACC, MAC, etc) that would allow them to play as a member in all but football, and really that’s the only thing they seem to care about…football independence. They’ll change their tune if the only way to a NC is through a superconference, but I really think that is decades away (if ever).

    Thus the question is does the BigTen really think it needs to continue expanding? Schools like Rutgers, Pitt, MD, even Mizzou, still bring value. What’s more, from what I read some of those schools (namely any of the BigEast) have a much easier time shifting conferences come July 1. If that’s the case, a second expansion run into more eastern markets might happen.

    IMO, I think that’s the reason why the BigTen is pushing so hard to focus on integrating Nebraska…they want them on board and a “BigTen school” to weigh in in 6-12 months of on possible additions.

    2) I don’t know about that. ESPN definitely doesn’t want them (at least for a while) because it has tied up huge amounts of $$$ in two conferences, who because of that $$$, are now much less desiring to expand, and the BCS with all the conferences as they stand today. Fox on the other hand I think would have preferred a Big16/Pac16 ownership stake, but saw due to Texas issues (both school and state) that that wasn’t a possibility. So they swoop to the rescue of the Big12 (for now) to ensure they (Fox) will have college football markets from the mid-west through to the Pacific.

    3) Something that speaks to the “national” statements you make, but also to the smallish Nebraska (state) base…typical Nebraska tv coverage maps cover every state from Kansas north to Canada and west through Idaho, Colorado, & Wyoming. While I’ve been down on Nebraska for smallish state footprint for the BTN, the joke is they might be the only school that can solidly get the BTN on every state in the Great Plains…meaning they actually bring a larger “state population base” to go with the national following and higher rates that brings.

    4) Fair enough but let me ask everyone this…if Kansas was in NY do you think their fate would have been the same? I guarantee someone would have picked them up fast (BigEast/ACC) due to market, regardless of their football prowess (or lack there-of). Its for this reason why I think Syracuse is still in the running if the BigTen continues to expand (though admittedly, its chances are much diminished).

    5) I agree.

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 7:37 pm Reply

56. Last week, I suggested a “what if” scenario in which Bevo TV could wind up proving a scenario in which individual school networks wind up being more profitable than conference-wide networks. I specifically suggested that Mizzou could wind up inadvertently stumbling into a more profitable model by not winding up locked into the BTN.

    Someone scoffed at my notion of an all-Mizzou network:

    Mizzou network? NFW. Gimme some of that weed.

    Enjoy the weed:

    http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/27/2048350/missouri-tv-network-could-arrive.html

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 8:23 pm Reply

    1. Hop, did you read the article? check the numbers they are mentioning toward the end. “a more profitable model by not being locked into the BTN” might be a stretch. but what the hell Mizzou, go for it! 🙂

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 8:52 pm Reply

       1. Hank,

          I’d agree that, as of today, a share of the BTN would probably be more profitable to Mizzou than would launching Mizzou TV. I just thought it was amusing that I was mocked (in the kindest of ways, of course!) for theorizing just last week about a scenario in which Mizzou would launch its own network (perhaps, only perhaps, being more profitable down the road).

          LikeLike

          June 28, 2010 at 8:56 pm Reply

          1. understood. but from the sounds of it it sounds a bit like they are doing it on the cheap. the journalism school is their resource? I’m not trying to put it down but it sounds a bit cable access, not that there is anything wrong with that. the BTN and this Missouri venture are two entirely different animals. the BTN is a legit network with a broader distribution and professional presentation. we’ll see how t develops but I would be surprised if it generates the type of revenue that the individual schools are getting from the BTN. I believe Texas has studied this awhile and is forecasting similar revenues to the BTN. does it sound likely that the Missouri Network would be more profitable than Texas’ venture?

             LikeLike

             June 28, 2010 at 9:08 pm Reply

             1. does it sound likely that the Missouri Network would be more profitable than Texas’ venture?

                Of course not. But I guess my “what if” from last week derived from the uncertainty any of us have as to how profitable Bevo TV could be. The “what if” went to a scenario in which Bevo TV proved the concept of a single-school network so overwhelmingly that it demonstrated that even medium-sized schools/markets like Mizzou could do very well, leading to a theoretically ironic situation in which Mizzou could wind up better off financially by being left behind in the Big 12 and not being locked into the BTN.

                Do I think it’s likely? As someone who’s been skeptical of Bevo TV, no. But is it possible? Sure.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 9:16 pm

             2. So how does a Mizzu TV work out if the football team goes into a funk and only wins 3 or 4 games in the next 5 years? this singe school network think seems to me to be a venture fit best only for the “kings” as we discussed this term previously.

                LikeLike

                June 28, 2010 at 9:28 pm

             3. One of the key numbers in that story is that Mizzou made a $4 million profit last year on its games that were outside the conference TV package. That’s a healthy number considering it doesn’t include football games or carriage fees. Add a couple of football games to make a network more appealing, include the basketball games that are the main element producing that $4 million profit and you should be able to produce another $1-$2 million in revenues.

                I think HH is right that this example shows that if a good but not great athletic program can produce that revenue, then it’s no wonder a school like Texas considers it such a priority.

                LikeLike

                July 1, 2010 at 2:43 pm

          2. Lets put it this way HH…if Mizzou does start its own tv network, I’m glad they aren’t in the BigTen.

             If Texas…Texas…has studied its own network, in a state the size of Texas with the alumni base and national tradition of winning, for the past several years and is still years away from a fully operational, profitable tv network (even if they announced financing today I think that’s about how long it would take to get up and running) what makes anyone realistically think Mizzou has got a chance any time soon?

             I mean its awfully easy to spout off numbers like “a nickel per household” and come out to a decent figure, but is that figure really likely?

             IMO, one of the things that makes the BTN successful is not just the single school in the states it covers (that’s just what gets the channel on cable in that state). Its the compelling content (ok, compelling might be a bit of an overkill, but you get the point).

             It is an actual college football channel every saturday in the fall and airs plenty of bball games throughout the winter. Combine that with plenty of “second tier” live programming against “rival schools” (aka the rest of the BigTen) and you’ve created a channel with a legitimate draw to a very large swath of the college athletics viewer base.

             I really think even schools as big and national as Texas are finding out that a single school network is simply too focused, relying too heavily on the “fanatics” of their sports world because quite simply they don’t provide enough “broad appeal” content. IMO, its for this reason Bevo TV has been “looked into” for the past couple of years, but the idea has been slow to develop (and also why I think they were interested in bringing TAMU in at the onset).

             Hey, maybe I’m wrong, and every school will have its own hugely profitable tv channel soon, but this article reads to me like Cleveland Browns off seasons article saying how they’re going to commit to the run and get more pressure on D…sounds good, but in the end is just a fluff piece without much substance.

             LikeLike

             June 29, 2010 at 5:34 am Reply

             1. s still years away from a fully operational, profitable tv network

                It’s launching next year, FWIW.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 8:02 am

             2. Really? I hadn’t seen anything to that effect.

                Be interesting to see the break out of who partnered with who, what is owned, and what the profits look like.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 10:32 am

             3. @PSUGuy:

                Yeah, I saw that somewhere in the last couple of days. What I’m beginning to gather is that Bevo TV has been much farther along than most of us guessed, and that going forward with it has been the primary driver in UT’s decision-making process, not control or academics or geography or any of those other quaint notions.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 12:01 pm

             4. http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/15/2268189/longhorns-hope-to-get-tv-network.html

                That’s the only link I could find that ties the network up and running in any short time-frame.

                The most interesting thing I found was that it would apparantly be third fiddle, being the home for that which doesn’t get picked up by FSN. The comment regarding operas was interesting too.

                Maybe Texas’ station is more of a “college entertainment” channel (to include plays, musicals, science shows, etc), not just a college athletics channel, which I have to admit is intriguing.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    2. HH:

       The top 3 issues with any one-school network that is in a conference, whether it is BevoTV or MizzouTV are

       1. Inventory
       2. Inventory
       3. Inventory

       How do you distribute without inventory?

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 9:31 am Reply

       1. I’m sure there are warehouses full of burnt orange merch waiting to be sold on the Longhorn Shopping Network. Between that and various repackagings of Texas looking dreamily in the mirror at itself, it’ll go over gangbusters. In a state where allegiances are divided nine ways to Sunday.

          The important thing is that everyone understands that this network for Texas is non-negotiable and hold a spot for them just in case it turns out to be a flaming bag of crap.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 9:55 am Reply

          1. Get a great deal on UTx gear, such as 2009 CWS champions and 2009 BCS champions gear.

             Oops. Only Haitians and the Sudanese think UTx won those championships.

             LikeLike

             June 29, 2010 at 10:03 am Reply

             1. Don’t forget this one:

                http://www.texassports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/fb-champs-1970.html

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 10:10 am

             2. Funny, I remember the stories of Longhorn fans not being allowed to buy some of the thousands of the incorrect Inaugural Big 12 Champs t-shirts poised to be sold one Saturday afternoon in St. Louis a few years back.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 12:03 pm

             3. Oddly enough, we don’t claim that championship.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 12:08 pm

       2. Powers point was not that they had to have Bevo TV. His point was that he had a potential asset. He said he wasn’t going to give it away without seeing that he was getting something of value and the P10 network was very iffy-they still haven’t determined if that is the route they want to go (so the B10’s advantage potentially could be long term, not just short term). Without even considering any greed factor, its the President’s fidicuiary duty.

          And there is a lot of bad info about taking the lost 5’s share. Texas and OU have refused to take their share of the lost 5’s exit fees. Only A&M hasn’t committed yet. And the B12 TV deal is fair to all-its not even to all, but anyone who gets the TV appearances will get more money. If Iowa St. were to run off 50 straight wins, they would get the biggest share of TV dollars. That’s obviously not likely to happen-OU, UT and A&M will probably get the most TV appearances, but the TV deal is based on merit with no special deals for those 3. Its 50% even and 50% based on TV appearances.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 10:48 am Reply

          1. Texas now has its opportunity to see if it can convert a potential asset into a tangible asset, or quite possibly throw money down a rathole because their popularity has already reached saturation levels. In doing so, in the case of the Big Ten, they left a huge pile of money on the table. If they’re successful, they create a hindrance to joining two of the three conferences they might eventually be interested in, the dreaded SEC being the only one that would allow their network without batting an eyelash. Success also invites Texas politicians more into the fray by attaching ever more Texas schools to be joined to that success.

             LikeLike

             June 29, 2010 at 11:39 am Reply

             1. Woe is us! Damned if it succeeds, damned if it doesn’t. How will we survive?!?

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 1:11 pm

             2. I’ll take your attempt to miscast my argument as something that it wasn’t (Texas survival) to mean you really don’t have much to say in opposition to my actual argument, that being whether Texas has already blown their opportunity to maximize their vaunted position.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 2:03 pm

             3. You would assume incorrectly, but having an intellectually honest discussion regarding anything Texas-related with you is a waste of time.

                Have you figured out yet who will be the new target of your obsessions in the Big 10?

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 2:08 pm

             4. Hmm. Guess you got a few victim cards in there with the hater cards.

                At any rate, HH, it’s interesting that you yourself confess to having doubts about BevoTV, but you bristle when I also have doubts. Who’s being intellectually dishonest again?

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    3. Missouri TV in some ways might be an easier sell for their state than BEVO TV is for Texas. Since they lack an immediate rival in their own state, you shouldn’t have people calling their cable provider to complain about allocating channel spaces to their sworn enemy. One can easily picture Texas A&M SECessionists (advocates of SEC over PAC10) resorting to that even after the reconstruction of the Big XII.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 10:43 am Reply

       1. I still don’t see what an Aggie pissed off about his cable company or satellite provider offering Bevo TV is going to do about it, other than bitch.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 12:05 pm Reply

          1. nothing.. as long the aggie fan doesn’t have it as part of the base package and have to pay more, they won’t care. If it is forced on them, they will look at other options.

             LikeLike

             June 29, 2010 at 12:37 pm Reply

       2. Except for all the fans in Kansas City who are Kansas fans or all the fans in St. Louis who cheer for the Illini.

          Even if St. Louis is much more of a Mizzou town (and I think it is) the bigger issue for Mizzou TV is apathy. People calling up to say they don’t want a channel isn’t a problem. LOGO got on most cable systems despite opposition from Christian conservatives. The issue is going to be how many Mizzou fans are going to call up their cable company and demand it and threaten to go to another provider that has it? And will any of the providers (Cable, satellite, FIOS) offer to carry it in the first place?

          I don’t think Missouri has enough rabid MU fans and that Mizzou could get enough content onto such a channel to get enough people to demand it outside of Columbia. They may try, but getting the Big Ten network to be carried was a major war. When the KC Royals started their own network, it failed for lack of coverage and demand. I see the same thing happening with Mizzou TV.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 9:33 pm Reply

57. In terms of “move the needle” games, if you only count games between two of Nebraska, Penn State, OSU, and Michigan, the strictly geographical alignment actually leads to more:

    On a two year basis assuming no cross division protected games, strictly geographic has:
    2 OSU-Mich
    2 Mich-Penn State
    2 OSU-Penn State
    1 Neb-Penn State
    1 Neb-OSU
    1 Neb-Mich
    = 9 total games

    Putting Penn State with Nebraska gives:
    2 Penn State-Neb
    2 OSU-Michigan
    1 Penn State-OSU
    1 Penn State-Michigan
    1 Nebraska-OSU
    1 Nebraska-Michigan
    = 8 total games

    Just some food for thought.

    LikeLike

    June 28, 2010 at 9:49 pm Reply

    1. Some excellent information.

       The other thing I’ve always said is this: let’s assume that E/W is totally imbalanced. Completely unfair. We know before the season starts that whoever emerges from the East will beat up on the West Champ. I don’t see where even this is bad from a business perspective. It means that the regular season race to win the East Division is really important, requiring anybody who cares to watch a large fraction of the 33 East Division games (15 intra-divisional games and 18 inter-divisional games) spread over 13 weeks, instead of this perfectly balanced league alignment that has a compelling CCG but fewer important regular season games. I’d rather have people watching from September-November than waiting until the final-weekend games which the supposedly well-balanced league has ensured the division races will come down to.

       LikeLike

       June 28, 2010 at 9:58 pm Reply

    2. this is a great breakdown, well done.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 9:38 pm Reply

58. Comparing an East/West split of the Big Ten to a North/South split of the ACC is apples-to-oranges.

    An “ACC North” would consist of BC, Md, UVa, VT, and I’m gonna say UNC & Duke since UVA/UNC would want to keep the “oldest rivalry in the South” an annual event. In that division, only VT is comparable in stature to Wisconsin or Iowa, let alone Nebraska. This past season, for example, half the “ACC North teams” had losing records, while five of six “Big Ten West” teams appeared in bowl games. (Sorry Frank!)

    Meanwhile, an “ACC South” would have two programs about on par with Nebraska & Miami, two programs (Clemson and Georgia Tech) roughly in the class of Wisc & Iowa, and two hit-or-miss programs in Wake & NC State.

    A Big Ten East might be slightly stronger than a Big Ten West, but an ACC South would be overwhelmingly stronger than an ACC North. Plus you have to factor the better access to superior recruiting ACC South teams would have in Florida, Georgia, & SC. Recruiting access in an East/West Big Ten split would practically be a wash since so many players come from Texas and Florida, anyway.

    And let’s face it: the ACC’s failure isn’t divisional lineup. It’s the fact that championship games have been held in off-center locations in FLORIDA, where several ACC bowl games are also located. It hasn’t helped that three times the championship games have featured BC or Wake Forest, which are both smaller than Northwestern and don’t exactly draw big crowds. No one noticed it because of the Big 12 & SEC games with national title implications, but the Georgia Tech-Clemson championship contest last year actually sold quite well.

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 5:57 am Reply

    1. Any alignment is doomed to failure if fans can’t rattle off the alignment. I could do that very easily with the Big 12 and SEC, because their alignments are natural and make sense (and MAC, for that matter — other than Miami (OH) being in the East). I can’t do that with the ACC. That will impede the league no matter how compelling the league races might be some day.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 7:17 am Reply

       1. Were the Big 12 divisions not doomed to failure when the league slapped Nebraska in the face and put Oklahoma in an opposite division, without protecting the annual rivalry?

          So far, the ACC’s divisions haven’t failed. They’re just not easy to remember.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 9:48 am Reply

          1. “Were the Big 12 divisions not doomed to failure when the league slapped Nebraska in the face and put Oklahoma in an opposite division, without protecting the annual rivalry?”

             Certainly — but that’s a problem with their scheduling format (not protecting the annual rivalry), not the divisional structure.

             Also, the seeds of the Big 12’s doom were sewn in the unequal revenue distribution, not the divisional structure. As the rich got richer in the South Division, it was a game of beggar thy neighbor with the North Division. Split the money equally and you put the Colorados and Kansas States of the world on more equal footing with at least the Texas A&M’s and Oklahoma States.

             LikeLike

             June 29, 2010 at 11:38 am Reply

             1. You may have an argument long term, but the reality is that the B12North powers lost great coaches (Osborne at UNL, Snyder at KSU) or picked bad successors (Neuheisel at CU) while Mizzou and Kansas got good coaches. CU also tried to upgrade the student part of their student-athletes instead of recruiting gang members from LA-and the transition has taken awhile. If revenue were the reason, KU would not have ended up in the Orange Bowl and Tech and Ok. St would not have become good. At the same time, being in the B12 instead of the SWC and B8 and getting great coaches helped OU and UT regain their form.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 1:51 pm

             2. The fact that a school succeeds one year is not relevant to the sorts of long-term trends that (almost) broke up the Big 12. It’s like saying that the fact that 1 kid got into Harvard from your underprivileged inner-city school of choice, they all could have if they had just applied themselves.

                The fact that there are individual circumstances that cut against the trend doesn’t disprove that there are systemic factors at work which provoke that trend.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 2:14 pm

             3. I think a lot of the B12 revenue distribution issues are red herrings. They really weren’t relevant to teams leaving. May have made them more interested in listening, but ultimately it was about more money and more attractive options. CU has long wanted to go to Pac 10. Missouri has been talking to the B10 for at least the last 10 years. B10 made more money and has the CIC. No matter how happy they were, I don’t see any of the B12N schools except CU turning that down.

                P10 revenue distribution is even more unequal and noone talks about them dissappearing.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 3:43 pm

             4. I think you’re right there, but I was addressing the concern of “competitive balance.” There’s this notion that the Big 12 committed some original sin by drawing up the divisions as they did, which the Big Ten must draw some lesson from, but the Big 12’s “competitive balance” problem was a function of the unequal revenue distribution, not the alignment of the teams.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 7:39 pm

59. Can everybody calm down with these division alignments? Before we start screaming about lost rivalries and long distance travel for a school or another, can we look at the actual games they will play.
    With 9 conference games proposed every school will play 9 out of 11 every year and 4 out of 6 from the opposing division. This is the exact same situation like now with 2 teams missing from your schedule every year.
    Now speaking of travel, being in one division or another doesn’t make too much of a difference. You basically trade two games (1 home and 1 away) against schools closer to you with two games (1 home and 1 away) against schools further away. This whole think actually ends up being just a one game sweep for your travel concerns. Worst case scenario for a school like PSU will be traveling to Nebraska (furthest away school) instead of OSU (closest school).
    Now about rivalries; with the actual format they have 2 protected rivals and play everybody else 3 out of 4 years. In the 12 schools, 2 divisions format they have at least 5 protected rivals (inside their one division) and play the schools from the other division 2 out of 3 years (no crossover protected rivals), or 3 out of 5 years (one protected rival). This doesn’t look bad at all to me. We were thinking 16 schools conference and the scheduling problems involved with that for so long that we forgot that a 12 schools conference is actually working pretty well.

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 8:10 am Reply

    1. It’s a bit more than that. Whether you play a team in-division or between divisions makes a big difference on the amount of “juice” that game has. If only one of us can get to the CCG, it makes all the difference.

       You’re also taking for granted a 9-game schedule, which I think is a bad idea. It is a huge money loser (since half the league is losing a home date that they could play non-conference), and is inequitable, since some of the teams get 5 home dates and some get 4. It gets made up over time, but tell that to the team that catches magic in a bottle and loses out because they had to play 5 road games.

       Also: I think most everybody is hoping that going to 12 and splitting into divisions will improve the situation, not simply be no better than the status quo.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 8:19 am Reply

       1. An extra game is not necessarily a loser. The cost of the money games has gone up dramatically the last few years, even with the liberalization of rules on FCS games. I’ve heard $1,000,000 for some of these games. Also, 9 games adds to the attractiveness of your TV content. That’s part of the B12 reason for going to 9.

          While it does give some teams an extra road game, it also reduces the chance that one team has an easier schedule as there are only 2 teams from the other division not played, not 3.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 8:28 am Reply

       2. Adam – As a SEC fan, there is just as much, if not more “juice” when LSU tees it up against Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee as there is when LSU plays Auburn, Ole Miss, or Arkansas. The Saban factor with Alabama makes that game a little more juicy than the rest. Even though a loss to a cross-divisional rival is not quite as detrimental for CCG purposes, a top ten cross-divisional match-up gets everybody going. In fact, 3 of my top 5 greatest Tiger Stadium games I’ve attended (I have only missed 5 home games in the last 27 years) were UF in 97, UGA in 03, and UF in 07. I’m not speculating, I’m speaking from experience.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 9:33 am Reply

    2. Yeah, its 9 conference games for now!?! So then next month Delany annexes ND or Maryland and all of a sudden everything changes. I think there is still room for a somewhat comfortable 2 team expansion and we cant rule out 16 anymore. This is all about the politics of people claiming their interest now. We all know the storied OSU UM game is safe whether we own us or China does. But what about the rest of us?

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 8:23 am Reply

    3. IMO, there is going to be a lot of resistance to losing one of those 4 OoC games. Take my PSU…

       They have a 100000+ seating capacity stadium.
       My season tickets cost $55 per game (and we know luxury boxes, etc cost much more than that).

       100k x 55 = $5.5+ million per game that PSU gets to keep as the BigTen allows each individual school to keep the proceeds from the OoC games. And this only accounts for tickets sales…doesn’t even account for parking, local advertising, etc. (or costs admittedly).

       OSU, UoM, Neb have to be the same way.

       Until that 9th game can collectively show a greater gain that what is lost in those OoC games I think there’s going to be some resistance toward moving to that schedule.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 11:23 am Reply

60. A little more support for Frank’s #3. An article discussing Pac 10 TV deals, saying CU, despite the Denver market, has no value and Utah limited value to ESPN since they don’t have much of a national following.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15397091?nclick_check=1

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 8:50 am Reply

    1. Your link to Jon Wilner of the S.J. Mercury News is curious. About six weeks ago, I commented on one of his articles via email, and his response, just six weeks ago, was that PAC 10 expansion wouldn’t happen because the conference didn’t want it. He also said there would be no PAC 10 cable network. That remains to be seen, but Wilner doesn’t do his homework very well.

       LikeLike

       July 2, 2010 at 5:07 pm Reply

61. A thought on 16 team conferences

    If you go to 16, it means more in conference games and fewer OOC. This means more control of games by a conference, and keeps more revenue in house. If I am UM and pay 100,000 to the sisters of the poor to beat their football team by 100 points how much is it adding to the bottom line of UM or the BTN? If that game is replaced by an in conference game I am guessing it would bring in a bit more revenue. Patrick or anybody in media care to comment on this thinking. I am thinking adding Maryland has more media value in conference than using that same slot on the schedule to play the sisters of the poor. As an added bonus you get the Terps basketball which gives you content once CFB is over, while the sisters of the poor just get you 1 game with no national appeal.

    I guess what I am trying to see is some bottom line numbers in the difference in value between an OOC “cupcake” and an in conference opponent on a per game basis. Then extrapolate that value to how it affects the bottom line of the conference as a whole.

    As a secondary question how much revenue is generated the first weekend of the NCAA BB tourney as a % of the total revenue for the tourney?

    thanks

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 8:55 am Reply

    1. don’t have those numbers, but read another interesting number recently-97% of the NCAA’s revenue comes from the basketball tourney. The whole organization depends on the basketball tourney and the good graces of the big conferences who generate most of the interest.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 9:02 am Reply

       1. bullet,

          sort of my point. If the first weekend produces 20% of the value but the sweet 16 teams produces 80% of the value then the “superconference” model will actually benefit in a reduction of teams in the tourney. Same thing with the conference tourneys. I see many empty seats in these first round games, so that is lost revenue. I can see the point from a media standpoint if the first weekend accounted for 80 % of the NCAA revenues, but if it is only 20% of the total is it really worth it. Especially if you are an early round host site with half empty venues, or second round sites that can not fill because fans already blew their $$ on the first round game.

          playing thursday and friday (day) games seems pointless when fans have to work and can not take those days off to see their team. Having fewer teams and all games on the weekends (friday night, saturday, sunday afternoon).

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 9:32 am Reply

    2. Your logic sound correct to me duffman. Especially so if you are an Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska or a good Michigan team. Now if you are in the 3rd division you may need to schedule some cupcakes to keep fan interest as you go into conference play with a winning record as opposed to 0-3 or 1-2. This as you look ahead with realistically 2 or 3 conference games at the most that you have a chance at winning.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 9:08 am Reply

    3. Duffman — even if it’s replaced by a bit more revenue, that’s only every other year. The off years, you’re playing it as a road game instead. That’s why more conference games seem like they have to be money losers to me — only half of the teams can play home league games, but they can all play home non-conference games.

       It only works if the in-conference game is worth 2x what the game against the cupcake is worth, because otherwise games against the cupcake in consecutive seasons will end up being more profitable than the extra league game every other year.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 11:42 am Reply

       1. And that’s ignoring the lost bowl revenue when some team finishes 5-7 by losing an extra conference game when they could have played an OOC patsiy instead and gone 6-6 and gone to a bowl.

          LikeLike

          July 1, 2010 at 9:07 am Reply

    4. I don’t see a possible 9th conference game as taking a cupcake off the schedule. It more likely reduces quality OOC opponents.

       Iowa plays 4 OOC games against:
       cupcake (EIU this year)
       MAC (Ball State)
       ISU
       quality BCS home and home (arizona this year, Pitt next)

       Of those four games, it sure seems like the quality BCS game will disappear. I imagine the same scenario playing out with other teams.

       So, the B10 bottom line is that instead of owning the TV rights to half these quality BCS OOC games, they’ll own the TV rights to all of them.

       So they’ll gain 4.5 games a year of TV rights, but while losing out of conference scheduling freedom. Ticket sales should be a wash. Adding a ninth game to conference standings could be problematic (unbalanced home/road) but also good be a plus (see other conference mates more often).

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 11:56 am Reply

       1. Even at that, Greg, if you have any kind of national pretentions, you’re going to need to play somebody non-conference, given the importance of opinion polls in college football on a year-to-year basis.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 1:01 pm Reply

    5. Who says 16 teams means you must have more conference games? With the pod setup, each team would still have 4 yearly rivals…and everybody else they’d play twice every five years.

       Adding a conference game either A) eliminates the possibility of 1-1 OOC series OR B) eliminates the extra revenue schools get when they can have 8 home games.

       I don’t think B will happen, so the question you have to ask yourself is…IS IT WORTH IT to see your conference foes more frequently or to have a more diverse schedule?

       I think diversity is more important. Now, if the Big 10’s 16 team conference suddenly includes 2 Texas schools, Notre Dame, Nebraska, and Rutgers (I’m still hoping against hope), it’s awfully diverse even within the conference itself.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 4:38 pm Reply

    6. Duffman

       The only problem with this is that UM lost to App State, which was paid handsomely to deliver that win.

       Don’t fret fellow bottom feeders; whatever happens, we never lost to App State!

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 9:42 pm Reply

62. And another discussing basketball’s non-role:

    http://www.kentucky.com/2010/06/29/1328629/college-hoops-left-with-wounded.html

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 9:00 am Reply

    1. bullet,

       irony – the article was written in kansas but in a kentucky paper

       A) the NCAA used to have the HQ in KC, now it is in Indy (moved from SWC & Big 8 territory to Big 10 and SEC territory).

       B) Both KU and UK have great basketball programs, and sucky (historical) football programs.

       C) KU seats around 50,000 and can not always fill it while UK seats around 70,000 and is over capacity so often the next expansion will take it to 80,000 or 90,000 (my argument for UNC or UK type basketball schools over KU and Duke types in conference realignment).

       D) State schools are limited by the state they reside in (think if KU basketball had built the same elite program in MD or WA instead of KS).

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 9:19 am Reply

       1. The National Collegiate Athletic Association
          700 W. Washington Street
          P.O. Box 6222
          Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6222
          Phone: 317/917-6222
          Fax: 317/917-6888
          All Packages:
          1802 Alonzo Watford Sr. Dr.
          Indianapolis, IN 46202

          This is a shocker. I always associated the NCAA in Kansas. Now a move or a second office in Indy?

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 9:25 am Reply

          1. StvInILL,

             HQ in Indy, I think the move was made years ago to be closer to Host Communications (Lexington, KY) which is now IMG.

             http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMG_(company)

             IMG stays off folks radar, because they are a privately held company. Host stayed off many radars for decades, and the principal (former P&G guy) was the force behind the new arena in Louisville. Will put Yum in the reply.

             LikeLike

             June 29, 2010 at 9:38 am Reply

             1. Yum

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KFC_Yum!_Center

                for UL new arena (Papa Johns is their football stadium) so they have cornered the fast food corporate sponsor market 🙂

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 9:40 am

             2. Don’t know Host’s history-if maybe UK helped make them, but UK’s association with Host made UK basketball a very valuable property. According to Alan’s numbers, UK was making in the same vicinity on their tertiary rights as football powers like Alabama and LSU.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 10:55 am

             3. Bullet,

                Host maybe got their foot in the door with UK, but made the gravy being the source behind the NCAA. If you have bought an NCAA program for pretty much any NCAA sport in the last quarter century + chances are almost 100% that Host printed it and sold the ads in it (as an example of one of the things they did for the NCAA). They the folks you never saw, but made the deals.

                IMG is a private company, they do not need to go to the public to finance expansion. They can generate enough $$ internally to finance expansion in house.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 11:31 am

             4. ps.

                Why I made the point early on that UT – Austin is an IMG school.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 11:32 am

    2. yea it sucks for the basketball guys but if you take emotion out of it and look at the numbers basketballs success with the tournament is what has backed it into a corner. Its pretty much understood by all that football generates the largest revenue but even so basketball wouldn’t be irrelevant. But the perverse effect of the success of the tournament and the season ending conference tournaments has really undermined the economic contribution of the regular season. Other than a few marquee matchups there isn’t as much excitement for regular season basketball. All the excitement gets focused into March Madness. And that revenue stream is controlled directly by the NCAA. What the conferences can control and maximize is their regular season and their conference tournaments. And that is devalued as the focus is increasingly on the tournament. And if they do go to 96 teams (god forbid) it will only exacerbate the situation. So Frnachilla et al can bemoan that basketball doesn’t count for more but the NCAA has created the situation where basketball revenues are minimized in conference calculations.

       And as a side not this is exactly why we will not see a football playoff until there is greater consolidation among the brand name conferences and teams so they are not forced to share that revenue stream with lesser contributors.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 9:27 am Reply

       1. The NCAA basketball tournament.
          It’s one of the most inclusive systems of crowning a champion we have in the collegiate realm.
          So why not expand it?
          Well if you go to 96 you further degrade the meaning of a 30 game schedule + the 3 game conference tourney.
          Some think that 64, 65 are still too much.
          I disagree. It helps to dissipate the elitist factor that you would have in a 32 team NCAA Tournament. 32 is simply a private club in which the rich get richer.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 9:43 am Reply

          1. there are 347 division 1 programs why not expand the tournament to 347? that would be really inclusive and non elitist.

             LikeLike

             June 29, 2010 at 10:07 am Reply

             1. Because you also have to be realistic. Does the viewing public want to watch the other 267 of the 347?
                I don’t think so. I mean not outside of dad mom, dad and grandma. These other teams/Schools are not nationally viewed on television and most do not have a regional outlet they can count on. The NCAA is all about the nationally prominent. There are opportunities in tournament time those from 65 to 100 ranking to mach themselves against the top 30 teams in a meaningful engagement. Realistically these teams do not have a chance to end up in sweet 16. Possibly some will end up in the NIT. The NIT which is a snooze fest of the next 32 teams has very little interest.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 10:32 am

             2. hank,

                that is why I asked the question in the first place. If a 16 team NCAA tourney could produce 80 % of the revenue, is the added 20% worth going to 128 teams? In a law of diminishing returns what is each added team actually worth? I would argue that seeds 13 – 16 are not games I want to pay to see. I just would like to know what the % breakdowns are?

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 11:38 am

             3. @Duff

                right. I recognize that arguement. I’m not arguing for one answer or another but there is a real question of what the philosophy of the NCAA and college athletics are. Its an interesting debate.

                I suspect you are right that a 16 team tournament would generate a significant portion of the current tournament earnings. AND it would increase the value of regular season and conference play for all conferences. But the benefits would accrue largely to the big brand conferences who have the established names and marketing muscle. But it will be less inclusive. Fewer small conference players will get a shot even if they have no real shot. But then should they get a shot at the big payday that was built off the efforts of the brand namess?

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 12:28 pm

             4. StvInILL and Hank,

                As a basketball guy I would like the conference tourneys to be limited to the top teams – say 4 or 8 teams MAX in a 16 team conference. Why reward mediocre teams in the regular season.

                Then the top conferences could have multiple slots, while the lesser conferences would have to play each other for the remaining slots the same weekend the major conferences are playing their tourneys. It still allows the little guys a shot, but gets rid of the “pasty” games in the actual NCAA tourney.

                If the conferences want more control of content than they had in the past (the BTN model) everything tells me they will continue to move toward ownership than away from it.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 2:42 pm

             5. Duff

                I’m for anything that makes regular season games more meaningful. I’m not anti the tournament, I fill out the brackets and spaz out the first weekend like everyone else. my original point was just that the relative irrelevance of basketball in conference realignmnet was just a reflection of how much the NCAA controlled tournament now dominates the college basketball picture.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 4:43 pm

             6. I didn’t like it when they went to 64,but I don’t see anything decreasing unless the big conferences leave.

                Your comment did bring up the expansion to 68. They can’t make up their mind whether to send the minor conferences to Siberia or the major conference teams from the bottom half of the conference to Siberia, so they are talking a blend of the two.

                I was thinking they ought to do a parallel regional for the bottom 4 conferences at the same time as everyone else. Then you get a sweet 17 and have the parallel regional champ play Tuesday against #16 of the sweet 16 (preferably the lowest seed left, or, if it must be predetermined, the lowest #4 seed or whoever is playing in that slot). Then you have a Cinderella game that gets exclusive TV access and noone gets sent off to Siberia.

                LikeLike

                June 30, 2010 at 1:18 pm

       2. Not that I’m expecting a playoff anytime soon, but I’ve long thought a 16 team playoff using 8 minor bowls in December as the 1st round with 8 autobids and 8 wildcards was the way to go(if you aren’t 1 of top 8 conferences-you have to qualify as wildcard-50% autobids is general NCAA policy on their tourneys). However, with this discussion, I’m beginning to think something like a 10 team (instead of 8-to have room for 1 non-BCS champ) tourney is best with 6 teams seeded into January 1 and 2 play-in games at home fields. It makes the tourney very hard to get into, meaning 2 losses could knock you out (keeping emphasis on regular season), keeps bowls the realistic goal for most schools instead of a dissappointment (NIT was important back when NCAA bb was 25-32 schools), keeps traditional ties on 1/1 (with 16 teams-B10 and P10 teams could be knocked out in 1st round), and doesn’t cut into finals time for students and athletes. Fewer schools gets rid of the chaff that don’t have a chance and also reduces the chances for the best teams to have a bad day and get knocked out.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 2:07 pm Reply

       3. Part of the problem with BB not being as profitable is the cupcake scheduling. Teams could make big-time events, but many of them are flat-out afraid to do it because they don’t want a loss. Expanding the field will only increase the desire to not schedule good games. BB also creates more programming for the B10 Network. If the B10 expands again, I hope we get better BB than what the Huskers deliver.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 9:46 pm Reply

63. I looked at the years 2002-2009 (the years I had the relevant info available), and here are the championship matchups based on the Big Ten and B12 (for Nebraska) records that year. Obviously this is an alternative universe but it provides some idea of what a championship game might look like. Also, this is a pure geographic split.

    2009 #9(AP) Iow vs #8 OSU
    2008 #24 NW vs #6 PSU
    2007 #15 Ill vs #3 OSU
    2006 #7 Wis vs #1 OSU
    2005 UR NW vs #4 PSU
    2004 #12 Iow vs #14 Mich
    2003 #25 Neb vs #4 Mich
    2002 #4 Iow vs #2 OSU

    I note that if you throw PSU in the west (moving Ill to the East), PSU wins the West in 2008 and 2005, both times matching up against OSU.

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 10:23 am Reply

    1. Judging from this, I will slightly question whether the B10 championship will be a smashing success, at least ratings-wise. The SEC has raised the bar so high that the games I’ve listed above just gernally don’t jump off the page. Maybe in the real word the West gets a boost by not playing the East biggies as much, leading them to better records and higher rankings. But it’s not like you’re going to see marquee name vs. marquee name every year (which seems somewhat obvious if the only West marquee is Nebraska).

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 10:27 am Reply

       1. One more thought. In a world in which ND ever joins, they HAVE to be in the East, right? So do you bump PSU then?

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 10:29 am Reply

          1. They (ND) should be in the East. But obviously, at this point you have to give the edge to competitive balance. You move them west. In their first year of BT play they should not be able to dictate so much. Texas anyone???
             Tell them we’ll see how it works out the next 10 years and we will reevaluate the situation. Fare? Of course there will be no more reevaluations unless further expansion dictates. With say Maryland or Rutgers or Syracuse in, they are ALL east without a doubt.

             LikeLike

             June 29, 2010 at 10:49 am Reply

          2. If ND ever joins, it will almost be certainly as part of a 16-team conference, and by then the Big Ten would probably organize into four 4-team rotating pods so that everyone outside ND’s pod would face it at least once every few years.

             LikeLike

             June 29, 2010 at 10:51 am Reply

             1. Were ND to join with Maryland, Rutgers and Syracuse, the pods would probably be organized this way:

                Md, PSU, Rut, Syr
                Mich, MSU, ND, OSU
                Ill, Ind, N’west, Pur
                Iowa, Minn, Neb, Wis

                Each team gets a permanent out-of-pod rival, enabling ND to continue playing Purdue and Penn State meeting Ohio State.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 10:56 am

             2. I’ve gamed out as many 16-team scenarios as anyone, but given what we’ve seen over the last few months, is there any reason to believe the BT will go to 16? The only reason to do so would be to add members as a sweetener to Texas or ND. It doesn’t like Texas is coming period. Would Notre Dame have three other schools they’d want to bring along? Seems unlikely.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 10:57 am

             3. I really don’t see a 16 BT anymore. I can see a 14 team SEC, ACC, BT, with the Pac 10 staying at 12 and Big12 going back to 12. the MWC and Beast will be in trouble at that point but i see one of them getting by in a BCS style post season. it is all up to ND at this point… But i wouldn’t bet on the Big12 lasting longer than 5 years either.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    2. @JcFred,
       How these meetings ended up In season
       2009 Iowa @OSU 24-27 OSU win.
       2008 NW vs. @PSU (no meeting)
       2007 ILL @OSU 28-21 ILL win (dominant)
       2006 Wis vs. OSU (no meeting)
       2005 PSU @NW 34-29 PSU last minute win.
       2004 Iowa @Mich 17-30 UM win
       2003 NE vs. Mich ( no meeting)
       2002 Iowa vs. OSU (no meeting)

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 11:17 am Reply

    3. I think that is why the Big 4 will be split.

       I just wonder what will they do with Iowa and Wisconsin? will they split them? or keep them west with PSU and Neb? keeping the rival games with each other and Minnesota, because if they are split the two both games cannot be protected.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 1:23 pm Reply

64. BREAKING

    NOTRE DAME, IN– In an effort to disassociate themselves from Big Ten rumors, the University of Notre Dame will no longer use jersey #10 in any sport, effective this fall. Jerseys #11-15 will be suspended for five years, also effective this fall.

    Jersey #16, however, is still in play…

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 3:16 pm Reply

    1. Similarly, the transition to the “spread-option” offense will highlight the use of “0” and multiples of “3” instead of “7” in the home-team score at Notre Dame stadium.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 3:34 pm Reply

    2. Shucks. I thought Jerry Jones had them all fitted for jersey 11 or 12. The infallible Chip Brown said so. 😉

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 3:35 pm Reply

       1. eapg,

          guess that Longhorn spin just can go so far, at some point you gotta get past what comes out BeVo’s back end before you drown in it.

          🙂

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 3:53 pm Reply

          1. Hey now. Just watch yourself, you too could be a Texas “gasp” Hater. 😉

             LikeLike

             June 29, 2010 at 4:02 pm Reply

             1. eapg,

                Not a Texas hater, just not a Chip Brown fan.

                a) I hate ‘pay’ sites that really are not all they are advertised to be. Even ESPN with their “insider” is insulting. They charge you for the TV channel and they make plenty from the advertisers. The least they could do is keep some things free for the masses.

                b) I am no fan of on side groups. At least here you here different sides, and you can debate when you have a different view from someone else. I am partial to a country that has opposing views as part of the conversation.

                🙂

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 4:24 pm

65. Tommy Tuberville isn’t buying the Beebe/UT spin:
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/stories/063010dnspotubervillebig12.efcd3368.html

    “I don’t think this conference will last long because there is too much disparity between all the teams,” Dienhart reports Tuberville having said on the show. “In the SEC, for instance, Vanderbilt makes as much money in the television contract as Florida. Everybody is good with it. Everybody is on the same page. Everyone gets the same votes.

    “That doesn’t happen here in the Big 12. We have some teams that get a little bit more money and have a little it [sic] more stroke than some of the other teams. And when that happens, you’re gonna have teams looking for better avenues to leave and reasons to leave. We have a 10-team league right now, but I just don’t know how long that’s gonna last, to be honest with you.”

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 5:03 pm Reply

    1. The Ministry of Information wishes to inform all members of the Big 12 Conference that things would go much better for them if they just stuck to the script.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 5:18 pm Reply

    2. And the guys that really should be looking (KS, K.ST MO, I.ST and OK.ST arn’t. Beats the hell out of me.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 5:25 pm Reply

       1. The problem is that no one wants those teams. The only reason that the Pac 10 wanted OK ST is because OU wanted them to tag along. I believe that is any of the major conferences offered those schools, they’d jump on a heartbeat. JMHO

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 8:35 pm Reply

       2. Purdue, Northwestern, Indiana, etc. are fortunate that the most powerful brand names in the league don’t treat them the way Iowa State, K-State, Okie State, etc. are treated by Texas. Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State could easily behave just like A&M, OU, and UT, but their commitment to all members of the league seems to elevate the Big Ten to a higher, more successful position than the Big 12 ever will see.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 10:52 pm Reply

          1. I really don’t think that luck has anything to do with it. The Big Ten has always been a pretty cohesive group. The Big 12 is not a cohesive group, why should texas help out a bunch of schools they have no loyalty to? This is why mergers dont work. I dont think the PAC 16 would have worked. The beauty of just adding a couple pieces here and there from different regions is that those teams are required to fall in line with the Big 10’s values. I think the current big 3 realize they are much stronger allied with the rest of the Big 10 then if they tried to strong arm a stronger position.

             LikeLike

             June 30, 2010 at 3:42 am Reply

          2. It’s amazing how a rising tide lifts all boats. Accept in places where they don’t communally share the resource. It’s a beautiful thing that Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State can have their football godhood and Indiana, Mich State and Illinois some basketball legitimacy and Northwestern academic supremacy in the conference and can share revenue equally for the benefit of all. Texas are you listening???

             LikeLike

             June 30, 2010 at 8:17 am Reply

66. I know (at least this is the impression I’m getting) what most everyone’s opinion is on this, but I think the Big Ten should consider adding Rutgers for the 2011 season. Think about this from a bargaining standpoint. Consider this: expansion is exclusively for financial purposes/greed, but joining the conference is about a variety of things, including money, but also academics, cultural fit, and athletics.

    The most popular sport right now by a longshot is the NFL. In a competitive second place is college football, one reason certainly being that it has to compete with the NFL for casual fans. Now, as 2011 approaches closer and closer, one thing seems to be more inevitable, and that’s a lockout for the NFL. Isn’t this the opportune time that the Big Ten can leverage the BTN and take full advantage of no football competition on the East Coast?

    Consider that the Big Ten is developing its brand name right now, in 2010, and all indications right now are that this is going to be an incredibly strong Big Ten, and Nebraska could very well win the Big 12 (I picked them to win it even before they were on my expansion radar), then entering 2011, the Big Ten could have three BCS teams returning, as well as a very strong Citrus Bowl team, probably one of Wisconsin, Iowa or Ohio State – all potential top ten teams. Sell the “best conference in college football” to the East Coast media, with the aforementioned four while also adding potentially multiple 8-10 win teams in Penn State, Michigan State, Michigan and/or Northwestern, and you’ve got a quality product to sell. Compound that by the (hypothetical) fact that there will be no NFL season, and the Big Ten can offer the football fans out East (with Rutgers) something they really can’t get anywhere else – a quality product that comes with a pseudo-vested interest (Rutgers).

    What if for all four weekends in November Rutgers is playing home games against Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska – just to peak the East Coast interest, and all the games with the exception of maybe one or two were put on the BTN? Rutgers likely would have a decent record as they will not have played any of the “big boys” up to this point. Am I wrong, or isn’t this at least worth a shot?

    Plus, with the addition of Nebraska, (and I mean no offense to anyone) academically the conference is diluted as opposed to solidified. Adding Rutgers helps solidify this part of it. Especially if Notre Dame comes around, another top tier research school is a must so as not to water down the academic side.

    How do the cable companies on the East Coast NOT add the BTN if there’s no NFL for 2011? Is it inconceivable that the BTN demands $0.60 per subscriber in New Jersey and $0.25 per in NYC? That’s a whole lot of money! With Rutgers the Big Ten is athletically diluted, but academically solidified; with Nebraska it’s athletically solidified but academically diluted. It seems like a decent compromise. And the money could make it worthwhile.

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 5:28 pm Reply

    1. You make a good sale. But I believe the expansion thing is all about the ND. If there is no way to get ND then Rutgers, I’m sure is on the short list.
       I believe a Nebraska can come in by itself but Rutgers will probably have to come in with someone else as a part of a strategy to solidify a (large eastern) market share. ND, TX and NE are teams and markets but at this point in time Rutgers is strictly a market. There are still some questions about Rutgers ability to completely deliver its market.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 5:43 pm Reply

       1. I don’t disagree totally with what you’re saying, but my problem is how long is the Big Ten going to wait for Notre Dame – an institutional and cultural outlier? Right now, even with the schools that currently comprise the Big Ten, it’s a very regional conference. If it ever hopes to become more than a Midwestern association of universities, it has to eventually go to the East (most likely), Southwest (somewhat unlikely), way west (extremely unlikely), or to the Southeast (somewhat likely). It wouldn’t take much for Rutgers to make up the cost for its addition because of its populous geographic location. The Big Ten can always add Notre Dame later if the Irish decide independence is not feasible. Why should the Big Ten, with all the leverage it has, be so reactionary with regards to the Irish? If they want to join down the road, let them, and in doing so improve your national brand name. If not, let them stay where they’re at, but without the Irish, this has to be the best conceivable scenario to leverage the BTN to East Coast states like New York and New Jersey.

          The BTN is a potential gold mine. Why not develop it and try to turn it into something more than just nice supplemental income? It COULD become a powerhouse cable channel (like a mini-ESPN), but we’ll never know because the Big Ten is stuck waiting for things that may never happen to come around. I’m not suggesting not leaving spots open for the Irish or Texas, I’m only saying that if Rutgers is eventually going to be added anyways, why not now when there’s more leverage than normal on the table?

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 6:02 pm Reply

          1. For the moment, the perfect is the enemy of the good. To my eyes, the Big Ten is waiting on a school that wants nothing more than to remain independent, and a school that (possibly) wants to be independent. To think that one can dissuade them from their folly presumes that they can be dissuaded, and that what they want is folly, none of which is necessarily true. Notre Dame has the backing to remain independent. There is no reason to believe Texas can’t pull it off also, if that’s what they want. They’re better positioned for it than anyone.

             LikeLike

             June 29, 2010 at 6:13 pm Reply

             1. I wonder if the Big 10 would ever consider “suggesting” to its member schools to “take a break” on scheduling ND for a little while. While it might piss ND off at first, the Big 10 schools could use a nine game conference schedule (if it goes to one) as a reason why it can’t schedule home and home games with ND for awhile. This would limit ND’s ability to schedule games with schools within driving distance. I know that ND prides itself on playing a national schedule, but even they need to play a few games with schools within driving distance.

                Now I’m not saying that the Big 10 would entertain an idea like this, but it might be another way to add pressure to ND (besides raiding the Big East).

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 8:53 pm

             2. bama-tab

                the 3 schools that routinely play ND will never stop doing it. no way. no how.

                LikeLike

                June 29, 2010 at 9:49 pm

             3. @jj

                Twenty years ago, the thought that Nebraska and Oklahoma would someday not playing would be just as unimaginable. Never is a long time.

                LikeLike

                June 30, 2010 at 9:03 am

             4. that’s a good point. i really hope NB plays at least one of the old B8 crew anually.

                i still don’t see MSU, PUR and UM not scheduling the Irish no matter what if they can. I think if anyone was to stop, UM would be the one as they’ve done it before. they haven’t really played that much either. MSU/ND has probably been played twice as many times. But I suspect ND would drop Purdue if push came to shove. Just my read.

                LikeLike

                June 30, 2010 at 9:16 am

             5. That’s my whole point here. Why should the Big Ten wait on Notre Dame. I’m under the impression (which might be wrong and foolish) that IF the Big Ten can grab Notre Dame, THEN they’d definitely grab Rutgers to try and get the East Coast. If this is the case, why wait and essentially lose the money they’d gain now with Rutgers (with as many people as Rutgers caters to already, along with the current Big Ten alumni base on the East Coast, I just can’t imagine that they wouldn’t be able to recoup the cost to add them). Plus, adding New Jersey would mean the Big Ten would be located in 10 states (assuming I counted correctly in my head), and thus the name of the conference would make more sense.

                LikeLike

                June 30, 2010 at 8:50 pm

          2. Bama,
             Love’em or hate’em beating ND is always something nice to have on the resume by bowl time. Freezing them out also only becomes an antagonistic thing towards the Irish and this is not productive in future negotiations. The Big ten has always been a gentleman suitor to ND for the same reasons a man should be to his probable future wife.

             LikeLike

             June 30, 2010 at 8:28 am Reply

67. @Stv

    They might be looking. If there’s a next round, my guess is that things go down very quietly. Interesting to say the least that Tuberville (and I suppose Hance) feel their position is strong enough to pop off at the big boys.

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 5:33 pm Reply

68. Colorado in buyout negotiations:

    http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-colorado-pac-10

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 5:45 pm Reply

69. do not know if this has been posted, but it looks like USC is now thinking of changing conferences.

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/412966-usc-to-leave-pac-10-will-join-axis-of-evil-conference

    those darn trojans just want to leave the Pac 10 behind.

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 7:02 pm Reply

    1. on a more serious note

       http://bleacherreport.com/articles/412841-ncaa-hypocrisy-root-cause-and-solutions

       discussion of the NCAA

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 7:05 pm Reply

70. Dienhart himself was on Rivals this morning also. He said that he thinks the B10 is still in expansion mode and is looking at Rutgers and/or Syracuse as the next step on the way to 16. I believe he even opined about a 6-month timeframe. I think he’s wrong and that FTT is right, e.g., they will not just take Syracuse or Rutgers (or both) unless ND has already said yes, which isn’t going to happen. But Dienhart for whatever reason seems convinced of it.

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 8:11 pm Reply

71. Side noting – Heard Nebraska AD Tom Osborne on the radio this afternoon being interviewed about the move to the Big Ten.

    He said that the Big 12 wasn’t a good cultural fit anymore (very PC answer), and that Nebraska would likely lose money on the deal in the first few years and then may make more or may not make more (depending on Big 12 contract). Sounded very PC again, trying not to look like a cash grab for the football program. Then after speaking about what a great fit the Big Ten is for NU athletics, weather, culture, mission, etc. he said that the cooperation between the universities in the Big Ten on Acedemic research was a BIG plus. Basically 2 or more universities can apply for research grants TOGETHER and work in cooperation. He said that it should mean about $50 – $100 million additional research dollars per year for the university.

    So while we all marvel at the wonderful BTN and the dollars they make, say $22 million per year (maybe a $10-$12 million increase for Nebraska) the CIC is a damn big deal! The CIC could mean a $100 million increase for Nebraska…. about 10 times those piddly football dollars.

    Thought it was interesting!

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 8:54 pm Reply

    1. I may be ignorant about the difference between TV/athletics revenue and research revenue, but it seems to me that whereas the former is unrestricted — “profit” if you will, such that the university can use it for whatever it wants — the latter is specifically designed to, well, fund research. Doesn’t that make it a classic apples to oranges comparison?

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 10:07 pm Reply

       1. Many research grants allow high percentages (40 to 50%) of the grant money to be used for “university overhead.” This essentially means the university can use the money for whatever it wants. The remaining money that is actually used on the research project often goes to funding graduate students, equipment, etc., which attracts higher quality students and advances the mission of the university. So while research grants may be more restricted than athletics revenue, this is largely irrelevant in practice.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 11:12 pm Reply

    2. Remember the old one-liner about the University of Oklahoma trying to build a school the football team could be proud of? With Big Ten membership, the Sooners’ one-time archrival (apologies to Okie State and Texas) has achieved precisely that.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 10:21 pm Reply

72. As I am watching the CWS, had the Pac 16 gone as intended it would have looked like this:

    AZ 3
    ASU 5
    Cal 2
    OK 2
    oSu 1
    OSU 2
    USC 12
    stanford 2
    texas 6

    or over 1/2 of all the CWS championships (33 of 62)

    for the Big 10 – 6 total

    UM 2 53′ & 62′
    tOSU 1 66′
    Minnesota 3 56′, 60, & 64′

    The SEC has 8 (UGA 1, LSU 6, & USC 1)

    USC won this year beating UCLA in the bottom of the 11th (2 -1)

    and the rest have about 15 total

    FSU has been 20 times and never won a CWS, wow.

    ps loki, I did not know Rice won a CWS in 2003 (congrats)

    LikeLike

    June 29, 2010 at 9:59 pm Reply

    1. Had the Gamecocks previously won a national title in any sport? Since the days of Paul Dietzel vs. Frank McGuire, which ultimately led to South Carolina’s departure from the ACC, that school has had one of the most dysfunctional athletic programs in Division I.

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 10:25 pm Reply

       1. vincent,

          I have an attorney friend who is a huge Clemson fan, and Clemson and USC are like oil and water in baseball. Clemson has been like 12 times and never won, now USC beats them to advance and can claim the NC that Clemson has never won. I am marking my calendar for the USC vs Clemson game this fall, somehow I think it will be a bit more “testy” than usual.

          I think the women have won something, and they may have won something in track. Those are the only things that come to my head vincent.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 10:47 pm Reply

       2. Had the Gamecocks previously won a national title in any sport?

          Yes, women’s outdoor track and field, in 2002.

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 9:38 am Reply

    2. Growing up my family followed FSU baseball. My parents said FSU was the Atlanta Braves of college baseball. At this point I’d say FSU is the Bills, Braves, Chargers, Cavaliers, and Suns–combined–of college baseball. 😦

       But as a native of SC, I’m happy for the U. of S Carolina. That school could never catch a break. Maybe for at least a few days they can be the honorary “real USC” or “real Carolina.”

       LikeLike

       June 29, 2010 at 10:28 pm Reply

       1. Indy Mike,

          I was watching the game, it was really good. They kept showing Spurrier in one of the private boxes all night. I did not realize UCLA had never won a CWS, as much as the Pac 10 has dominated I just always figured they had at least 1 NC.

          LikeLike

          June 29, 2010 at 10:51 pm Reply

    3. The B10 has won the CWS five times since the mighty ACC last won. I continue to be amazed and amused at their failures in Omaha.

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 8:19 am Reply

       1. loki,

          they had about a decade, then nothing (Big 10) as their last CWS NC was tOSU in 1966.

          ACC = UM 82, 85, 99, and 01 + WF 55

          BC = 0 – 8, Clemson 0 – 12, Duke 0 – 3, FSU 0 – 20, GT 0 – 3, UM 4 – 23, UNC 0 – 8, NCSU 0 – 1, UVA 0 – 1, and WF 1 -2 (the best percentage in the ACC)

          I was a bit surprised that no SEC teams in Alabama or Mississippi had won the CWS tho.

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 1:05 pm Reply

    4. At Indiana some might say that football is just something they play to get them to the basketball season.

       It might be said of the Big Ten that baseball is just something they play to get them to the football season.
       This is just a joke and not a slight on Indi or big ten baseball by the way.

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 8:36 am Reply

    5. Your numbers seem to be a little off. There have been 64 CWS championships.

       By conference:
       Pac-10 – 26
       Big 12 – 10
       SEC – 8
       Big Ten – 6
       ACC – 5
       Big East – 0
       Others – 10

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 9:48 am Reply

       1. phizzy,

          sorry, looks like I missed 2 somewhere. my primary point of the post was to point out that had the Pac 16 happened just how dominant they would be in the CWS.

          Current Pac 10 = 26 + UT,OU, & oSu = 35 which is still over half of the CWS NC’s. It would be ironic as it would leave Missouri as the only remaining Big 12 school with a CWS NC.

          Big West = 4 (CSF)
          WAC = 1 (Fresno State)
          Patriot = 1 (Holy Cross)
          WCC = 1 (Pepperdine)
          CUSA = 1 (Rice, yay loki!)
          MVC = 1 (Wichita State)

          phizzy who did I miss to get to 10?

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 12:49 pm Reply

73. This is Michigan’s current 2011 football schedule–the pre-expansion version:

    Sept. 3 WESTERN MICHIGAN
    Sept. 10 NOTRE DAME
    Sept. 17 EASTERN MICHIGAN
    Sept. 24 SAN DIEGO STATE
    Oct. 1 Bye Week
    Oct. 8 at Wisconsin
    Oct. 15 INDIANA (HC)
    Oct. 22 at Michigan State
    Oct. 29 at Iowa
    Nov. 5 MINNESOTA
    Nov. 12 ILLINOIS
    Nov. 19 at Northwestern
    Nov. 26 OHIO STATE

    Michigan will be paying San Diego State $1M for the game on 9/24 (SDSU HC Brady Hoke was a UM assistant under Lloyd Carr before becoming the HC at Ball State and then moving on to San Diego). In the past, Michigan has paid MAC teams about $500K apiece for their games. Michigan and Notre Dame swap checks for the same amount every other season and the home teams keeps all the gate revenue, so that arrangement is essentially a wash (this practice has been going on since 1978). The total cost for Michigan’s four non-conference games is about $2M in 2011.

    Obviously, that schedule will change with Big Ten expansion. Assume the east-west division breakdown is used and the west division is paired up for scheduling purposes as follows:

    1. Iowa-Illinois
    2. Nebraska-Northwestern
    3. Wisconsin-Minnesota

    If the Big Ten goes to nine conference games, Michigan’s 2011 schedule could look like this (assumes five home conference games that season, Pairs 1 & 3 from the Western Division above are used and no inter-divisional rivalries).

    E = Eastern Division
    W = Western Division

    Sept. 3 WESTERN MICHIGAN
    Sept. 10 NOTRE DAME
    Sept. 17 EASTERN MICHIGAN
    Sept. 24 PURDUE (E)
    Oct. 1 Bye Week
    Oct. 8 at Wisconsin
    Oct. 15 INDIANA (E)
    Oct. 22 at Michigan State (E)
    Oct. 29 at Iowa
    Nov. 5 MINNESOTA
    Nov. 12 ILLINOIS
    Nov. 19 at Penn State (E)
    Nov. 26 OHIO STATE (E)

    There are a few changes to the original 2011 schedule. Purdue takes the place of San Diego State on 9/24 and that saves Michigan a $1M payment to SDSU. The 11/19 game originally scheduled at Northwestern is now played in Happy Valley agasint PSU. Obviously, that makes for a stronger overall schedule.

    In fact, if I had used Pairs 2 & 3 from the Western Division instead of 1 & 3, it could have looked like this:

    Sept. 3 WESTERN MICHIGAN
    Sept. 10 NOTRE DAME
    Sept. 17 EASTERN MICHIGAN
    Sept. 24 PURDUE (E)
    Oct. 1 Bye Week
    Oct. 8 at Nebraska
    Oct. 15 INDIANA (E)
    Oct. 22 at Michigan State (E)
    Oct. 29 at Iowa
    Nov. 5 NORTHWESTERN
    Nov. 12 ILLINOIS
    Nov. 19 at Penn State (E)
    Nov. 26 OHIO STATE (E)

    At Nebraska replaces at Wisconsin on 10/8 and Northwestern replaces Minnesota on 11/5. That means Michigan’s 2011 schedule would include four major CFB powers–Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State and Penn State.

    The schedules above help illustrate the questions the Big Ten confernce is going to be dealing with over the next few months in regard to divisons and scheduling. Would an Eastern Division with UM-OSU-PSU be too lopsided in terms of competiton? Does a nine-game conference schedule make sense in terms of competition, getting two BCS bowl bids, overall finances, etc.? Michigan might save $1M by not playing SDSU in 2011, but it loses one game per year that may net the athletic department upwards of $4-$5M per contest.

    If the conference were to stay at eight games and the Western Division was divided up for scheduling as follows:

    Group 1 – Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska
    Group 2 – Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin

    Then the 2011 schedule would look like this with Group 1 from the Western Division (assumes 3 home games with Eastern Division opponents, 1 home game with Western Division opponent):

    Sept. 3 WESTERN MICHIGAN
    Sept. 10 NOTRE DAME
    Sept. 17 EASTERN MICHIGAN
    Sept. 24 SAN DIEGO STATE
    Oct. 1 Bye Week
    Oct. 8 at Nebraska
    Oct. 15 INDIANA (E)
    Oct. 22 at Michigan State (E)
    Oct. 29 MINNESOTA
    Nov. 5 at Penn State (E)
    Nov. 12 at Illinois
    Nov. 19 PURDUE (E)
    Nov. 26 OHIO STATE (E)

    The same schedule with Group 2 from the Western Division

    Sept. 3 WESTERN MICHIGAN
    Sept. 10 NOTRE DAME
    Sept. 17 EASTERN MICHIGAN
    Sept. 24 SAN DIEGO STATE
    Oct. 1 Bye Week
    Oct. 8 at Wisconsin
    Oct. 15 INDIANA (E)
    Oct. 22 at Michigan State (E)
    Oct. 29 IOWA
    Nov. 5 at Penn State (E)
    Nov. 12 at Northwestern
    Nov. 19 PURDUE(E)
    Nov. 26 OHIO STATE (E)

    On balance, the two 8-game schedules look to be a bit more manageable in terms of overall competition with San Diego State back in as the four non-conference game. Because of the ability to schedule up to eight home games per season and the slightly easier nature of the schedule, we might see a lot of Big Ten teams wanting to remain at eight conference games.

    If Penn State was placed in the Western Division with Nebraska and the eight-game conference schedule were maintained, then the conference would be positioning itself to maximizing the number of bowl eligibile teams and overall number of home games for the different conference programs. Assuming the Western Division would have Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Penn State, Illinois and Northwestern and the schedule grouping were something like this:

    Group 1: Nebraska-Minnesota-Illinois
    Group 2: Penn State-Iowa-Northwestern

    That would mean a team from the Eastern Division wouldn’t be facing Nebraska and Penn State during the regular season in an eight-game schedule. The same would go for Western Division teams regarding Michigan and Ohio State.

    It’ll be interesting to see how this shakes out, but I think conventional wisdom dictates that the conference will stay at eight games and they’ll keep Nebraska and Penn State in one division with Michigan and Ohio State in a second division. While the cost of getting a one-and-done non-conference opponent is going up, I think the ADs will want to have maximum scheduling flexibility so that they could get up to eight home games per season and/or vary the overall scheedule strength as they see fit.

    Michigan’s 2011 schedule with eight conference games against the Western Division Group 1 would look something like this (assumes three home games against Eastern Divions, one home game against Western Divison):

    Sept. 3 WESTERN MICHIGAN
    Sept. 10 NOTRE DAME
    Sept. 17 EASTERN MICHIGAN
    Sept. 24 SAN DIEGO STATE
    Oct. 1 Bye Week
    Oct. 8 at Wisconsin (E)
    Oct. 15 INDIANA (E)
    Oct. 22 at Michigan State (E)
    Oct. 29 at Nebraska
    Nov. 5 MINNESOTA
    Nov. 12 At Illinois
    Nov. 19 PURDUE (E)
    Nov. 26 OHIO STATE (E)

    Western Group 2 would be something like this:

    Sept. 3 WESTERN MICHIGAN
    Sept. 10 NOTRE DAME
    Sept. 17 EASTERN MICHIGAN
    Sept. 24 SAN DIEGO STATE
    Oct. 1 Bye Week
    Oct. 8 at Wisconsin (E)
    Oct. 15 INDIANA (E)
    Oct. 22 at Michigan State (E)
    Oct. 29 at Penn State
    Nov. 5 IOWA
    Nov. 12 At Northwestern
    Nov. 19 PURDUE (E)
    Nov. 26 OHIO STATE (E)

    Obiously, these schedules can be changed around, but the general gist here is that they help illustrate some of the possibilities in terms of breaking up divisions, overall competitive balance, etc.

    LikeLike

    June 30, 2010 at 8:13 am Reply

    1. Cutter

       Michigan, and the other top brands, are only one part of the story. The conference also includes a number of schools with lower game day takes. They don’t have the bargaining position either to more regularly arrange for 8 home games. to them the prospect of an additional Big Ten opponent may be better than a home and home series with a mid level BCS opponent. It would be interesting to consider the scheduling dynamics for a Minnesota or Indiana.

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 8:43 am Reply

       1. “It would be interesting to consider the scheduling dynamics for a Minnesota or Indiana.”

          I don’t know about Minnesota or Indiana, but I am positive that Northwestern would prefer an extra conference game from a revenue perspective. Over the next six years (2010-2015) Northwestern will have a max of 9 buy games with only 5 over the next 4 years. I am sure that any Big Ten team would draw better than most of the home-and-home opponents Northwestern is able to get (Rice, Stanford, Vanderbilt).

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 11:20 am Reply

          1. I don’t know that the issue is “able to get”. My understand is that those schools, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Rice, Stanford, and others, have decided to play each other as a conscious decision. I know Rice would make more pimping themselves out to the likes of Texas, Oklahoma, or LSU.

             LikeLike

             June 30, 2010 at 5:18 pm Reply

             1. Don’t get me wrong; I like the fact that Northwestern is playing similar-type schools (other than the fact that Northwestern will again have a game I can’t get on tv, Rice this year and Syracuse last year). But in terms of attendance, I bet that any Big Ten team would draw better at Ryan Field if only because of proximity.

                Non-conference schools that might draw better (Tennessee? Missouri? ND?) aren’t giving up a home game to play Northwestern.

                LikeLike

                June 30, 2010 at 7:58 pm

          2. thats pretty much what I assume. Michigan is already on board with 9 conference games and there have been some words from Wisconsin as well. I assume most of the schools in the conference would be similar to Northwestern. Ohio State favors 8 conference games but I suspect the conference is trending away from them on this one.

             LikeLike

             June 30, 2010 at 7:00 pm Reply

       2. Minnesota looks like they’re scheduling either one or two home-and-home series along with the buy-in games. Most of those are MAC opponents, but some are Division 1-AA. The Golden Gophers have a new stadium that I’m sure they want to keep filled.

          See http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-ten/minnesota-golden-gophers.php

          Indiana has more Division 1-AA opponents than most and they also have regular matchups with MAC teams in home-and-home series. I believe IU is also planning on playing a home game against Penn State in the Washington, DC area.

          See http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-ten/indiana-hoosiers.php

          I have to agree with you, Hank, that the dynamics for the Big Ten programs are different. Those dynamics are based not only on stadium size, but attendance, ticket sales, etc.

          We’ll see how the eight v. nine conference game debate plays out. Teams are balancing event revenue, season ticket sales, ease (or difficulty) of scheduling, competitive balance, chances of bowl appearances, etc. How the programs balance those factors out are going to determine their outlook because they’re still going to get approx. $20M or more from the conference irregardless of how hard or easy the non-conference schedule pans out.

          Indiana’s 2010 schedule is as follows with the East (E) and West divisions noted in parens:

          09/02/10 Towson
          09/11/10 Open Date
          09/18/10 at Western Kentucky
          09/25/10 Akron
          10/02/10 Michigan (E)
          10/09/10 at Ohio State (E)
          10/16/10 Arkansas State
          10/23/10 at Illinois
          10/30/10 Northwestern
          11/06/10 Iowa
          11/13/10 at Wisconsin
          11/20/10 Penn State (in Landover, MD) (E)
          11/27/10 at Purdue (E)

          If this schedule was post-expansion, Michigan State (E) would replace one of the non-confernce games as the 9th Big Ten opponent–perhaps the game against Arkansas State would not have been scheduled. Nebraska and Northwestern would be the two Big Ten schools off the schedule. In this situation, does that help or hurt Indiana football in terms of its revenue and competitive goals? I don’t know how the Indiana AD would answer that question. Playing Arkansas State after a back-to-back with Michigan and Ohio State may be more desireable than playing Michigan State in that slot.

          For Minnesota or any member of the Western Division, Nebraska will be on the schedule on a regular basis. If Penn State is also in the west, then PSU would also be an annual opponent. Depending on how things shake out, Michigan and/or Ohio State would also be on the schedule if there were nine conference games.

          FWIW, Minnesota opens the 2011 season at Southern Cal followed by games with New Mexico State, Miami (Ohio) and North Dakota State. UMinn also has Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State on the schedule. In that situation, I suspect the Golden Gophers would want eight conference games, otherwise the schedule might be pretty insane (and we’ll see how it shakes out when this is over–Minnesota might have games with USC, Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska and Penn State in 2011 by the time the dust settles).

          Its an interesting topic. Michigan was advocating nine game seasons prior to expansion and Barry Alvarez is now in support. Purdue’s HC seems to like the idea, but I understand Ohio State isn’t in favor of the idea. We’ll know in a couple of months how it works out.

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 12:35 pm Reply

       3. I am just a fan–don’t know the specifics–but I’d bet my annual salary that Minnesota’s bottom line and football future is in much better shape with an outdoor, on-campus stadium than with what (IMHO) wrecked the Gopher’s program—playing in their biggest competitor’s (the Vikings) building.

          I will never understand what the U of M’s powers that be were thinking when they made that move 20-some odd years ago.

          Seems to me more than coincidental that Minnesota’s fall from power (in football) is in the same timeframe that the Vikings and Twins arrived in Minneapolis.

          Vikes/Twins arrived 1961. Last of Minnesota’s 6 MNC’s- 1960, Last of 18 Big Ten titles- 1967. Minnesota was mighty at one time.

          The new stadium and the U’s take on it is to sell the history (beautifully done BTW), and try to create new tradition/history today. All we need now is the coach to take the program that way. Brew’s got one more year to try and prove his mettle, then it’s time to move on

          Geographical split is the way to go. It works for the SEC, should work for the Big Ten. EVERY team has is ups and downs–wasn’t long ago PSU was looking to hang JoPa out to dry–Michigan is down, Tennessee is down, Nebraska was down. Florida was an also ran until the last 20 years. Some teams are just down a little longer—see Minnesota, Ole Miss, Illinois…

          Love the blog, Frank… keep it up…

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 4:37 pm Reply

          1. It’s great that the Goofers have a new stadium, but I never understood why you guys would build a brand new stadium of only 50,000 seats—seems rather unambitious and shortsighted. I know it can be expanded, but just seems surprising to me……….

             LikeLike

             July 1, 2010 at 10:41 am Reply

             1. Vikings still own the town… at least as long as they’re still in town (they want a new stadium too, have for a while).

                I’m not 100% sure, but, my understanding is that TCF Bank Stadium is expandable to something like 80,000 seats.

                I think the U probably made the right choice in starting a little on the lighter side… really only because the Metrodome rarely had much for Gopher support… sports fans up here seem a little fickle… so probably need a little break-in period to get people re-acquainted to “real” football played the way it should be… outdoors…

                We’ll see what happens down the road, I guess…

                LikeLike

                July 2, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    2. I had a realization reading your post. Your setup could be viewed as having pods. In the years when Group 1 W plays Group 1 E, they could be declared a division without any change of the schedule.

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 11:23 am Reply

74. There are plenty of MAC teams scheduled in the pre Big Ten season on all Big ten schedules.
    The games are 1) a great gage of potential 2) a joy to win. The MAC teams have either really come up in competition against the Big ten or the BT have dropped. I think they have come up over the years. In the lower Budget MAC there are no real dynasties just a couple of good seasons back to back depending of them having a defense and or a quarterback. This is they are far more cyclical.
    Many of the kids on these teams just missed on making it to a Big ten team because they were too small, not fast enough, or did not have great stats. So they really enjoy seeing how they do against Big brother Big Ten. The new conference alignment and may see less games scheduled against MAC teams over all.

    LikeLike

    June 30, 2010 at 9:04 am Reply

    1. Many of the kids on these teams just missed on making it to a Big ten team because they were too small, not fast enough, or did not have great stats. So they really enjoy seeing how they do against Big brother Big Ten.

       The same thing applies to East Carolina against the ACC in-state “big four” and for Southern Miss against Miss State and Mississippi.

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 9:13 am Reply

    2. The MAC teams have come up because of scholarship limitations and the fact that more and more MAC games are on TV. As someone once said, the Big Ten Network is the best thing that ever happened to the MAC.

       The MAC’s rise against the Big Ten is one of many signs that the anything prior to the conditions of (roughly) the last 20 years is no indication of future competitive dynamics.

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 9:59 am Reply

       1. The MAC is a prime argument for expanding your recruiting area. They regularly had rated teams in the 60s and 70s. But when scholarship limits first came in they dissappeared from the rankings for 20 years. In the late 70s they expanded from 6 to 10 teams taking 4 schools that basically recruited the same area.

          Toledo was the next team ranked. They did it by recruiting Canada heavily. In fact, they were the only I-A school not to have at least 1 scholarship player from CA, TX or FL that year. And then the MAC expanded and ESPN, Marshall, Randy Moss and to some extent the 85 scholarship limit improved them.

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 1:32 pm Reply

          1. another reason to add toronto!

             LikeLike

             June 30, 2010 at 8:12 pm Reply

75. Back to realignment news…North Texas says ‘maybe next time’ to the WAC. I think the WAC may drop below the Sun Belt in relevance shortly.

    Honolulu Advertiser article (Link not working)

    It’s only going to get tougher for the WAC to ‘Play Up’
    By Dave Reardon

    POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jun 30, 2010

    Has it really come to this?

    North Texas basically tells the Western Athletic Conference, “Don’t call us, we’ll call you.”

    The WAC motto the past several years has been “Play Up.” Every now and then one of its teams lives up to it and overachieves on the playing field against a BCS conference behemoth. But when it comes to acquiring and retaining member schools, the WAC plays down, way down. Or, as in this case, it gets nothing.

    Now it’s in what can best be described as a precarious holding pattern, perhaps a prelude to a crash-landing not too far into the future: The league announced yesterday it won’t add any schools for the 2011-12 year, when it loses flagship Boise State.

    What happened to that big footprint from the Mississippi to Manoa?

    It’s gotten to the point that a member of the Sun Belt holds out for a better offer. And when that source of fresh meat dries up, the WAC is in trouble. That’s where Idaho, New Mexico State and Utah State came from in 2005.

    Not that they’re all that. In their five seasons in the WAC, the agonizing Aggies (both of ’em) and the mostly vapid Vandals have won 44 football games and lost 137. None of them made a bowl game until Idaho did it last season, and no one outside of Moscow’s calling the Kibbie Dome home to a budding dynasty. These three schools have averaged less than two wins a season against teams outside their triangle of futility.
    Need further illustration that when you delete Boise State you severely weaken the WAC? Easy, just take another look at the overall football standings again, from last season. The Broncos won all 14 of their games. Nevada, Fresno State and Idaho all went 8-5. The remaining five teams, including Hawaii, all posted losing overall marks.

    PROGRAMS LIKE Fresno State, Hawaii and Nevada can look at Boise’s pending departure as an opportunity to become the new bull. But even if one of these teams romps through a Bronco-less conference in 2011, what is really gained if your goal is national respect? Unbeaten in the WAC won’t mean a whole lot when Boise State is not among the seven league victims. Such a squad better take care of business outside of the conference, too, if it wants to be taken seriously.

    And, as Ferd Lewis points out, since the WAC isn’t adding another school for 2011, UH must on fairly short notice find an opponent to replace the Broncos (adding to that conundrum is the fact that any available foes will also likely get emails and phone calls from seven other WAC teams with new holes in their schedules).

    Eight is enough for basketball. It actually works out better for scheduling with an even number of teams. And the March Madness money pie doesn’t have to be cut into as many pieces.
    So much for the positives. Speaking of money, bid aloha to the football breadwinner.

    An eight-team conference is workable. That, however, depends on which eight schools we’re talking about.

    Remember the old Big Eight? THAT was a conference. National-championship contenders in football and basketball every year. And it only got bigger and better in 1996, with the addition of Texas and three other Southwest Conference refugees. Earlier this month the Big 12 – with the Longhorns standing tall – withstood an attack from all sides, losing Colorado and Nebraska, but surviving.

    The WAC, however, now has no cushion to absorb any kind of a raid. If the Mountain West comes calling next year for Fresno State or Nevada, what then?

    Hard to believe a WAC team actually won a national championship in football, BYU in 1984. There’s a longshot, lameduck chance at such conference glory this fall, if Boise State can get past Virginia Tech in its opener and then run the table.

    After that, the WAC will be down to eight. And by no means a great eight.

    LikeLike

    June 30, 2010 at 9:38 am Reply

    1. So what’s the answer? What do the WACs of the world actually do about a looming irrelevance and a future than does not promise a lot of invites from the big boys. The new policy likely will be to schedule more conference games which will be perceived as having more weight than scheduling Idaho state or Akron.

       Another thing, I am not sure what the growth of Division I has been over the past 25 years but are there really enough Division one athletes’ to go around or are most of these teams just wearing nice uniforms as they fly into Lincoln?

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 10:31 am Reply

       1. I certainly don’t have the answer. The gap between the top and bottom of D1A seems to be growing. Nothing short of a massive change in the governance of college football will make the WAC/MAC/SunBelt relevant. What could those changes be? Cut scholarships? Enforce NCAA-wide revenue sharing? Something else?

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 10:43 am Reply

       2. I’m thinking scholarship limitations as well as maybe creating a new division for the big boys (55 teams) only and call it Division Alpha. So those who cannot afford the arms race can survive where they are at. I am thinking to limit the Scholarships in the Big Boy leagues (to 70) while leaving the others the same. If kids want to play with the big boys then they understand that there are fewer spots and if they really want to play at Texas or Ohio State they may have to walk on. The next division down will be happy to have more scholarships as a consolation and maybe get their own championship

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 12:26 pm Reply

    2. Read one article that referenced NCAA consideration of a proposal to reduce scholarships to 73. Article didn’t expand on that. I haven’t seen that anywhere else. Might be one of the Knight Commission recommendations-which means its many years off before being seriously considered.

       Div. I-A was around 100 schools 25 years ago as off the top of my head I can think of at least 20 of the 120 schools that have moved up in that time (BE-2,MAC-2,CUSA-4,SB-8,WAC-4). Other than CA schools-LB St., Fullerton St. and Pacific I can’t think of anyone who dropped. Division I overall has grown quite a bit. There probably weren’t 300 schools, let alone 347.

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 11:04 am Reply

       1. bullet,

          D 1 FB = 120 (more or less)

          D 1 BB = 350 (more or less)

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 12:13 pm Reply

          1. 120 and 347

             LikeLike

             June 30, 2010 at 12:33 pm Reply

       2. In 1980, I am counting 91 Division I-A teams.

          I 1990, I am counting 90 Division I-A teams.

          In 2000, I am counting 117 Division I-A teams.

          And as of last year, we had 121 Division I-A teams.

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 12:48 pm Reply

          1. Whoops, 120 last year. 116 in 2000.

             LikeLike

             June 30, 2010 at 12:49 pm Reply

    3. Loki, your concern for the welfare of the WAC is well-founded, but do have to point that there is really no minimum number of schools for an FBS conference. If you go back to the old “Big West” conference in the mid-1990’s, it only had six members (Nevada, Utah State, Idaho, North Texas, Boise State and New Mexico State). Do believe that a BCS conference is obligated to have at least eight schools, but the WAC obviously is not going to have to worry about that for awhile. Other than Louisiana Tech, the WAC offers no immediate rivals for North Texas, whereas the Sunbelt has Louisiana-Monroe, Louisiana and Arkansas State in the immediate vicinity. The WAC just isn’t enough of an upgrade over the Sunbelt to justify changing conferences and increased travel costs for UNT. Am actually surprised Louisiana Tech hasn’t looked at joining the Sunbelt, but guess they look at the WAC as differentiating themselves from all the other Lousiana schools (whereas UNT is the only Texas school in the Sunbelt).

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 1:12 pm Reply

       1. Actually, there is a minimum number of schools: 8. See Division I Manual § 20.02.6. It was put in place among a series of I-A reforms designed to either eliminate the chaff at the bottom or at least force the bottom teams to strengthen their programs. The other major changes were that teams have to play 5 home games every year (§ 20.9.7.2), and must average 15,000 “once every two years on a rolling basis” in home attendance (§ 20.9.7.3). This requirement is slightly lower than the old rule (17,000), but has to be achieved every 2 years, rather than once every 4 years, and it used to be the case that if half a league’s membership was over the attendance mark, any of the rest who were below it were exempt from the requirement.

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 1:37 pm Reply

          1. That 5 home game rule is obviously what’s been driving up the cost of money games.

             LikeLike

             June 30, 2010 at 3:53 pm Reply

       2. @Ron: “Am actually surprised Louisiana Tech hasn’t looked at joining the Sunbelt”

          The sentiment I’ve seen from LT fans is that they would consider that a step down. They want to move ‘up’ to CUSA.

          I’m also hearing rumbles that there is a group in CUSA West (everyone but Houston (ok, for those who don’t follow CUSA: UTEP, SMU, Rice, Tulsa and Tulane)) that might prefer to be in a more compact 8 to 9 team conference. LT would fit in that scenario.

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 2:54 pm Reply

          1. @Loki, good point, North Texas seems to be taking the parallel tack that changing conferences really isn’t worthwhile unless they can get into Conference USA as well. Of course Lousiana Tech football has been a lot better in recent years, their coach Derek Dooley’s hiring by Tennessee in the offseason was a pretty amazing story (once you lay aside the minor footnote of the Lane Kiffin saga, of course…). The thing we’ve got to look at with all these schools at the MAC/Sunbelt/WAC level is that a continued sagging economy may mean big school subsidies for FBS football won’t fly, so you may not see schools making the step up from FCS to FBS (like Western Kentucky recently did for the Sunbelt). If things get bad, suppose you could even start to see schools deciding to step down…

             LikeLike

             June 30, 2010 at 9:58 pm Reply

76. Heard Tim Brando blowharding about how great the SEC is since they’ve won the last 2 College World Series, so I decided to look at the facts. Last year was the SEC’s first CWS title in 9 years, in between which Texas and OR St each won twice, along with Miami, Rice, CS-Fullerton, and Fresno St.

    But look at the bigger picture, until last night only 2 SEC teams had won a title. The SEC has now made 67 CWS appearances and won it 8 times. Texas by itself has made it 33 and won 6, half of the SEC’s 12 team total. The Big 12 South has appeared 69 times and won 9, more than the SEC as a whole.

    More B12 numbers, the 10 loyal schools have appeared 78 times and won 10. Add NE and CO and that goes to 81 and 10. B12 CWS nat’l champs are TX 6 of 33, OU 2 of 10, OK St 1 of 19, and MO 1 of 6. SEC nat’l champs are LSU 6 of 16, GA 1 of 6, and now S.Car 1 of 9 (until last night only 3 other teams had appeared more in the CWS without winning it, FSU at 20, Clem at 12, and N. Colo. at 10.)

    CWS titles by conference:

    P12 – 26
    B12-2 – 10
    SEC – 8
    B10+2 – 6
    ACC – 5
    Big West – 4

    CWS appearances by conference:

    P12 – 91
    ACC – 87
    B12-2 – 78
    SEC – 67
    B10+2 – 26

    So good for S.Car, nice to see them finally win after falling short so many times. But for the rest of the SEC, might want to keep your mouths shut about conference baseball. You’re average, not close to the best.

    LikeLike

    June 30, 2010 at 12:36 pm Reply

    1. “The ten loyal schools”? That’s priceless.

       Hostage to the situation doesn’t equate to “loyal”.

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 12:48 pm Reply

       1. Any votes for loyalist and insurgents? ;- ).

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 1:14 pm Reply

    2. Playoffs now – you may want to consider recent history before making those kind of statements.

       Until the mid-80s, baseball in the SEC was just something Mississippi State did. Then Skip Bertman showed the rest of the conference that money could be made in baseball. Georgia won the SEC’s first CWS title in 1990. Over the last 21 years, the SEC has 8 CWS titles (of which 6 belong to my LSU Tigers) and 4 national runners-up.

       Let’s compare that to the other BCS conferences:

       ACC: zero CWS titles and 4 runners-up;
       Big Ten: zero CWS titles and zero runners-up;
       Big 8/SWC/Big XII: 3 CWS titles and 3 runners-up;
       Pac 10: 3 CWS titles and 6 runners-up
       Miami was an independent in baseball and not part of the Big East or ACC when it won 2 CWS titles and was runner-up once during this time span. Since joining the ACC, Miami is 0-fer.

       During this time span, 3 SEC teams have won CWS titles and 5 SEC teams have appeared in the finals (LSU 6-0; USCe 1-1; UGA 1-1; UF 0-1; and Bama 0-1 losing to LSU in an all-SEC final in 97).

       By contrast, the ACC, Big 8/Big XII/SWC, Big Ten, Pac 10, Big East & Miami has a combined 8 CWS titles, the same as the SEC all by itself (Okla 94; UCSw 98; Miami 99 & 01; UTx 02 & 05; and Oregon St. 06 & 07).

       So, Playoffs now, if you look at the period of time when the SEC took baseball seriously, the SEC dominates college baseball almost as much as it does football during the BCS era.

       LikeLike

       July 1, 2010 at 1:23 pm Reply

77. It does have podlike qualities to it. Depending on an eight or nine-game set up, the divisions would essentially have two or three pods apiece and the schdules would rotate through those pods.

    Using the simple east-west division split, the four pods in an eight game schedule would be:

    West 1 – Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska
    West 2 – Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin
    East 1 – Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State
    East 2 – Michigan State, Penn State, Purdue

    If your team is in the Eastern Division, you play round robin in your division then West 1 in Years 1 & 2 and West 2 in Years 3 & 4. Vice versa for the Western Division teams.

    Using the same division split,the six pods in a nine-game schedule would be:

    West 1 – Iowa, Illinois
    West 2 – Nebraska, Northwestern
    West 3 – Minnesota, Wisconsin
    East 1 – Michigan, Purdue
    East 2 – Indiana, Ohio State
    East 3 – Michigan State, Penn State

    In this case, the Eastern Division team would play all the others in its division plus two of the three western pods for two years. One western pod replaces one of the two in years three and four and then the final combination of the three pods takes place in years five and six.

    Obviously, the pods would be different if the divisions were other than the east-west split, but the setup is pretty much the same.

    LikeLike

    June 30, 2010 at 12:50 pm Reply

78. If you liked my link to comparing women to Big 12 teams

    http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=1651036&forum_id=5

    you might like this

    LikeLike

    June 30, 2010 at 1:14 pm Reply

    1. Well that was a lot of fun. But mostly for Texas and A&M. Most of the conference will be wishing they took geography as an elective when they had the chance.

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 1:25 pm Reply

79. Haven’t seen this already discussed, but has anyone else noticed the series PSU and Syracuse just agreed to beginning in the 2013 season?

    With Syracuse being thrown out as an expansion candidate, do we think there’s any chance this is, in some way, the Big Ten taking advantage of an open spot in PSU’s scheduling in order to see how strong a presence the Big Ten can generate in the New York market?

    If the Syracuse-PSU numbers are very good in 2013, then that might signal a move to adding more east coast partners in Syracuse/Rutgers just before the contracts renegotiate in 2016.

    LikeLike

    June 30, 2010 at 1:29 pm Reply

    1. I would not read much into the scheduling. Here is a note on the rivalry from a wiki site. The early part of the schedule has to be filled out one way or another.
       “With the exception of 1943, Penn State and Syracuse played every year from 1922 through 1990. However, the rivalry became dormant when Syracuse joined the Big East Conference and Penn State joined the Big Ten.
       The rivalry was briefly renewed when the teams agreed to a two-game home-and-home series for 2008 and 2009. Penn State holds a 42-23-5 record in this series, after defeating Syracuse 28-7 at Beaver Stadium in 2009”
       Instead of doing a series with someone from the central time zone, why not a team in which you have some familiarity and some history with. Filling up the meadowlands for a neutral site game would also be easier with this pick opposed to Central Michigan. This is a big payday at the gates for PSU.

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 1:58 pm Reply

    2. PSU and ‘Cuse played in 2008/09 and have had a fairly long, though admittedly lop-sided, rivalry going back to 1922 (they stopped playing when Syracuse joined the BigEast and PSU joined the BigTen).

       Also, PSU has been starting to return to its “east coast roots” (starting ~2005-2010) by scheduling Temple, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia, ND, etc as some of their OoC schedule (not just the typical mid-western “beat up” schools).

       IMO, the BigTen doesn’t need a couple more games in 2013 to know what kind of draw those games will be…they have the numbers already.

       Though its interesting that most of those schools have been mentioned as expansion material for the BigTen moving to 16. If they were added, there’d be a “built in” transition schedule for those teams.

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 2:06 pm Reply

    3. To me, that would be like the decision to move the Penn State-Indiana game to FedEx Field (rather than Lucas Oil Stadium) was the Big Ten trying to boost interest in having Maryland join. And while there are plenty of Big Ten folk who see Maryland’s potential value to the conference (and vice versa), that’s taking things to an extreme.

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 7:11 pm Reply

       1. Yeah, I don’t really read into these decisions by the schools themselves.

          I mean, we all know that the New York and D.C. markets are the two most valuable in the country other than Chicago and L.A. It’s only natural to want to play on the biggest stages in football, which is largely dependent on location.

          LikeLike

          June 30, 2010 at 8:29 pm Reply

80. The players in the Pac 10’s new media deal:

    http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/66155

    A good read. It will be interesting to see what Scott has up his sleeve.

    LikeLike

    June 30, 2010 at 2:41 pm Reply

81. The headline of this post is “After the Conference Realignment Maelstrom.” Just curious; what do LeBron James and the Chicago Bulls have to do with BT realignment?

    LikeLike

    June 30, 2010 at 3:37 pm Reply

    1. Jim we have been talking hot and heavy conference realignment for a few weeks now. After the changes there has been some more speculation and a lot of general College football discussion. These guys (and myself) can’t leave it alone.

       Sorry if you’re not geting the latest on LeBron. I think frank open this post to talk about it but the conversation from the last realignment tread has just matriculated here as that was where the interest was.

       I have my money on lebron coming to Chicago. It just makes the most sense. The money will be there, so will D. Rose and Noah. Along with LeBron the bulls also have cap room to pick up Chris Bosh. Chicago was a big enough kingdom for one Michael Jordan and they treat their champion stars very well. All this adds up to LeBron in a Chicago Bulls jersey pretty soon.

       LikeLike

       July 1, 2010 at 7:26 am Reply

       1. Saw an article in the Houston paper about Rockets trying to get Bosh. Article said a lot of people thought Bosh and LeBron to Bulls was a done deal.

          LikeLike

          July 1, 2010 at 8:39 am Reply

       2. @StvInILL – It will be interesting to see where Bosh ends up. I think any team that wants him will have to do a sign-and-trade because he wants a max deal with max years, which means that cap space is more about having the leverage to not give up too much in return to the Raptors as opposed to being able to sign him outright. Thus, as Bullet pointed out, there are teams like Houston that don’t have cap space that could be in line to get Bosh if they’re willing to give up a lot to the Raptors.

          LeBron probably wouldn’t be looking to sign a deal for the max number of years anyway, so that mitigates the Cavs’ advantage in terms of being to offer him the most money. Plus, LeBron is the one guy in the NBA whose outside income will skyrocket by winning championships (as that what international markets like China care about more than image), so getting into the best pure basketball situation to get multiple rings is paramount to him both on the court and in terms of long-term finances.

          As a side note, Henry Thomas, who represents Dywane Wade and Chris Bosh, was my sports law professor. He’s in line to have the greatest summer haul of any agent in history over the next few days. Henry built up an agency from scratch based on local Chicago guys like Michael Finley up to the point where CAA signed him on last year. He’s is a classy guy that’s nothing like the Jerry Maguire sterotypes of sports agents, so I’m happy for him. (I’d definitely love a piece of his 4% commission.)

          LikeLike

          July 1, 2010 at 9:24 am Reply

          1. I think if Bosh is looking up at the stars and watching them align, he can see where a LeBron, Bosh, Rose and Noah constellation may take him. This is a big media town with plenty of attractions for anyone with a big ego or appetite or a need to be close to a cosmopolitan environment. They will be treated like kings here. They must know that.
             I hear late talk that he is strongly reconsidering Cleveland. What are the realistic odds of that?
             Now we know if Bosh comes its bye, bye Luol Deng. I will miss you luol but no regrets. Frank its cool that you and Henry Thomas have some history. So it’s only 4% these days??? Well I would take 4% of 4%.

             LikeLike

             July 1, 2010 at 10:18 am Reply

       3. You missed my point. The question was facetious. I couldn’t care less about the NBA or Lebron James. And I’m still wondering how Lebron James made it into a post on BT expansion.

          LikeLike

          July 2, 2010 at 5:22 pm Reply

          1. Jim, I’d say Frank addressed your concern when he led that section off with “OK, this doesn’t have to do with conference realignment, but please note that I’ve written more about Bulls trade and free agent rumors than any other topic over the years.”

             LikeLike

             July 2, 2010 at 6:35 pm Reply

82. An SEC article with balance-surprise! Talks about their recent dominance and lack thereof in the 1st part of the decade. Goes along with our discussion of the ups and downs of teams, divisions and conferences.

    http://blog.al.com/solomon/sec_dominates_major_national_c.html

    LikeLike

    June 30, 2010 at 3:57 pm Reply

    1. bullet,

       your link does not work

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 5:53 pm Reply

    2. d: lets try this one:
       http://blog.al.com/solomon/2010/06/sec_dominates_major_national_c.html

       LikeLike

       June 30, 2010 at 6:21 pm Reply

83. Interesting Reads here about football revenue and expenditures from 2008-09 school year.

    http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/29/big-spending-ohio-state-could-change-nickname-to-bucks-eyes/

    http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/30/for-longhorns-money-grows-on-football-program-instead-of-trees/

    LikeLike

    June 30, 2010 at 4:57 pm Reply

    1. Good job boys. I bet they lead all leagues in Academic all Americans too. At this point I would be really impressed.

       LikeLike

       July 1, 2010 at 7:46 pm Reply

84. So, as the outlier mid-major fan on here, I’d like to survey your opinions on the relative strength of the lower level conferences. I hadn’t thought much about it before this year’s realignment discussions. But the realization that some schools would actually aspire to move up to CUSA made me pause. Where do you stack-rank the lower conferences?

    For me it would go:

    Big East
    Mountain West

    CUSA
    WAC/MAC

    SunBelt

    LikeLike

    July 1, 2010 at 8:34 am Reply

    1. The same except I would have the MAC just above Sun Belt. In football with Boise, I believe the WAC has been stronger than CUSA the last few years, but CUSA has historically been better and is better at just about everything else.

       LikeLike

       July 1, 2010 at 8:42 am Reply

    2. Uh, Loki….Last I checked, the BEast was a BCS conference…Not a “lower” conference…

       But, if you held a gun to my head and we are ranking only Football, not academics, etc….Mine would look like this:

       MAC
       WAC
       CUSA
       Mount West
       Sun Belt

       The MAC and WAC are, in my opinion, the closest to BCS caliber play and they each have had their share of upsets over BCS teams.

       LikeLike

       July 1, 2010 at 8:48 am Reply

       1. Well, it my be just me, but the Big East has never seemed like anything but a basketball conference. They don’t ‘feel’ like a major conference to me.

          Interesting that you would put the WAC so high. Outside of Boise, I don’t see much. They’re the teams the MWC didn’t want when they broke away.

          LikeLike

          July 1, 2010 at 9:02 am Reply

       2. HUH?

          You do realize that TCU and Utah, have played in BCS games and are both in the Mtn West. And if you want to pull the Utah is leaving…fine, Boise St is joining.

          LikeLike

          July 1, 2010 at 4:11 pm Reply

    3. FOOTBALL pre realignment
       SEC )They have the NCs)
       PAC TEN (Why USC) and BIG XII
       BIG TEN ( lagged in bowls)
       BIG EAST (Why? The BE has less teams but have played bigger).
       ACC (does less with more)
       ————————————-
       MWC
       CUSA and MAC
       WAC
       Sun Belt
       I may be wrong. I have not looked at any numbers since you want a perception. I am thinking back the last 10 years on this off the top of my head.

       LikeLike

       July 1, 2010 at 10:40 am Reply

    4. loki,

       since the BE is a BCS conference I will leave them out

       That said I think the 5 non AQ’s are more TV dependent than the Big 6. I am not picking on the MAC, but they illustrate my point. The MAC footprints inside the Big 10. They fit (with the exception of buffalo) in the eastern part of the Big 10. If I live in California or Texas I will almost never see them (which is a point I have made with you on several occasions about not seeing Rice in BTN footprint TV markets). Now move into CUSA and you can get secondary coverage in both Big 12 & SEC footprints. In addition most folks know Marshall because of the plane tragedy, and every time ECU plays Skip’s dad gives him some airtime on ESPN. The Sun Belt footprints in the same geography so they get the third coverage in their markets.

       I have said all along that I am a basketball guy so I will zero in on WKU in the Sun Belt. WKU has always had a good men’s and women’s team in basketball but get little coverage as they are overshadowed in their primary market by Vandy & UK in the SEC, and UL & UC in the BE. Fans of WKU know how good their teams are, but most of the country does not. WKU has moved football to D 1 and they have gotten clobbered so it is overshadowing their basketball programs as well. If you go to “basketball” only good schools like Xavier and Butler get overlooked and become the “cinderella” at the Big Dance. Again, if you are a fan of Butler you know they are good long before the “general public” does.

       I know this is rambling a bit, but I guess loki it matters who you dad is (Lou is Skip’s dad) and where you are located in relation to the “hot” teams in the 6 power conferences than anything else. Had you not been the mid major outlier out there Rice and many other mid majors may have never been part of this discussion. I also thank Frank for allowing open and intelligent debate. Loki, if you had posted on some ESPN ‘general public’ blog you would have been shouted down by Wal Mart Wolverine’s and Crimson Tide Crazies (bama, not directed at you, but at the bottom end of the BAMA faithful who would make muslim extremist look tame).

       I guess for the mid majors public opinion will have less information to provide more accurate analysis. Sorta like if I am a stockbroker selling Microsoft is much easier than Juniper stock.

       LikeLike

       July 1, 2010 at 1:20 pm Reply

       1. Wordy, yes. But you never got around to answering the question. ;

          LikeLike

          July 1, 2010 at 2:39 pm Reply

          1. loki,

             I am nearest to the MAC so I will be biased, same with Sun Belt because of WKU basketball. I am sorta embarrassed that I do not have a better feel for the WAC or MWC. My youth is filled with Graeter’s and Skyline so Xavier and Miami (OH) are schools I have been to to watch games. If Rice had been in the old Metro conference I would have a better feel.

             To answer your question I would rank them about equal as I would overweight the MAC and underweight the WAC or MWC.

             LikeLike

             July 1, 2010 at 3:10 pm Reply

          2. loki,

             If it helps it is easier for me to do the 6

             Top Tier: Big 10 and SEC

             Middle Tier: Pac 10 and Big 12

             Bottom Tier: ACC and BE

             (for CFB)

             LikeLike

             July 1, 2010 at 3:17 pm Reply

    5. Big East with Conference USA being right behind it. Mountain West next. Mountain West and Conference USA are an in between step between the bottom tier leagues and the automatic qualifiers.

       MAC has better sports than the WAC but both have schools struggling to stay above the attendance level for Division 1. The MAC has gained a reputation as a league that can grow future pro quarterbacks (Pennington, Leftwich, Rothlisberger.

       Sunbelt last.

       LikeLike

       July 1, 2010 at 3:26 pm Reply

    6. My Ranking:
       Mountain West
       Utah, and TCU have both been to BCS Bowls. BYU is a BCS level school. Col. St, regularly beats CU. In fact the Mountain West has a winning record over BCS conferences.

       Conference USA
       WAC (until they lose Boise St)
       MAC (under-rated solid teams)

       SunBelt Most of these schools should be D-1A again.

       LikeLike

       July 1, 2010 at 4:18 pm Reply

85. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13584666/expansion-lessons-part-ii-dividing-the-big-ten-notre-dames-break

    Expansion lessons Part II: Dividing the Big Ten, Notre Dame’s break

    June 30, 2010
    By Dennis Dodd

    The second installment of the 10 things we learned from conference realignment:

    (Just to refresh, here are the first five.)

    6. My Big Ten divisions: Everybody’s doing it, so let me weigh in on how the new 12-team Big Ten should be split up …

    Realigned 12-team Big Ten
    West Division East Division
    Iowa Illinois
    Michigan Indiana
    Michigan State Northwestern
    Minnesota Ohio State
    Nebraska Penn State
    Wisconsin Purdue

    Jim Delany rates the division factors in this order — competitive balance, the preservation of rivalries and (way down the list) geography. At first glance, the East looks like the weaker of the two divisions but most of the major rivalries are preserved.

    The key to any lineup, though, is that Ohio State and Michigan play in different divisions. That allows for the possibility of two Buckeyes-Wolverines games in any given season.

    Repeat, it’s a good thing that the teams could play twice in a season. That game — The Game — remains the Big Ten’s most important television property. The image came to me during this year’s Final Four: An Ohio State-Michigan rematch from the regular season in the Big Ten title game at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis with the winner going to the Rose Bowl.

    Think that might generate some interest?

    Forget the claustrophobia of playing two such games two weeks apart. That’s a detail that can be worked around by moving the regular-season battle to earlier in the season. Heresy, I know, but we’ll get used to it.

    The Big Ten’s two signature programs don’t have to play in the same division. In fact, keeping them apart achieves part of that competitive balance. Simply make Michigan and Ohio State designated out-of-division rivals. The SEC has a similar scheduling format to preserve longstanding rivalries.

    That’s the easy part. The hard part is figuring out when Michigan is going to make it a rivalry again.

    7. Notre Dame is staying put — for now: When the Pac-10 and Big Ten stopped at 12, that stopped ND short of having to make the toughest decision in its athletic history.

    There is no reason, through this round of realignment, for the Irish to join a conference. The Big East has remained intact. There is excitement that Brian Kelly can get the program back to competing for championships. Best of all for Notre Dame, it doesn’t have to share with anyone.

    8. Thank you, Urban Meyer: When Utah hired Bowling Green’s driven, ambitious, little-known head coach in 2003, who knew it would lead to this?

    Seven years later, Utah is in the Pac-10, the BCS and looking forward to competing for Rose Bowls. Almost all of it thanks to Meyer. In his second season, he got the Utes to a Fiesta Bowl as Utah became the first non-BCS program to get to a BCS bowl. Now the school loves that it is part of the system it hated so much.

    Utah will suddenly have access to better recruits (California, here it comes). The Utes will be playing schools in conference games (Southern California, UCLA, etc.) that otherwise would never schedule them.

    Athletic director Chris Hill was wise enough to hire Meyer’s defensive coordinator when the coach split for Florida. Kyle Whittingham took what Meyer left behind and went one better. The victory over Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl was arguably the biggest in school history.

    The Pac-10 move means Whittingham won’t be leaving for a bigger, better program because Utah suddenly just became a bigger, better program.

    It’s not too much to suggest that a new national power is blooming at the foot of the Wasatch.

    All because of Urban’s renewal.

    9. Networks are all the rage: Texas is starting one. Oklahoma is thinking about it. So is Missouri.

    The Big Ten’s success with its network spurred the league to explore expansion. The Big Ten Network turned a profit shortly after going on the air. Suddenly, everyone with a pair of tomato cans, some string and venture capital is trying to become the next BTN.

    Warning! Warning! The Big Ten Network is an anomaly. In fact, it might be the only one of its kind to work. Jim Delany was able to tap into a massive Big Ten fan base and get a deep-pocket partner (News Corp, parent of Fox). It is a regional network that is going national. Few remember there were tremendous problems in clearing enough cable systems to show the BTN.

    Does the Pac-10 have the stomach, money and viewers to be able to go through that kind of slog? The Mountain West has its own network but has yet to make a dime. The Big 12 isn’t about to start a network after losing two members. Texas could profit from its personal Bevo Channel (or whatever it is going to be called), but that’s a network for the largest, richest athletic department in the country. It makes sense.

    Everyone else? No. There are key questions to be asked of any fledgling startup.

    A.) Is it 24 hours a day, seven days a week? If not, the perception is that the network isn’t big time. Heck, it’s not even a network. With 168 hours of air time floating out there each week, that’s a lot of programming and a lot of advertising needed to fill it.

    B.) How many football games and how many men’s basketball games can it show? That’s basically all advertisers and investors want to know. If the answer is not many, then a network is not viable.

    I suspect when all this fever dies down, the term “network” will be redefined at a lot of schools. Streaming a few volleyball games and showing coaches shows does qualify as the next BTN.

    10. It’s possible to break up a conference by press release: A compelling case can be made for Missouri nearly becoming the assassin that killed the Big 12.

    Remember Dec. 15, when Missouri chancellor Brady Deaton put out this press release declaring his school’s interest in joining the Big Ten. Those words came on the same day the Big Ten said it would explore expansion.

    A few days later Missouri Gov. (and Mizzou alum) Jay Nixon dropped another bomb:

    “I’m not going to say anything bad about the Big 12, but when you compare Oklahoma State to Northwestern, when you compare Texas Tech to Wisconsin, I mean, you begin looking at educational possibilities that are worth looking at.”

    It’s one thing to think those things, it’s another for two powerful state officials to talk about them — boldly and arrogantly — in public. Deaton and Nixon couldn’t have stated more clearly how dissatisfied Missouri was with the Big 12. From there all the rancor and bitterness grew, leading the league to the brink of dissolution. Big 12 presidents and ADs started looking seriously at safe havens and started reacting angrily to Missouri.

    The final disgrace for Mizzou was that it was wrong about the Big Ten. Nebraska’s name brand trumped Missouri’s markets (Kansas City and St. Louis).

    Texas Tech coach Tommy Tuberville was right in stating publicly Tuesday what a lot of us are thinking.

    “I just don’t think this conference will last long because there’s just too much disparity between all the teams here,” he said.

    LikeLike

    July 1, 2010 at 10:29 am Reply

    1. I think in ten years, the Pac12 will look at Utah as the B12-2 looks at Iowa State. “Why did we let them in again?”

       LikeLike

       July 1, 2010 at 11:13 am Reply

    2. Again, another person that worships the OUS UM rivalry way too much. Why would we want to see two of these games a year? My thoughts are that it would diminish the series. The biggest reason to watch a OSU UM game back in the Big 10 and little 2 days was because this game would produce a big ten champion for sure. And it previewed our Rose Bowl team if you had not been paying attention. Once IS enough.
       I and the rest of the country (not OSU and UM fans) will be watching whoever will be deciding the BT championship. Even If I am an Indiana, Kentucky or an Iowa State fan I will be watching those teams early in the season over OSU UM. Why? Because they will still matter then and there is still hope for a successful season.
       7. The Irish are the Texas of the Big East. The only thing they really contribute is their gravitas. And even that is tentative depending on the stability of the BE.
       9. Individual Networks. The last grab at independent cash that the schools can grab at. There are probably not 6 schools in the country that may successfully pull this off to any real satisfaction. They will all have problems filling content.

       LikeLike

       July 1, 2010 at 11:40 am Reply

       1. If once is enough for tOSU – UM, then once is enough for all of the other possible championships. Which is a good reason for the Big Ten to avoid protected cross division rivalries between the top tier teams.

          LikeLike

          July 1, 2010 at 12:22 pm Reply

          1. I think there’s a place for protected cross-division games. It’s my feeling that the divisions should be drawn up to emphasize the primary rivalries (OSU/UM/PSU/MSU, IA/WIS/MIN, IND/PUR, ILL/NW), but your protected cross-division game is to make sure secondary rivalries (e.g., UM/MIN, OSU/ILL) get played annually. Of course, some of those aren’t being played annually now, but why not use the divisional opportunity to make things better?

             LikeLike

             July 1, 2010 at 12:36 pm Reply

86. Looks like NU is sticking to their guns on the B12-2 exit fee.

    http://www.huskerextra.com/articles/2010/06/30/football/doc4c2bffd7ce421853496855.txt?orss=1

    If, and this is a big “if,” this went to court, this will be fun to watch, as all the behind-the-scenes action will be public record.

    LikeLike

    July 1, 2010 at 11:26 am Reply

    1. GOP,

       I think it is a great strategy by UNL, they know probably know no conference AD or college president ever wants this thing to see public scrutiny. It is the best strategy in the long run, and it could make UT look like a bully on the public record. If UT really does control the Big 12 I think a congressional hearing will not be far behind. Texas may be big, but each of the ‘battered wives’ have senators and congressmen who can stand strong when their football ‘brand’ can not.

       LikeLike

       July 1, 2010 at 11:49 am Reply

       1. Yes Duffman, it promises to be some interesting drama. Everybody loves a pretty woman but nobody likes to air dirty laundry.

          LikeLike

          July 1, 2010 at 1:42 pm Reply

       2. Agreed. I put the over/under at 3 million to walk away.

          Though, I think Colorado has far less leverage than NU due to the lack of true legal defense (anticipatory breach). My bet is CU pays more than NU if they both leave in ’11.

          LikeLike

          July 1, 2010 at 2:13 pm Reply

          1. Why wouldn’t CU be able to make the same legal argument. They left only one day earlier.

             LikeLike

             July 1, 2010 at 3:05 pm Reply

             1. Paul,

                If CU was smart they would work with UNL on their “exit” strategy. Two heads are better than one, and the legal fees could be shared to reduce costs.

                LikeLike

                July 1, 2010 at 3:12 pm

             2. As far as what was public knowledge, only NU asked for reassurances about the future of the then-Big12 and didn’t get them. It appears from what is public that CU was leaving one way or another.

                Someone from CU may very well have sought information about the future of the then Big12, but I haven’t seen it reported.

                Here’s a fairly recent run-down. Of course, the current members of the Big12-2 would bring up material defenses.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticipatory_breach

                LikeLike

                July 1, 2010 at 3:50 pm

             3. @GOPWolv – Thanks.

                LikeLike

                July 1, 2010 at 5:13 pm

          2. @GOPWolv,

             Re: Leverage.

             It depends how you want to look at the situation. Does Nebraska have a better anticipatory breach argument, of course.

             But if both schools are simply trying to negotiate a buyout, at this point I’d contend Colorado is in a stronger position. The Big 12 does not want Colorado around for the 2011 season. That gives Colorado quite a bit of leverage in negotiating a reduced buyout for an early exit.

             LikeLike

             July 1, 2010 at 7:00 pm Reply

             1. That’s true. It is also true that NU has the money to walk right now at even the highest price. Ergo, NU has no downside in playing tough and fighting it out The Big12 has no leverage over NU. Whereas CU (1) doesn’t have any money, and (2) could be stuck in the B12-2 for a whole year longer than they’d prefer.

                I think any modeling of these settlements would produce NU as the party paying the least.

                LikeLike

                July 1, 2010 at 7:08 pm

             2. WRT to CU, I guess it really comes down to who doesn’t want CU in the Big12-2 the most (or the least). I’d wager its a bigger deal to CU, than the Big12-2.

                If it gets really nasty, the Big12-2 can enjoy some really high ratings as everyone watches their teams take on the (as of late) weak Buffs.

                LikeLike

                July 1, 2010 at 7:12 pm

       3. Would this be Nebraska’s likely argument not to pay the fees:

          In light of what was going on at the time with six schools having offers from the Pac-10, Nebraska thought the Big 12 was no longer going to exist and had an obligation to protect its interests by accepting the Big Ten’s offer. In light of these extraordinary circumstances, the normal procedures for schools leaving the conference should not apply.

          Does that sound like the case they’d try to make?

          LikeLike

          July 1, 2010 at 3:19 pm Reply

          1. kmp,

             brings out an interesting point, as the negotiations had been going on for months. I NEVER once saw or heard that UNL had a Pac 16 invite. If they have to do due dilligence, they have to mitigate damages by going to the Big 10 if there was a liability issue of damages for UNL not being in the Pac 16 conversation from the start?

             LikeLike

             July 1, 2010 at 3:59 pm Reply

          2. KMP:

             That’s pretty close.

             NU did have to protect its interests – no question.

             The key to this legal defense, however, is that the Big12 South members were making clear their intent to breach the conference agreement (allegedly). When the other side of a contract makes it clear that they are going to breach, you have every right to say “Wtf?! Really?” And then one of two things can happen:

             (1) They say, “no, not really – just screwing w/ ya.” At which point you say, well put some money on the table or do something that proves to me your telling the truth about not breaching. If the Big12 South did that, Nebraska is screwed and likely has to pay for leaving.

             (2) They say, “yeah, screw you.” or “yeah, but I wont do anything to show my good faith intent not to breach.” If the Big 12 South had said that, then Nebraska follows that with a quick “screw you, Nebraska out.” and, the Huskers don’t have to pay.

             By all accounts, NU asked Dodds straight up about the Pac10 offer and Texas’ intent to leave. And, we all know what Nebraska decided.

             The truth here is probably somewhere in the middle (ie, the Big 12 South gave a good indication of their intent to leave and Nebraska did the same prior to the Pac10 offer).

             Cases like this, with lots of actors and lots of opaque statements and posturing made by elected officials and government appointees don’t usually go to trial. I’d expect a settlement unless Nebraska or the Big12-2 has some really good evidence (in writing or video).

             LikeLike

             July 1, 2010 at 4:01 pm Reply

             1. I imagine everyone, including the Big Ten and Pac-10, would prefer a nice, quiet settlement over an airing of some of the things that went on.

                I don’t think Delany would want a light shining on his dealings with Nebraska (it could hurt Nebraska’s case if it was shown that they were assured of a Big Ten invite before the Pac-10 offers became public) or possibly even Texas and/or Missouri.

                LikeLike

                July 1, 2010 at 6:04 pm

87. Dont know how that search the web got in there.

    Yes Duffman, it promises to be some interesting drama. Everybody loves a pretty woman but nobody likes to air dirty laundry.

    LikeLike

    July 1, 2010 at 1:44 pm Reply

88. Anybody hear the comments of Barry Alvarez and PSU AD Curley? (I think both today, but not sure on that).

    Seems clear to me that PSU favors further expansion, and wants it to be in the East, esp. NY area. (Hope they mean RU, not Syr.)…..talking about keeping the evaluation going….along the previously-discussed timetable.

    Seems to me that Wis., PSU, and OSU are strongly in favor of further expansion within 6m-1 year. Also seems that Ill. and NW are contrary (also Michigan?).

    With repect to divisions, Curley seemed to emphasize competitive balance and geography, but also said rivalries and tv will be considered. Definately did not seem wedded to a staight East-West split.

    LikeLike

    July 1, 2010 at 3:08 pm Reply

89. did anybody post this already?

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-23/university-of-texas-borrows-516-million-as-irs-audits-salaries.html

    UT may be the 800 lb gorilla in the Longhorn Conference, but the IRS is still the biggest gorilla of all.

    🙂

    LikeLike

    July 1, 2010 at 4:57 pm Reply

90. Article out of Fort Wayne

    http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/SE/20100701/SPORTS/7010314

    on Big 10 realignment, and take on tOSU vs UM game

    LikeLike

    July 1, 2010 at 5:02 pm Reply

    1. I like how the guy glibly writes off the problems with rematches, as though nobody in college football cares about rematches. Buddy: people go apeshit when there’s a rematch in a bowl game and it’s impossible to know whether that’ll happen at the time the first game is played. By contrast, if Michigan/OSU play the last weekend of the year, then everybody will know whether a rematch is on the line when they’re playing the game more often than not. Just changes everything.

       Rivalries are formed when only 1 team can have what they both want (this is, after all, what the economic concept of “rival goods” means). They should be in the same division; not only does it guarantee that they play every year, it makes it a lot more likely that their game is important. If they happen to meet in the CCG, it isn’t “The Game” anymore; it’s just a game that they both happened to end up in.

       LikeLike

       July 1, 2010 at 5:15 pm Reply

       1. Moreover, that observation (“it isn’t ‘The Game’ anymore; it’s just a game”) is true for any non-divisional rivalry, which is why you want the interdivisional guaranteed games to be the lowest priority rivalries (e.g., OSU/Illinois).

          LikeLike

          July 1, 2010 at 5:17 pm Reply

          1. Exactly, which is why it’s most sensible to keep PSU in the East, together with Ohio State and Michigan (& Michigan St FWIW).

             Count me solidly in the KISS corner. Just do East/West. It’s logical, it’s sensible, it keeps all the important rivalries intact, it allows for easier away travel for fans. It’s stupid to go with bizarre divisions over competitive balance issues that may not even occur (or might even occur worse with an irregular division).

             LikeLike

             July 1, 2010 at 7:51 pm Reply

             1. The thing for me is that the geographic alignment isn’t even geographic. When people say you need “more than a map,” that assumes you’re using one to begin with. But if you did a rivalry-based alignment, you’d

                1. start with the cores of UM/OSU/PSU/MSU as one group, and WIS/IA/MIN as a 2nd group.
                2. you can’t credibly put NEB with UM/OSU/PSU/MSU, so you’d obviously put them with WIS/IA/MIN
                3. The 4 remaining teams need to be split into 2 groups of 2. Rivalry-based pairings of the 4 remaining teams obviously produce ILL/NW and IND/PUR.
                4. Once you reach this point, there really isn’t a reason not to put IND/PUR with the “east” group of teams, and ILL/NW with the “west” group.
                But you get there without “using a map.” And you preserve something like 13 or 14 out of 16 rivalries.

                LikeLike

                July 1, 2010 at 8:29 pm

             2. Adam — I totally agree. I’ll also add that putting Nebraska with Iowa and Minnesota (specifically) and Wisconsin (by default) makes sense from a rivalry prospective for them. The Huskers have played Minnesota and Iowa 51 and 31 times respectively. That’s a good number of games and certainly the basis for a rivalry especially considering the geographical location as well.

                PS: Interesting factoid, but Minnesota actually has a winning record versus Nebraska 29-20-2.

                LikeLike

                July 1, 2010 at 9:02 pm

             3. Minnesota also has one more mythical National Championship than Nebraska. U of M 6, UNL 5… Ya gotta go ancient history, of course, but it’s there…

                LikeLike

                July 2, 2010 at 8:06 pm

       2. I couldn’t agree with you more. Your earlier post that cross divisional rivalries are just pale imitations was particularly on the mark. I will very disappointed if Delaney fails to make maintaining rivalries the top priority. These fierce regional rivalries define Big Ten.

          LikeLike

          July 1, 2010 at 7:50 pm Reply

       3. I like KISS, but I wouldn’t be concerned about the possibility of a rematch EXCEPT when the rematch is the following week. Being in the same division helps the rivalries but with good ones it doesn’t matter-ND/USC, Alabama/TN, TX/OU when they were in different conferences. Its either changing when the UM/OSU game is played or risking 2 weeks in a row that causes problems. I think both of those are non-starters, meaning they stay together.

          LikeLike

          July 1, 2010 at 8:50 pm Reply

    2. Here is what I say to do with the OSU UM game from here on out. Regardless of which division each team falls into, it will be a protected game. But change the game from the final game of the season to the second to last league game of the season. In this way if only one or neither of these two teams will decide the conference championship it will still be a game worth watching for tradition sake.
       There will still be a final week of Big ten play to give national focus to, say Penn State Nebraska or Wisconsin Ohio State or a Michigan Iowa game. There are a few interesting scenarios that can be setup. That will be beneficial to the conference. Once again the Big 2 and little 8 days are dead like the USA USSR cold war. Some feel like for the sake of tradition the want to live in the past.
       I say for the sake of a bigger and brighter future and conference we should demote OSU vs UM from the final focal point of the Big ten football season. At this point it would only be an artificial construct anyway. Any time anyone other than UM or OSU wins or shares a big ten championship it will be a somewhat irrelevant game. In the case that a CCG is put in place it would only further highlight that.

       LikeLike

       July 1, 2010 at 7:39 pm Reply

       1. StvInIL, you strike me as the kind of guy that likes rubbing a cat’s fur the wrong way. 🙂
          No doubt there will be many interesting scenarios in the Big Ten, but none of them will live up to The Game. The Ohio State – Michigan game is recognized throughout the nation as one of the greatest rivalries in all of sports, not just college football. And it’s a rivalry that usually has implications in determining the Big Ten champion. It would be silly and foolish for the Big Ten to not highlight such a valuable asset.

          LikeLike

          July 1, 2010 at 8:04 pm Reply

          1. GrantlandR,
             Don’t like cats but have no particular dislike of OSU or UM.
             “The game” as you call it has been on my personal schedule for many years. But is takes on more importance to UM and OSU fans than is reasonable I’m sorry to say. In the days of the Big 2 and the little 8 the so called game was appointment TV, I don’t remember when it was moved to the final game of the year but this in itself elevates this game to a higher meaning than it otherwise would have. Today.
             Outside of Ohio and Michigan the biggest significance of this matchup is in determining the champion of the conference. Now realistically examine a few things.
             WHAT IF
             • Only one OSU/UM has enough wins to challenge for the CC?
             • Penn State is in line to win the division?
             • Nebraska is in line to win its division?
             • Wisconsin is in line to win its division?
             • Iowa is in line to win its division?
             • Any of the above teams are undefeated going into the final week?
             • A surprise team from the conference (NW,IL MSU) will win its division?
             • Neither team OSU or UM is in line to win the conference championship?
             • Injuries prevents a crucial OSU?UM player from finishing the season?
             Then to the rest of the world your OSU/UM matchup loses its luster.

             LikeLike

             July 1, 2010 at 10:08 pm Reply

             1. It “takes on more importance to UM and OSU fans than is reasonable”? Of course! That’s what makes it a rivalry!
                Scenarios like what you described aren’t at all unlikely, and have happened many times before (in the last 50 years, 28 teams other teams have won or claimed a share of the Big Ten championship), but that hasn’t diminished the intensity or value of this rivalry.
                And are you telling me that our other great conference rivalries are irrelevant because those teams weren’t involved in the Big Ten championship? The Big Ten has many great rivalries, that aren’t in the least diminished by the recognition the Ohio State-Michigan is certainly among the greatest rivalries in all of sports. I can’t see how reducing the focus of the rivalry would help the Big Ten in any way.

                LikeLike

                July 2, 2010 at 4:32 am

             2. This is a ridiculous post on too many levels.

                LikeLike

                July 2, 2010 at 10:12 am

             3. Again you misunderstand. I am not knocking the revelry itself or any other for that matter. I do dislike the artificial placement of this game as the final conference games for both teams. It makes it seems like if they both are not in line to win the conference then the whole Big ten season was some kind of horrific failure.
                I only suggest, rather correctly, that if Penn State and Nebraska were to play their final league game together and it will decide the conference champion or the new division champion. This then is legitimately “the game” to watch and not what’s going on in Ann Arbor or Columbus. Even though they may both be the last games of the season for all four teams, Its ridiculous to try to force people to like OSU Mich when a more meaningful game will be played that week. I guarantee that OSU MIC will not be the prime time game in any case and that would be for a good reason.
                I maintain that it would be better to have OSU Mich on the week before the final game so that it does not steel any thunder from a more meaningful games should the old big 2 not be in line for a championship. With Penn state in the same division this is not thinking that is out of line.
                I will agree to disagree as you fail to see past your scarlet and grey colored glasses.

                LikeLike

                July 2, 2010 at 10:34 am

       2. OK, let’s remove scarlet and gray colored glasses you seem to think keeps me from seeing clearly.
          First of all, what’s artificial about playing the last conference game against a rival. Purdue plays Indiana, Minnesota plays Iowa, and Northwestern plays Illinois in the last game of the year. USC plays UCLA, Alabama plays Auburn, Georgia plays Georgia Tech, and Army plays Navy. There are many, many more such examples. Ohio State – Michigan has been the last conference game for both schools since the mid-1930s (probably why you don’t remember it). Doesn’t seem terribly unnatural. Saving the best for last heightens the excitement of a rivalry.
          Next, what’s best for the Big Ten? What conference wouldn’t want the conference championship decided by a rivalry game? How can that possibly be bad? Sure, if you schedule Penn State and Nebraska (who aren’t even rivals) for the last game of the year, one or the other, or both, might be in position to win the Big Ten. Maybe it will be another game. Who really knows? But are you really going to screw around with the conference’s most successful rivalry (I’m not saying the best – I expect each school finds their rivalry to be the best) for the possibility that another game MIGHT decide the conference championship. If that’s really your concern, you should note that since 1968, the Ohio State – Michigan game has decided the champion (or co-champion) of the Big Ten 34 times. Odds seem pretty good this will be an important game for the Big Ten for some time to come.
          I think I understand you point fairly clearly. You feel that games of equal or greater significance don’t get the attention they deserve when Ohio State – Michigan get the focus at the end of the year. By all means, the Big Ten should do their best to emphasize these games. However, it makes no sense to cripple a rivalry to accomplish this. In the end, you probably won’t shift the attention in a significant and lasting manner, and you’ll only hurt the rivalry.
          Which brings me to my point, which has nothing to do with the color of my glasses. It is not the “big games” that define college football, it’s the rivalries. No sport celebrates rivalries like college football. Now the Big Ten has many great rivalries, and it is a great conference because of these rivalries and the traditions involved. Maintaining and developing rivalries should be the priority of the Big Ten, while letting the other “big games” fall where they will. Otherwise, I fear the Big Ten will become a pale imitation of the great conference it has historically been.

          LikeLike

          July 3, 2010 at 2:45 pm Reply

          1. And this is why I feel a rivalry-based alignment should be the approach. As it happens, a rivalry-based approach ends up being geographic. There’s no reason to monkey with the league’s classic rivalries for the sake of “balance,” when that is an ephemeral thing to chase and even assuming that historical trends stand up, the league is not as imbalanced as detractors of the geographic/rivalry alignment seem to think.

             LikeLike

             July 3, 2010 at 3:31 pm Reply

91. I heard a good set of divsion names for a pure E/W split.

    e = Great Lakes Division
    w = Great Plains Division

    not entirely accurate on the westside, but not bad. better that “east” or “west”.

    LikeLike

    July 2, 2010 at 6:43 am Reply

    1. Perhaps it also helps overcome this notion that you “need more than a map” to do the divisions. Maybe people are somehow made to think the reasoning is simplistic because of the simple names that are being used.

       LikeLike

       July 2, 2010 at 7:55 am Reply

92. The Sporting News chimes in with some Minnesota and Northwestern opinion:

    http://www.sportingnews.com/college-football/article/2010-07-01/what-matters-most-dividing-big-ten

    “Martin foresees a “Rivalry Saturday” to finish the regular season, headlined by a Michigan-Ohio State clash. All games would be divisional, preventing a rematch a week or two later in a conference title game.”

    I don’t know that one can assume anything is true at this point, but just for the sake of argument, this could be the rub for Penn State. To boil down the case for wanting to stay in an eastern division to its most basic truth, a significant percentage of Lion fans don’t believe Michigan, as currently constituted, provides a sufficient challenge to an extended run of Ohio State to the CCG, so for true competitive balance Penn State needs to stay east.

    What that gives up, though is roughly equal billing for a Penn State/Nebraska game to the Michigan/Ohio State game, to the same thing for Iowa/Nebraska or Wisconsin/Nebraska, with Penn State getting, to my eyes, a much less attractive rivalry matchup. An afterthought game.

    LikeLike

    July 2, 2010 at 11:22 am Reply

    1. This whole Penn State-Nebraska thing needs to go by the wayside… WHAT history is there between these schools? Minnesota and Iowa have far more history with UNL, and geographic ties.

       This makes as much sense as saying Minnesota and Rutgers will play the last weekend as a rivalry… or Wisconsin/Maryland… or Illinois/Ga Tech… this list could continue if Big Ten keeps getting bigger and we keep throwing out silly rivalry matchups…

       LikeLike

       July 2, 2010 at 8:18 pm Reply

       1. Sorry, I don’t see Penn State/Nebraska as a silly, thrown together rivalry. We have history. Maybe you had to be around in 1982. 😉

          LikeLike

          July 2, 2010 at 9:07 pm Reply

          1. I suppose then had Pac-10 expansion gone through, Texas and Southern Cal should have become the regular-season finale. After all, they have history (Jan. 2006).

             Geography still makes the most sense. Have Nebraska close the season with Iowa and Wisconsin against Minnesota (they were season-ending rivals for many years), both games in the Big Ten West, where they should be.

             LikeLike

             July 2, 2010 at 9:49 pm Reply

             1. They would schedule Texas and USC as a headliner game. That was my original point, before it gets lost. The decision for Penn State may be whether they want a headliner game on the big weekend or one that flies under the radar.

                LikeLike

                July 3, 2010 at 7:48 am

       2. Borders dont make rivals (Nebraska played border neighbor Kansas over 100 times but always won) so much as an a team in the conference that gets in your way and that you split the series (see Nebraska-Oklahoma).

          LikeLike

          July 3, 2010 at 1:54 pm Reply

    2. People need to get over the idea that Michigan is permanently dead–as much as you would all like to see it happen.

       Every traditional power–even mighty Penn State–has gone through bad times.

       Factors in Michigan’s favor are:

       -A hundred plus years of tradition
       -cool winged helmets
       -A huge newly-renovated stadium full of rabid fans
       -Good TV ratings
       -A school committed to achieving football success

       Somebody, if not Rich Rod, is going to be able to make something out of this in the relatively near future. Rest assured.

       LikeLike

       July 2, 2010 at 9:02 pm Reply

       1. Even if Michigan comes back though, I don’t see that as a problem. If you split it East/West, right now it would be imbalanced in favor of the West, because Michigan is down. When Michigan comes back up, that gives you 3 strong programs in each Division. The East’s 3 have historically been somewhat stronger, but not so much stronger that it would be “imbalanced.”

          LikeLike

          July 3, 2010 at 9:35 am Reply

          1. East-West split will be horribly balanced in favor of the east once RR gets his talent developed in Ann Arbor. When that happens, three of the four strongest programs will be in the east…

             Wisconsin & Iowa are nowhere near the level of the top four; Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska and Penn State. Both Iowa and Wisconsin are typically .500 teams in Big Ten play that are currently on an upswing thanks to quality coaching… Historically neither are much different than Michigan State when the Spartans have a quality coach.

             If ‘competitive balance’ is really the #1 factor in aligning divisions, I’m pretty sure Delaney is trying to push Penn State into the west to balance the competitiveness.

             LikeLike

             July 3, 2010 at 6:58 pm Reply

             1. If you want to go back 40 or 50 years or more, you’re right. Neither Wisconsin nor Iowa has a record of success to match the top four teams.

                However, looking at the records of Wisconsin and Iowa shows some interesting things.

                First, based on recent history, saying Wisconsin and Iowa are “nowhere near” the level of the others is inaccurate. In the past 10 years, Ohio State is .803, Wisconsin is at .667, Nebraska is at .656, Michigan is at .653, Iowa is at .640 and Penn State is .626.

                Going by records in this time period, the east would have schools #1, 4, and 6 and the west would have #2,3, and 5. That’s reasonable balance in my mind.

                Still, is 10 years a fair time period to examine?

                Well, even going back to when Penn State joined the Big Ten, shortly after Wisconsin restructured their athletic department, Wisconsin and Penn State are pretty well splitting their games and Penn State, Michigan and Wisconsin and Michigan have very similar winning percentages, .703, .695 and .687, #11, #14 and #15 in the nation. So Wisconsin’s actually holding its own.

                So what’s the future going to hold? Let’s assume the top 4 BT teams all return to their historical glory (ranging from .690 to .737) and never falter. What will Wisconsin and Iowa do in the future? Will they fall back into the Big Ten pack, where they’ve always been?

                Let’s start with Iowa. While you might have the opinion that Iowa’s success is recent, their level of play has been rather consistent.

                Going back 5 years, Iowa has a winning percentage of .620 (ranked #35 in the nation.)

                10 years .640 (#24)
                15 years .590 (#35)
                20 years .609 (#29)
                25 years .609 (#30)
                30 years .612 (#27)

                So going back a good 30 years, Iowa is playing remarkably consistent football.

                So what will they do over the next 10 or 20 years? It’s probably a safe bet to think they’ll continue to play at that level in the future, which would put them in the top 19 teams all-time. In fact, given Ferentz’ record is even a bit higher than the 30 year average I’ve used, and given his relatively young age and history in turning down other coaching jobs, Iowa might be expected to average in the top 13-15 for as long as he’s coaching.

                The team that HAS been on a rather noticeable upswing is Wisconsin.

                Going back 25 years, Wisconsin’s winning percentage was .568 (#40 in the country)
                20 years: .640 (#21)
                15 years: .674 (#18, just behind Penn State)
                10 years: .667 (#18, ahead of Michigan and Penn State)
                5 years: .739 (#13, and interestingly, that’s better than the best all-time winning percentage, Michigan’s .737)

                That is a long-term, 25-year upward trend. That doesn’t seem to be a fluke.

                Given the age of the Wisconsin coach and the sort of money being poured into athletics (Wisconsin is #7, ahead of the likes of Penn State, Nebraska and Notre Dame), I think recent history is likely a better indicator of future success than records of coaches long gone.

                In fact, in speaking for Wisconsin, I think there is a completely different commitment to football than before Alvarez was hired.

                So while Wisconsin is actually playing as well as any BT team other than Ohio State over the past 5 years, let’s assume Wisconsin falls back a bit from that 5-year average. Let’s assume they fall back to their average over the past 15 years–a reasonable time frame to judge. Wisconsin’s 15-year winning percentage would put them at #11, right at the historical record of Penn State.

                So to my mind, the east-west split would not appear to be as unbalanced as you suggest.

                LikeLike

                July 4, 2010 at 4:44 am

             2. 25 years is about the minimum you’d need to look at, I’d try to look at closer to 40…

                If you do that, Wisky and Iowa are merely .500 teams in BIG TEN play along with probably Michigan State and nowhere near the level of any of Nebraska, Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan.

                LikeLike

                July 4, 2010 at 5:49 am

             3. djinndjinn,

                Iowa & Wisconsin’s performance is impressive until you realize that their best 10 years is only on par with Nebraska’s worst 10. And that’s without even throwing conference and national titles in the conversation.

                That’s why other posters insist Iowa & Wisconsin are BT’s 2nd tier. Until they meet or exceed the others for another 10-15 years, that’ll be the case no matter how many stats are thrown around.

                Not saying their not fine programs, just not fantastic like the OSU-PSU-UM-UNL group.

                LikeLike

                July 4, 2010 at 8:46 am

             4. In my last post I agreed that if you look back 40 years or more, you’re right. The Big Four are historically superior. No question. No one would argue differently. The same is true at 25 years, too. And at 20 years.

                I’m not disparaging any of the Big Four teams. I actually quite like them. They’re all top 10 programs all time. Who could argue differently?

                However, the topic isn’t so much history of football going back to the times of the first Nixon administration and the early Apollo program as it is the issue of competitive balance of east-west as Nebraska enters the Big Ten, and I don’t think things are as unbalanced today or will be in the foreseeable distance as you do.

                Wisconsin has been on a demonstrable 25 year upward trend. And over the past 10 years, they’re winning percentage (.667) is better than Nebraska, Michigan, Penn State.

                Is this a fluke? Maybe. You could say that 10 or 15 years isn’t enough to go on to be considered an elite team. I wouldn’t disagree. Go ahead and consider them tier 2. I wouldn’t disagree with that either. A Tier 1 designation should come with a better long-term history than either Wisconsin or Iowa sport.

                But Wisconsin has a huge budget and a different commitment to athletics. Their past coach is now in the college Hall of Fame and their current coach has an even better winning percentage (.731). And he’s 40 years old. I think they are a stable program and I’m betting they’ll hold their own against the Big Four over the next 10, 20 years.

                I’ll also point out that as stable as I think Wisconsin is at present, (and to a somewhat lesser extent, Iowa, too), the same can’t be said for some of the other Big Four programs we’re discussing.

                Nebraska has wobbled a bit since Osborne left coaching. I’m pleased to see that they appear to be righting the ship.

                But the jury remains out on Michigan and Rich Rodriguez. He’s gone 3-9 and 5-7 and has had some issues with NCAA violations and player squabbles. Perhaps that’s growing pains. We’ll see. I really want them to return to top form, but I’m not sold on Rodriguez.

                And when (if) JoePa ever steps down, we’ll see if Penn State goes through any similar tumult that Michigan and Nebraska have seen. Some rough spots seem likely.

                So if you want to judge whether the east-west divide is lopsided on a historical basis, that’s one thing. But I don’t believe it’s lopsided as the teams are currently playing or will likely be playing over at least the next decade.

                Time will show us who’s right.

                LikeLike

                July 4, 2010 at 1:22 pm

             5. I think the best argument against sending Penn State west for competitive balance is that there would have to be a reciprocal move of a team to the east to rebalance things, the most likely candidate being Wisconsin.

                LikeLike

                July 4, 2010 at 2:58 pm

             6. I also think it’s a bit unfair to Penn State to make them travel so far to create whatever sense of “balance”.

                And if Wisconsin goes east in return, you kill the most played rivalry (Wisconsin – Minnesota) in the process. And you also kill Wisconsin – Iowa. I’d hate to have either of those teams go east either.

                As a Badger, I don’t mind being in a conference with whatever combination of Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State or Nebraska–but my preference would be that one of the “Big Four” teams in Wisconsin’s conference be Nebraska. Although there’d be an awful lot of red on the field.

                LikeLike

                July 4, 2010 at 5:00 pm

             7. Well, my contention, and I’m sticking to it for now, is that Penn State would be giving up a last week of the regular season headliner game to Wisconsin or Iowa if they don’t go west, that they may decide they don’t want to give up, fair or not. I don’t know that it is theirs for the asking, I just believe the temptation has to be strong to pair up Ohio State/Michigan and Penn State/Nebraska as must see TV somewhere around Thanksgiving. That can just as easily be Wisconsin/Nebraska or Iowa/Nebraska, but I guess I’m just trying to think like a TV guy. Fair or not, perception is to some degree reality, and the big four playing each other would be Plan A to me.

                LikeLike

                July 4, 2010 at 5:16 pm

             8. Excellent points. When Paterno retires, that will be a blow that could fell PSU for some time. We’ll see whether Rodriguez can achieve consistent success at Michigan — consider that he’s working under a new Athletic Director, which brings an inherent sort of instability (Rodriguez is not “his guy”).

                Historically, there is no doubt that the “East” is stronger, but given a relevant time frame and reasonable projections, it is not so much stronger that the league would be so “imbalanced” as to warp the competitive structure.

                When I hear complaining about “imbalance” in an East/West alignment, the first thing that jumps to mind is MSU fans who have a knee-jerk inferiority complex vis-a-vis PSU, UM and OSU, and so are eager to avoid being in a group with those 3. That doesn’t strike me as a particular well-thought-out method.

                LikeLike

                July 4, 2010 at 10:02 pm

             9. Michigan State is not concerned about its division or pod. Dantonio is of the same mind as Izzo. The Spartans will play anyone, anytime, anywhere.

                LikeLike

                July 5, 2010 at 1:35 am

93. http://www.southbendtribune.com/article/20100702/SPORTS13/7020387/1130

    Really good article talking with Swarbick-ND AD and with some BE ADs about what comes next. Swarbick’s comments are most interesting for what he doesn’t say. He talks about all the information the general public doesn’t have-but doesn’t tell you what it is.

    ND fans were not monolithic. Other comments are that because of measuring differences, $ from conferences are not as far apart as advertised (not that they aren’t still significant).

    LikeLike

    July 2, 2010 at 11:38 am Reply

94. Pingback: Is BT expansion done? - HawkeyeNation Forum

95. B12 reprimands Tuberville for having a dissenting view:
    http://www.redraiders.com/2010/07/02/big-12-reprimands-tech-coach-tuberville-for-critical-comments/

    LikeLike

    July 2, 2010 at 10:21 pm Reply

    1. Welcome to the Big X Tommy. Guns Up!

       LikeLike

       July 3, 2010 at 1:56 pm Reply

    2. [IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/sxlls5.jpg[/IMG]

       Nothing to see here. The Big 12-lite is strong and will last forever.

       LikeLike

       July 3, 2010 at 6:15 pm Reply

       1. Well, that didn’t work. I thought I might be able to enbed a picture, but I guess not.

          Here is the link to the picture:
          

          LikeLike

          July 3, 2010 at 6:17 pm Reply

96. anybody see anybody they know in this video

    just curious

    LikeLike

    July 3, 2010 at 3:46 pm Reply

    1. sorry meant to put this on this blog not the Lebron one in the first place, have a safe and fun 4th.

       LikeLike

       July 3, 2010 at 3:47 pm Reply

97. out of orlando

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/os-college-expansion-antitrust-0704-20100703,0,2777690.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+orlandosentinel%2Fgators+%28Florida+Gators+News%29

    is it just me, or has this orlando paper been one of the most quoted in this blog. Funny as there is no major football team there (Gainesville, Tallahassee, and Miami for FL).

    LikeLike

    July 4, 2010 at 9:02 am Reply

    1. Duff – Orlando is a SEC town, much the same way the Birmingham, Memphis, Atlanta, Jacksonville and New Orleans are also SEC towns. They are all close to SEC schools, have a large concentration of SEC alum/fans, and the in-town team is inferior to the SEC team in the area.

       BTW, Orlando is only 115 miles from Gainesville.

       LikeLike

       July 4, 2010 at 2:12 pm Reply

       1. alan,

          thanks for the info.

          i guess i was asking about from early on in the blog, seems like this newspaper got quoted and linked often. i could not figure out why, as i guess it seemed that Big 10 or Pac 10 or Big 12 newspapers would have been linked more. is orlando the biggest school closest to gainsville? or is there another big city close by?

          LikeLike

          July 4, 2010 at 4:32 pm Reply

          1. The Orlando Sentinel has one of the best college football writing staffs in the nation. The reason for this is because of the 4 major Florida cities its the only one with out an NFL team as well as being the 3rd largest metro in the state that is football crazy. They really are not a secondary market to any of the NFL teams and with 2 of the 3 big time college football teams being in fairly small cities it became a natural.

             Orlando and Jacksonville are about the same distance from uf but Orlando has about double the population of Jacksonville (a fairly large chunk of Jax population is also military giving it even a smaller effective population*) as well as being a fairly straight shot using highways while Jax you need to use single lane back roads though true speed trap cities. UCF is located in Orlando and has a huge student body (believe 45 to 50k off the top of my head) but still is mostly a glorified commuter college.

             *Off topic but this is 1 of the 2 major reasons they should never have received a NFL team they other being no corporate base.

             LikeLike

             July 4, 2010 at 10:28 pm Reply

             1. Hey Jim… I think you are right on regarding Orlando/Jax. From some of my time spent in FLA–college football rules/d the roost (except maybe in Miami metro).

                Jacksonville seemed like a big reach when the NFL decided to expand there (maybe some back-room skid-greasing went on…). Now, it has all been self-revealed (see poor attendance/support)… Unless something strange happens, Jax will likely go back to being NFLess.

                LikeLike

                July 5, 2010 at 11:00 am

             2. jim,

                thanks for the added info.

                I was always under the impression that Jacksonville was a corporate HQ town, and that is why they got the NFL franchise (Bengals had P&G and Kroger, Atlanta had Coke and Delta, etc.. etc..). Do they not have major corp HQ’s there? I thought CSX and Winn Dixie called Jacksonville home?

                LikeLike

                July 5, 2010 at 11:36 am

             3. Duffman- At the time Jax had 3 major corporate HQ’s CSX, Winn Dixie and Barnett Bank. Even at the time though the NFL should have known this was unstable to say the least. CSX as well as all fright lines where hurting and surviving basically on new car transport but they have rebounded greatly. They should have known that Barnett Bank was vulnerable to take over as the 90’s was the decade of bank consolidation and they where a prime target for merger which is what happened. I don’t remember the exact numbers but there where a huge number of lay offs and moving of units out when they where bought. Win Dixie also has been in trouble since the early 90’s when it was clear they could not compete with Publix in Florida where losing market share like crazy with the rise of Super Walmart they are almost a rarity now and have not made moves to expand since around 1990.

                Beyond the unstability of the corporate base it is a poor city on a per captia basis. Off the top of my head I believe they are either last or second to last in this area. Throw in there is no secondary market with the East Coast of Florida except for Jax being long time Miami Dolphins secondary markets or new transplants and Orlando being split between Miami and Tampa and new transplants and not much in money population in Southern Georgia they where always behind everyone else. This was straight up the biggest mistake the NFL has ever made.

                LikeLike

                July 5, 2010 at 8:05 pm

98. Bob Devaney talked to Jim Delany in 1992. From the OWH:

    http://www.omaha.com/article/20100703/SPORTS/707039799

    LikeLike

    July 4, 2010 at 10:24 am Reply

99. A post for today

    I know it does not affect conference realignment, but it fits today and has a football backdrop.

    enjoy, and have a safe and happy fourth!

    🙂

    LikeLike

    July 4, 2010 at 12:01 pm Reply

100. Fourth of July Game:

     Know your conference commissioner better, posted in parts

     LikeLike

     July 4, 2010 at 8:42 pm Reply

     1. Big 10

        http://www.bigten.org/school-bio/delany-bio.html

        Jim Delany

        LikeLike

        July 4, 2010 at 8:42 pm Reply

     2. SEC

        http://www.secsports.com/the_sec/commisioners_profile.aspx

        Mike Slive

        LikeLike

        July 4, 2010 at 8:43 pm Reply

     3. Pac 10

        http://www.pac-10.org/school-bio/larry-scott.html

        Larry Scott

        LikeLike

        July 4, 2010 at 8:44 pm Reply

     4. Big 12 – 2 (but not the Big 10)

        http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10410&KEY=&ATCLID=1514842

        Dab Beebe

        LikeLike

        July 4, 2010 at 8:49 pm Reply

     5. ACC

        http://www.theacc.com/this-is/commissioner.html

        John Swofford

        LikeLike

        July 4, 2010 at 8:50 pm Reply

     6. Big East

        http://www.bigeast.org/AbouttheBIGEAST/ConferenceStaff.aspx

        John Marinatto – trick as it say click then does nothing! 🙂

        LikeLike

        July 4, 2010 at 8:54 pm Reply

101. Big 12

     http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10410&KEY=&ATCLID=1514842

     Dan Beebe

     LikeLike

     July 4, 2010 at 8:45 pm Reply

     1. sorry this was a duplicate, sorry to do the multiple posts – word press does not let you two or more links on the same post. argh!

        LikeLike

        July 4, 2010 at 8:55 pm Reply

102. loki,

     question for you?

     I asked in a previous link I think you posted about the rootie toot toot cheer. I always thought it was an A&M cheer, but when I googled it they give some credit to BYU (since discredited) and Rice. You are the Rice guy on here, any thoughts?

     LikeLike

     July 5, 2010 at 12:07 pm Reply

     1. I had always heard it was a Rice original. I can’t imagine aTm or BYU having a cheer that says “We are the boys from the Institute”.

        The later most popular cheer at Rice was probably shared with many other geek schools:

        e to the x, dy dx
        e to the x, dx
        secant, tangent, cosine , sine
        3.14159
        cube root, square root, BTU
        beat those Longhorns
        go Rice U!!

        LikeLike

        July 5, 2010 at 4:02 pm Reply

        1. Another version I heard more often in the student section;

           e to the x, dy dx, e to the x, dx
           secant, tangent, cosine, sine, 3.14159
           name the axes, y and x
           to hell with football, we want sex

           LikeLike

           July 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm Reply

           1. I like this cheer better

              🙂

              so is Rice known as the “institute”? what is the history to referring to Rice as an institute?

              LikeLike

              July 5, 2010 at 5:12 pm Reply

              1. Up until 1960 the official name was The William Marsh Rice Institute for Letters, Science and Arts. Some history on the 50th anniversary of the name change this week: http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=14412

                 LikeLike

                 July 5, 2010 at 5:24 pm

              2. loki,

                 they need to hire you for the Rice PR department! thanks for the info.

                 🙂

                 LikeLike

                 July 5, 2010 at 5:58 pm

           2. My parents went to LSU (yes, I am of SEC pedigree!!), and they once told me what LSU fans would chant when playing Rice, which the two schools apparently did frequently in the 1960s.

              Unfortunately, there’s no way I can ever put it in print connected to my name, even a mere nickname. Let’s just say it would offend many a modern sensibility. 🙂

              LikeLike

              July 6, 2010 at 12:24 pm Reply

              1. Rice/LSU was played annually from 1932-1983.

                 Did the cheer start “What comes out…”?

                 LikeLike

                 July 6, 2010 at 1:28 pm

              2. Rice! Rice!

                 LikeLike

                 July 6, 2010 at 1:37 pm

              3. PS – I had no idea it was that long-lasting a series.

                 LikeLike

                 July 6, 2010 at 1:39 pm

              4. Interesting that LSU also played A&M nearly every year in that era, but has hardly ever played them since. With the oil industry, there are a lot of ties between LA and SE TX. You see more LSU bumper stickers, flags and T-shirts in Houston than Tech, TCU or SMU. LSU was actually at the initial founding meeting of the SWC, but decided not to join.

                 LikeLike

                 July 7, 2010 at 10:43 am

              5. bullet – LSU stopped playing A&M in the early 90s after the SEC expanded and added another conference game.

                 LikeLike

                 July 21, 2010 at 1:36 pm

              6. “LSU stopped playing A&M in the early 90s after the SEC expanded and added another conference game.”

                 Cowards!

                 Of course, now that A&M has to play 9 ****ing conference games and has the Arkansas series set up, they wouldn’t be able to play the series anyway.

                 It’s too bad, because it would be a lot of fun.

                 LikeLike

                 July 21, 2010 at 9:32 pm

103. Frank,

     what is up with football at your alma mater?!?!

     the Zook just came on CFL on ESPN and said the SEC was better than the Big 10 in football!! He may feel that, but why did he let it get outside the Big 10 family?

     LikeLike

     July 5, 2010 at 5:10 pm Reply

     1. great now the ESPN talking heads are saying:

        SEC #1 with a big gap to
        Big 10 #2
        Pac 10 #3 nobody stands out
        Big 12 #4 big drop as just 3 teams UNL, UT, and OU are any good
        ACC #5
        BE #6 gaining on ACC

        LikeLike

        July 5, 2010 at 5:17 pm Reply

        1. I don’t even understand why they are even asking the question. I don’t cheer for conferences (well I didn’t until the last few years and its more a cheer against the sec) I cheer for schools and teams. The SEC is just like most other conference where you have 2 to 4 elite teams in any given year, a few second tier teams and than filler and bad teams. Lets compare the the SEC and the Big 12. Both have 3 teams with legit national title hopes. They both have a few other teams in the 10 to 30 range and than they both have some filler and crap.

           LikeLike

           July 5, 2010 at 8:15 pm Reply

104. Adding

     LikeLike

     July 5, 2010 at 6:03 pm Reply

105. I thought of a new reason why geographic divisions can work. Look at the SEC, the only conference that has been successful with 12 teams. They have 3 of their top 4 brands in the same division: Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. In fact these are the top three teams in terms of record for the conference in its current setup.

     This analogy can be taken further.
     Florida=OSU
     Tennessee=Michigan
     Georgia=PSU

     Alabama=Nebraska
     Auburn=Wisconsin
     LSU=Iowa

     LikeLike

     July 6, 2010 at 1:02 am Reply

     1. Iowa, Wisconsin are certainly no Auburn or LSU, not even close. Wisky is most similar to Ole Miss and Iowa is closer to Kentucky.

        LikeLike

        July 6, 2010 at 9:25 am Reply

        1. What in the world are you talking about? When have Ole Miss and Kentucky played in BCS games? Kentucky’s best bowl game appearance in recent memory is the Outback Bowl in 1998 (well, 1/1/99), and Mississippi has appeared in a melange of Cotton/Indepencence/Music City for the last 20 years. Those programs are well behind Iowa and Wisconsin.

           LikeLike

           July 6, 2010 at 9:45 am Reply

        2. Must be part of Team SEC if you think Kentucky is anything but a joke to the rest of the world.

           LikeLike

           July 6, 2010 at 10:03 am Reply

           1. loki,

              I know I am an old fart and all, but the last good coach left to coach at A&M and passed away in the 1980’s. Course during that time in between he coached BAMA and got a win or two there. Kentucky is the most cursed football team there is.

              Bryant, Shula, Schnellenberger, and a whole host of major coaches have been a part of the UK football team at one time. They still have never been a continual top football team. It is why I miss them on the IU football schedule.

              🙂

              ps.. Vincent, you probably already knew this but but the bear coached the Terps, before heading to UK. Might explain why UK got Jerry from the Terps years later.

              pps.. Adam, Outback Steakhouse was started by a UK alumni, many said it is why they got the bowl that year. I think PSU spanked them early on as they were overmatched, but hey if the sponsor went to your school it probably does not hurt getting an invite.

              😉

              LikeLike

              July 6, 2010 at 11:15 am Reply

           2. ps to the ps..

              loki,

              Even tho they can not field a great football team they can still over sell their stadium most every game (actual seating is like 67,000 but they usually seat 70,000 to 72,000 – which is why they will expand to 80,000 soon). Yes I am jealous of that part as IU would not see 80,000 brave souls come watch us get thumped.

              LikeLike

              July 6, 2010 at 11:19 am Reply

        3. I think that Auburn is very comparable to both Wisconsin & Iowa. Both have decent records in the recent past and compete for conference championships every 5 or so years, while not being in the national championship discussion.

           Now the issue I have is comparing LSU to either Iowa or Wisconsin.

           LikeLike

           July 6, 2010 at 11:15 am Reply

           1. bama,

              do not know what alan will say, but when I think of SEC west I think BAMA and LSU. I would put the tigers ahead of Iowa, and probably Wisconsin but behind tOSU, UM, and PSU. Auburn would be a good team, but fate did not shine down on them by putting them in the state of Alabama. Hard to be great when you are always #2 in your home state.

              LikeLike

              July 6, 2010 at 11:30 am Reply

              1. duffman,

                 I agree with you. LSU is definitely ahead of Iowa and Wisconsin in my book. And when comparing programs history, I agree that LSU in a notch below the big 4 of the big 10 (I’m including Nebraska). Actually I would almost be reluctant to put any SEC team in that category besides Bama when you look at the history of the schools (not just recent history). But with LSU’s recent success (just like Florida), they are gaining ground. They have a recruiting base and a devout following that makes contending for national championships possible on a yearly bases if they can get the right coach (which I don’t think they currently have even though the hat has won 1 NC).

                 Now I would have to disagree with you about Auburn. I don’t think they could ever achieve “top” level status even if they were in any other state in the SEC. They only reason they are as successful as they have been is because their fanbase is so rabid which is a result of being in the state of Alabama (which is a college football loving state) and their hatred of being Bama’s little brother (the whole psychology of the Auburn fan base is a hard one to explain, but it is the reason for their success IMHO).

                 LikeLike

                 July 6, 2010 at 3:49 pm

           2. You are so correct with that comparison. LSU might add up to a Community college here in the Midwest. Iowa and Wisconsin in contrast are public ivies’. :- ). Oh and their football teams have been highly productive over the last 20 years as well. remember we are talking about COLLEGE football her folks.

              LikeLike

              July 6, 2010 at 12:05 pm Reply

     2. You must’ve been asleep when Iowa & Wisconsin defeated LSU & Auburn in their last head-to-head match-ups. You know: HEAD-TO-HEAD, where it’s decided on the FIELD?

        (And in the Wisconsin vs. Auburn case, it was an absolute beat down.)

        LikeLike

        July 6, 2010 at 10:07 am Reply

     3. I think you have UGA and LSU switched up. LSU has actually won multiple NCs while UGA won one back in the early 80s (and I believe that is the only one they have).

        So the SEC divisions are as balanced as they can be with UF & UT winning multiple NCs thoughout their history and Bama & LSU winning multiple NCs thoughout their history.

        Where it gets a little lopsided is UGA is the next biggest “name” school with Auburn following way behind UGA as the next biggest “name” school. But since Auburn is the next biggest “name” school, the current divisions are as “equal” as they can be.

        LikeLike

        July 6, 2010 at 11:23 am Reply

        1. Georgia claims 1942 as well as 1980. I believe LSU only claims 3 (1958 and the 2 BCS championships). LSU had a long mediocre stretch in the 70s and 80s. UGA had theirs in the 90s. It was really Bama & LSU and UGA and Tennessee when the SEC was founded. Florida never even won an official SEC championship until Spurrier arrived. But he turned that program around.

           LikeLike

           July 6, 2010 at 12:13 pm Reply

           1. My dates on LSU were off. Their dry spell was the 80s and 90s. They were good, but not great in the 70s. They had 3 losing seasons in the 80s and 7 in the 90s. Saban arrived in 2000.

              LikeLike

              July 7, 2010 at 10:56 am Reply

        2. Steve Spurrier won a football conference championship at Duke in 1989. Kinda speaks to the man’s talents as a college football coach.Then he uplifted Floria a sleeping giant. I wish the state of Illinois had a Steve spurrier. Or al lease a John Mackovic.

           LikeLike

           July 6, 2010 at 12:39 pm Reply

     4. So there are really two parts to this discussion, the on-field football success and the off-field brand value. For on-field, here are the conference records of the various teams in their respective current formations:

        Florida 0.805
        Tennessee 0.701
        Alabama 0.626
        Georgia 0.622
        Auburn 0.599
        Louisiana State 0.571

        Ohio State 0.783
        Michigan 0.691
        Penn State 0.632
        Wisconsin 0.592
        Iowa 0.526

        Nebraska 0.677

        Doing a little arithmetic, we see that the overall winning percentage of the “Big 3” in the SEC East is .709, while the equivalent group in the Big Ten has an overall winning percentage of .702. In other words, over the last 15ish years, the combo of Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State has been (slightly) less dominant than Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia.

        Looking at the West, the same computation gives .599 for the SEC group and .598 for the Big Ten group.

        The takeaway point is that the disparity at the top between the East and West has been even greater in the SEC than in the Big Ten. This disparity has not hurt them at all and so should not be a worry in making Big Ten divisions.

        Brand value is a much more nebulous factor, though still very important. I would more readily concede that the brand difference in geographic divisions might be greater in the Big Ten (In Mandellian terms, the Big Ten would be 3 kings vs a king, a baron and a knight, while the SEC is 2 kings and a baron vs a king and two barons). However, I would again contend that this separation would not hurt the Big Ten overall. Currently, the protected rivalries setup already effectively forms an eastern block of Penn State, OSU, Michigan, and MSU. This arrangement hasn’t seem to have negatively affected the brand value of anyone.

        (Notes: Nebraska’s conference record is taken as its Big 12 record. While this record is obviously not directly comparable to a Big Ten record, I think the general consensus is that over the period in question, the two conferences were about the same in strength.

        Conference records for Nebraska and the SEC teams count the championship game. However, since all but four of the football teams in the SEC CCG have come from these 6 schools, the effect was mostly a wash.

        Alabama has had a number of wins vacated due to various NCAA convictions. My source uses the adjusted values as I don’t want to try to reascribe the wins and losses to the correct teams. The net effect is that Alabama has a lower winning percentage than actual results, but all the other schools have a higher winning percentage.)

        LikeLike

        July 6, 2010 at 10:06 pm Reply

        1. Nice work M. I am most surprised by Florida’s numbers. I can actually remember when Florida was a mediocre team. So that plus 800 percentage is kind of a shock to me.

           LikeLike

           July 7, 2010 at 8:18 am Reply

        2. Just for completeness sake, here is the same analysis for the ACC and Big 12:

           Texas 0.790
           Oklahoma 0.698
           Texas Tech 0.597

           Nebraska 0.677
           Kansas State 0.590
           Colorado 0.520

           South .695
           North .595

           Virginia Tech 0.784
           Georgia Tech 0.660
           Miami (Florida) 0.521

           Boston College 0.625
           Clemson 0.571
           Florida State 0.571

           Coastal .655
           Atlantic .589

           Perception of success for the 3 12 teams leagues actually is the opposite of parity between the divisions. The league with the most unbalanced divisions (SEC) has been viewed as the most successful, while the league with the most equal divisions (ACC) has been considered the biggest flop.

           LikeLike

           July 7, 2010 at 9:32 pm Reply

     5. M – I know you posted this 2 weeks ago, but I haven’t had a chance to respond to your charge that LSU has the 6th best brand/reputation/etc in the SEC, as well as others misstatements from others below. Here’s a SEC history lesson from an LSU perspective.

        The SEC crowned its first champ in 1933. Surprise! It was Alabama. From 1933 to 1991 (pre-expansion) Bama won 19 SEC titles, following by UTn with 11, UGA with 9, LSU with 7, Ole Miss with 6, Auburn with 5, and MSU/UK/UF all had one apiece. (UF did win its first SEC title in 1984, but had to vacate it for cheating, so its 1st OFFICIAL title was in 1991 – the last year before expansion).

        Vandy has never won a SEC title in football. GA Tech, which left in 1964, won 5 championships, and my law school Tulane surprisingly won 3 championships before it left for more barren pastures in 1966. Little Sewanee – THE University of the South left the SEC in 1940 with no titles, but they do have an all-time winning record against Bama.

        So at the time of SEC expansion, the SEC East had a combined 22 titles while the SEC West had a combined 38 titles. Arkansas was also much more of a football power than was South Carolina. Excluding Bama’s titles, LSU/Ole Miss/Auburn/MSU had combined for 19. Looking at more recent pre-expansion history (1980-91), SEC West teams had 8 titles, while SEC East teams had 7 titles. Keep in mind that prior to the SEC CG, the SEC could have multiple champs just as the Big Ten.

        So pre-expansion, LSU had the 4th most SEC football titles, and LSU currently has the the 4th most SEC titles. Since the SEC began, BAMA has 8 national championships, followed by LSU and Florida with 3 each. Tennessee has 2 NCs, while Georgia, Auburn and Ole Miss have one apiece.

        If you look at national poll or BCS champions from 1936 – present, Bama & Notre Dame lead in NCs with 8 each, followed by USC & Oklahoma with 7 each, Miami, Nebraska & Ohio St. with 5 each, UTx & Minnesota with 4 each, LSU & Florida with 3 each. So LSU is tied for 10th in the nation in national championships.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS#National_poll_championships_.281936.E2.80.93present.29

        LSU has won SEC titles in the 30s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 2000s, so the Tigers are a Johnny-come-lately. LSU has 41 bowl appearances (tied for 9th nationally with tOSU), 14 Sugar Bowl appearances, 10 SEC championships, and is 4-0 in BCS Bowl Games.
        In fact, LSU is the only SEC team to win double digit championships in football (10), men’s basketball (10), and baseball (14).

        From 1989-2000, LSU did hit a rough patch, with 8 losing seasons in 11 years, but LSU was consistently a very good-sometimes-great team for most of its history. One could call the 90s, the Spurrier/Shanahan curse. In 86 when Bill Arnsparger resigned to become UF’s AD, he recommended 33-year-old Mike Archer to replace him. A young USFL coach/Heisman trophy winner and an up-and-coming young NFL assistant interviewed for the LSU job, but Archer was named the next HC at LSU.

        After Paul Dietzel left LSU for Army in the early 60s, Charles McClendon coached LSU for the next 18 years. LSU had many great teams during that time. The problem was that Cholly Mac just couldn’t seem to beat his old UK coach – THE BEAR. Ole Cholly Mac only won one SEC title during his 18 year tenure at LSU, while THE BEAR won 12.

        My point after all this rambling is that BAMA is the unquestioned historical power in the SEC, but Tennessee, Georgia, LSU and Florida all can make a legitimate case for #2. That’s the power and greatness of the SEC as any 6 teams could challenge for a NC any year.

        LikeLike

        July 21, 2010 at 2:54 pm Reply

        1. I will be the first to admit that I don’t know much about SEC history, but just looking at the records I can’t see any way to argue that LSU is #2. All-time they are 5th in overall conference record and its not particularly close. In the past 50 years they are 6th, dropping behind Auburn

           I strongly prefer using overall records than championships, but that’s probably a debatable premise. Conference championships and especially national championships are subject to too many external factors; I will be the first to trumpet Northwestern’s 2000 Big Ten championship with a 6-2 conference record, but pretending that has the same weight as one of OSU’s recent ones seems injust. On the other end, Illinois’ 2001 title does not mean they have had a more successful decade than Wisconsin (no titles).

           You did inspire me to look up overall Big Ten championships. In the geographical arrangement, the top two are in the east. However, the schools with the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th (tied) most championships are all in the west.

           LikeLike

           July 21, 2010 at 3:58 pm Reply

           1. M said, “I strongly prefer using overall records than championships, but that’s probably a debatable premise.”

              M – you got that right. Overall record versus championships? I’ll take championships and a few down years to being consistently above average (but rarely great) any day.

              As a Northwestern fan, do you wax nostalgic about your 96 Rose Bowl or the consistency of your 5 minor bowl appearances in the 2000s?

              Also, I wasn’t trying to say that LSU is the 2nd best team in SEC history. I said that the argument could be made. I could also make a compelling argument on behalf of Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida.

              That’s the beauty/brutality of the SEC. Sure, Bama’s #1, but if you take out THE BEAR’s era of dominance in the 60s & 70s, they are not that distinguishable from the other 4 teams. Throw in Auburn, and then Arkansas, South Carolina, Ole Miss, and Kentucky who all do consistently try to keep up with the top 6, and you’ve got a heckuva regular season.

              As an aside, I have to give props to the USCe and UK fans though. They continually fill up 80K and 70K seat stadiums with the realistic hope of an Outback Bowl appearance once a decade.

              LikeLike

              July 22, 2010 at 2:26 pm Reply

              1. “Overall record versus championships? I’ll take championships and a few down years to being consistently above average (but rarely great) any day.

                 As a Northwestern fan, do you wax nostalgic about your 96 Rose Bowl or the consistency of your 5 minor bowl appearances in the 2000s?”

                 Northwestern fans wax nostalgic over pretty much any win we can get our hands on, but I still stand by my point. I would definitely take Northwestern’s performance in the 2000s (.500 overall record, 5 bowls, no major bowls) over Illinois (.380 winning percentage, 2 bowls, 2 major bowls). I would much rather be respectable every year than dismal most years with a good year thrown in every so often, and I think most Illinois fans would agree.

                 1995 holds a special place, almost as much for what came before and after as for anything that happened that year. Beating Iowa that year was big, but more for ending a 22 game losing streak and starting an 8-5 run than the win itself. Beating Michigan and Notre Dame was also big, but as much for ending 19 and 14 game respective losing streaks.

                 Having a winning record was big that year because Northwestern had not done that since 1971. The team’s winning percentage the previous 20 years was .182. Since then it’s above .500. Going to the Rose Bowl was much more important because the last time Northwestern had been was 1949 and because they have continued the success since then.

                 1995 meant more to Northwestern than any year has to any other school. Before then, Northwestern was the worst team in Division 1-A. That year, they went 8-0 in the conference and went to the Rose Bowl. Since then, they have been consistently respectable. It forms such a stark dividing line that many Northwestern fans (or maybe just me) often pretend that football didn’t exist before then.

                 “Also, I wasn’t trying to say that LSU is the 2nd best team in SEC history. I said that the argument could be made. I could also make a compelling argument on behalf of Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida.”

                 The ‘argument could be made’ nonsense is just pure sophistry. The argument could be made that Indiana is the greatest football power in the country, Ohio is south of Louisiana, or white is black. They wouldn’t be good arguments, but they could be made.

                 “That’s the beauty/brutality of the SEC. Sure, Bama’s #1, but if you take out THE BEAR’s era of dominance in the 60s & 70s, they are not that distinguishable from the other 4 teams. Throw in Auburn, and then Arkansas, South Carolina, Ole Miss, and Kentucky who all do consistently try to keep up with the top 6, and you’ve got a heckuva regular season.”

                 The others might try to keep up with the top 6, but they all fail pretty miserably. LSU, the 6th best team in the conference in its current form, has 19 more conference wins than the 7th place team Arkansas. For comparison, for the 2nd through 11th teams in the Big Ten, no two consecutive ones are that far apart. In fact, no group of three have that much separation and the 4th and 8th teams are distinguished by only 20 wins.

                 The SEC might parity in the 2nd through 5th teams, but there is a huge drop off after that.

                 LikeLike

                 July 22, 2010 at 7:11 pm

        2. “and my law school Tulane surprisingly won 3 championships before it left for more barren pastures in 1966.”

           I don’t think it’s surprising that a university in a major Southern city was successful before an NFL team arrived (see Texas schools in Houston and Dallas). New Orleans ranked higher in population back then when compared to the rest of the South and the Saints hadn’t been created; you’d think they might have won even more.

           LikeLike

           July 21, 2010 at 9:30 pm Reply

           1. m (Ag)- The Saints’ first season was 1967, but I think the bigger problem with CFB in big cities is that they tend to be private (Tulane, Rice, SMU, BC, Miami, Vandy or USC)or public commuter schools (Houston, Memphis and Cincy).

              I believe Minnesota and Washington are the only big flagship publics in pro towns. Maryland is in the DC ‘burbs.

              LikeLike

              July 22, 2010 at 1:56 pm Reply

106. Eighty-five years ago, the story had a
     different ending: Nebraska was left standing
     at the Big Ten’s doorstep

     …

     The thinking in Lincoln was that a step up in the college football world was in order. Would the Big Ten, known more formally as the Western Conference, deem Nebraska worthy of its prestigious club?

     The answer was no. On March 14, 1925 – the same day Walter Camp died – the Big Ten buried the notion of becoming twelve. The membership applications of Nebraska and Michigan State, submitted three months earlier, were denied.

     ….

     http://www.huskermax.com/games/1925/big10_talk.html

     LikeLike

     July 7, 2010 at 11:51 am Reply

107. I think a lot of folks don’t want a pure east-west split because they fear the West would resemble the Big 12 North and the East would resemble the Big 12 South. Thinking that way is nonsense.

     First, it’s appropriate to look at how the divisions started, or will start. The Big 12 North was born with three Top 25 regulars (UNL, CU, and KSU), but only one of them had a long-term pattern of winning under its belt. A Big Ten West would also start out with three Top 25 regulars (UNL, Wisc, and Iowa), but all three of them have churned out winning records for many, many years. The Big 12 North’s other three were consistently average (Mizzou), below average (KU) or historically awful (ISU). By contrast, the Big Ten West has a fourth program that has had winning records more often than not over the past 15 years (NU), and the other two (Minny and UofI) today resemble the KU and Mizzou programs at the Big 12 North’s beginnings much more closely than Iowa State. Basically, the Big Ten West would start out on a much more solid footing.

     Second, there isn’t the same sort of enormous recruiting base difference between Big Ten East and West as there is between Big 12 North and South. Sure, the East has Ohio and Pennsylvania and is closer to New Jersey, but let’s face it: those states don’t provide the sort of recruiting imbalance that the state of Texas does.

     Third, the Big 12 North has suffered from coaching turnover, especially in light of the stability at OU and UT. The Big Ten West’s four most consistent programs (NU, Iowa, Wisc, and of course UNL) all have very solid coaching situations. Each of them are too young to retire anytime soon and are winning to much to leave soon, either. If anything, the Big Ten East is more likely to resemble the Big 12 North’s coaching instability. I’ve got to assume JoePa will retire within the next five years, and RichRod may be on his way out, too.

     Fourth, this has little to do with divisional balance, but an East-West split would be great for television. Every year there’d be OSU-PSU, PSU-UM, UM-OSU, Neb-Iowa, Neb-Wisc, and Wisc-Iowa. 2 out of 3 games among Neb-OSU, Neb-UM, and Neb-PSU would be played 2 of every four years, and the other one the other two years. Same story for Iowa and Wisc vs. the eastern “Big Three.”

     I would just hate to Penn State get stuck in a West division. They’d essentially get punished for being too successful.

     LikeLike

     July 7, 2010 at 2:14 pm Reply

     1. Michael, I agree with you. If the Big Ten goes with an East – West split and plays 9 games they can have enough games to have a balanced result.

        Say you have the following split.

        East
        1. Ohio State
        2. Indiana
        3. Penn State
        4. Purdue
        5. Michigan
        6. Michigan State

        West
        1. Nebraska
        2. Minnesota
        3. Iowa
        4. Northwestern
        5. Wisconsin
        6. Illinois

        Ohio State would play all 5 on its side plus Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa and Northwestern. This would ensure Ohio State played 2 of the 3 better teams.

        Indiana would have to play Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern and Wisconsin.

        Penn State would play Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin and Illinois. Penn State would be playing 2 of the 3 better teams. Iowa would be playing 2 of the 3 better teams from the east (Ohio State & Penn State).

        Michigan would play Wisconsin, Illinois, Nebraska and Minnesota. Again 2 of the 3 better teams would be pitted against Michigan.

        The following year, the first teams rolls off and the next in the list rolls on. In the case of Ohio State, Nebraska would roll off and Wisconsin would roll on.

        It may not be balanced as having a 2 – 2 split of the historic big time programs (Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State). But it would guarantee that each side has to play 2 of the 3 better teams (historically) from the other side.

        LikeLike

        July 7, 2010 at 4:54 pm Reply

        1. I am not a fan of a 9-game league schedule because it is imbalanced in the sense of 5 home and 4 road for some, and 5 road and 4 home for the others. Not fair, and not necessary when there’s a championship game; the 9-game schedule is more justifiable when the title is being awarded on the basis of just the overall standings, but with a title game decisively awarding it, it’s less important. Plus, I just don’t see how an extra conference game is a net money-winner; it seems like the extra non-conference games are a net money gain for the league.

           I agree with this analysis, it’s just that I’d rather discussions about the schedule format start from the 8-game schedule premise.

           LikeLike

           July 7, 2010 at 8:48 pm Reply

           1. The issue is that non-conference teams are asking more and more to schedule away games. To get Boise State to come to Oxford in 2011, Ole Miss had to shell out $900k. Lesser programs don’t ask as much, of course, but even a Sun Belt creampuff wants over $100k. And only the elite programs that sell out all their games can really sell tickets to those creampuff noncon games.

              Nonconference games are just getting too expensive for the revenue they generate, which is why they are looking at adding an extra conference game.

              LikeLike

              July 10, 2010 at 12:02 am Reply

              1. Shoot, it’s got to be more than that for the Sun Belt teams. App State got a $400,000 check from Michigan, and the next year against LSU it was around $750,000. I’m actually surprised a program that’s built as much cache as Boise has would settle for $900K.

                 LikeLike

                 July 10, 2010 at 12:33 am

     2. My thoughts are so if after 4- 5 years there appears to be a severe imbalance between East and west, for the good of the league, can an adjustment not be made then. There would be empirical data to show it would be for the good of the league and not just for some football engineering.

        LikeLike

        July 8, 2010 at 9:13 am Reply

        1. Exactly. And the Big 12 should have done this long ago.

           The divisions could/should’ve been set up like this:

           Division A

           1. Texas
           2. Texas A&M
           3. Oklahoma
           4. K-State
           5. Iowa State
           6. Oklahoma State

           Division B

           1. Texas Tech
           2. Baylor
           3. Nebraska
           4. Kansas
           5. Missouri
           6. Colorado

           Annually, Division A’s #1 plays Div B’s #1, etc.

           So what if it’s hard to remember which teams are in which division? That league would have been balanced. While it would have killed the annual rivalry b/tw the Texas schools, it would have preserved the vastly more significant Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry, plus it would have allowed much more equitable access to recruits in Texas, which, IMO, has greatly aided Oklahoma’s success while hurt Nebraska & other B12 North schools. All the important rivalries would have been preserved.

           LikeLike

           July 8, 2010 at 1:35 pm Reply

           1. I think you seriously undervalue the importance of being able to remember who is in which division. You’ll always end up tripping over unnatural divisions — particularly when you have competition (i.e., the old NFC “West” with New Orleans, Carolina, and Atlanta could get away with it because there is no other credible pro football competition).

              LikeLike

              July 8, 2010 at 2:18 pm Reply

           2. UNL/OU was important to TV, but the others were important to those schools. Baylor and TT would lose their 2 most important rivals. If the UNL game was that important to OU, they would have adopted a 5-1-2 system like the SEC using the N/S alignment they have now. My guess (I don’t remember any discussion about why it wasn’t done) is OU preferred a balanced schedule rather than having a schedule possibly tougher than the other schools. Its one of the reasons the SEC went from 5-2-1 to 5-1-2 with 1 annual rival from the other division. Auburn was saddled with facing UGA and UF every year while Arkansas was getting UK and S. Carolina.

              I’m not sure there was any great outcry from UNL. Their fans definitely weren’t happy, but I don’t remember school officials complaining-maybe they did, but I don’t remember it.

              The idea was for CU/UNL to replace the OU game. CU won a national championship in 1990 and made a run in 94. OU was in a down cycle. But the rivalry never reached the same level of interest. And UNL totally dominated KU,KSU & ISU.

              LikeLike

              July 8, 2010 at 3:03 pm Reply

              1. OU didn’t think they could compete in the Big 12 south if they had to play Nebraska every year along with all the Texas schools. They thought (correctly, really) that it would be very difficult for them to win the Big 12 South if they had to play UNL every year and Texas, TAMU and OSU got to skip the Huskers at least every other year.

                 LikeLike

                 July 10, 2010 at 12:05 am

108. Don’t know if this thread is dead, but I have to say I’m a little suprised Frank to see a Big 10 division based primarily on geography. First of all, Delaney has expressly said that geography is not a big factor. And second, I don’t think this will maximize profit, what I see as the driving force behind expansion. I absolutely believe OSU and Michigan will be put in separate conferences. While everyone thinks the conference will avoid a rematch like the plague, it is precisely because this is their most marketable game that I think the conference separates the two teams. If interested, I wrote a piece on this which can be read at:

     http://thepolesposition.com/2010/07/07/the-new-big-ten-division-alignments-and-solving-the-ohio-state-michigan-problem/

     Would love your feedback on this…

     LikeLike

     July 8, 2010 at 3:24 pm Reply

     1. Forgive me for being a homer on this one… BUT… Wisconsin/Minnesota is the longest running/most played rivalry in Div 1A FB. So Alvarez has ties to Nebraska… Big Deal…

        It is no secret that Minn has sucked lately, but they do own the series lead vs UWisc… they lead versus Iowa as well… Michigan not-so-much… (that Lil Brown Jug is very elusive–damn thing anyway…)

        I still am very much for FTT’s K.I.S.S. and go with the east/west geographic split…

        LikeLike

        July 8, 2010 at 7:10 pm Reply

     2. The OSU/UM game is the most marketable matchup in the league because they only play once a year. It eviscerates the concept of a rivalry if the game that you play every year may-or-may-not be the game for all the bragging rights.

        If you read this thread, it responds to almost all of the points in your article: Delany’s comment about geography comes from the same guy who said shifting demographics were key even while accepting Nebraska; you say that Delany is willing to sacrifice tradition for cash even while none of the things you point to are a sacrifice of a meaningful tradition; there’s every reason to think that even if the CCG is “reduced to a scrimmage” in years when UM and OSU are both good, that would hurt anything (if anything, it builds interest in the 13-week regular season, rather than the 1-game playoff); lots of historical evidence in this thread indicates that Michigan is not so head-and-shoulders ahead of everybody else that your supposition is accurate (indeed, Nebraska is arguably the 2nd-best team in the league on Day 1); the Big 12’s problems were not due to a geographic alignment but, instead, uniquely fertile recruiting grounds in Texas and a profit-sharing imbalance, while the Big Ten does not have a particular recruiting territory which runs rings around the rest of the league and shares money equally.

        In short, I disagree with all of the premises of the argument that the geographic alignment is unacceptable.

        LikeLike

        July 8, 2010 at 7:53 pm Reply

        1. Adam, you can take that position, but Delaney is not. Are you suggesting he’s being disingenuous? I took the man at his word.

           They accepted Nebraska despite shifting demographics because Nebraska has a national fan base. Regardless of where these people move, they follow Nebraska.

           I disagree with you on the scrimmage point. The championship games in the ACC and the Big 12 have not been particularly interesting or lucrative because for the most part they were lopsided contests. The SEC match-up lately that has featured Florida v. Alabama is the model one. I realize it’s a short sample and both teams turned out to be national championship contenders, and this will rarely be the case, but this is still the model to strive for.

           To that end, I listed the teams by winning percentage for 17 years. I never argued there was a huge difference between Michigan and Nebraska, only that Michigan had a higher winning percentage for that block of time, which they do. Nebraska has been solid the last two years, but before that, their struggles were not unlike Michigans.

           I would love to preserve every rivalry if possible, but something will have to give. I imagine Wisconsin and Minnesota fans care about that rivalry, but no one else, It simply has no marketing appeal. I refuse to believe the Big 10 protects this game, over say, Ohio State v. Penn State or Michigan v. Michigan state, two games that have not been played as long but are clearly more competitive and more marketable.

           Finally, Ohio State-Michigan would only play twice in those years where they each win their division. Since that probably would not be a regular thing (especially if Nebraska is almost or as good as Michigan as you say), my guess is that people can live with it. I do understand the other side of the coin, but for me, having the two best teams play of the title is more important than possibly watering down one rivalry (albeit your best one) a bit, if in fact it does that.

           LikeLike

           July 11, 2010 at 12:07 pm Reply

           1. By making marketing appeal the primary consideration, you lose people (like me) who are interested in the league precisely because it isn’t concerned about marketing appeal, but instead makes decisions based on independent “what’s the right thing to do here” calculations.

              The day the Big Ten starts being more worried about marketing appeal than what’s the right thing to do is the day I sign off, which is why I was ready to write off following the Big Ten if they added Texas.

              LikeLike

              July 11, 2010 at 7:50 pm Reply

              1. Adam, I don’t see it as an either or proposition, which is what I see as the beauty of my model. The games that can best be marketed will probably also be the best games on the field, and having all hte best teams play each other will also be best for determining a true champion. I just see Wisconsin v. Ohio State furthering all of these goals better than Wisconsin v. Minnesota.

                 LikeLike

                 July 12, 2010 at 11:33 am

              2. The right thing to do is to put Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa together, no matter how much money could be made with some other alignment that sacrificed those annual rivalries. Those 3 schools have a hundred years of brand equity built up into the Big Ten, and the addition of Nebraska should not force them to sacrifice an ounce of it. It’s the wrong thing to do regardless of what makes for the best television.

                 LikeLike

                 July 12, 2010 at 1:10 pm

              3. Adam, I definitely am on board with your ideals. If academic and athletic tradition and history are thrown under the bus in the name of a few extra dollars… then I too am out the door.

                 As a point of reference, my interest in pro sports has significantly decreased to the point I don’t much care, because of all the self-centeredness and greed (Heck, look no further than Lebron (over-rated SOB). Even my beloved Twins have fallen by the wayside sacrificing TEAM for one huge salaried individual (even as much as I like Mauer–no one, and I mean NO ONE is worth the kind of money that’s thrown out at our (the fan’s) expense).

                 There’s no doubt that big time college athletics (particularly football) can contribute significantly to a school’s (and conference’s) bottom line. When this becomes the driving factor that affects the “student”-athlete we’ve got problems. If this is where we’re at, then the Big Ten and other power conferences might as well talk to the NFL and call it what it is… the minor league for the NFL.

                 I still happen to believe that the Big Ten and it’s proud universities still value the “student” part of the equation– reality is <100 students are on active football roster… Minnesota has over 50,000 students (incl grad students). Is football going to determine the end course of the university… NO… Roughly 1/4 of Minnesota's athletic budget is for football. Of course the revenue from football is slightly over 1/3… so some gains are made. And, as FTT and others have noted in related Big Ten threads, the athletic moneys are peanuts compared to research and academic moneys.

                 Why in God's name would the Big Ten powers that be do away with LONG-term tradition and history to POTENTIALLY gain a few dollars ($$$) in the SHORT-term. Today the big game may be Neb-PSU, tomorrow it may be Illinois-MSU (pick any). If Minnesota/Illinois/Northwestern are undefeated late in the year playing another team with a good record–people will watch.

                 The only reason Michigan-Ohio St is what it is, is this… Big Ten titles… Mich-42, tOSU- 34. And, conveniently, for many years it has been the last conf game for each school.

                 Just for reference, Minnesota is 3rd in conference with 18 titles, Wisconsin is 5th with 11.

                 Should Minn or any other Big Ten school step up their priority for their football program—the conference dynamics WILL change. In the age of "what have you done for me lately?" The dynamics likely will NOT be a constant…

                 LikeLike

                 July 12, 2010 at 11:53 pm

           2. And I am suggesting that Delany is being disingenuous, or at least that he has to say that “competitive balance” is his most important consideration because he’ll get a lot of flak for it if he doesn’t, but the league’s behavior thus far has indicated they say that a lot of things are what they “consider,” but people read more into those “considerations” than appears to be exercised.

              LikeLike

              July 11, 2010 at 7:54 pm Reply

              1. Adam, I am the first one to argue that one needs to be mindful of the cyclical trends in college football. I do not believe the SEC will be the best conference year in and year out for decades. However, when some trends begin to stretch into multiple decades, they are hard to ignore. You write about a season where Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern all go undefeated in one season? I have decades of data to suggest this is unlikely to ever happen. You can’t build a conference around scenarios like this. For the record, I was against expansion and a CCG because of these kinds of problems. Now that we are here, the idea of turning that game into a farce is unacceptable to me. My model preserved 13 of 16 while making sure the best matchups in terms of history and marketability (here I’m just being realistic) are preserved. After spending four hours trying all of the various combinations, you will find that it is impossible to preserve everything. At the end of the day, preserving rivalries that were last good in fifties is a low priority to me. I see your point, respect it, but just disagree.

                 LikeLike

                 July 13, 2010 at 11:47 am

     3. “It will matter little that Penn State has to fly a few hundred extra miles to Lincoln Nebraska when ABC is showing this game in prime time to two of the largest national fan bases in all of college football.

        You probably would not be saying this if you were a loyal member of a PSU traveling group. As PSU is already the most eastern outlier their travel is 1) all westward and considerably so when you consider Nebraska. 2) none that your dad, a Penn State grad, would recognize from his school days. While #2 looses relevance in that the eastern teams PSU once played are all down or a step down from the weekly competition they get in the Big Ten. Back to #1. Do you think any of these people care that they are inconvenienced because someone wants to setup a game that may be prohibited for their travel every other week? OSU and MSU are the only reasonably close games for them to travel to. Why take that away?

        LikeLike

        July 9, 2010 at 3:35 pm Reply

        1. That’s consistent with Mr. Ziemba’s exclusive focus on TV ratings. Virtually every point he makes in his article revolves around television. I think Frank made the point well that the ACC’s pursuit of “an alignment that looks like a TV executive searching for short-term ad dollars” ended up hurting them more than helping. Notice that they just doubled their per-school take and it’s going to be about half of what the Big Ten pays out. Good job guys!

           LikeLike

           July 9, 2010 at 10:59 pm Reply

           1. Adam, that was one of my two points. The other major point was doing your best to match the two best teams against each other. Historically, that is Ohio State and Michigan. This can’t be accomplished if they are in the same division.

              LikeLike

              July 11, 2010 at 12:14 pm Reply

        2. STV, college football commissioners and university presidents have proven they will not make decisions based on the few thousand people that travel to games. While it is somewhat inconvenient, my guess is that they trade the revenue and excitement of regularly playing Nebraska for the problem of traveling a few hundred extra miles every other year.

           LikeLike

           July 11, 2010 at 12:10 pm Reply

     4. I will take the contrarian position here and say that I thought this was a good article. I especially liked the reference to geography not mattering when it came to Texas joining the Big Ten but now is the prime consideration when discussing conference alignment. Touche!
        The only issue I have is with splitting up OSU and Michigan. Note that the SEC schedules Alabama-Auburn at the end of the season, and although Georgia-Florida isn’t at the end of the season if memory serves it is usually at about the same point in the schedule every year. It might make more sense for the SEC to have Alabama and Auburn in separate divisions with a protected rivalry to try to have two Alabama-Auburn games (one regular season, and the championship game), but tradition just doesn’t support that. Keep OSU and Michigan together and put PSU and Nebraska together.
        I find the comments about the student roadies amusing. The closest school to PSU is OSU, and that is over a 5 hour drive one-way. The Michigan schools are at least 7 hour drives one-way. It would be interesting to know how many college students actually do make these arguably long road trips. When I went to Penn State (many years ago I’ll admit), I don’t remember any kids talking about making road trips to away games, and in those days the drives to most away games were more reasonable. It’s rather difficult for me to imagine a lot of kids spending 10-plus or 14-plus hours out of a 2-day weekend to make a road trip when that game will be on TV in glorious high-definition. Schools like Penn State might actually prefer playing schools located farther away as this may result in fewer visitor tickets being sold and more tickets available to Penn State fans. I don’t remember when PSU last had less than 100K in Beaver Stadium for any game, even against FCS competition.
        As far as the ACC comments, comparing the ACC to the Big Ten is like comparing a limousine to a sedan. Most ACC schools are smaller schools than Big Ten schools, have smaller stadiums, and generally are in smaller markets. Plus the conference is basketball-driven, not football-driven. I don’t think the value of the ACC contract hinges on division alignment as much as the factors mentioned above. If the ACC did realign geographically I doubt their TV contract would change much at all.

        LikeLike

        July 10, 2010 at 5:52 am Reply

        1. I also think the article makes some good points. There seems to be some level of denial about what Delany has put forth about geography not being a driving factor in alignment, with the justification for that denial being that sun belt exposure was talked about, but the result, at this point, has only been the addition of Nebraska. The difference is that alignment is much more under the control of Delany than the courtship of Texas and the give and take of both parties interests during that process.

           Delany and his television people will no doubt attempt to maximize Big Ten exposure. I don’t suppose they have the final word if any particular school has some kind of deal breaker objection, but to think that they won’t present a very good and well researched case for what they propose, should it be something completely different than what most appear to assume, seems a little presumptuous to me. If it looks a lot like what the article proposes, I wouldn’t be surprised at all. At this point every possibility has to be on the table for dissection by people who know a lot about the business of maximizing the money the Big Ten brings in. They certainly haven’t disappointed anyone so far, which is one of the biggest reasons the Big Ten is such an attractive destination.

           LikeLike

           July 10, 2010 at 7:08 am Reply

           1. My model will result in the loudest objections from Wisconsin, clearly. I know they want a regular matchup with Nebraska, and probably would object to the lost game against Minnesota. That said, I think Iowa_Nebraska is a better matchup, and think that the latter has lost its luster with Minnesota’s play the last several decades. In my model, Wisconsin gets a regular matchup against Ohio State instead, a better game as far as I’m concerned.

              LikeLike

              July 11, 2010 at 12:24 pm Reply

        2. I find it ironic that the “balance of power” discussion starts with the assumption that the geographic West is inferior to the geographic East. I recognize that this is based upon the last 30 years or so, but it is interesting that if Nebraska were in the Big Ten this year, the “weak” West would have three preseason top 10 teams according to ESPN (Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska).

           Most of the recent (last 10-12 years) data is skewed because Ohio State has been so dominant in the Big Ten during the Tressel era. Take out Ohio State, the other four major teams (Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska and Iowa) have been fairly comparable, with each team having ups and downs. During the last 12 years, Ohio State has won or tied for the Big Ten title 7 times compared to 4 for Michigan and 2 each for Iowa, Wisconsin and Penn State.

           In BCS Bowls, Ohio State has won 5 BCS bowls in the last 12 years compared to 2 for Wisconsin and 1 each for Iowa, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska.

           LikeLike

           July 10, 2010 at 11:07 am Reply

           1. Hawk, that is true, which is why I worked to balance the division in terms of winning percentage, and idea I got admittedly from Stuart Mandel. Even with Ohio State’s dominance, which I agree is an anomaly, their value of 1 was worth only 1 more point than Michigan that was given a two, meaning that I didn’t give too much weight to OSU’s dominance.

              LikeLike

              July 11, 2010 at 12:20 pm Reply

109. Wow. Just wow.

     http://redoutaroundtheworld.com/

     No, there’s no Husker obsession with Texas. At all.

     LikeLike

     July 8, 2010 at 3:47 pm Reply

     1. What? You’d rather we aimed low? If ISU was the defending champ, it’d be, beat Iowa State.

        LikeLike

        July 8, 2010 at 6:18 pm Reply

        1. Apparently, beating ISU is a pretty big goal for Nebraska lately.

           LikeLike

           July 8, 2010 at 8:17 pm Reply

           1. Last year anyway. Eight turnovers will get you every time. I could have said Kansas State to put the heebie jeebies into Texas, I suppose. Funny game, funny bounces.

              LikeLike

              July 9, 2010 at 3:05 am Reply

              1. It was a KSU player who hurt Colt’s shoulder his freshman year when he was trying to sneak into the end zone. Bama player’s hit wasn’t nearly as scary as that one. Colt didn’t walk off that time. If only the Bama player’s hit had been a couple of inches higher or lower-or the KSU player’s hit-who knows…. I’d bet that was why Colt didn’t go higher in the draft.

                 LikeLike

                 July 9, 2010 at 8:16 am

     2. I have the distinct feeling that this is going to be the most hyped game of the year. While I can’t afford good tickets, I’m still planning a trip down to Lincoln for College Game Day. If either team loses before hand, there’s a chance they’ll go to Madison for Ohio State-Wisconsin (the only other good game that week). I will not be happy if I miss College Game Day. I haven’t been to the show since I was a student for the Nebraska-Notre Dame game.

        LikeLike

        July 8, 2010 at 10:28 pm Reply

110. ACC deal with ABC/ESPN official. $ not officially disclosed, but unofficially same numbers as before-$155 million per year, doubling their take. Similar to SEC deal paying $205 million, covering multiple sports.

     LikeLike

     July 9, 2010 at 8:19 am Reply

111. Another Orlando article-interviewing FSU AD. About midway down touches on a number of topics discussed here-future expansion, value of a home game ($2 million for FSU), facilities race, comparability of revenue figures for different conferences.

     http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_fsu/2010/07/florida-state-athletic-director-randy-spetman-visits-orlando-a-recap.html

     LikeLike

     July 9, 2010 at 2:12 pm Reply

     1. Price for money games varies widely. Seen several references to games costing $1.0 million. Per AJC today-Alabama is paying Georgia State $435,000 this year. It went up from 400k when they moved it from Saturday to Thursday.

        LikeLike

        July 14, 2010 at 1:05 pm Reply

112. Question on the idea of “powerful interests again the formation of the PAC16” ….

     What exactly were those powerful interests against, and why?

     For example, if ESPN was against the formation of the PAC16 because they felt that the PAC’s current relationship with FOXSports would likely result in the PAC16 being on FOXPSports … then that DOESN’T mean that ESPN would against the formation of a B16Ten on ABC/ESPN or the growth of the BigXII into the BigXVI if it was on ABC/ESPN.

     If the Texas Legislature was again the formation of the PAC16 because it split up Texas and TA&M … that doesn’t mean that they would against Texas and TA&M going to the SEC.

     It sounds to me like a “perfect storm” where lots of people ended up with somewhat aligned interests, and killed the formation of the PAC16. Until we know more about those interests, I don’t think you can assume that those same people would all be against the formation of a different SuperMegaConference with 16 teams ….

     Also, it might mean that all Scott has to do to get the PAC16 formed is to talk to a few of those power brokers and get them to change their mind, or give them what they want, and he can try again for his PAC16 …

     LikeLike

     July 10, 2010 at 3:10 pm Reply

113. The Pac will happen sooner than later once Neb and Col. are actually gone from B12. Why did Big 8 and SWC teams join in the first place? TV viewers. money. The current lineup is the first step back to where they all started.

     LikeLike

     July 10, 2010 at 9:32 pm Reply

     1. If the Pac-16 does happen, who are the four that go in? Will it indeed be Texas Tech, Texas, Oklahoma State and Oklahoma? Does Texas A&M go to the SEC, and if so, who accompanies it? And what happens to Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Missouri and Baylor?

        Part of me agrees with you that the Big (now less than) 12 is simply a holding pattern for a few years by TPTB, but who will set the carousel in motion once again? Will Texas come to the conclusion that the Longhorn Network is more of a problem than it’s worth? Will Delany and the Big Ten presidents choose to expand again, coveting the New York-to-Washington corridor, even if Notre Dame isn’t in the equation? Will Virginia Tech choose to play conference nomad one more time, desirous of the money and football prestige the SEC provides? And if things get in motion again, will ESPN be able to put its foot down once again?

        LikeLike

        July 11, 2010 at 8:21 am Reply

        1. vincent,

           Still surprised no FOIA requests have brought to light who all the mysterious forces were across the US that saved the Big 12. The thing that will hold the conference together going forward is the cost benefit to the media companies of paying off a single team [see also UT] versus opening up conference media contracts [see also SEC] which will cost them much more money.

           For better or worse the lesson on media deals well be new markets. Many in texas have called for a revival of the SWC which was all texas teams plus arkansas. In the new version OU and oSu would replace Arkansas but it would still be a 2 state conference. Sure UT and OU would in essence own it, but in the modern world a 2 state footprint will not create demand outside of those two states. The Big 10 and SEC know the value of adding new states as opposed to subtracting them.

           The Big 10 added 1 team, and picked up a new state. The Pac 10 added 2 teams, and picked up 2 new states. The problem for a Longhorn Network is what will the value for content be outside of texas? Patrick gave us insight to carriage rates and Alan gave us insight to Tier 3 values in the SEC. UT may find value in their own state, but they will give up value in many other states. I think Alan gave a link some time back at networks that carry SEC games that were not in states where the SEC had member teams.

           The Big 10 and SEC are the most relevant conferences. The Pac 10 has risen in stature, and the Big 12 has fallen. The biggest signal in all of this may be that a conference will expand it footprint to grow, and those conferences that shrink their footprint will over time be relegated to obscurity. All this said this will probably be the future:

           a) UT will find out that a UT centered network with few outlets outside the state will be doomed to failure. The Big 10, SEC, and Pac 10 have multiple sports with multiple teams to provide content across their footprints. Over time these sports values will rise. Outside of football and men’s basketball the major conferences offer values in other sports. Hockey has nice development potential in the Big 10. Baseball has strength in the Pac 10 and SEC. Women’s basketball has value in all 3 conferences for multiple teams. While they may not offer the income stream of football, they will probably offer nice revenue streams 10 – 20 years from now.

           b) If this happens UT will be forced to expand or wither. The smart move would be UT & TT + OU & oSu to the PAC 16 to round out the conference.

           c) Oddly enough the BE could be the long term winner as the SEC has no teams they desire in the conference, so their only threat is the Big 10

           c) As I said early on, the ACC borders the Big 10 and SEC so they will continue to be the most vulnerable in future actions. The SEC did not add Missouri or Kansas when they were vulnerable. They also did not appear to want TT or oSu so if the SEC goes west A&M is probably the only team they will invite. The last 3 slots would be for teams on the eastern side of their footprint. Going back to my original argument for the value of ‘brands’ the ACC has none. This may be the sad fact that leads to their inability to add a major brand. Their only hope would be to land ND, which is possible but not probable.

           d) ESPN could put its foot down because it was basically dealing with 1 team vs multiple teams in a conference. This works as long as ESPN can limit it to just UT. the Longhorn Conference will continue to be unstable, and sooner or later one of the second tier teams will bolt. My guess would be Kansas to the Pac 10 with or without Kansas State. If they could convince OU and oSu to follow them then UT will go from the most attractive to the least attractive in short order.

           an 8 team PAC EAST would look like this:

           Az + Az St
           Ut + CU
           KU + KSU
           OU + oSu

           the Pac 10 would pick up a major football brand, and a major basketball brand. They could keep academic issues in the core of the Pac 16 WEST. OU could write their own history to grow their multiple sports brands and dominate their division with no Texas OR Nebraska to compete with for dollars. If USC returns, the Pac 16 would be the annual battle between USC and OU for a shot at the NC. OU could still play UT and / or UNL in OOC games but they will control the decisions, and the checkbook by themselves. If Dan Scott were smart he may sell such a deal to the Kansas and Oklahoma schools and be done with it. OU would come out with the best deal in the new Pac 16 EAST.

           Fox could drive the whole bus, and keep the historic ties with the Big 10. Fox would have the BTN and the PTN, while ESPN would have the SEC and ACC. What ESPN wants may be countered by making OU master of their future instead of having to be tied to UT.

           LikeLike

           July 11, 2010 at 10:43 am Reply

           1. “Still surprised no FOIA requests have brought to light who all the mysterious forces were across the US that saved the Big 12.”

              That’s because there was no such group of Illuminati. It’s a cover story. What is the simplest explanation for what happened?

              a) The University of Texas was exploring all their options as to conferences that would be interested in their joining, Big 12 status quo, the option of eventual independence, and how their personal television network factored into all those possibilities.

              b) The Big Ten was interested in expansion, and very interested in Texas.

              c) The Big Ten interest in expansion flushed out a pair of schools interested in the Big Ten, first Missouri, no surprise as this option has been talked about for decades, second Nebraska, a big surprise to the Big Ten. A fly in the ointment for Texas, because it threatened their most desired outcome, Big 12 status quo plus Longhorn Network, which had been blocked by other schools and which they wished to unblock with a threat of entertaining suitors elsewhere.

              d) DeLoss Dodds prefaces the Big 12 meetings with his “we didn’t start this, but we’ll finish it.” What do you suppose he meant by that? We’ll go off to some other conference? Or we’ll shut down the Big Ten’s interest in Nebraska because that threatens our most desirable outcome?

              e) Texas got a most unexpected answer from the Big Ten to their Nebraska ultimatum, which was really their last stand to preserve the status quo, delivered in the form of taking their friends to the Pac 10 and forever foreclosing the possibility of Texas to the Big Ten. Go ahead and do it, we’re still taking Nebraska.

              f) Texas scrambles to save face, because any option that requires them to be something other than the alpha dog, with their own network, is not truly under consideration. Beebe gets somebody to promise some big numbers, they get their network concession, and a couple TV networks cover their immediate interests, at least on proposal paper, for the moment. Any further objections are rationalized away, and for now, the situation stabilizes, awaiting further developments in how all these promises and expectations turn out to be in hard, cold reality.

              g) None of this requires some supergroup of bigshots banding together to save college football. It only requires a few parties looking out for their best interests, the likeliest explanation, in my opinion.

              LikeLike

              July 12, 2010 at 8:47 am Reply

114. What is it with these people with the old SWC mentality? Sure the football was entertaining but it’s got to be pretty clear by now that there just was not enough diversity in that conference. Texas is not a whole country any more. A conference centering on Texas ( new SWC) would have more diversity if they could add AZ, CO, AR, OK, KS, UT and LA. All these states could provide much better diversity and balance given there are not more than 2- 3 Texas schools in the mix. This adds stability and a wider range of interest over time.

     There are probably less than ten schools that might be able to pull off their own network with some degree of success and Texas is one. Even so over the long haul one would expect this network to plateau pretty fast; and then what? I just don’t see it the same for a whole conference network ie the BTN because there is more content to watch. I would say Texas, ND, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, Miami and USC are the teams I have in mind that can go solo for a network.

     Yes Duffman, the Big Twelve IS a holding pattern. Next time around though if I were the Pac ten commissioner I would be a whole lot more pickier. I would take no more than two Texans. Then I would look elsewhere, other than Texas if I am bound to go to 16. Maybe it would be better to have all of Utah the way the Big Ten now has all of Nebraska than to have more Texas politics and wrangling.

     I don’t believe that KU has the gravitas to presume its way into the PAC 10. Not all by its lonesome. As good as KU basketball has been historically I don’t see it. As we recall Football drives the bus. If you take a poll of the Pac 10 football players, I would be willing to bet they would all be way up to go play a game in Omaha on a given Saturday but Lawrence Kansas? Not-so-much.
     The Big East and ND galls me if I am the commissioner of the Big Ten. It’s because they both are an obstacle in the way of what I want. My next move would be to take one and damage the other.

     LikeLike

     July 11, 2010 at 3:44 pm Reply

     1. The Big East and ND galls me if I am the commissioner of the Big Ten. It’s because they both are an obstacle in the way of what I want. My next move would be to take one and damage the other.

        If you’re Delany, how do you go about doing this? Assuming it’s easier to take in the Big East rather than ND, bring in Rutgers and Maryland (the latter is not Big East, true, but its demographics and institutional appeal are too good to pass up), Would ND, sensing it could soon forever lose its window of Big Ten opportunity, feel compelled to join at last, along with another BE partner such as Syracuse?

        LikeLike

        July 11, 2010 at 5:21 pm Reply

     2. I don’t know who in Texas is calling for a revival of the SWC. The only people I have seen talking about that aren’t in Texas. Everyone in Texas (except maybe TCU fans) understands the SWC didn’t work in the post CFA world. The reason for the ultimatum to Nebraska was because noone thought the B12 would get the money it is currently projected to get w/o Nebraska and CU or w/o CU and Missouri.

        I don’t think ACC is vulnerable. GT, Miami and FSU all chose ACC over SEC. The core, VT and BC certainly aren’t looking to move to the SEC. There would have to be a dramatic, long term $ difference. Right now it is only $4 million a year and in that interview with the FSU AD, he indicated that it was really narrower as what was covered was a little different. And that despite the ACC signing in a terrible market. In the past, the ACC had better contracts, so it appears to be an advantage only for the term of the contract.

        LikeLike

        July 11, 2010 at 8:07 pm Reply

        1. I think the only ACC schools that are realignment candidates are Maryland (because the Big Ten would be a financial bonanza, be a major boost for its football program since the ACC has no luster to the Washington/Baltimore market, and the academic and research benefits would be immense) and Virginia Tech (football has become so big at that school that joining the SEC would cement its top-tier status in that sport, and it could continue to play UVa in non-conference games, just as it did for decades). Were UMd and VT to leave, they can be replaced by the likes of Connecticut and Pittsburgh and the ACC wouldn’t miss a beat.

           LikeLike

           July 11, 2010 at 8:20 pm Reply

           1. I’m with you on Maryland/Rutgers acquisition. Though you can also consider Syracuse replacing Rutgers. Syracuse with at least 2 (basketball and Lacrosse) programs on a national stage. Football is down but not hopeless. Taking Maryland would not destabilize but would send some shockwaves towards the ACC. If in fact the ACC then turned around and raided the BE to replace Maryland, then it future advances the(my) Big Ten agenda. ND into or laps and BE damaged/Destroyed.

              LikeLike

              July 12, 2010 at 6:53 am Reply

           2. As long and hard as VT pushed to get in the ACC-about 50 years, I just don’t see them leaving w/o a huge financial incentive. Being in the ACC didn’t hurt Bobby Bowden. Noone has ever had a run like he did(14 straight top 5 finishes), most of which were in the ACC.

              I could see MD leaving for B10 if invited.

              LikeLike

              July 12, 2010 at 8:08 am Reply

        2. bullet,

           The ACC is vulnerable for several reasons:

           a) what we learned from the Big 12. The Big 12 was most vulnerable because it was in the range of all 3 major conferences The Big 10, The Pac 10, and the SEC. The Big East is the least vulnerable because ONLY the Big 10 has schools in range and the Pac 10 and SEC does not.

           b) The ACC was an off shoot of the SEC via the old Southern Conference. South Carolina was a member of the ACC, it is now a member of the SEC. Ga Tech was an SEC school but Bobby Dodds and Bear Bryant had a feud that led to Ga Tech withdrawing from the SEC. Case left Indiana for a job with NC State and brought basketball to the ACC. The success they have with UNC and Duke right now is because of Case. The problem is basketball – as evidenced by KU has little to no value – does not drive the revenue bus football does. In short the ACC is younger than the Big 10 and SEC, and does not have a top 10 ‘brand’ as discussed in numerous previous posts.

           c) In previous posts, 80 – 90 % of the bloggers on the Terp boards want out of the ACC. They refer to it as the All Carolina Conference, Like Nebraska in the Big 12 there is a pecking order in the ACC. In virginia you have a UVA / VT situation similar to UT / A&M on a smaller scale. That coupled with my earlier argument of predator vs prey should be considered here. In earlier posts I argued that the Big 10, Pac 10, and SEC were the predators and the Big 12, ACC, and BE were the prey. So far this has been the case, and I see no combination in the ‘prey’ conferences that can change their status. If you can show me how the Big 12, ACC, or Big East can get a current Big 10, SEC, or Pac 10 member then I will buy your argument. If you can not, I stand my ground on this point.

           d) You say there is only a 4 million dollar difference between the SEC and ACC contract, but you do not address site value or tier 3 media rights that Alan was so kind to enlighten us on. Look at 2 basketball schools, and look at the football part of the equation. UK and Duke both have top basketball programs with less than stellar football programs. Duke has a 30,000 + seat football stadium they can not fill, and UK can sell 70,000 seats even tho they are the cellar dweller. Any ACC school with a big football stadium benefits in added revenue (above the 4 million) by being in the SEC. The tier 3 revenue is significant, and extends the SEC far beyond the states with SEC schools. According to Alan last year this added 10 million to the Gators coffers (which means the bottom line difference is not 4 million, but 14 million as 4 + 10 = 14). The ability to sell additional seats in Kyle Field to rabid SEC fans, and the added Tier 3 money were 2 reasons A&M was heading to the SEC and not the Pac 10 with TU, OU, TT, oSu, etc. If the ACC contract was 155, an added team in the SEC would allow their clause to reopen the contract and push the current SEC contract into the 250 – 350 range annually. That 4 million dollar gap would widen considerably and schools like Duke and Wake can not add that much football value.

           I disagree with your assessment about VT, as I think they would be in the SEC especially if the other SEC add was A&M. VT and A&M share the red headed stepchild label in their respective states and they are the 2 Biggest CoC schools in the United States. They would have a built in rivalry from day one that would fit well in the SEC, and this makes more sense than A&M joining the ACC or VT joining the Big 12. GT, UM, and FSU are not the dominant media properties in their home states (GT is not the dominant media property in its home city of Atlanta) so they bring little value to the SEC. Slive went to Dartmouth, UVA, and Georgetown so he is no dummy when it comes to future realignment. In the last expansion the SEC got Arkansas and South Carolina. While you may poo poo this combination, note that both schools are in the top 20 most valuable in the Forbes ranking. Can Wake Forest or Baylor make this claim (in fairness the Forbes list is dominated by schools in the Big 10 and SEC).

           In short you have to look at the big picture which is why I like this site. It looks beyond the simple points, and accounts for data that may not be noticed by the majority of folks, but may reflect a much truer picture in the realignment discussion. The input by Frank, Patrick, and Alan have made me see much more of the picture than I originally did.

           LikeLike

           July 12, 2010 at 8:37 am Reply

           1. C) If I were the commissioner of the Big East I would preemptively go after Kansas, Missouri and Iowa State. A conference move for some schools is more comfortable when you have company or there is an abandon ship mentality. I would pay their exit fees.
              Three things happen here. You get two football teams with Missouri will upgrade the first 3rd of the BE. You get Kansas which does not hurt Big East basketball one bit. It’s win, win. I believe even Iowa state will strengthen whatever 3rd of the BE it settles into. This move will encroach on both the Big XII and Big Ten which is a real macho move given the BE vulnerability. Yeah sure they are still not in an A-list of football conferences but they ( Big East) Improve overall as opposed to waiting for something bad to happen. Even if they lose a Rutgers or an ND they have taken steps forward.

              LikeLike

              July 12, 2010 at 10:19 am Reply

              1. StvInILL,

                 any reason for Iowa State? Why not KSU in their place?

                 With your 3, they are close enough to UL, UC and ND to negate some of the travel issues. I agree with your aggressive stance tho, as the winners were the Big 10 and Pac 10 by acting first in this last round.

                 LikeLike

                 July 12, 2010 at 10:36 am

              2. No Problem with KSU Duffman. I assume they probably would follow KS if allowed. I was merely representing three more states. This incidentally includes 4 schools. I am also mindful of bringing too many teams from the same conference. The politics becomes a factor.
                 Big East Football
                 NORTH
                 Connecticut
                 Syracuse
                 WV
                 Rutgers
                 Pittsburg
                 Louisville

                 SOUTH
                 USF
                 Cincinnati
                 Iowa State
                 Missouri
                 Kansas
                 Kansas State

                 LikeLike

                 July 12, 2010 at 11:01 am

              3. I like the idea of ISU, Missouri, Kansas and KSU in the Big East, but only if the football conference schools break off to form their own league. The Big East is a clumsy hybrid as it is.

                 Also, I would make the divisions of this new league (America’s Conference?) into East and West:

                 East: Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, South Florida, Syracuse, West Virginia
                 West: Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Missouri

                 LikeLike

                 July 12, 2010 at 2:57 pm

           2. Name one B10 school that would go to SEC. Texas wouldn’t go to SEC. ACC has an academic “superiority” and perception (not going to argue whether its true or not) of following the rules superiority over the SEC. Note that all the B12 schools except A&M were interested in the P10 over the SEC.

              As far as tertiary rights, it has to do with the school, not the conference. Do you think Vandy has big tertiary $? Arkansas was a premier program before joining the SEC. S. Carolina and UK have always supported their teams well. You can’t fill a 70k seat stadium with opponent’s fans. Ask Rice-or Vanderbilt. Traveling allotments are not that big a portion.

              And since the ACC has generally larger faster growing states and has lead in broadcast $ until this last contract, there is good reason to believe that the ACC will continue to be at least comparable in $ to the SEC over the long run.

              I think the better view of VT would be Texas Tech. Texas Tech took a long time to get into the SWC and they weren’t trying to head off elsewhere. But I’m not a VT fan, so I can’t really speak for them.

              LikeLike

              July 12, 2010 at 1:43 pm Reply

           3. ACC is a premier conference along with B10 and P10. Noone from B10 would join SEC. Texas wouldn’t do it. Several ACC schools had the chance and wouldn’t do it. The combination of academics and perception (if not reality) of failing to abide by the rules makes the SEC a less prestigious place to be. As Frank said, “think like a college president.” Competition doesn’t offset the prestige issue. Only significant $ would and, long term, I don’t think SEC does that-ACC was always better until the most recent contract.

              Tier 3 relates to the school, not the conference. Opposing school fans don’t fill a 70k stadium. Ask Rice. Don’t even fill a 40k stadium. Ask Vandy. And Vandy is a school that might very well join the ACC if asked. Don’t know why the ACC would ask.

              VT fans will have to speak for themselves, but I don’t think they have the same chip A&M does. IMO they’re more like Texas Tech who fought long and hard to get in the SWC and wasn’t about to separate from Texas and OU. And being in the ACC didn’t stop Bobby Bowden from guiding FSU to an unprecedented (and probably never repeated) 14 straight years in the top 5.

              LikeLike

              July 12, 2010 at 8:26 pm Reply

              1. bullet,

                 a) if one thinks like a college president, then the Big 12 losing 2 AAU schools in the last realignment shows it can happen.

                 b) the SEC has only 2 tier 3 schools in the conference (and both are in mississippi) and they are grandfathered in.

                 c) Vandy and Florida are AAU schools and UGA is not far behind. The SEC put into place their version of the CIC, but it is in its infancy. Delany and Slive are the 2 smartest guys out there, and both got their JD’s from ACC schools.

                 d) If football drives the bus, and the addition of UNL and not KU to the Big 10 is clear example of this, it stands to reason that the Big 10 and the SEC are the premier conferences (as evidenced by the media values of the 2 conferences).

                 e) I can not say for the whole conference, but UK (which is in the 70,000 seat range sells big blocks of seats to the opposing SEC team) so I can tell your assertion is incorrect. I must defer to Alan or Bama for other SEC schools. To say that Rice can not fill their stadium is a moot point (no offense loki) as Rice is not in the SEC.

                 f) we have discussed this quite often that the ACC has none of the top brands and the Pac 10 only has 1 (USC) so I can not understand why you think the football values are so great in those conferences.

                 g) Tier 3 does relate to the individual school, but the value is directly related to the conference. As for Vandy, they are unique as Dr. William Dudley AT Vandy was the founder of the SIAA (the original conference that became the SEC). Vandy as the founder is HIGHLY unlikely to leave the SEC. Go back and find Alan’s link on Tier 3 values and media outlets as it was an eye opener for me (I think Alan said LSU’s Tier 3 deal with Cox Communications added 6 million to their bottom line last year).

                 h) I am not sure how to interpret your comment between the Big 10 and SEC. They are the top 2 football conferences so it seems highly unlikely that either could poach a school from the opposing conference. As stated early on the 3 conferences unlikely to lose members are the Big 10, Pac 10, and SEC. That is why they are the predators and schools in the Big 12, ACC, and Big East are the prey.

                 i) VT is a CoC school (there are 6 in the country, and 5 are in the south). the 2 major ones are VT and A&M. This does not put them in the same category as texas tech, but puts them in the same category as A&M as the core identity of the institution has deep roots in the CoC model.

                 j) I do not know where you call home bullet, but my home range is at the borders of the Big 10, SEC, and Big East and the media in the area cover all 3 conferences so I have a decent idea of what is going on in each of the 3 conferences.

                 I understand the academic prestige argument, but nobody is beating down the doors to broadcast Harvard vs Yale. There is a reason for this as Big Public schools produce lots of alumni. No surprise that the Big 10, Pac 10, and SEC are full of these types of schools.

                 I said this early on that if you think your opponent will do what you want them to do, you have already lost. The fact that A&M did not choose to join UT in the Pac 16 tells me that nothing is etched in stone in any conference that can be considered prey. I noticed you did not address Maryland at all, and they are the most vulnerable team in the ACC.

                 vincent and I have discussed this for quite some time. I could see Maryland and UVA in the Big 10 and VT and NC State in the SEC after that who could say where the ACC would wind up, but it would confirm that they were at the mercy of the Big 10 and SEC, not the other way around.

                 As for FSU the next few years will be interesting to watch. Like JoPa or the bear, Bowden has been the face of FSU the entire time they have experienced success in football. Any coach following a legacy coach will experience a level of expectation that is hard to live up to. Just an observation.

                 LikeLike

                 July 13, 2010 at 5:35 am

              2. @duffman: … To say that Rice can not fill their stadium is a moot point (no offense loki) as Rice is not in the SEC.

                 No offense taken. Since we built that behemoth at the end of the ’50s it has never really sold out. I think the last sell out was in about 1961. Even playing Texas and A&M for 35 years in the SWC the games would not fill the damn thing. Now that they have removed the end zone bleachers to cut capacity to around 40k, we seat about 15k per game. College football is just a difficult draw in big cities. NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, big metropolitan areas don’t do CFB well. You have to get down the Austin, Tx/Columbus, OH tier of cities to start seeing the big crowds.

                 LikeLike

                 July 13, 2010 at 8:44 am

              3. @ duffman
                 a) B12 lost those 2 AAU schools to conferences that were more prestigious academically, not to less prestigous ones.
                 b)c) ACC has 5 AAU schools and after those 5, BC, Miami and WF, schools that clearly would rank at least 3rd or 4th in SEC.
                 f) ACC has FSU and Miami who are 2 of the top 12.
                 g) And Vandy has great tier 3 #s? Point is that VT, FSU and Clemson probably have big numbers as do the schools in the SEC that draw 70k/game. Ole Miss, MSU and Vandy don’t. LSU’s is a factor of LSU’s fan support, not the SEC.

                 h) You said if I couldn’t name a school that would leave the SEC for the ACC that would prove your point. I could say the same thing back to you regarding ACC for SEC and was demonstrating that by pointing out B10 schools would not
                 join SEC.
                 i) My comparison to Texas Tech was relative to the “little brother” syndrome. I don’t think VT feels that way as much as A&M does. UVA is a rival, but they don’t seem to be obsessed with them.

                 Your Yale/Harvard point illustrates my point. None of the Ivy league would even consider leaving for a less academically prestigious conference.
                 Penn isn’t knocking on the door of the B10 or ACC. And it would take a lot of $ IMO to get an ACC school to consider the SEC.

                 Earlier, I agreed with Vincent on MD and the B10. And ACC might be prone to a B10 raid, but not SEC, barring a major long term revenue difference.

                 LikeLike

                 July 13, 2010 at 3:27 pm

              4. bullet,

                 please keep the division between academics and athletics! I am not saying Harvard or Yale are bad academic schools, I am saying that while their academics are stellar, their athletics are not. The realignment of conferences are due to football revenue. I am not saying academics do not matter, as I think they are quite important, but this is not what is driving realignment, case in point:

                 a) UNL and KU are AAU schools. One has a premier football program and one has a premier basketball program. The AAU school with the football ‘brand’ was able to leave the Big 12, and the basketball ‘brand’ had no invite. While I personally think academics should matter, by action we see that they do not. I am pointing out the hypocritical nature in the ‘academics’ vs ‘athletics’ debate.

                 b) in an earlier post I listed the top ‘brands’ in football as (in no order):

                 USC
                 ND
                 tOSU
                 Michigan
                 BAMA
                 OU
                 UT
                 PSU
                 UNL
                 + 1 SEC

                 All of these schools are #1 in their home state, have a long term history of winning, and have multigenerational fan bases.

                 I am not denying the success of FSU or Miami but point out that neither are the #1 historic program in their own state (that distinction belongs to the Gators). While both had a solid decade or two, neither has transcended multiple generations of fans (assuming a generation runs between 20 – 30 years for each generation). The FSU dynasty was 1987 – 2000 and the Miami dynasty was 1983 – 2001. Again these were great runs, but nothing like the long term success of the 10 ‘brands’ in the above list. As someone else pointed out, Illinois had early success in football as did Harvard & Yale, but these programs have not had the post WWII glory that they did before WWII. FSU and Miami could be a ‘brand’ in the future, or they could fall to obscurity, but at this point they to not have the history to be considered a ‘brand’.

                 c) The ‘academic’ Pac 10 conference was willing to take OU, oSu, TT in order to get UT and A&M. Clearly athletics and not academics was driving the ‘new’ Pac 16. Again if academics were driving realignment, why was the Pac 10 willing to degrade its academic image. Actions speak louder than words, and actions say football revenue is most important.

                 d) You are totally ignoring my predator vs prey argument in the Big 10 / SEC / ACC debate. The ACC is not a predator! The 3 predators are the Big 10, Pac 10, and SEC. Predators consume prey, not the other way around. If you can not understand this simple law of nature I do not know how to explain it any clearer. Predators are unlikely to attack other predators when prey is still out there to be consumed. I can see at least half of the ACC that could be consumed by the Big 10 or SEC, but can not see the ACC consuming even 1 team from the Big 10 or SEC.

                 e) you did not define your personal background, so I am still unsure how you can predict behavior without some actual background on what specific knowledge you bring to the table. Loki is the Rice person, Bama and Alan have strong SEC backgrounds, Vincent has first hand knowledge of Maryland. Frank and Patrick have extensive Big 10 knowledge. You seem to feel the ACC is impervious to being eaten, but never say if you attended and ACC school.

                 My main argument for VT and A&M was that they are CoC schools, which by nature are a southern thing (There are no CoC schools in the Big 10 or Pac 10 footprint). I could easily see both A&M and VT in the SEC BECAUSE they are CoC schools.

                 My argument of tier 3 media money was to point out that it can be substantial and can skew numbers beyond the base numbers from the main media numbers quoted. 5 – 10 million a year in addition to the base ESPN SEC contract is nothing to sneeze at.

                 I am well aware of academic arguments, but so far in the realignment process the primary driver has been football revenues. Until I see academics as the primary driver of the realignment process I will continue to remain skeptical of the ‘academics matter’ argument. I personally would be most excited if academics were driving the bus, but the orphan status of KU is there for all to see.

                 LikeLike

                 July 14, 2010 at 11:09 pm

              5. @duffman Actually, I’ve had a couple of long replies, but they keep getting lost.

                 From the academic side you are arguing about the conferences and I have no problem with your point. I am talking about from the side of the schools selecting their conference home (if invited). That is a very different point.

                 As for background, I grew up a UK fan, am a Texas grad and have a UGA spouse. I have relatives with employment/school connections to VT, GT and FSU and while none have any inside info, there doesn’t seem to be much interest in the SEC.

                 Tyronnasauras Rex was a top predator, but he could still be killed by a vegetarian Triceratops. Not all “prey” is vulnerable to all predators.

                 LikeLike

                 July 15, 2010 at 1:15 pm

              6. Don’t agree with all he says, but it is certainly relevant to this discussion about poaching the ACC and Miami/FSU:

                 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/420636-dennis-dodd-partially-realizes-the-value-of-the-acc-espn-knows-more

                 LikeLike

                 July 15, 2010 at 2:03 pm

              7. @Bullet – Yeah, I’m still extremely skeptical that the ACC will be poached at any point soon. There will continue to be squabbles between the Tobacco Road faction and the rest of the conference, but it’s still largely a tight-knit group. The ACC has also shown that it’s the one basketball league that still has some TV value, although it’s heavily based on the presence of Duke and UNC.

                 LikeLike

                 July 15, 2010 at 3:03 pm

              8. bullet,

                 thanks for the link

                 a carnivore needs meat to survive, a herbivore does not. If a triceretops killed a t rex, it was not to eat it.

                 I am not in the group that sees the ACC with no teams of value, did not mean to imply that if that is what you thought I was getting at. Folks that were knocking the ACC for not being the Big 10, Pac 10, or SEC are morons. That said, it still come down to macro economic principles.

                 If the 12 team model continues to exist, the ACC is safe and secure. I am old enough to know that the ACC let ESPN get a break into the broadcast market, and many in front of the camera and behind it have ACC ties. I feel sure that those still around between the 2 help in getting a bigger slice of the pie. I am also old enough to know that the ACC basketball rivalry was UNC vs NC State not UNC vs Duke.

                 I am also old enough to remember FSU and Miami before their runs. Bowden is now gone and it is the Jimbo era. If he can have success early it will benefit FSU, but it is a double edged sword. If he fails, FSU could go right back to where they were years ago. It is one thing to build a dynasty, it is MUCH harder to maintain one. If you grew up a UK fan you know just what this means. Joe Hall won a national championship there, but because he followed Rupp there was always a shadow that could not be overcome. Look how many years passed from the end of Rupp till little ricky. The same with BAMA and the bear. How many years has the bear been gone till saban brought home the NC?

                 I guess a point I am trying to make is that this thing is not done. The ACC deal and the Longhorn Conference deal are stop gap measures but the macro market forces will mean that the Big 10 and SEC will continue to dominate the money in the future. We are not working in a static environment, but a dynamic one. If I look at 2 ACC schools (Wake and UNC) I see one that can direct its future, and one who does not have that luxury. I guess I am asking the questions about what will happen next.

                 a) do you think the Big 10 will stop at 12 for the next decade or two?

                 b) do you think the BTN has been an economic success or failure?

                 c) if you picked the previous as success do you think the media game will follow the past or adjust / change?

                 d) if it changes, would you rather be in the predator group, or the prey group?

                 In the end, the realignment process will make some strange bedfellows so I am trying to be more open minded than most others when trying to game future options. If the ACC did not survive in its current state (remember the so con is still out there, just not as powerful as they were before WWII) a team like UNC will have more options than a team like WF.

                 LikeLike

                 July 15, 2010 at 3:15 pm

              9. Duffman,

                 You’re right about academics being a distant second or third priority in expansion. The biggest piece of evidence to support this was the Pac 10’s willingness to admit Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.

                 Personally, I hope the Big Ten keeps some sort of academic criteria for new schools. Although Nebraska does set a new low for academia in the Big Ten.

                 I do think that the Big Ten would overlook AAU membership for a school like Miami.

                 Football is the driver and schools like Miami with a powerful recruitment foundation and national following should be a high priority for the Big Ten in the next round of expansion.

                 LikeLike

                 July 17, 2010 at 2:05 pm

              10. Miami is the anti-Nebraska in that its following can be broad (when the team is competing for a national title, which hash’t happened for close to a decade) but not very deep. It’s a relatively small, private institution that doesn’t draw as well as its record would indicate, and certainly doesn’t travel well.

                  The only reason Miami’s program has done so well for nearly three decades is that Florida’s recruiting grounds, especially in the south Florida area (geographically, not referring to the University of South Florida in Tampa) is incredibly fertile. However, the growth of programs such as USF, UCF and to a lesser extent FIU and FAU have weakened Miami somewhat, particularly in terms of depth, It’s also been hurt by the arrival of Urban Meyer at the U. of Florida (although not to the degree that Florida State was weakened).

                  In short, Miami is overvalued as an institution from an athletic perspective (academically, it’s evolved into a fine school — it’s no longer “Suntan U.”), and everyone who thinks it’s a fit for the Big Ten solely because of its football team are sadly mistaken.

                  LikeLike

                  July 17, 2010 at 10:27 pm

              11. Vincent,

                  Miami is the, “anti-Nebraska team” in A GOOD WAY. Miami is just the school that the Big Ten want’s to add. Miami is anti-Nebraska in that: 1) It’s in a populous growing state 2) It’s in a location that will show case Big Ten Schools! (Miami, Fl as opposed to Lincoln, NB) 3) it is in the best (or maybe second best) state for recruits 4) it’s in the south which JD outlined as a prime area for Big Ten growth.

                  Nebraska was a great add to the Big Ten because of tradition, strong fans and tradition. Miami COMPLEMENTS Nebraska by adding population, growth area and sizzle! Per L. James, “I’m taking my talents to South Beach.”

                  I disagree with your statement that, “The only reason Miami’s program has done so well for nearly three decades is that Florida’s recruiting grounds.” It takes more than that. Miami has had terrific coaching and a strong commitment to the program by the institution. The Big Ten wants and needs schools that have that kind of commitment. Just think how great it would for the BT to have one of it’s schools playing in Miami every other week. It would be a tremendous boost to the BT brand name and, yes to recruiting!

                  LikeLike

                  July 18, 2010 at 1:10 pm

              12. Re Miami, the X factor is Miami’s President Donna Shalala. Shalala was the Chancellor of Wisconsin during the late 80s and early 90s and was primarily responsible for hiring Barry Alvarez and placing a greater emphasis on football at Wisconsin. Shalala maintains strong relationship with Alvarez and Jim Delaney. Not sure on here relationship with the Big Ten Presidents but she is very familiar with the Big Ten.

                  LikeLike

                  July 18, 2010 at 3:53 pm

        3. Rick Perry, for one. His opinion on what should happen carried the day.

           LikeLike

           August 1, 2010 at 2:45 pm Reply

     3. Considering the only school that plays in football in Omaha is a Division II school, I doubt any school in the Pac-10 would choose it over Lawrence.

        LikeLike

        July 11, 2010 at 9:29 pm Reply

        1. Yeah Scott, You know what I mean. Shall I say Lincoln instead? Yes Lincoln. I don’t think anywhere in NE can be considered a neutral site.

           LikeLike

           July 12, 2010 at 6:56 am Reply

115. I still like that photo.

     LikeLike

     July 12, 2010 at 2:58 am Reply

116. I’m not a Fan of Pat Forde,
     But this might be worth reading. Or at least keeping the Nebraska Texas crab boil cooking.

     http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=5372985

     I will be looking forward to that game. Not sure where either teams stands in the new year given graduations.
     Comments?

     LikeLike

     July 12, 2010 at 1:14 pm Reply

     1. I of course am very interested to see whether Nebraska’s all-time conference record against Texas will be 1-9 or 2-8.

        Though, as Forde points out, this is new territory for the Huskers, it’s old hat for Texas. Every year it seems, some team which hasn’t defeated Texas since the 20th Century breaks out the “Beat Texas” brigades when the Horns visit for a game perceived in the preseason to be very important. Last year it was Oklahoma State playing that role.

        Nebraska has become Oklahoma State.

        LikeLike

        July 13, 2010 at 10:14 am Reply

        1. HH,

           UNL has not had the same success as oSu!

           in basketball

           🙂

           LikeLike

           July 13, 2010 at 10:56 am Reply

117. News out of Illinois and athletic director Ron Guenther seems to point to competitive balance over geography.

     http://www.illinihq.com/news/football/2010/07/12/big_ten_seeking_right_realignment_mix/

     “As early as next month, those divisions could be set for the 2011 season. League officials and athletic directors have meetings scheduled for Chicago. And commissioner Jim Delany will hold his annual “state of the conference” news session with Big Ten media members.”
     and
     “We looked at a 10-year RPI and a five-year RPI. I don’t think you can go (by) two years.”

     LikeLike

     July 12, 2010 at 1:39 pm Reply

118. News out of Illinois and athletic director Ron Guenther seems to point to competitive balance over geography.
     http://www.illinihq.com/news/football/2010/07/12/big_ten_seeking_right_realignment_mix/
     “As early as next month, those divisions could be set for the 2011 season. League officials and athletic directors have meetings scheduled for Chicago. And commissioner Jim Delany will hold his annual “state of the conference” news session with Big Ten media members.”
     and
     “We looked at a 10-year RPI and a five-year RPI. I don’t think you can go (by) two years.”

     LikeLike

     July 12, 2010 at 1:40 pm Reply

119. News out of Illinois and athletic director Ron Guenther seems to point to competitive balance over geography.
     http://www.illinihq.com/news/football/2010/07/12/big_ten_seeking_right_realignment_mix/
     “As early as next month, those divisions could be set for the 2011 season. League officials and athletic directors have meetings scheduled for Chicago. And commissioner Jim Delany will hold his annual “state of the conference” news session with Big Ten media members.”
     “We looked at a 10-year RPI and a five-year RPI. I don’t think you can go (by) two years.”

     LikeLike

     July 12, 2010 at 1:46 pm Reply

     1. This all seems odd to me………

        They make a point that this is for the 2011 season only….so expansion could happen for 2012……or soon after.

        So it only really makes sense to plan for the next year or two at this point.

        We pretty much know Michigan’s gonna suck for the next 3-4 years….In all probability RR gets fired this November….

        So why get all worked up over OSU, PSU, and UM in the same division?

        Reasonable expectations are that Neb., Wis., and Iowa will be collectively as good or better than the “big 3” for the next few years.

        A straight east-west split keeps all rivalries intact, and minimizes travel for fans…..

        You can’t push PSU west and keep Iowa and Wis out there too…that makes the west too tough, at least for the next few years. So you switch Wis and PSU, except you can’t simply do that or you piss off the PSU fans, coaches et al

        So you end up with something like this:

        PSU OSU
        NEB UM
        MSU WIS
        IOWA MINN
        ILL IU
        NW PUR

        Then you have to have protected inter-division games like OSU-PSU, UM-MSU, Minn-Iowa, Neb-Minn….

        Why in the hell don’t you just say we’ll do a straight geographic split and we’ll review it in 2 years…?

        NEB OSU
        WIS PSU
        IOWA UM
        MINN MSU
        ILL IU
        NW PUR

        They’re really going to out-smart themselves here…………just so PSU-NEB plays on the last weekend?

        LikeLike

        July 14, 2010 at 10:03 pm Reply

120. Is there any news out of Illinois and A.D. Ron Guenther?

     LikeLike

     July 14, 2010 at 7:28 pm Reply

     1. J, sorry about that. i posted once and saw nothing, thenb again and saw nothing. thouth the third time would be the charm and saw nothing. A day later, bang! three posts.

        LikeLike

        July 15, 2010 at 4:04 pm Reply

121. hahaha

     LikeLike

     July 14, 2010 at 9:21 pm Reply

     1. what is funny?

        LikeLike

        July 15, 2010 at 3:16 pm Reply

        1. I mis-replied on J’s post about Illinois and Guenther, and instead of posting hahaha again, I just left it as-was.

           LikeLike

           July 16, 2010 at 11:00 pm Reply

122. Saw this today

     http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13641042/michigan-stadiums-capacity-set-at-109901/rss

     Sure you can argue a weak team in a bad economy, but are we seeing the beginning of crumbling edges from the cash grab of high end donors and the over pricing to the average fan?

     LikeLike

     July 15, 2010 at 9:14 am Reply

     1. Duffman: I read through the article and noted one mistake immediately. Michigan has actually sold 80% of the premium seating, i.e., those seat locations not within the suites. See http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/fans-flock-to-the-big-house-to-get-first-glimpses-of-renovated-michigan-stadium/

        The amount of suites and premium seating sold to date is actually above projections. Historically, it takes about three years for all suites and premium to be sold in professional and college locations, so Michigan is doing very well for its first year.

        The total project cost was $226M, but due to donations, naming rites, etc., the amount of debt for the project that the Michigan Athletic Department owes as of 30 June 2010 is $147.4M. The debt servicing for the project for FY 2011 (ends 30 June 2011) is $9.3M. When I talk about total project cost, that includes not only the structures which house the luxury seating, etc. but the new concourses, restrooms, concessions, landscaping, etc.–the entire project.

        In the meantime, overall revenue from the project for PSDs, suites and premium seating was $16.7M in FY 2010 and is projected to be $18.3M in FY 2011. This number does not include the ticket sales for the suites and premium seating. What it does mean is the project is “cash positive” when comparing the revenue for the upgraded suites/seating to the annual cost to service the debt.

        What this means is that the average fan actually doesn’t have to face a ticket price increase because the individuals buying suites and premium seating are paying for the project–and then some. The average fans also gets an upgraded stadium, and when the bowl section is completed, a bit more seating space and wider aisles. (Note: Renovations to the bowl section are actually a project separate from the renovatrions and will be done in sections so that ticket holders don’t have to make too many moves).

        Since 2003, Michigan has set aside $35M in a unrestricted operating fund ($4M plus per year) that is essentially a “rainy day” fund. What that also means is the UM doesn’t have an urgent need to raise ticket prices.

        Michigan has been very smart about funding money and extremely aggressive in fund raising for new athletic facilities. The new indoor practice field (largest in football–both college and pro), for example, came from private funds. The university and the athletic department didn’t pay for its construction.

        For information on Michigan’s FY 2011 budget, go to http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-10/2010-6-X-17.pdf

        For a newspaper account on the latest budget, go to http://www.freep.com/article/20100618/SPORTS06/6180467/Michigan%5C-s-athletic-department-budget-is-set-to-top–100-million

        LikeLike

        July 16, 2010 at 5:02 pm Reply

123. http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/07/14/pac-10-expansion-updates-on-the-division-and-expansion-issues/

     Update on Pac 10 thinking on divisions. Not directly relevant to B10 decisions, but the conflicts are interesting.

     LikeLike

     July 15, 2010 at 1:23 pm Reply

     1. As a Pac-10 outsider, it is none of my business how to split those teams up (by which mean I wouldn’t write to them with a proposal and feel like I deserved consideration by reasonable people). But if I did it, I’d put the California and Arizona schools together in one group, and the remainder in the other group. Make Colorado and the unnamed Pacific NW school from this post protected inter-divisional games with UCLA and USC so that they can ensure continued trips to SoCal (I assume this is a bugaboo for recruiting reasons? I knew Colorado had demanded it before coming on board but this Pacific NW school is news to me). It protects all of the in-state rivalries; puts Colorado with Utah (which is logical, as the two newbies); and protects the Arizona schools from excessive trips to the Pacific NW.

        LikeLike

        July 15, 2010 at 1:55 pm Reply

        1. The mercurynews discussion on Pac12 divisions is very interesting. SD Buff suggests that the Big12 divisions have become unbalanced because the south division sits atop the prime recruiting territory. He foresees a similar problem if the Pac12 puts the SoCal and Arizona schools in the same division.

           I think SD Buff is probably right. The Pac12 should split SoCal and Arizona. As a result, the two Arizona schools go with Colorado and Utah, and Socal goes north. The next question is: who goes with Arizona-Colorado-Utah? Apparently the NW schools do not want to be in a division with Utah and Colorado — they want to be with SoCal. So we end up the the following divisions:

           EAST: Arizona ASU Colorado Utah Cal Stanford
           WEST: Washington WSU Oregon OSU UCLA USC

           The top three teams in each division are:
           EAST: Arizona(2) Stanford(4) Cal(6)
           WEST: Oregon(1) OSU(3) USC(5)
           The number in brackets is the 2009 result. As you can see, the teams are evenly distributed between the two divisions. In the future, the WEST division may get stronger as USC recovers, but the EAST division also may strength with the addition of Utah and Colorado.

           LikeLike

           July 16, 2010 at 1:46 am Reply

     2. Whether that’s geographic or not, I don’t know. Obviously the California and Arizona schools are south of Oregon and Washington, but I don’t really know offhand where Colorado and Utah are in relation to, say, Stanford and UC-Berkeley.

        LikeLike

        July 15, 2010 at 1:56 pm Reply

        1. There is a lot of fly over space to contend with on these western school. The good news is and I assume they all fly, there are available airports to connect them. A bus trip through mountains and deserts probably make the long trips seem twice as long.

           LikeLike

           July 15, 2010 at 4:12 pm Reply

124. Ran some numbers for those who think the B12 imbalance now is due to the way it was set up initially and think it can be predicted with certainty for B10.
     Record of the South Division vs. North by year:
     96 4-14
     97 6-12
     98 9-9
     99 9-9
     00 9-9
     01 8-10
     02 11-7
     03 12-6
     04 15-3
     05 11-7
     06 13-5
     07 8-10
     08 14-4
     09 13-5

     The early years Texas and OU were down. The later years UNL and CU are way down. If they weren’t embarrassed about it, the UNL fans would be telling you about all their trash talk in the early years about how the North schools were carrying the Texas 4. At the time of formation of the B12, the ranking of the teams in recent strength was UNL, CU, KSU, A&M, Texas, Tech, OU, then probably KU, MU, Baylor, OSU, ISU. The results of the early years show the North’s strength.

     Clearly UT and OU weren’t going to stay down, but UNL was the strongest program over the preceding 25 years. Again, looking over that time frame, OU was probably #2, UT #3. CU #4 with an MNC in 90 and 2 straight top 5 finishes in 94 & 95. A&M probably #5. KSU and KU were on the rise, both finishing top 10 in 95 with KSU ranked for the 3rd year in a row. Missouri had some success and would be ranked in both 97 and 98 final polls. TT had been ranked only once in the 90s and once in the 80s in the final polls. OSU thrice in the 80s, Baylor twice in the 80s. Only OSU cracked the top 10 at #7. There was NO indication the South would dominate, and the top 4 programs were split nicely.

     I’m not saying past history is no indication. But if its close, you can’t really predict how things will turn out. And the KISS model, while somewhat tilted toward the east, is close enough you don’t know how it will turn out. And after you lose a legend, as Cincinnati pointed out above, it can take a while. So Michigan and PSU may have a 5-20 year adjustment period. And Tressel may not stay around until he’s 85.

     LikeLike

     July 15, 2010 at 9:20 pm Reply

     1. while somewhat tilted toward the east, is close enough you don’t know how it will turn out

        That is my entire point. By virtually any metric, the KISS model is slightly stronger in the East, but it is not so much stronger that it is “imbalanced,” that is to say, is outside the spectrum of principled and acceptable outcomes.

        LikeLike

        July 16, 2010 at 2:06 am Reply

        1. > By virtually any metric, the KISS model is
           > slightly stronger in the East

           Really? Three Big Ten schools are consistently appearing in the pre-season top 15 rankings: Ohio State, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Nebraska also appears in these rankings. Therefore, by this metric, the KISS model will put three top teams in the West and only one top team in the East.

           LikeLike

           July 16, 2010 at 2:51 pm Reply

           1. This year, maybe, but even I don’t think you can just go by this year. I’m using as my time horizon the period since PSU joined.

              LikeLike

              July 16, 2010 at 3:28 pm Reply

     2. The flip occurred from ’01-’02, right when UNL started to struggle. OTOH ’07 was good for the north, and UNL collapsed that year.

        LikeLike

        July 17, 2010 at 12:42 pm Reply

125. CFL,

     a) spot on UNC football

     b) “what if” PSU did not join the Big 10

     on right now, if anybody is curious

     LikeLike

     July 16, 2010 at 1:35 pm Reply

126. I was just taking a look at the Notre Dame football schedule for 2010 (see below).

     It doesn’t look like much of a “national schedule” to me. They play 3 schools in Michigan and six Midwestern schools. Also, the schedule looks like a cake walk! Michigan is not strong and USC will be playing at a lower level due to sanctions and key recruits leaving. It looks like they only have somewhat touch games against MSU on the road and Stanford and Pitt at home.

     Even ND should have no trouble going 6-6 with this schedule. Would that qualify them for a bowl appearance?

     No wonder ND can’t join the Big Ten, they’d be relegated to losing seasons in the cellar of the conference if they had to play Penn St. Ohio St. along with Wisconsin and Iowa…..

     2010 ND FOOTBALL SCHEDULE

     Sept. 4 PURDUE
     Sept. 11 MICHIGAN
     Sept. 18 at Michigan State
     Sept. 25 STANFORD
     Oct. 2 at Boston College
     Oct. 9 PITTSBURGH
     Oct. 16 WESTERN MICHIGAN
     Oct. 23 at Navy (E. Rutherford, NJ)
     Oct. 30 TULSA
     Nov. 13 UTAH
     Nov. 20 Army (at Bronx, NY)
     Nov. 27 at USC

     LikeLike

     July 16, 2010 at 3:49 pm Reply

     1. ND still makes that stupid claim. Not playing in a conference is like playing golf without keeping score. Stanford=west coast. BC=east coast. Tulsa is in the south, somewhere, almost, so it’s “national” by their standards.

        LikeLike

        July 16, 2010 at 8:52 pm Reply

     2. ND fans will simply argue that they aren’t happy with their current schedule either. That it’s a product of bad AD work and that they are sure that better schedules are coming just around the corner.

        They might be…or the fact that nobody outside the Big East will schedule them after September might continue to cause their future schedules to look JUST like their current schedules.

        LikeLike

        July 17, 2010 at 9:58 am Reply

        1. Independent or not does it really matter what their schedule looks like if they are not winning or dominating? Good schedule, bad schedule, I maintain it makes no difference. At least a mid level team in a major conference get to take the conference gravitas with them.

           LikeLike

           July 18, 2010 at 11:29 am Reply

           1. Into a bowl game that is. Of course ND has its own gravitas but that is diminished to those who watch a lot of college football. When they suit up I’m sure there are kid wondering if they are playing the legend or just another team. For the big ten teams that have played ND every year and for a Boston College, I think they have that answer and they are not afraid. Playing the legends gives one butterflies before a game. ND does not. Now if they were in conference even at their current strength there would be something more to lose like setting themselves above or below them on the conference ladder.

              LikeLike

              July 18, 2010 at 11:44 am Reply

     3. Can’t Get and All That:

        I was surprised to see that ND doesn’t play a single team from the SEC, Big XII or ACC…..Not a single team from any of those leagues! So ND only plays teams from 2 of the 5 major conferences! Even Iowa played a team from the Pac 10, Big XII and ACC last year plus the Big Ten schedule and I would not call Iowa’s football schedule a “national” schedule by any means.

        It sounds like what you guys are saying is that good conferences like the SEC will not schedule Notre Dame later in the season due to regularly scheduled conference games…..as opposed to ND trying to duck out of a difficult schedule.

        Either way, if a Big Ten team plays the University of Maine, Tulsa and Fresno State, I wouldn’t consider it a “national” schedule, you have to play teams from the major conferences to be a legitimate national team or you have to have a stellar record like Texas , Florida or Ohio State. My point is that Notre Dame has neither the win – loss record or the schedule to be a national team.

        LikeLike

        July 17, 2010 at 1:39 pm Reply

        1. I was surprised to see that ND doesn’t play a single team from the SEC, Big XII or ACC…

           You mean Boston College left the ACC and didn’t tell anybody?

           LikeLike

           July 17, 2010 at 10:12 pm Reply

           1. MY BAD! I’m glad to know that someone is checking on my assertions! BC is indeed in the ACC…

              LikeLike

              July 18, 2010 at 12:43 pm Reply

     4. A point I made earlier is that this schedule is not historically atypical. They always play USC and used to play GT and Miami regularly when all were independent, but most of their opponents are regional NE or MW schools. There are 8 of 12 opponents from Boston to Chicago + 3 western schools and Tulsa. This year, their 1st 11 games are played between Boston and Chicago.

        LikeLike

        July 18, 2010 at 2:51 pm Reply

127. We talk about the strength in a possible east vs. west, but it’s not just how good the teams are (even if that is part of it). Bringing in Ohio State and Michigan has traditionally been a big deal for attendance and ticket sales for a couple of programs. If you put both of them and Penn State in the east, that could cause issues. Adding Nebraska will help, but I could see a Northwestern or Minnesota not completely thrilled with the idea of straight east vs. west.

     LikeLike

     July 16, 2010 at 4:49 pm Reply

     1. Why would it bother Minnesota to be in the west division? They would play Iowa and Wisconsin every year (just like now) plus Nebraska, Illinois and Northwestern. Seems like a sweet schedule to me.

        LikeLike

        July 17, 2010 at 12:31 am Reply

     2. Minnesota and Northwestern will sell plenty of tickets when Nebraska comes to town. No worries there. As for Michigan and Ohio State, they will play three (or four) games against western teams. So Minnesota and Northwestern are likely to play either Michigan or Ohio State each year. This seems like an upgrade to me. Two big games each year (either Nebraska/Michigan or Nebraska/Ohio State) is better than two big games (Michigan/Ohio State) some years. I say “some years” because the current Big Ten rotation regularly takes Michigan and Ohio State off the schedule.

        LikeLike

        July 17, 2010 at 2:11 am Reply

     3. Yeah, I’m with StevenD, this criticism makes no sense to me. If you do the KISS divisions with PSU, OSU and UM together, they’ll have to play a minimum of 3 road games against the West. Nebraska will play a minimum of 2 road games against the rest of the West. I have every reason to think that it would be trivial for the league to ensure that Minnesota, Illinois, and Northwestern each get to host one of Nebraska, Michigan, OSU or PSU every year.

        LikeLike

        July 17, 2010 at 5:20 am Reply

     4. Minnesota’s AD and current head FB coach have both stated interest in restoring ties to Nebraska while maintaining the historic rivalries (i.e. Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan). As a fan, I feel the same way…

        Regarding the “historic” attendance issues… with the new, on-campus stadium, the Gophers are NO longer competing head-to-head against the Vikings in the Humpty-Dome. Going to the Dome was the biggest mistake the U made regarding the FB program. Several other programs struggle to sell out because they play in their home-town pro-team’s stadiums (see Pitt (Ketchup Field), Miami (FLA) (Old Shark Pen or something like that), San Diego State (Charger Graveyard or something like that). Heck, just competing in a pro-town challenges a D-1 program.

        Ultimately, if there is some kind a big issue (for any of the Big Ten’s institutions) regarding realignment, I believe TPTB are smart enough to ensure all parties end up in general positive agreement. We certainly do not want to become the Big I-IX (AKA former Big XII).

        LikeLike

        July 18, 2010 at 7:49 pm Reply

128. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/budwithers/2012384965_withers18.html

     LikeLike

     July 18, 2010 at 1:07 pm Reply

     1. spart,

        thanks for the link. if they go equal revenue sharing, then no UT to the Pac 16. Is it just me or does UT look like it keeps shooting itself in the foot for something that may never come to fruition in the future via TLN?

        LikeLike

        July 18, 2010 at 1:45 pm Reply

        1. You’re not the only one duffman, and it’s starting to look like they’re forcing themselves into the SEC when the Big IIX eventually folds.

           LikeLike

           July 18, 2010 at 2:04 pm Reply

           1. Any change for UT is still a few years down the road. But, I still think that the Big Ten is the most viable option for Texas. President Powers won’t always be at UT and the BT has shown that it can be very patient in waiting for a school to come into the Big Ten.

              The recent realignment changes have increased the BT’s bargaining position: I still think that UT is the Big Ten’s number one target school and that JD will let things play out.

              LikeLike

              July 18, 2010 at 2:29 pm Reply

              1. hawkeye,

                 here we are full circle, back to my original thought early on. UT will not be in the Big 10 because of its ego. The Big 10 is a collection of team players, UT will never be a team player. My gut feeling is still that the Big 10 pass on this one, no matter how attractive they look.

                 LikeLike

                 July 18, 2010 at 4:59 pm

           2. @ Pariahwulfen

              Becoming an independent could be the ultimate goal for Texas, not backing themselves into any conference. They’re one of the few programs that could do it, as long as they continue to ride the crest of the wave. Garrett threatening that USC would leave the Pac 12 if equitable revenue sharing came to be, as the article states, could be another. They are the pro team in L.A.

              Independence, and not being harnessed to the rules of any conference, could be the final evolutionary phase for schools that can justify it by having some claim to the loyalties of a huge market. Schools in tiny markets like Pullman or Ames should be about the business of figuring out the best model for their own long term interests now as opposed to waiting and hoping that things will turn out okay for them. If schools like Texas and USC can’t get on board, then at least the small market schools will know where they’re really at going forward instead of being dependent on schools who will in all likelihood bolt when the money makes sense, just as Nebraska has already done.

              LikeLike

              July 19, 2010 at 7:35 am Reply

              1. eapg,

                 independence is an interesting thought, but it may not be feasible. Sure a team like USC or UT can draw media when when they are good and for big games like the red river rivalry, but what about the rest. Look at the big picture:

                 a) what about when your team is down (you think NBC did not learn a valuable lesson from the ND contract).? If I am a media company with a single team I am sunk. If I have a conference contract a down team (like michigan) can be offset by a tOSU.

                 b) how valuable is a limited footprint? Sure they can mine the state of texas, but what about outside the state (you are ESPN and you can broadcast UT vs Baylor or Iowa vs Georgia, who is going to get first shot at national game broadcast priority).

                 c) effect of top ten brand status in a world of shared revenue? Is PSU better off in the Big 10 or FSU in the ACC? Sure independence looks good on paper to USC or UT, but will it work in reality? If I am the person putting schedules together for the Big 10, Pac 10, or SEC do I want to deal with scheduling a team with ego issues when there are so many teams already in a conference that are already team players.

                 ND is a bit more unique, in that their primary fan base is not in their home state of Indiana. USC and UT do not have that same demographic. Case in point is UT as an independent, and A&M jumps to the SEC. If I am recruiting for A&M I am going to start getting UT recruits because I can offer better TV coverage for their pro career buildup.

                 LikeLike

                 July 19, 2010 at 8:16 am

              2. eapg and Duff,

                 I think USC’s threatening to leave the Pac 12 is pretty baseless and won’t get USC anywhere. It’s almost laughable especially now with the impending NCAA sanctions against them. USC correctly reads a shift in powers with Utah and CU coming into the Pac.

                 There’s no other viable conference for USC to join, and so equal revenue sharing is going to be forced upon them. Maybe they can merge with Notre Dame and start a new conference – that’s a joke…

                 The college sports world is changing and it’s not to the liking of schools like USC and Texas.

                 LikeLike

                 July 19, 2010 at 11:22 am

     2. There is an old saying that goes, “Strike while the iron is hot”. Well the iron is hot right now for a revenue sharing arrangement in the Pac 10.
        • USC is on sanctions and is vulnerable now to accepting a change.
        • Else? Where would they go? Perhaps the big 12? Not likely.
        • There is empirical evidence that revenue sharing works in leagues of similar stature.
        • There are no 12 P10 schools and only 2 are private. Why is one, USC hogging the money?
        • Would any team/school looking for a more competitive balance not chose revenue sharing?

        LikeLike

        July 19, 2010 at 10:31 am Reply

        1. StvInIL,

           good points, this is indee the best time to strike for equal revenue sharing

           ps. how do you get the bullet points in your post?

           LikeLike

           July 19, 2010 at 11:00 am Reply

           1. Duff, I just put the paragraph in word document and select bullet point’s style icon for the selected portions. Then copy and paste to the blog.

              LikeLike

              July 19, 2010 at 11:30 am Reply

129. Duffman,

     I like your outline of the problems with any school going independent, especially pertaining to the University of Texas. Here’s my review of the issues:

     Your point A) “that schools go through winning and losing cycles” and that NBC learned a lesson from Notre Dame on point. Texas will not always be a top 5 football school. See Michigan, Nebraska, Florida St. and Miami – schools that were perennial top 10 schools (or even top 5 schools) for many years and then fell on hard times. When UT falls in the rankings for a 4 or 5 year period their aspirations of independence will fade quickly.

     Your Point B) I see this more as a strength of schedule argument more than a “limited footprint” issue. Maybe the two are intertwined. But if the networks have a choice of televising say, Iowa v. Wisconsin or Florida v. LSU you know they will take that over Texas v. Baylor any day. TU’s strength of schedule will be greatly diminished without UNL and CU. If Ta&m jumps to the SEC TU’s strength of schedule suffers more.

     Your Point C) is a little more problematic to me. You write, “do I want to deal with scheduling a team with ego issues?” If I’m the BT I’ll take UT and their ego issues any day of the week. Those ego issues won’t be as big if they are not in the top 5 every year. And W. Powers and D. Brown will not be at that school forever. In other words, situations change and UT will not always have the “ego problem”

     IF UT ever asks to join the Big Ten, in my opinion, they should and will be welcomed with open arms! The huge benefits UT brings to the BT way overshadow any “ego issues.”

     So here’s my shot (crazy guess) at looking at where Texas will be in 2015:

     TEXAS IN THE YEAR 2015:
     -Big XII: 10%
     -Big XII without Ta&m or OK which split to SEC: 20%
     -Independent: 10%
     -Big Ten: 30% (best choice of the bad choices for UT)
     -Pac 12: 25% (travel & time zone issues, equal revenue sharing, week football conference)
     -SEC: 5%

     LikeLike

     July 19, 2010 at 11:07 am Reply

     1. @Hawkeye. C) Ego issues.
        I see the ego issue diminish greatly if:
        1) Texas comes to the Big Ten with no other Texans.
        Bringing Texas tech, Texas A&M and even Oklahoma will be bringing a considerable voting block for Texas and dilute the traditional power base and more impotently the equal partner sensibilities.
        2) Texas comes to the Big Ten with no more than one other heavily influenced former Big 12 conference member.
        In the current situation Nebraska will not be a lackey for Texas. They are will be decidedly neutral to anti Texas.

        Otherwise, I think Duffmans or who ever said it is correct. Texas never learned how to be a team player and it’s way too late maybe to teach them. How long before they are asking for a conference championship game in Texas?
        I say the championship game belongs in Chicago every other year. We can swap Indianapolis or Detroit as venues on the Odd years. But never in Texas or in NY.

        LikeLike

        July 19, 2010 at 11:49 am Reply

        1. Yep, Texas would have to come into the BT on it’s own. The BT only has 4 open spots available (assuming 16 schools eventually) and one of those spots is reserved for ND.

           Ta&m want’s to go to the SEC and probably will join in the next 5 years. The BT want’s nothing to do with Tech, OK State or OK.

           So, just like Nebraska, Texas will have to come to the realization that the BT is the right place for them financially, academically and athletically.

           LikeLike

           July 19, 2010 at 12:14 pm Reply

        2. StvInIL,

           with you 100% on their desire to move the CCG and possibly league HQ to texas! I can see UT thinking this is a sane thought.

           I know I am old school but I would love the Green Bay plan for the CCG (I stopped watching the Lions and Viks when they went to domes). Like revenge, midwest football is a dish best served cold. 🙂 But my gut tells me it will be an annual game in Lucas every year because it is central and covered (God forbid some rain or snow gets on a football field).

           LikeLike

           July 19, 2010 at 12:19 pm Reply

     2. hawkeye,

        on point c)

        1) as a conference school, you are more negotiable to home and home games, Texas as an independent will want less of that because they will have no other conference members to keep them honest. As an independent they will try for maybe 7 – 9 home games, and no return games that you see in conference.

        2) Win or lose UT will always have ego issues, it is in their DNA. Like the state, they think of themselves beyond the normal scope of all the other players. This will not change over time, as has been proven by history. The SWC is gone, and the Big 12 is crippled, and they still balked at the Pac 10 because of TLN. This is beyond mildly crazy, to full out bat sh*t crazy.

        3) If they come (taking the Big 10 to 16, they will want to bring as many folks they feel they can control as possible) and is the Big 10 willing to take OU, oSu, and Ttech as well? As I said early on, is a team added to the Big 10 willing to adopt the Big 10 way of thinking. Maybe I am not seeing something, but I can never see UT being a team player.

        my percentages for UT in 2015:

        Big 12 = 90% (it is now the Longhorn Conference for a reason)
        Independent = 10%

        Big 10 = 0%
        SEC = 0%
        Pac 10 (if equal revenue sharing happens) = 0%

        LikeLike

        July 19, 2010 at 12:10 pm Reply

        1. Duffman,

           You raise some valid concerns. – Especially the Home and Away game issue.

           IF (and it’s a big IF) UT comes into the BT they will not be able to bring any “friends.” See my note to steve in IL above.

           But, I do think attitudes and circumstances change over time. The college football landscape is far different now than it was 10 years ago. College Presidents change, AD s leave. I think that the landscape will be very different for UT in 2015. It looks like TV revenue and the emergence of conference networks alone are driving a lot of the change. I think we all agree that the success of the LTN is a big question mark due to a number of factors including the available volume of content, competition issues, number of households. Plus, the fact that no one school has successfully ran it’s own network. Maybe it’s possible, but there’s a lot of risk involved with it at this point.

           IF we do go to four 16 team conferences I think you will agree that the Big XII will not be one of them. We would probably be looking at a 16 team Pacific Conference, Big Ten, SEC and some form of ACC / BE. Texas would have to run the “Bevo” conference, or go independent or join one of the four major conferences.

           I think you are right in that Independence is an option (10%). But, I would say the Pac and Big Ten have some chance of landing the Longhorns. The SEC a much smaller chance.

           LikeLike

           July 19, 2010 at 12:41 pm Reply

        2. Duffman,
           #3 here is an interesting Scenario. Let Texas come but only if they bring OU and no more than OU. If it works we get Texas. We welcome OU to the group of team players and they find that they DON’T have to be Texas political lackey.
           OU can look out for OU without the shadow of Texas. Win! The still play them every year and keep the recruiting train going. Another plus is that we get 3 teams from the former big 12 Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma) and neither needs to carry water for Texas accept Texas while they continue their old rivalries.
           We can be set at 14 at this point or go looking East for 15 – 16. Low and behold, Notre Dame raises its ugly head says, “hey why doesn’t anybody invite MEeeeee!” ND comes in (15) because of the conferences strong alignment and Rutgers, Maryland and Syracuse has a celebrity playdo puppet fight for slot # 16.
           So then Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Nebraska, Texas, Wisconsin and Notre Dame are on your conference schedule and TV network wish list.

           LikeLike

           July 19, 2010 at 1:18 pm Reply

130. USC as an independent?- Well first off they are one of the few teams in the nation that has ghost of a chance of pulling it off. I am really not sure what their fan base looks like outside of the state of California but the state has an estimated 36,61664 people from which to draw from. If you average out Midwestern/Big Ten States population of 5Million a piece then you see that it’s quite comparable in terms of numbers to the Midwestern region. USC though is private schools which typically have a smaller fan base. They also share the state with 3 other conference members. SoCal is the biggest recruiting base for the entire conference. So they don’t totally have a flagship situation. There ARE other options for SoCal kids.

     Texas as an independent? – That might be fine with a lot of Texans It also means the LSN is an unencumbered conference restriction/constrictions. Texas has shown a propensity to not want to be a team player and this might be a fit for them. However, then maybe Texas A&M joins the SEC. This causes some real problems for Texas. SEC recruiting will rob Texas of job gimme blue chip recruits over time. They also still have trouble filling content on LSN. As good as they may be sports wise they only have one school. Scheduling will also be a problem.
     Notre Dame as an Independent? – ND has been an independent for almost ever. They have won national championships and have even negotiated a television network for themselves. They also are unique to the other two we discussed as they do not depend on a fan base pure from the state of Indiana. Indiana has a population of 6,423,113 And is state that also has two Big Ten members to compete with for attention. Another thing that makes ND unique is that though I have mentioned that they have been independent almost forever, their basketball teams have been in leagues previously. Since 1995 ND has been a member of the Big East conference. They continue to perpetrate the illusion of independence upon the rest of the world as only their football team is not a member of the conference.

     Texas and USC would differ here as they probably will not have such an arrangement with another conference. They would actually be truly independent. Without a phony nonconference affiliation thing though this independent status does not look quite so good overall.

     LikeLike

     July 19, 2010 at 11:26 am Reply

     1. StvInIL,

        I would think that USC has a better shot at going independent than Texas does. Along with the demographics that you outlined, If USC could schedule UCLA, Stanford and California in the Pac 10 along with their ongoing rivalry with Notre Dame they would have a great line up. I would think that it would be in USC’s interest to schedule all other games with teams in the eastern or central time zone. Getting away from late games against teams like WSU, OSU and the Arizona schools would be a benefit to USC. The addition of Utah and CU is not good for USC and I wonder how they let that happen.

        It’s a tougher road for UT to go independent because Ta&m, Tech, and OK in other conferences will draw down the Texas TV market and also have the negative impact on recruiting that you outlined. It also seems that USC’s appeal is more national than UT’s.

        LikeLike

        July 19, 2010 at 12:15 pm Reply

        1. Hawkeye,
           Here is one thing you did not account for with USC’s independence scenario. If I’m Larry Scott, commissioner of the Pac Ten, I punish USC for leaving in this way. Call a 10 years or an indefinite moratorium on playing USC for conference members. There are good business reasons outside of spite for doing this. 1) USC is a private institution and sanctions won’t hurt state schools. 2) USC is at this point competing directly for attention, dollars and recruits with the Pac Ten. Why give them a free ride? So now they have to schedule more WAC teams or go further to the Mid West or South to fill out a respectable schedule. Being an independent on the left coast makes you not just a conference outlier but a national outlier in a way.

           LikeLike

           July 19, 2010 at 1:01 pm Reply

           1. Steve In Ill,

              If Scott could keep the other Pac 12 schools from playing USC then USC’s dreams of independence are over. I’m not sure about anti-trust laws or if Scott could pull off a moratorium, but just the messy possibility of this is a major deterrent.

              When it comes to independence, I look at the flow of historical precedent. NO major conference University has ever gone independent. As a matter of fact the trend is contrary – independent schools over the past 30 years have joined conferences (Miami, Penn St, Pitt). Only ND and the military schools have bucked the trend.

              So I think the USC and Texas bluffs of , “If we don’t get what we want, we’ll go independent.” Is pretty lame. The financial incentives just don’t seem to be there and there are simply too many hurdles.
              I think you summed it up for USC when you said, “Being an independent on the left coast makes you not just a conference outlier but a national outlier in a way.”

              LikeLike

              July 19, 2010 at 1:21 pm Reply

              1. StvInIL and hawkeye,

                 I would go one step further. A long term ban by the Big 3 (Pac 10, Big 10, and SEC) against USC & UT if they tried independence.

                 a) it shows a united front on the future of egos in the major conferences. USC and UT could lose large national relevance if no major conference would schedule them for an extended period of time.

                 b) not issuing the same to ND would stop any unfair trade claims against independence as they could show it was not aimed at independence but egos.

                 Such a strategy should quell independent thoughts pretty quick.

                 LikeLike

                 July 19, 2010 at 1:49 pm

              2. Actually, I think Hawkeye and You got it wrong Duffman. I don’t think it would be an anti trust problem if just the Pac Ten issued a moratorium for a number of years. Nobody benefits and nobody loses in conference unless someone breaks the deal. But three conference collusion definitely looks heavy. That one does look like antitrust to me. Though Duffman, I like it. They can also argue that they have a right to be an independent and they are being forced through collusion of the nation top three conferences to join. A WAC and Conference USA collusion does not look quiet as damaging to USC or the wider college football world.

                 LikeLike

                 July 19, 2010 at 2:44 pm

           2. Why doesn’t the Big Ten refuse to schedule Notre Dame? Notre Dame benefits more from this arrangement than Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue do. Notre Dame would have many scheduling problems without those three (and sometimes more) Big Ten schools on the docket.

              LikeLike

              July 23, 2010 at 9:14 pm Reply

              1. “Why doesn’t the Big Ten refuse to schedule Notre Dame? Notre Dame benefits more from this arrangement than Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue do.”

                 Arguing over who benefits more is a misleading direction. Both sides benefit from these games. Those schools should be trying to form the best schedules by their own criteria, not injuring themselves to inflict a potentially greater injury on another school.

                 LikeLike

                 July 24, 2010 at 12:50 am

131. Is the NCAA backlashing the conference realignment rumble?

     USC, now UNC, USC, and UF….

     Is the NCAA showing a stiff spine right now to ward off a Big 3 or Big 4 defection, and subsequent demise of the NCAA as a powerful governing body?

     LikeLike

     July 19, 2010 at 1:39 pm Reply

     1. Actually it justs seems like the Southeast’s turn. USC has been going on for years. The others are new. They seem to hit a conference or area hard and move on. They crushed the SWC in the late 80s. In the early 90s, there was one year only 5 teams in the Pac10 were bowl eligible. I don’t know if they move around or if they get one and they start telling on the others.

        LikeLike

        July 19, 2010 at 2:59 pm Reply

        1. “if they get one and they start telling on the others.”

           This gets my vote.

           LikeLike

           July 19, 2010 at 3:02 pm Reply

132. I don’t see how you can make that argument given none of those teams are likely (or were considered likely in this latest round) to leave their current conferences.

     LikeLike

     July 19, 2010 at 3:01 pm Reply

     1. Nost,

        The Pac 10 is busted, and the Big 12 is crippled. If the ACC, SEC, and Big 10 get some NCAA play right now, it would effectively quiet realignment talk in the short term. Not saying this is what is happening, more of a “what if” strategy to keep the NCAA in a position of power.

        LikeLike

        July 19, 2010 at 3:56 pm Reply

133. Frank needs to update the map on the introductory page

     LikeLike

     July 21, 2010 at 12:50 pm Reply

134. I thought you guys might want to see how the SEC TV contract actually works. See the full TV schedule below for the first three weeks of the season.

     CBS, which usually gets the first pick, doesn’t kick in until the 3rd week due to U.S. Open tennis coverage.

     The ESPN family gets the next 2 picks, with SECN following. ESPN then picks the rest or sells games to FSN or CSS. If ESPN can’t sell game for the SEC, then the school can do a pay-per-view. The only games available for PPV during the first three weeks are Bama/San Jose St., Ark/Tenn Tech, UTn/UT-Martin, and USCe/Furman.

     On Sept. 11 at 8pm CDT, SEC games can be seen nationwide on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, FSN & CSS.

     I’m not sticking this information on the board to say the SEC’s deal is better or worse the the Big Ten’s. We have just been discussing for months about how these contracts work and I thought you all might want to see how the contracts actually work during the season.
     ______________________________________________________

     Thursday, Sept. 2
     USM at South Carolina, 6:30 p.m. – ESPN

     Saturday, Sept. 4
     Miami (Ohio) at Florida, 11 a.m. – ESPN
     ULL at Georgia, 11:20 a.m. – SEC Network
     Kentucky at Louisville, 2:30 p.m. – ABC
     Jacksonville State at Ole Miss, 2:30 p.m. – CSS
     Memphis at Mississippi State, 6 p.m. – ESPNU
     Arkansas State at Auburn, 6 p.m. – FSN
     Northwestern at Vanderbilt, 6:30 p.m. – CSS
     LSU vs. North Carolina at Atlanta, 7 p.m. – ABC

     Thursday, Sept. 9
     Auburn at Mississippi State, 6:30 p.m. – ESPN

     Saturday, Sept. 11
     Georgia at South Carolina, 11 a.m. ESPN or ESPN2
     South Florida at Florida, 11:20 a.m. – SEC Network
     Penn State at Alabama, 6 p.m. – ESPN
     Oregon at Tennessee, 6 p.m. – ESPN2
     LSU at Vanderbilt, 6 p.m. – ESPNU
     ULM vs. Arkansas at Little Rock, 6 p.m. – FSN
     Western Kentucky at Kentucky, 6:30 p.m. – CSS
     Ole Miss at Tulane, 8 p.m. – ESPN Classic

     Saturday, Sept.18
     Arkansas at Georgia, 11 a.m. – ESPN or ESPN2
     Vanderbilt at Ole Miss, 11:20 a.m. – SEC Network
     Alabama at Duke, 2:30 p.m. – ABC
     Florida at Tennessee, 2:30 p.m. – CBS
     Clemson at Auburn, 6 p.m. – ESPN
     Mississippi State at LSU, 6 p.m. – ESPNU
     Akron at Kentucky, 6 p.m. – FSN

     LikeLike

     July 21, 2010 at 1:05 pm Reply

135. I know money is tight

     http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/health/7118034.html

     but this must be how Dan Beebe expects to raise more cash in the Longhorn Conference

     LikeLike

     July 21, 2010 at 9:10 pm Reply

136. SEC media days, 2 links to slive on conference expansion posted as replies

     LikeLike

     July 22, 2010 at 8:47 am Reply

     1. article #1

        http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/07/slive_money_shouldnt_dictate_e.html

        from alabama person

        LikeLike

        July 22, 2010 at 8:48 am Reply

        1. “Hancock said if conferences eventually do expand to 14 or 16 members, the number of automatic BCS berths they receive would have to be negotiated by conferences.”

           Confirmation of many previous discussions here on FtT that part of the expansion process was to allow top conferences more BCS slots.

           LikeLike

           July 22, 2010 at 9:01 am Reply

     2. article #2

        http://www2.oanow.com/oan/sports/college/article/sec_media_days_notebook_slive_leaves_door_open_for_expansion/167314/

        from auburn source

        LikeLike

        July 22, 2010 at 8:50 am Reply

        1. from the article..

           If the inevitable becomes reality, Slive didn’t rule out pouncing on the opportunity.

           “If that happens,” Slive said, “we should take the opportunity to assess the values shared by intercollegiate athletics and higher education.”

           which seems to confirm my early thought that if the SEC expands, they will do so by inviting schools that promote academic upgrades for the conference. It seems to indicate that oSu and texas tech are not on the SEC wish list, and WVA will not get an SEC invite.

           LikeLike

           July 22, 2010 at 8:57 am Reply

           1. Trouble is, such desire may not be reciprocal. I doubt the SEC would be interested in Texas Tech simply because it’s much too far away from other conference schools. And WVU is at least the top institution in its state (a state that, like Mississippi, has meager economic resources to work with).

              I still sense the two top realistic targets for the SEC are Texas A&M and Virginia Tech. Both are good athletic and cultural fits, both would give the conference new markets and enhance the football brand. (And as stated earlier, as long as Tech continues to play UVa in all sports, there would be no in-state political backlash caused by leaving the ACC.)

              For #15 and #16, were it to get that far, it’s less certain. The SEC would probably have to go east/north for one and west for the other.

              LikeLike

              July 22, 2010 at 9:17 am Reply

              1. vincent,

                 I think you are right about VT and A&M but the next move will be from delany.

                 a) slive has said realignment would be reaction to someone else hitting 13 first.

                 b) UT breaking up and heading west looks much less probable, as Utah has now filled one of the 6 slots they would have controlled. Plus, with USC down this might be the time the Pac 10 moves to equal revenue sharing.

                 LikeLike

                 July 22, 2010 at 9:55 am

              2. Let’s say the Big Ten and SEC each go to 16, with UT in the Big Ten and A&M the SEC. Who else goes in?

                 I say:

                 Big Ten — Texas, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland

                 SEC — Texas A&M, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, West Virginia

                 LikeLike

                 July 22, 2010 at 12:07 pm

              3. Vincent,

                 I’m pretty much in line with your thinking on which schools the BT and SEC will peruse in the next rounds of expansion (see my longer reply below).

                 The SEC has more options with expansion than the BT has. This is partly due to the lower academic standards required by the SEC. SEC options include: FSU, Clemson, GT, OSU and of course they would like to land a North Carolina school if at all possible. Maybe NC State.

                 LikeLike

                 July 22, 2010 at 3:07 pm

              4. Vincent,

                 I agree with all of those except for UT going to the Big 10. They really want OU, TT, OK ST, and aTm following them so that they can remain in power (and I guess so that they can keep their rivalries). I do not see them jumping to the Big 10 without at least one or two of those schools, which is why they almost jumped to the Pac 10 this past go around.

                 If and when expansion kicks back up, they will probably still go to the Pac 10. Although with the Pac 10 taking Utah, they have almost assured that aTm will go to the SEC, and UT does not want to see aTm going to the SEC alone. So UT’s decision will come down to whether they like the academic situation better in the Pac 10 while having aTm going to the SEC (which is what I think will almost assuredly happen), or does the thought of aTm being in the SEC alone bother them enough to where they decide they just can’t let aTm go to the SEC alone and decide to go to the SEC along with OU and Ok St (which I very seriously doubt will happen).

                 Either way, I just do see any scenario in which UT gives up all of their power and goes to the Big 10 by themselves.

                 LikeLike

                 July 22, 2010 at 3:52 pm

137. Vincent,

     I’m very close to your thinking on Big Ten and SEC expansion to 16 teams. If it happens here’s my guess at what 4 teams will be added to each conference:

     BIG TEN: Texas, Notre Dame, Miami (not Rutgers), Maryland.

     I assume you picked Rutgers because of the NY television market. But, I think Miami helps with the NY TV market more than Rutgers. That’s because you gain the NY market by televising the best product, not my getting a local team (if you can even consider NJ local to NY city). Rutgers has never been highly followed by the NY market to in the first place. In other words, you gain much more interest in the NY market with match-ups like Miami v Ohio State or Miami v Iowa than you do Rutgers v Ohio State or Rutgers v anyone.

     Rutgers also adds zero in basketball, it does have the academics and I believe it is a land grant school, but I think the driver is football. Miami would also allow the Big Ten to penetrate the Florida recruiting market. Getting a BT team into Miami every other week would be a key recruiting coup. Also, a BT championship game in the Orange Bowl in December would be a huge benefit.

     SEC: Texas A&M, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, and West Virginia or Florida State.

     Either West Virginia or FSU would be strong additions. I think FSU is more of a national brand and has more potential in football. Personally, I can’t even picture what the West Virginia team uniform looks like, they don’t get much coverage compared to FSU. Maybe they’d get more exposure if they were in a better conference. Yes, West Virginia would expand the SEC footprint, but I think that FSU would greatly improve the SEC brand. The Gators would lobby against FSU, since FSU’s addition to the SEC would negatively impact UF’s recruiting. I live in Florida and I can tell you that FSU gets a LOT OF COVERAGE down here. Bobby Bowden was loved as head coach and most believe that Jimbo Fisher will turn the program around. I went to grad school at Florida so I’d be against FSU joining the SEC, but I do think that it would be a good move for the SEC overall.

     LikeLike

     July 22, 2010 at 2:53 pm Reply

     1. I agree FSU would be a more attractive candidate for the SEC than WVU, but I don’t see Florida giving it the green light. (It’s also why I didn’t consider Clemson, which has similar attributes to FSU but is in a smaller, less desirable state.) Academically, WVU may not be UVa or Cal-Berkeley, but it does reasonably well with what it has, and in fact had Rhodes Scholars before schools such as Maryland did. As long as Miss State and Mississippi are in the SEC, WVU wouldn’t be an academic outlier.

        N.C. State would probably be the most likely North Carolina candidate for the SEC — UNC would have no interest in joining (neither would Duke or Wake, neither of which would fit the SEC mindset), but I sense the ACC would really have to be on shaky ground to get State to leave.

        And I also agree with the person who said Miami was too different for the Big Ten. It’s a school (and athletic program) that projects more allure than it actually owns. (Yes, Rutgers hasn’t done much in basketball lately, but Miami has had some success — and still can’t regularly fill the smallest arena in the ACC.)

        LikeLike

        July 23, 2010 at 8:34 am Reply

138. You guys are generally on target, but I would take the following exceptions. I think as time passes the Nebraska addition will look better and better, as the big ten has built on its research university land grant base. Miami is too different.

     In time Texas might be a great addition, but as we look at the dynamics of other conferences we appreciate that the big ten is a conferences of equals. I’m not sure Texas is buying into that at this time.

     I think for the big ten we are looking at ND, Rutgers, Maryland, UVa/Texas.

     No way FSU goes into the SEC. I could see Florida going to the big ten if that happens. I think the SEC is looking at A&M, West Virginia/Missouri, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech.

     At that point the Pac 10 picks from a list of Kansas, Missouri, Texas, TTech, OkSt, and Baylor. If the SEC gets A&M, Missouri and Oklahoma, and the Big Ten gets Texas, it is hard to find four schools west of teh Mississippi that come close to the pac 10 level of academics w/o Baylor. And in the next few years Baylor could be getting better in football, and will stay at a high level in basketball. Larry Scott knew this, and almost pulled off a brilliant pre-emptive coup.

     Oddly enough, ND might hold the key. The big ten has shown they are nothing if not patient, and have been rewarded with Penn St, Nebraska, and conference stability. The SEC will not be the first to move to 13, and I’m not sure anybody on the big ten’s list short of Texas and ND would get them to expand (Maryland would make you think), and Texas is going to need a real attitude adjustment before it happens. Notre Dame will likely wait a year or two to see what Kelly does with the program. If he doesn’t turn it, they will be running to the big ten while they can. If he does turn it in terms of w/l but no Holtz era magic, they will likely go to the big ten. Only if Kelly is closer to Holtz and Parseghian than he is Davie, Willingham and Weiss will ND remain independant. Davie and Willingham were pretty good coaches.

     LikeLike

     July 22, 2010 at 7:39 pm Reply

139. I am one that believes that the Big Ten is not done expanding. Nebraska was an unexpected move since nobody saw them being available. Thus the early move by the Big Ten.

     Delany has said that the Big Ten is still in a 6 to 12 month time frame. They know by expanding the foot print they expand their market and how much they pull in per household.

     I believe that the Big Ten will go to 14 first. This will not destroy any conference but make one or two unstable in the process. Thus allowing the SEC or someone else responsible for the destruction of a league.

     The prime candidates are Rutgers and Maryland with Georgia Tech and Missouri being outside candidates. All AAU, all fair size states and all expand the Big Ten foot print.

     It also sends a signal to ND and Texas that the Big Ten may be about done expanding. It is now or never time.

     LikeLike

     July 22, 2010 at 9:33 pm Reply

140. My summary of the past six months with predictions about the current “calm” around expansion and the Big 10’s future plans. Podcast episode is about 30 minutes long.

     http://strangersinkenya.blogspot.com/2010/07/one-month-until-kickoff.html

     LikeLike

     July 23, 2010 at 8:53 am Reply

141. My summary of the past six months with predictions about the current “calm” around expansion and the Big 10’s future plans. Podcast episode is about 30 minutes long. Shout out to Frank the Tank and this blog as welll!!!

     http://strangersinkenya.blogspot.com/2010/07/one-month-until-kickoff.html

     LikeLike

     July 23, 2010 at 8:53 am Reply

     1. all,

        my cousin has been a missionary in africa since the 1960’s

        LikeLike

        July 23, 2010 at 1:11 pm Reply

        1. Wow, major props to him. Career people like that have my utmost respect.

           LikeLike

           July 27, 2010 at 2:22 pm Reply

142. Since everybody else is chiming in, I will add my 2 cents worth

     Is realignment over? NO

     Well then, what happens next?

     This is harder, because it means several important issues to address, so be advised this may be a long post (Kudos to Frank, but word press is not the best for responding bloggers – ability to edit, size of window, imbedded commands, etc) and it is hard to keep track at times when a response goes long. That said, here goes

     Point #1 – The media, what we learned

     a) They can not be trusted, and it is about money in the end.

     sure this should be obvious, but I will address something that still sits badly in my head. The last second saving of the Big 12. Remember, all we were told was that a “mystery” group swooped in at the last second to save the Big 12. If this was a private business deal it would have gotten more exposure, yet here are all these PUBLIC STATE universities, with accountability to the public and still no exposure to who this “mystery” group. Anybody seen any push by the major media for FOIA requests in the past month or 2? It makes me think of 2 possible reasons for this:

     1) *puts on tin foil hat* – The US government was involved in some big budget research project (like the manhattan project) among multiple research institutions based on conference affiliation, and realignment would upset the apple cart so to speak. – *takes off tin foil hat*

     2) The real “mystery” group were the media companies that wanted to limit the “expense” side of the equation, to protect profits. No media will be filing FOIA requests, because they own the news and do not want it exposed.

     My money would be on #2 as is is much simpler, and makes sense from the bottom line. My understanding is that the SEC contract can be reopened if membership changes. If the ACC contract is worth 155 (with not 1 top ‘brand’ in the conference) then a reopened SEC contract might be worth 250 – 500 million (the SEC has multiple ‘brands’ and demand). Now if A&M jumps to the SEC, the contract is reopened and this will probably cost ESPN extra expenses for content, but similar income, which greatly reduces their profit margin. It is much more cost effective to offer a lower value to a few Big 12 schools to hold it together than to pay the higher freight to the SEC. The Big 12 may expand, but it will mean adding a school like ISU to get to 12 for a playoff. A big school like UNL would want a bigger part of the pie and UT has shown they will not want to share. Sure OU and A&M will get a bigger slice, but the rest will be doomed to smaller slices which makes it harder for them to become serious contenders.

     In short the SWC >> Big 12 >> the Longhorn Conference can go on forever because UT can control it, keep unequal revenue sharing, and (sans UNL and CU) can keep the peasants in line (my original battered wife syndrome theory). Thank you “mystery” folks for letting the longhorn ego continue to bully a whole conference. I guess it is OK though, because it controls the cost of production, and keeps a strong bottom line for big media. Wake me up if the NY Times hires Scooby Doo and the guys to solve this “mystery” as I feel pretty confident ESPN is never going to report it first!

     b) The fans are revenue streams, so they could care less about the fans. yeah sure, this is a continuation of a), but I needed a b), and in the end the fans will not have the power to drive the bus. They will be allowed to ride, but will have no input on the route, and have to pay to stay on.

     Point #2 – to realign you follow some rules – rehash

     a) old guys are making the decisions, so think like and old guy.

     b) you are a lion (predator) or a gazelle (prey)

     c) tax exempt = epic power in college athletics

     d) borders matter, just look at the most recent realignment

     Big 12 – shares border with Pac 10, Big 10, and SEC
     UNL got picked off by Big 10
     CU got picked off by Pac 10

     ACC – shares border with Big 10 & SEC

     BE – shares border with Big 10

     If I am the prey (Big 12, ACC, BE) the Big 10 is the predator to watch.

     Point #3 – The big issue in realignment is revenue sharing

     I say this as an early premise I laid out long ago was UT to the Pac 10 because of the way they distributed revenue. For those on this blog early, you will remember this is why I had Texas and Co going to the Pac 10 months before it actually became public. No I am not psychic, and I was not in the inner circle, I was just projecting early on the value to UT in unequal revenue sharing. USC could have been the sun in the Pac 8 West, and UT could have been jupiter in the Pac 8 East. Now, after the initial realignment tremor, there is an unexpected aftershock.

     The Pac 10 (with USC facing NCAA sanctions) may have a new path when it come to revenue sharing. Adding CU and Utah changes the voting power of USC / UCLA. It could be the “perfect storm” that sees the Pac 10 go to equal revenue sharing like the Big 10 and SEC. Add in the fact that Utah now holds a slot that would have been held by a Big 12 school and this could be a huge development. IF in the next 2 years the Pac 10 votes to go to equal revenue sharing, THEN Texas will keep the Longhorn Conference going (SWC II) going as long as it can. The Big 3 (predators) will ALL have the equal revenue model, which will give UT no incentive to leave a comfy home THEY control, no matter how big the $$ gap gets.

     Point #4 – This is still a chess match between delany and slive

     I know I have said this many times, but it bears repeating because for realignment to occur someone will have to get the ball rolling. Remember delany and slive are both lawyers by education (delany = UNC & slive = UVA + Georegtown) and both have ACC educations (so they both have ties there). The big difference is that delany will have to make an offensive move because slive will not. Keep this in mind going forward as slive has been consistent about “responding” and not “initiating”. I stated early on that slive would want the “white knight” and I remain committed in this belief.

     Now some observations on the play of the game.

     a) The BE is not threatened by the Pac 10 or SEC

     b) The ACC will not pick off a Big 10 or SEC football power

     c) If the Pac 10 goes to equal revenue, they lose UT and OU

     d) The Big 12 will not be able to attract a top 10 ‘brand’

     e) delany wants to feed the BTN

     f) slive wants to feed academics in the SEC (my gut feeling)

     I have said this all along, but you must predict what your opposition will do and not what you want them to do. If you predict he will do what you want him to do, you have already lost.

     ALL THIS SAID HERE ARE MY PREDICTIONS:

     1) If delany sits pat at 12, realignment is done for quite some time

     2) If Pac 10 goes to equal revenue sharing, welcome to SWC II

     3) If delany goes to 13 + I see the Big 10 adding:

     a) Rutgers: people forget rutgers has 3 campuses so while people keep talking about NYC, they keep forgetting Philly. The main campus is between the two, but the Newark campus is next door to the Big Apple, and the Camden campus is just across the bridge from Philly.

     b) Maryland: Rutgers gets NYC & Philly, MD gets Washington and Baltiomre which pretty much locks up the eastern corridor.

     c) UVA: academics and the Virginia market

     d) ND: with the midwest, and eastern corridor it locks down the ND markets, and adding MD and UVA will make ND feel better about the “seismic” shift argument as these schools will compliment their non football sports

     If no ND, the Big 10 adds UNC

     4) slive / SEC response to 13 +

     a) A&M

     b) VT

     c) NC ST

     d) UNC, or academic add if they do not get UNC

     NO to UL, UC, WVA to the SEC as I think slive wants academic adds more than athletic ones. If he landed A&M and VT he not only scores the 2 biggest CoC schools in the country, but jumps up the academic ladder quickly. From the last realignment press he did not want oSu or texas tech which is why he will not want UL, UC, or WVA

     5) Pac 10 keeps unequal revenue

     a) Texas

     b) Texas Tech

     c) Oklahoma

     d) Oklahoma State

     find new homes in the Pac 10

     6) Pac 10 goes to equal revenue

     a) Kansas

     b) Kansas State

     c) Missouri

     d) midwest / western public to get to 16 (Bosie State?)

     The fact that the Big 10 and SEC passed on missouri the last go round means they are a dead man walking. Kansas having AAU status, and a basketball jewel not getting a Big 10 bid shows they are dead as well. As crazy as this sounds, the Pac 10 could actually go back to the old Pac 8 with an eastern division that takes AZ and AZ State off their hands. It keeps the Pac 8 academic “snobs” in check, and keeps the athletics strong by keeping up with expansion.

     7) Big 12 loses KU, A&M, KSU, Missouri

     welcome to the SWC II as they add teams like SMU, Rice, Tulne, Houston, etc, etc, etc, to get to 16. Sure it is not pretty, but it keeps UT in control, which seems to be the most important thing to them.

     8) BE and ACC merge

     What remains of the two conferences merge to get to 16 teams

     What it may look like in the end:

     Pac 16 plays Big 16 in Rose Bowl

     SEC plays winner of SWC II / ACC + BE in Sugar Bowl

     Rose Bowl winner plays Sugar Bowl winner in NC game (JerryWorld?)

     of course all of this hinges on delany making the first move because slive will not, and scott / beebe can not.

     🙂

     ps. yes it always ironic that MLB and NHL can make money and still have a farm system, but the NFL and NBA have to be ‘supported’ by mostly publicly supported academic institutions!

     😉

     LikeLike

     July 23, 2010 at 3:19 pm Reply

     1. Delany will probably retire in 2013. So any further expansion is probably looking at the 2012 season to begin tetradecimal or hexadecimal countdown. As for borders, he did mention the state of Nebraska being a neighbor which makes the Georgia, Tennessee routes very suspect unless you add Virginia & Maryland. Speaking of Maryland, until they decide on a prez they will remain in pencil on the who to invite list.

        If you’re a Pac 12 alum looking at possible road trips, you’re really hoping Honolulu not Boise in November…

        LikeLike

        July 23, 2010 at 7:27 pm Reply

143. pps. here is the NCAA football numbers for 2010

     Click to access FBS_AVGATTENDANCE.pdf

     some notes:

     IU #56 41,742 avg

     Miami #50 47,551 avg (private school in metro city)
     UC #68 33,975 avg (eating crow, thank you Frank)
     UL #71 32,450 avg
     Wake #72 31,791 avg
     Duke #78 26,314 avg (my early point about duke football value)

     on my early thought of Kentucky to the Big 10

     #22 69,594 avg (103% of stated capacity and just below Iowa, who had a stellar season in comparison)

     ahead of #29 Illinois, #42 Minnesota, #44 Purdue, #56 IU, #83 Nortwestern, so my observation to sell crowds for a crappy product seems to hold, if they do the next planned expansion they would have the 4th biggest stadium in the Big 10.

     LikeLike

     July 23, 2010 at 4:30 pm Reply

144. “d) ND: with the midwest, and eastern corridor it locks down the ND markets, and adding MD and UVA will make ND feel better about the “seismic” shift argument as these schools will compliment their non football sports

     If no ND, the Big 10 adds UNC”

     I’ve thought for awhile that Delaney’s end game somehow involved UNC, the big question always seemed to be what would he need to get them.

     LikeLike

     July 23, 2010 at 6:34 pm Reply

     1. They aren’t coming. That’s complete silliness.

        LikeLike

        July 24, 2010 at 9:29 am Reply

145. As a bit of a digression, check out this collegiate ranking. I tend to think the mid-career median salary ranking is the best criteria I have seen. All of the BS about school reputation is out the window; the liberal arts schools that get their grads into professional programs are well represented by this time in the career trajectory, and median is a better measure of what can be expected by the average person than mean. Only down side is that small schools with small sample size can be fliers.

     http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/college-graduate-salary-statistics-by-location.asp

     Maybe the reason I like it is taht Illinois is the top ranked Big Ten school. Last year Illinois had the distinction of being the top ranked party school as well, but somehow we lost the party school designation this year. . . Anyway, look where UNL ranks.

     LikeLike

     July 23, 2010 at 7:14 pm Reply

     1. What percentage of graduates respond to this survey? Is it a representative sample?

        LikeLike

        July 24, 2010 at 12:10 pm Reply

     2. “DR”, I do not want to completely discount the list you provided the link to, however, this list also could be very subjective (like many of the other rankings out there)… Some schools are known for certain specialties. For example, a school with reputable program for education (i.e. teachers/professors) versus a school with reputable engineering program is going to be no contest. The engineering degree is going to bring significantly more income virtually no matter where you are at.

        Varying degrees bring in varying amounts of income. There’s also the point of location. For example, if you receive a degree from a midwestern school and take a job in the southern U.S., you typically are going to earn LESS than you would performing the same work in the northern or northeastern U.S. (In the industry I work in (commercial nuclear), there can be a significant difference in income depending on where you are working (up to $30 to $40K per year). If you don’t mind a little bit of snow, there’s a little more dough… Obviously, that’s not always going to be the case, but, from what I am aware of, that is the tendency.

        It’s hard to tell if there is any special criteria utilized for this list other than a sampling of grads…

        LikeLike

        July 24, 2010 at 5:25 pm Reply

        1. I noticed the list last year when it was referenced in an article from a major newspaper. Thought it was a neat concept that made sense at first glance, using a simple objective measure put together by a group that doesn’t appear to have an axe to grind.

           You are absolutely correct in your statement about a geographical bias. CA has (or maybe had) an advantage to the extent that their grads stayed in state and reported higher salaries that were subsequently offset by a higher cost of living.

           The survey correctly shows the trend for high starting salaries for engineers, but by the mid-career graduates from top liberal arts school have obviously made up some ground.

           None of these ranking are perfect, but I have told my high school junior to be that I think this one is the best.

           Another interesting thing mentioned in the original newspaper article was how important the distrubtions are. My the mid-career, the upper fourth of the the lowest ranked school’s graduates made more than the lower tenth of the highest ranked school’s graduates. There is little chance that the lower ranked graduates could have gotten into the highest ranked school, so they obviously recovered nicely by mid-career.

           LikeLike

           July 25, 2010 at 5:46 am Reply

146. Doesn’t appear we’re going to get a straight East/West division alignment, at least according to this guy:

     http://host.madison.com/sports/columnists/andy_baggot/article_bb483552-96b6-11df-9fc2-001cc4c03286.html

     LikeLike

     July 24, 2010 at 6:29 am Reply

147. My own thoughts are that we should atleast try and make a east/west work! put in the 10 year plan. after 10 years we re-val both the div and conf to see if we need/want to expand and div.

     I am a bit confused. if lets say we add ND and team X in 5-10 years. are we gonna have PSU,tOSU,Um, ND in one and Iowa,Neb, Wis in the other? Me thinks not. and yet how would you split PSU/UM from the east side? you can’t! if something crazy comes from the new div. then the Expansion is still on. Like say tOSU is some how in the west with Iowa, Neb. with a early season game vs UM every year!

     LikeLike

     July 24, 2010 at 7:21 am Reply

148. Duffman,

     Your entry above has many good insights, as usual. I agree with you that the next expansion move has to come from Jim Delany. The Pac 10 has run out of moves and the SEC has no incentive to expand at this time due their ESPN contract that they are locked into as well as the fact that they are already ahead of all the other conferences in football. Yep, that’s a Big Deal.

     The SEC is way better than the BT in football. That’s what makes them the darling of ESPN. It is what made ESPN sign them on for big money as ESPN’s primary college conference. If you don’t think so, just count how many times ESPN talks about the SEC or SEC teams vs BT teams. Unless your tOSU or Penn State you don’t get much ESPN coverage. So, the SEC does not need to make an expansion move and they don’t have a financial incentive to expand at this time.

     I think the BT will wait until UNL is integrated into the schedule before they make another move, so I wouldn’t expect any expansion from the BT until 2012, unless another conference does something or ND picks up the phone!

     BIG TEN MUST LEVERAGE THE NEW CHAMPIONSHIP GAME:

     I hope the BT championship game in 2011 is Nebraska vs a very high ranked Penn State or any BT team that is highly ranked. But, I want the Huskers in the Championship game. The game should be played in a warm, glamorous, place with plenty of palm trees. Hawaii or Tampa would fit the bill nicely. And there should be lots of media coverage and hype. Lots of hype. Maybe the BT could tap into LeBron’s mangers for help with that. The Big Ten wants Notre Dame and Texas to DROOL over the coverage and hype surrounding the first BIG TEN Championship. Oh, and there should be a grand trophy the size of a freakin cow (or a large leprechaun) that goes to the Big Ten winner. Delany wants UT and ND to think, “It could have been us getting all this great coverage.”

     Instead UT and ND will sitting on the sidelines in December 2011 watching ESPN cover a mega championship game, A game played in a great location with tons of cameras and interviews with players and coaches. And it’s a game that ND or TU could potentially have been part of!

     Then in 2012 the feelers go out to the “hr” schools. If Kelly isn’t doing well or if the Bevo’s aren’t in the BCS hunt, there may be some interest. The way to catch big fish is to have the best bait. I think the BT will be looking good.

     I think JD still has his sites on the “hr” (home run) schools. If the 2011 Big Ten championship game is a success, he’ll be in a position to land one or more Big Fish. And I think Miami is on the Big Fish list.

     I have an idea for a game plan for the BT to land the Big Fish which I’ll post in the next few days.

     By the way, I am serious, that the BT Championship should be held in a great, exotic, location. It should have a Bowl Game atmosphere. Delany is trying to build a National Conference and the championship game should highlight this fact. We shouldn’t think regional, the game doesn’t have to be in the mid-west. Most BT fans travel very well, a trip to sunny Florida in early December is an easy sell. Plus, it’s a BOLD PLAN that says the Big Ten is a national conference. It’s good for recruiting too. Now a BT player has the opportunity of going to the equivalent of TWO BOWL GAMES in a single season. Think of the recruiting potential!

     The SEC already is a national conference because they win the National Title every year. Sometimes the SEC wins two national titles in a single year football and basketball! And because of all the ESPN coverage and hype that the SEC get they have become a national conference. Delany and the BT are trying to counter that and become the second national conference. There will be lots of good things coming down the road for the Big Ten….stay tuned.

     Great posts everyone, Keep up all the fine work.

     LikeLike

     July 24, 2010 at 11:08 am Reply

     1. hawkeye,

        A reason I love this blog, mind expansion!

        I like your thinking about getting the CCG up and running before expanding again. I will go one step further to hope that UNL and PSU are the first 2 teams to compete for it. No I hold no grudge, but it makes the most sense from a distant view with the following thoughst:

        a) both are the newest adds to the Big 10, so it makes future teams see that they have a chance early on.

        b) JoPa is limited, the national media will give him more play as his time may be more limited than a coach in his 40’s. The baby boomers are getting older, and JoPa is their touchstone. It could translated to added national media numbers.

        c) both are top 10 ‘brands’, so it would be easier to sell ads as such a game should draw more ‘national’ advertisers. Sure Michigan vs tOsu is a big deal inside the Big 10, but my gut tells me madison avenue would pay more for UNL vs PSU. If it is Iowa vs Purdue, it could be a advertising disaster.

        On your point of Big A$$ Trophy and warm climate, I think it is great thinking as a way to sway media favor. The national media loves warm climates, so playing in a warm climate would help grow national support for the CCG. Sure Chicago is a great city, but if it is cold the media guys who will be there for a few days will probably go negative (especially if the SEC and Pac 10 games are in warmer climates, and there is a media preference to be warm). I know this is not fan based, but the media will have a big hand in how the Big 10 CCG is perceived OUTSIDE of the Big 10 footprint. The trophy thing just makes sense, because you know the media will keep showing photos of it. great ideas!

        As a side note, I saw Alan’s post above. Every SEC is getting broadcast exposure the first 3 weeks of football, with a majority getting broad regional or national exposure. Say what you will, but it ‘appears’ the SEC is getting the national love in football the way the BE and ACC have been getting it in basketball.

        I stand by my original thought that the Big 10 and the SEC are the players, everybody else is just along for the ride.

        LikeLike

        July 24, 2010 at 11:37 am Reply

        1. > Alvarez threw out the possibility of
           > three four-team setups

           Surely Alvarez means four three-team pods:
           Wisconsin-Minnesota-Iowa
           MichiganSt-Michigan-OhioSt
           PennSt-Indiana-Purdue
           Nebraska-Illinois-Northwestern

           Hows that for competitive balance? How’s that for maintaining significant rivalries?

           LikeLike

           July 24, 2010 at 6:05 pm Reply

     2. One reason ESPN has such a love affair with the SEC is because the Big Ten Network is such a threat to their revenue stream. If the Big Ten Network works out, the other conferences might go ahead and create their own networks. Each one cuts further and further into ESPN’s revenue.

        This is why over the last few years ESPN has bashed the Big Ten over and over again.

        As I have said before on expansion, they will expand and it wont be the home run either. I see a grand plan that goes beyond a larger conference. And I don’t believe the Big Ten will stop at 14 or 16 either.

        The biggest problem will be assimilation which will take time. But they will expand. Nebraska might be easier to assimilate than Penn State was. Nebraska is very similar to most other Big Ten schools in being a mid western type state. very much like Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

        Penn State was a great add and has been a real asset to the Big Ten. Just took longer to assimilate since they are more an east coast school.

        Missouri would assimilate faster than a Rutgers or a Maryland. Not to say Rutgers or Maryland would be less than Missouri.

        LikeLike

        July 24, 2010 at 12:20 pm Reply

        1. aps,

           I’m a Big Ten alum who lives in Florida so unfortunately I don’t get the Big Ten Network. I have to rely on ESPN 1 & 2 as well as what we have here in Florida the “Sunshine Sports Network.” On the Sunshine Network I can see Gator, Miami and Seminole games from the 1990s that are re-broad cast as well as USF (University of Southern Florida Bulls) and Central Florida Knights games. You also get the weekly replays of the weekends games during the season. So on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays you can catch the past weekend’s Gator Game. Yep, they really love their college football down here in the south!

           ESPN is weighted 8:1 in favor of the SEC over the Big Ten. The only BT school that ESPN bothers to cover is tOSU. Even Penn state and Michigan get very little coverage on ESPN. And Wisconsin and Iowa – forget it! They’d have to be ranked in the top 3 before ESPN did any type of in-depth reporting on those schools.

           I always wondered why ESPN had this uncalled for prejudice against the Big Ten. Thanks for enlightening me as to why ESPN skips over the Big Ten Schools!

           LikeLike

           July 24, 2010 at 12:47 pm Reply

        2. aps,

           you will have to look at long term trends via the media.

           early on the ACC was the only conference ESPN could get as the BIG 3 [ABC,NBC,CBS] had the Big 10, Pac 10, SEC, SWC, and Big 8 locked up. many ACC folks in front and behind the cameras at ESPN. The Big 10 made some inroads as ESPN got bigger but now that ESPN has the SEC contract, and FOX has the BTN it will be interesting to see if some of the Big 10 media folks at ESPN get ‘phased out’.

           On expansion I go back to any early thought that 16 is the magic number. 3 major conferences and a few ‘feeder’ conferences would have 85% – 95% of the national market, and they could go their own way. After 16 teams per conference, things get far too bogged down for the minor incremental revenue streams. The BTN and SEC ESPN + tier 3 seems to be the best models going forward. My guess is the Pac 10 will adopt some form of these models, than you will have a major majority by these 3 conferences.

           LikeLike

           July 24, 2010 at 12:55 pm Reply

           1. duffman,

              First bullet point.

              Going back to President Gordon Gee’s emails that the Columbus Dispatch published on June 4.

              http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2010/06/04/e-mails-hint-eyes-are-upon-texas.html?sid=101

              The following is of special note. The email was dated April 19.

              Gee’s initial e-mail to Delany on April 19 said that he is “of the mind that we control our destiny at the moment, but the window will soon close on us. Agility and swiftness of foot is our friend.”

              That e-mail was a day after Delany addressed the Association of American Universities meetings in Washington, D.C. Expansion was expected to have been on the agenda.

              In the same e-mail, Gee commended Delany on his “brilliant presentation.”

              NOTE: That Gee mentions Delany’s “brilliant presentation” at the AAU meeting.

              Second bullet point.

              President Harvey Perlman said on April 24 the following.

              http://www.omaha.com/article/20100424/BIGRED/704249814

              “I don’t think anyone can dismiss anything out of hand,” he said. “If you take the wildest predictions about mega-conferences — 16 is the number you see most, but 24 has been floated though not publicly — we certainly have to act in the interest of Nebraska.”

              There are two key points here.
              1) A 24 member league has not been floated publicly. We have heard 12-14-16 even 18 but not 24.
              2) That President Perlman states this on April 24 which is after the date of the AAU meeting in DC.

              1) Illinois
              2) Indiana University
              3) Iowa
              4) Michigan
              5) Michigan State
              6) Minnesota
              7) Nebraska
              8) Northwestern
              9) Ohio State
              10) Penn State
              11) Purdue
              12) Wisconsin

              Consider the following.

              13) Pittsburgh
              14) Syracuse
              15) Rutgers
              16) Maryland
              17) Virginia
              18) Duke
              19) North Carolina
              20) Georgia Tech
              21) Iowa State
              22) Kansas
              23) Missouri
              24) Notre Dame (only non AAU)

              25) Texas
              26) Texas A&M
              27) Florida
              28) Vanderbilt

              Remember. Florida & Vanderbilt are SEC and Texas A&M was going to go SEC and Texas might end up in the Pac 12.

              But you have a 24 member league that outside of ND is all AAU universities. Given what they are, they could create their own athletic association outside the NCAA.

              Far fetched, don’t know. But what sticks in my mind is what Jim Delany once said. “You must think outside the box.”

              And definitely this would be outside the box.

              LikeLike

              July 24, 2010 at 3:01 pm Reply

        3. The long-term benefits have to be valued above short-term assimilation, which is why Maryland and Rutgers would be wiser choices for Big Ten candidacy than Missouri. They would also put the Big Ten on the doorstep of two of the nation’s key markets — New York for media and advertising, Washington for government and research.

           LikeLike

           July 24, 2010 at 7:38 pm Reply

           1. vincent,

              MD also get you into Baltimore

              Rutgers also gets you in Philly

              2 schools get your foot in the door to 4 major markets, not just two.

              LikeLike

              July 24, 2010 at 9:49 pm Reply

           2. ps..

              Rutgers also gets you 2 more senators + congressmen

              MD also gets you 2 more senators + congressmen

              as neither school has a twin, that is a pretty good bang for the expansion buck.

              LikeLike

              July 24, 2010 at 9:52 pm Reply

        4. ESPN’s real bias is against the Pac10 and Big 12. Both signed with Fox in the mid-90s. ESPN doesn’t try to be balanced-they promote their own products. Pac 10 and Big 12 teams get ignored or dissed (with the notable exception of USC).

           LikeLike

           July 25, 2010 at 12:41 pm Reply

     3. Duffman,

        Thanks for embracing my idea for a “warm weather” location for the BT Conference Championship Game. I’m glad you are keeping an open mind regarding the CCG. I know it’s a long shot, but a Florida location would really highlight that game and gain the media coverage outside the BT that will help with individual team recruiting and BT expansion.

        All the BT schools could leverage a warm weather game when recruiting. Just think of the power of telling a kid considering Northwestern that he’ll have the chance of going to TWO bowl games in one year if the Wildcats win their BT division. With only six schools in a division, every school has some chance at getting to the CCG.

        As an Iowa alum, I would love to see an Iowa v Purdue CCG. But the media picks up on the Big Name Teams, as you put it, “Top 10 Brands.” Nebraska v Penn State would light up the TV and Computer screens. Advertising dollars would be strong too. What the BT needs right now is high profile games that highlight the overall conference to the rest of the nation. Additionally, strong financial bids from warm weather cities that stand to gain form hotel, restaurant and ticket revenue would help offset any added travel expense the BT schools would incur.

        Plus a warm weather game lets us see long legged cheerleaders who don’t have to wear three layers of wool warm ups. Cheerleads in skits …. Always a crowd pleaser and added bonus. I’m telling you Tampa or Orlando in early December for the Big Ten CCG. It will power the BT into a strong regular season finish.

        LikeLike

        July 24, 2010 at 12:36 pm Reply

        1. Yep, playing in Tampa sure boosted the ACC title game, didn’t it?

           Oh, and as stated before, Miami isn’t quite as big a fish as you think. Please see an optometrist.

           LikeLike

           July 24, 2010 at 12:54 pm Reply

           1. vincent,

              I am with you as pre my previous response:

              Miami #50 47,551 avg (private school in metro city)

              I have many reservations about Miami

              Tampa would be in the heart of SEC country, the bigger mind play would be to hold it in JerryWorld. The UT crowd will not have a CCG after this season, and opens up the Texas recruits to Big 10 schools. A two for one deal!

              😉

              LikeLike

              July 24, 2010 at 1:04 pm Reply

           2. Vincent,

              My optometrist is my brother-in-law and per my last visit my vision is excellent. Agree to disagree on Miami, dude. You don’t have to act like a Jack Off. Other people on Frank the Tanks Blog disagree with each other all the time without it becoming personal. That’s one of the things that make this site so informative, and friendly. Informed responders also outline the facts for their disagreements. Simply asserting that Miami is “overrated” without explaining your position is cowardly and lame, pal.

              Mr. Duffman,

              I see from your stats that Miami has low attendance. I’m surprised. Maybe the beach in Miami is just too nice to pass up in the fall! Plus, there’s the fact that the school is smaller than other BT schools. I’m sure low attendance would bother the Big Ten, so you have a good point on that one.

              My lobbying for Miami has more to do with its national TV draw. I’ll try to get my hands on more facts, but Miami games are highly touted on national television. Miami just sighed a three year deal with Notre Dame. One game to be played at Soldier Field on Oct 6, 2012 (kind of a semi-natural site) one in Southbend and one in the Orange Bowl (both yet to be scheduled). Miami is signed up to play tOSU in 2011. Also, it’s interesting to note that Miami only has one team scheduled for the 2014 and 2015 season. And that team is……Nebraska. Maybe there’s something to Miami to the BT.

              I realize that Miami is not a commonly touted school on this blog, but it’s football program has national appeal; it’s coming back to being a perennial top 20 (maybe top 10) team: it’s location in the heart of SEC recruiting country may be seen as a strong point for the Big Ten. Florida is the #2 high school recruiting ground after #1 Texas. One of the reasons to look at UT for the Big Ten was the strong Texas high school programs.

              Other reasons to consider “The U”: Miami has had a string of great players ( Michael Irvin, Warren, Sapp, Vinny Testiverdie) and super coaches (Jimmy Johnson, Howard Schnellenberger, Dennis Erickson) which tend to show the school’s commitment to the football program, and the commitment at Mimi is just as strong as a Nebraska or Penn State’s administrations. The Bleacher report ran an article exploring if Miami was the best “football factory” for the NFL. Big name players and coaches draw national media attention. And the Big Ten can use more national media attention. For example, Nebraska’s “national audience” was one of the drivers for their invite to the BT even though the state population is small. My point is that all these factors help the national exposure of any conference and Miami would greatly help the Big Ten.

              Just saying, keep an open mind when it comes to Miami to the Big Ten.

              LikeLike

              July 24, 2010 at 2:21 pm Reply

              1. hawkeye,

                 miami is more a concern for something I am noticing, but people still do not want to give more credence to. Folks forget that Tulane was a football school that actually downsized their stadium before tearing it down. If memory serves it was the origin of the Sugar Bowl. I look at several things that lead to their downfall.

                 a) left the SEC

                 b) had to compete with a pro football team

                 c) was a private university

                 say what you will about miami, but it is a private university in a major metro area with professional football to compete for the entertainment dollar. Go back to my top 10 list, UT is in Austin, OU is in Norman, ND is in South Bend, Michigan is in Ann Arbor, tOSU is in Columbus, PSU is in University Park, BAMA is in Tuscaloosa, UT is in Knoxville, UNL is in Lincoln, and USC is in LA.

                 A trend emerges, the top teams are generally Flagship Public Schools outside of major metro areas that do not have to compete directly with NFL teams. Miami U does not fit that category, and does not have the long term history of winning that USC does (going back around a century). I am keeping an open mind, but I see many issues that hurt their chance.

                 Yes ND and USC are private, but they have long histories that enhance their value. If Miami had a similar long term history or were PUBLIC, I would be more favorable.

                 LikeLike

                 July 24, 2010 at 7:03 pm

              2. I apologize if my comment appeared to be personal in nature; rest assured I meant nothing of the sort. But as duffman said, if Miami were a public institution, or had a football brand that dated back to the 1920s as Southern Cal or Notre Dame do, I might be willing to buy your argument. To me, it’s simply too much of a one-trick pony.

                 LikeLike

                 July 24, 2010 at 7:33 pm

              3. “The U” BS is enough of a reason not to consider Miami, although there are about 10 others………….

                 LikeLike

                 July 24, 2010 at 9:37 pm

              4. Here’s another number:

                 28,916 in 1997. That was Miami’s attendance when they only won 5 or 6 games. Being reliant on non-alumni in a pro sports town gives them a lot of fair weather fans. They were seriously considering dropping football in the early 80s just before their string of success.

                 And last year was actually their 5th best year in attendance going back to 96. Its not like last year was an outlier.

                 LikeLike

                 July 25, 2010 at 12:49 pm

           3. BT Conference Game in Sunny Location – Final Thoughts:

              First, thanks for everyone’s input on this idea. I agree that the Big Ten CCG in a sunny, warm, location is a long shot, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered. I think from a tactical, marketing , perspective it is a home run for the BT. Tradition would hold that the CCG game is held at Soldier Field or in a BT footprint state. I grew up in Chicago, and early December could be quite nice …… it could also be brutal snow, wind and cold. Holding the CCG in the south is daring and you have to be willing to “think outside the box” to consider it. But the marketing and recruiting advantages should not be ignored.

              Duffman brought up an interesting idea about holding the first CCG game in Dallas. That would be great. Talk about sticking it to Texas – the Big Ten displays it’s best teams in the heart of Texas, racking in all those Texas dollars and UT sits at home. How’s that for karma…..

              The major value of a Texas, Florida or “good weather” CCG is marketing and recruiting. I can see that a major downside is that it’s different than the SEC model, but so what…..the BT should be the leader not the follower in new concepts. The biggest down side is that it would increase travel for Midwestern BT fans. Other issues may be logistics with tight time frames for fans to book flights. We all understand that there are downsides….the question becomes “Is the media, recruiting, revenue gains enough to offset the down side. Plus, the fact that having such a key game in bad weather is normally not seen as conducive to a good game. Normally you don’t want bad weather to factor too much into the game.

              PSU fan, I don’t think we’d be sending money down to the south, the BT looks to make $15 million, maybe more, the BT would be expanding it’s reach and it’s Brand Name. By selling tickets to people in the south it would be pulling in southern dollars. I would think you could charge a lot more for a game ticket at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa than you could for a cold seat in Soldiers’ Field – but that’s just my guess. Of course those who fly from the Midwest to the south and get lodging would be spending there money in “SEC Territory” but, that said, would you really rather watch a game sitting on the shore of Lake Michigan in December or would you rather be in Tampa, Florida drinking a Margarita and then hit the beach after the game?

              Steve in ILL raised the issue of lost tourist dollars in Chicago and Chicago politics, valid points. Big Dollars like that are what drive business decisions. That may be enough to stop a game outside the BT footprint.

              But, for the average PSU fan living in eastern PA, it’s probably just as economical to fly to Tampa in December than it is to drive or fly to Chicago. You can combine a trip to the Florida Beaches (no oil here in Tampa, yet) and you’ll have a game that is like a Bowl Game with super weather. Plus, the Big Ten reaps the rewards of the national spotlight.

              Given the fact that the BT is very conservative, a CCG outside of the Midwest probably won’t happen. Yes, I can understand Steve in ILL point that some Mid-westerners would consider it a “slap in the face.” But, some Mid-westerners might also consider it a reason to take a trip to a warm, more appealing, location in December! My comments about having the game in Hawaii, were pretty much tongue in cheek, but don’t tell me the players and coaches wouldn’t be loving it. And, ya, the national coverage would be outstanding, even if it was just a onetime deal in Hawaii to kick off the Big Ten’s first CCG.

              New ideas generally start out being rejected, for example, BT to expand past 12 teams? No way! But once people start kicking around an idea it starts to become more accepted, … it ‘grows on you.’ All I am saying is think about it………

              Cheers to all those who gave their input on this topic. Wherever the game is held: Go Hawkeyes and GO Big Ten.

              LikeLike

              July 25, 2010 at 9:25 am Reply

        2. Hawkeye gator, I wouldn’t say that there is not a chance of your CCG scheme happening but I must say that is one of the dumbest Ideas I have heard yet on this blog. And its a slap in the face to Midwesterners at that. If you want to have a CCG it must be in the bosom of the conference or its major city.

           Tell me where is the SEC Championship game played? The Big 12? The Pac 10 does not have one but what would you want to guess it held predominantly in LA? None say to move their game out to Chicago for a more wider appeal. So you what? Want hold the Big Friging Ten CCG in fringing FLORIDA??? While this might be convenient for you there as a transplant it’s the rest of the us who live here in the Midwest who lose out on that deal.

           Now if this was the absolute last game of the year and no bowl games then this Idea has some but not much merit. Economically it does not help out hotels, restaurants, shopping or the travel industry located here in the Midwest to hold such a game in the Hawaii, NYC, or Miami.

           If your thinking warm weather games well that’s what the Rose bowl has always been for. There are a couple of bowl game in Florida that big ten teams ten to end up in as well. But Pa-lease don’t try to highjack the Midwest game to frigin Florida. Ele consider being an alum of a SEC team.

           LikeLike

           July 24, 2010 at 8:38 pm Reply

           1. StvInIL,

              I think it is good to separate FL and south in hawkeye’s point. Substitute JerryWorld for FL. Then think it through.

              a) media happiness matters, and the media loves warm southern climates. think back to past superbowl sites, and remember the negative media comments in the colder climates.

              b) recruiting texas without competing with texas. The big 12 no longer has a CCG, and the Big 10 now has one. The roles are reversed for recruiting as the Big 12 now has a dead week like the Big 10 used to have. Their season is done, and they have recruits in texas watching a Big 10 game with no Big 12 games competing for texas recruits eyeballs. The CCG in JerryWorld could be one big recruiting junket for the Big 10.

              c) allows delany and Co to lobby every year with Big 10 alum who now call texas home. sure it is not chicago or indy, and it does not favor fans as much, but it works on so many levels for the Big 10 to offset some of these issues.

              Hop Horn you still around to give some input on this idea?

              LikeLike

              July 24, 2010 at 9:44 pm Reply

              1. It still doesn’t make sense Duffman?

                 a) It WILL be the big ten championship. They wont have to beg Media to come where ever it is played they will come because it is significant. Honestly there are no whether issues in domes in Indianapolis, Detroit or Indianapolis. The CCG is a weekend event not a year ending (Rose) Bowl type event. The point is after the CCG the teams then have to turn right around and prepare or go to a bowl game. If you make it too big it becomes a distraction that coaches won’t appreciate.
                 Those are designed for a week and are planned for a year in advanced. So the media really can take a junket on its own dime or see us anyway at the rose or citrus or sun bowls.
                 b) The big ten does not compete with Texas now vary much for Texas recruits. The Big ten has for 25 years big picking up Florida kids here and there to fill a need at wide out when they need one. Like Texas, Florida has plenty football crazed of speed type players to round out a roster. Only so many can fit on Uf, and FL state and Miami. The rest must go somewhere. Instead of a 2nd teier university they come to both Big Ten and MAC schools.
                 c) Lobbying is for people begging for something. I don’t believe Delaney is in a situation that he has become a beggar. We have more Big Ten alums in Florida or Southern Cal anyway than Texas. I really feel like you are reaching on some championship game outside of the Midwest, read my post below about Chicago politics. Which is what we will get if Hotels in and restaurants in Chicago, Michigan or Indi don’t get the money they deserve. The warm weather states already get all the super bowls by default. Those are hundreds of millions of dollars that these cities see that Chicago, Minneapolis, or Milwaukee NEVER see. And you expect the Big Ten states to just GIVE THIS AWAY!?!
                 Duffman, you really need to rethink this given the current economic situation.

                 LikeLike

                 July 24, 2010 at 10:09 pm

              2. StvInIL,

                 you make valid points, but two questions come up from all these discussions.

                 If you are trying to bring UT into the Big 10, is it totally illogical to play in JerryWorld?

                 If you are trying to bring ND into the Big 10, is it totally illogical to play in NYC?

                 Your point of loss of economic tourist money is very valid. Your lobbying = begging seems a little less so. Lobbying is a way to deal with egos, which we all seem to agree that UT and ND have. I was trying to see hawkeye’s suggestion as out of the box thinking. We are all armchair folks here, and new ideas may go nowhere. They can also lead us down a path that looking back seemed so obvious.

                 Debating with Frank and others has gotten me to see many different sides and arguments. I could see A&M in the SEC, but vincent got me to see VT there as well. I guess it would be helpful to know how the media deals with the SEC and Big 12 CCG?

                 Alan or Bama from the SEC, or Hop Horn and Husker folks can we get some media insight to CCG’s?

                 thanks

                 LikeLike

                 July 24, 2010 at 10:40 pm

              3. A lot of interesting thoughts regarding the (or a) CCG…

                 Hey, if the/a CCG becomes reality, warm weather would definitely be a nice benefit… However, personally, I think it would be beneficial to rotate between some of the cities in Big Ten footprint (Green Bay, Chicago, Indy, Detroit, Cleveland (did I say that?), etc…). This would kinda be along the lines of the Super Bowl movement.

                 A concern I have is whether this CCG (even for the Big Ten) will really be that big of a deal for fans outside of the 2 teams playing. I am not sold on a CCG… Don’t get me wrong, I would likely watch the broadcast… but, unless the Gophers re-open the historical archives on “how to play football”, and make it back to Big Ten glory, I likely wouldn’t go to the game.

                 I know that the Michigan’s and Ohio State’s regularly sell out 100K plus… Will or would there truly be enough interest to sell these CCG’s out to fans that have to travel? While the CCG could be perceived as big… is it Bowl big? Depending on one’s personal economic situation, an individual would maybe have to make a choice between going to a CCG, versus going to a bowl game if their team makes it to that level. Choices, choices… I know… Actually, would be kind of a nice dilemma wouldn’t it?! To me it would be nice to cut a couple of the non-conf P.O.S. games and replace with conf games and determine champion by playing it out during regular season…

                 LikeLike

                 July 25, 2010 at 7:57 pm

149. I think the most interesting thing is that Kansas has lost it’s Pac-16 backup plan due to Utah getting into the Pac-12.

     In a future expansion, Texas/TTech/OSU/OU seem to be the Pac-16 outcome with A&M going to the SEC.

     I think the Pac-16 may try to get Texas/A&M/TTech/OU at first, but replace A&M with OSU when A&M bails to the SEC.

     In a sense, Kansas may look back and regret that the Pac-16 didn’t happen with it ending up at the 16th school instead of Utah, which seemed like the result until Texas changed the equation at the last minute.

     LikeLike

     July 24, 2010 at 1:23 pm Reply

     1. zeek,

        from everything I read in the post realignment press, OU without oSu is a non starter. There are strong ties between the sooners and cowboys in the state of oklahoma. The media seemed to think that is why OU to the SEC was a non starter, as slive did not want TT or oSu.

        on A&M, there seems to be no desire to go west and play Cal or UCLA, much less the washington or oregon schools. Too much culture clash.

        If the Pac 16 goes to equal revenue sharing, KU has a door back into the Pac 16. If not, OU and UT will pick the other 2.

        LikeLike

        July 24, 2010 at 1:32 pm Reply

150. Sorry but the FL angle for the BigTen just doesn’t make sense (excluding Florida). It seems like stretching to appease outside forces and to be honest, it is. There are plenty of schools that fit the “BigTen” model, provide good markets, and have product appeal without having to make a blatant grab for places. If the Big Ten is expanded correctly, we will be in all markets by necessity already.

     As for Florida being college football fanatics IMO, they really aren’t. They’re WINNER fanatics. When Miami was up they were “Florida’s team”. Same for FSU and now Florida. Heck even that being said when I was down there I saw plenty of Big Ten alumni filling the local sports bars sometimes even outnumbering the locals.

     Point is tv people don’t buy into the hype neither should we. Florida is a good market, but its a split one.

     As for the ESPN might as well get used to that. So long as the SEC continues to do those things to maintain itself at the top of competitive landscape (and I mean that in the “good” in addition to the “bad”) ESPN will continue to pimp them up. Point is they have too much invested in them not to.

     The points made about the BTN though are spot on and IMO why ESPN paid so much for the SEC (and paid for so many of their second-tier games to put on ESPNU, Classic, etc). Even if the Big Ten expands with nothing, but the “filler” schools the BTN will cover some of the largest populations in the US, contain the largest alumni base, & have 4 of the top football programs of all time (ie national brands). That’s the kind of base the BTN can use to push itself into states far away from its own footprint (Florida anyone?) and command a premium from those areas it does cover. That has to scare ESPN, if for no other reason than it will eat into its profits, if not its long term status as “top of the sports world”.

     As for the CCG in a sunny warm place…screw that. That’s what Bowl Games are for. Have it at Soldier Field. Big city so plenty of coverage/stuff to do REALLY easy to get into (plenty of direct flights). If the stadium is sold out (61,500 capacity, doable with alumni levels in the Big Ten) there will have to be coverage.

     Moving to expansion candidates, I really think it happens in 6-12 months (after this seasons, but before the start of the next), but once its done its done. Schools like Rutgers, MD, Pitt, Syracuse, & Mizzou are great “filler” schools that add decent markets, product, and academics. That doesn’t even take into account if Texas (unlikely) or ND (more likely, though still not high) decide to get off their high horses.

     LikeLike

     July 24, 2010 at 2:05 pm Reply

     1. without ND i don’t see any reason to expand. I am also All for BT CCG in a BT state! why in the heck would we send millions down south? Got to play some CCG’s outside. We want to show how we are different from the southern school.

        LikeLike

        July 24, 2010 at 3:41 pm Reply

        1. In fairness, it depends on what the Big Ten wants to do.

           Getting four out of the Mizzou, Pitt, MD, NJ, Cuse, Conn group may not be very exciting from a pure football stand point but i think they’ll pull their weight (unlike some current members I might add) and it does make the Great Plains through New England Big Ten country. That’s a BIG thing for the BTN.

           On the other hand, if they want to push the national appeal of the Big Ten (from a football perspective) then agreed, they need ND. Other than Texas no other school has that draw.

           Personally, if we were able to get NJ, MD, and Pitt the increase to the CIC would be worth whoever we get as the last…whether it be ND, Cuse, Mizzou, or South Central LA St Univ.

           LikeLike

           July 24, 2010 at 7:31 pm Reply

           1. AGREE W/PSU
              PSU, could not agree with you more on CCG and realignment. I would add this to what you said. I think the Big ten is set for now. At least through the first year of Nebraska’s Big Ten play.

              EXPANSION
              I believe the next Big ten expansion is all about 1) ND and or TX 2) Eastward expansion. When the big ten were talking about the Sun Belt demographics shift, I really don’t think they meant anything more than Texas. The other talk was just due diligence. East means a couple of these schools Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse.

              THE KICKER
              I believe that further expansion in single increments by the Big ten and Pac Ten do two things. 1) ratchet up the pressure for schools like ND, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Vatech and even throw in Missouri and BYU to join one of the big 3 conferences for reasons of stability, monetary gain and competition. Missouri and BYU may not go big 3 but they will have to upgrade their conferences to be remotely relevant 2) facilitates a more hasty move due to the lessoning availability of slots. If the big 3 are going to 14 and they are not one of them, they are in an agitated position. If it then becomes apparent they are going to 16, then this has got to be a “def con four” position and it will then become imperative that they make a move they should have done earlier.

              SEC EXPANSION
              The SEC is an extremely strong if nothing else FOOTBALLl league. Year in year out their top two is as good or a cut above the rest. They would like to say top to bottom but I don’t believe that because I have never seen a team from their (traditional) third tier win or share a Conference Championship. I mean its Alabama, LSU and Florida isn’t it? Throw in Tennessee and Georgia on occasion. They really don’t need to expand even if the big ten adds two more. Though I think they will because they just can’t help themselves. VaTech and Texas A&M are the only two schools that make the most sense for different reasons the least of which is football. The Florida schools and the Carolina schools and the Georgia schools unlike VaTech and Texas A&M do not bring anything they don’t already have in terms of viewership and recruiting.

              LikeLike

              July 24, 2010 at 9:22 pm Reply

     2. Recent comments by Delaney concerning the importance of the NYC market to the Big 10 suggest he is still an advocate of expansion, esp. to the East. PSU and WIS also seem to be in that category…

        OSU also seems very pro-expansion. We know Gee wanted TX–not sure how he feels about Rutgers……

        Seems like Ill. and NW are 2 “no” votes for expansion Not sure about Michigan….although Lloyd Carr has said that further expansion is inevitable….hard to believe he would say that if it was contrary to the school’s position……

        Holdups would appear to be whether there are sufficient “yes” votes, and what would be the 14th school (after Rutgers). I still think Misery and Pitt are most likely, but Syracuse has a puncher’s chance………Md’s not happening.

        LikeLike

        July 24, 2010 at 10:15 pm Reply

151. B10 CCG in FLA?

     Careful what you wish for.

     LikeLike

     July 24, 2010 at 3:50 pm Reply

     1. Greg, it wont ever be that bad but if you think Texas plays politics, wait till you see it Chicago style if it’s not played in Chicago at least in alternateing years.

        LikeLike

        July 24, 2010 at 9:26 pm Reply

     2. Wow! What can I say? Ticket prices were too high? VT and BC fans don’t travel well? Marketing plan was a bust? ACC is not a football conference? Something went wrong there! But you can’t deny that the weather looks great!

        I don’t think that a BT conference game held in Florida would have such dis-mill attendance based on the fact that there are so many Big Ten alums in Florida.

        LikeLike

        July 25, 2010 at 9:36 am Reply

152. Lot’s o good comments. I can see we are all over our collective post-expansion hangover. Several replies:
     1.) Miami does not have much of a Florida following. I lived down there for 7 years, and in the state you pretty much have to decide between UF and FSU. Miami gets students nationally, not from the state, they are naturally more of a Big East school if you look at student demographics. While I was down there the following did increase a bit but it was local fair weather fans and from the hood. I remember a Miami-Arizona game in the old orange bowl that didn’t sell out when both teams were in the top 10 nationally.
     2.) A warm weather CCG is an interesting thought. I could see it being great, if it turned out like a Rose Bowl spectacle. I could see it being a disaster if it was less interesting then a SEC game at the swamp. All depends on how it is promoted and organized.
     3.) Agree that the most likely scenario from this point forward is opportunistically adding one team at a time to the big > ten and pac > ten. The interestign thing is that I think time is on the side of the big > ten with the BTN, and maybe not for the pac ten if they do not have the critical mass for their own network, and adding Utah and Colorado, and USC losing some luster does not seem to have improved things a whole lot. Along this line, I really like the idea of the big ten quickly adding #13. That will signal that conference expansion is not done. Obviously if we could get ND or TX they would be in, although I think they need at attitude adjustment to be successfully integrated. The perfect #13 would be either Rutgers or MD.

     LikeLike

     July 25, 2010 at 8:12 am Reply

     1. @drwillini
        About ND and TX needing an attitude adjustment. That can only come on their way in the door. The less concession we give these schools the better. Else they think EVERYTHING is negotiable. They are like lawyers, they will push for all they can get up front then eventually settle but getting more than they should have gotten in the first place.
        This is why a gradual incremental expansion would work should the Pac ten and the Big Ten do it as they just have. Like I said the SEC can jump into this and increase the pressure as well (tame TX A&M or VaTech) but I am not sure they really NEED to. The Big East could also help the dominos to fall again by adding a couple of schools like from the bottom portion of the Big 12 or E.Carolina and UCF.
        I think you are wrong about Maryland as it makes too much sense not to consider for all the reasons. Viewership, great academics, It’s an outlier in the ACC, increased revenue for them, and it’s in Penn State’s play ground. Frank mentioned that if they thought Rutgers and or Syracuse could deliver NY/NJ significantly they may be members today. I bet Maryland fares better in delivering Baltimore, DC, and suburban Virginia.

        LikeLike

        July 25, 2010 at 11:23 am Reply

153. Sorry for the Re-post of this comment, my original posting went in the wrong place:

     BT Conference Game in Sunny Location – Final Thoughts:

     First, thanks for everyone’s input on this idea. I agree that the Big Ten CCG in a sunny, warm, location is a long shot, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered. I think from a tactical, marketing , perspective it is a home run for the BT. Tradition would hold that the CCG game is held at Soldier Field or in a BT footprint state. I grew up in Chicago, and early December could be quite nice …… it could also be brutal snow, wind and cold. Holding the CCG in the south is daring and you have to be willing to “think outside the box” to consider it. But the marketing and recruiting advantages should not be ignored.

     Duffman brought up an interesting idea about holding the first CCG game in Dallas. That would be great. Talk about sticking it to Texas – the Big Ten displays it’s best teams in the heart of Texas, racking in all those Texas dollars and UT sits at home. How’s that for karma…..

     The major value of a Texas, Florida or “good weather” CCG is marketing and recruiting. I can see that a major downside is that it’s different than the SEC model, but so what…..the BT should be the leader not the follower in new concepts. The biggest down side is that it would increase travel for Midwestern BT fans. Other issues may be logistics with tight time frames for fans to book flights. We all understand that there are downsides….the question becomes “Is the media, recruiting, revenue gains enough to offset the down side. Plus, the fact that having such a key game in bad weather is normally not seen as conducive to a good game. Normally you don’t want bad weather to factor too much into the game.

     PSU fan, I don’t think we’d be sending money down to the south, the BT looks to make $15 million, maybe more, the BT would be expanding it’s reach and it’s Brand Name. By selling tickets to people in the south it would be pulling in southern dollars. I would think you could charge a lot more for a game ticket at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa than you could for a cold seat in Soldiers’ Field – but that’s just my guess. Of course those who fly from the Midwest to the south and get lodging would be spending there money in “SEC Territory” but, that said, would you really rather watch a game sitting on the shore of Lake Michigan in December or would you rather be in Tampa, Florida drinking a Margarita and then hit the beach after the game?

     Steve in ILL raised the issue of lost tourist dollars in Chicago and politics, valid points. Big Dollars like that are what drive business decisions. That may be enough to stop a game outside the BT footprint.

     But, for the average PSU fan living in eastern PA, it’s probably just as economical to fly to Tampa in December than it is to drive or fly to Chicago. You can combine a trip to the Florida Beaches (no oil here in Tampa, yet) and you’ll have a game that is like a Bowl Game with super weather. Plus, the Big Ten reaps the rewards of the national spotlight.

     Given the fact that the BT is very conservative, a CCG outside of the Midwest probably won’t happen. Yes, I can understand Steve in ILL point that some Midwesterners would consider it a “slap in the face.” But, some Midwesterners might also consider it a reason to take a trip to a warm, more appealing, location in December! My comments about having the game in Hawaii, were pretty much tongue in cheek, but don’t tell me the players and coaches wouldn’t be loving it. And, ya, the national coverage would be outstanding, even if it was just a onetime deal in Hawaii to kick off the Big Ten’s first CCG.

     New ideas generally start out being rejected, for example, BT to expand past 12 teams no way! But once people start kicking around an idea it starts to become more accepted, … it ‘grows on you.’ All I am saying is think about it………

     Cheers to all those who gave their input on this topic. Wherever the game is held: Go Hawkeyes and GO Big Ten.

     LikeLike

     July 25, 2010 at 9:31 am Reply

     1. I understand thinking outside the Box. I also spend time on political blogs and understand to money and how it affects local economies. Hawkeye gator I love you for spurring a good discussion but I really do think you may have lived too long away from the heartland truly understand the facts here.
        I am a big Chicago Bear fan and naturally don’t like the GB Packers. You will not find a lot empty seats if any in either of those stadiums on the coldest days of the year. People will go even if we can’t find fare whether fans to fly in from TX, FL,AZ or SoCal to attend. The world does not revolve around them here.
        I think there will be more than enough true-blue alumni from big ten schools who will come. “If you build it they will come. Some people were actually shocked at how many Northwestern alums and friends attended the last Rose Bowl they played in. They owned the rose bowl.

        “ you also glossed over the fact that no one HAS to freeze their @ss at soldiers field. We have options here in the rustbelt ya know???
        (Indianapolis)Lucas oil http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/2774099367_b5950093d2.jpg it’s indoor?
        (Detroit) Ford field http://www.eseats.com/sports%20images/LionsStadium.jpg It’s indoors?
        (Minneapolis) Hump dome http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/MinnesotaVikings/interior.jpg It’s in doors?
        All these can alternate between soldiers filed which is about ten miles away from the Big Ten offices in suburban CHICAGO?
        In closing, I say a trip to Florida is always a nice diversion in the winter but nobody needs a bowl game to make it happen nor do they need to highjack something uniquely Midwestern to do so. A BIG TEN CCG IS UNIQUELY MIDWESTERN by the way.

        LikeLike

        July 25, 2010 at 12:03 pm Reply

     2. Here’s the thing…screw all that.

        I don’t care about margarita’s on the beach (besides, Tampa in Dec ain’t exactly tropical weather, you’re looking at mid-60’s water temp), sunny locales, or trying to market a product to folks who quite frankly aren’t going to care (other than the alumni floating around down there).

        There are plenty of markets that advertisers would love to see packed…Chicago, NYC, Phile, heck even Minneapolis…point being putting it down south “sounds great” to anyone who doesn’t care about BigTen football, but in the end its going to be a glorified gimmick and one that IMO will hurt the brand more than help it.

        A centrally located Big Ten city is easily accessible by every Big Ten school within hours by car (8-9 via mapquest). That guarantees plenty of folks are in attendance. Again, its not sunny locals that garner attention (and therefor advertisers), its attendance and coverage.

        As for getting local play…who do you really think is going to get top billing in Texas…a(ny) Texas game or the Big Ten championship?

        People in California, Washington, or some other state where neither team has a stake might care more (since a “Championship” is on the line), but 9 times out of 10 when it comes down to local team versus national coverage game, local team wins…no matter the “hype”.

        LikeLike

        July 25, 2010 at 7:54 pm Reply

154. Reading Eagle interview with Joe Paterno:
     http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=236852

     “I have obviously pushed for one or two Eastern teams. I think that would help us with the television markets, our fans and our basketball program.

     Nebraska obviously has had a great tradition and certainly would be a quality addition. I don’t know if that’s the only one (school) they (Big Ten presidents) are going to go for. Are they going to go for Missouri? Are they going to go for two out there and two in the East?

     I think Notre Dame had a shot at it. I think there are some other schools that would be better, to me, for the whole situation. That would be a place like Rutgers, which would bring the New York-New Jersey television market into the Big Ten (Network). It also would help recruiting. Notre Dame would not be one of my top picks.”

     LikeLike

     July 25, 2010 at 10:34 am Reply

     1. with this thinking..

        Rutgers and MD to 14, then wait for ND and UT.

        if ND and UT stay put, UVA + UNC?

        LikeLike

        July 25, 2010 at 10:59 am Reply

     2. @Nittanian. Thanks for the link to the Joe Pa interview. Combined with the Barry Alvarez interview in yesterday’s paper and Jim Delaney’s comments, I do not believe the Big Ten is done with expansion. In all likelihood, the only reason the Big Ten stopped at 12 teams for now is that the Big Ten is doing further market research on what teams are the best fit and none of the obvious candidates of Rutgers, Pitt and Missouri could garner the required 8 votes to be added in this round of expansion.

        LikeLike

        July 25, 2010 at 11:27 am Reply

        1. Maddison Hawk,
           Pitt would be a fit for the big ten. The major problem with Pitt is that they are like the alternate Florida teams to the SEC or the alternate Georgia team to the SEC. They add nothing they don’t already have. For this reason I see Pitt as an odd man out.

           LikeLike

           July 25, 2010 at 12:09 pm Reply

           1. I would agree about Pitt, except……………..

              It is said that UM and NW don’t want Mo. in the Big 10 because of academic issues. Neb. was an academic reach, and Mo.+ Neb. might be too much for some of the presidents……

              Rutgers appears to be #13….#14 in all liklihood will be Mo. or Pitt. I’m not buying that MD. is a serious candidate……Syr. is private, too small, too distant, and has no research $.

              Rutgers and Pitt add 2 schools in the 55-65 range in US News rankings….about 38000 and 27000 enrollments respectively.

              Worst thing about RU and Pitt is that their ‘Olympic” sports teams suck—both were in the 90s in the Sears Cup, some 40 spots below the lowest BIG 10 team. I would think a major commitment would be necessary there…………

              LikeLike

              July 25, 2010 at 11:38 pm Reply

              1. Couple of other points…………….

                 Pitt over Mo because: better academics/research, PSU rivalry, PSU wants 2 eastern teams. Schools like IU, Wis., Mich.,NW have large #s of students from the NJ/NY area and would like more eastern exposure……

                 Mo over Pitt because: the state school, larger fanbase, more tv sets, better overall sports program (40s in Sears Cup v. 90s). Neb. has no vote yet, but would presumably prefer MO, as would Ill, and probably Iowa.

                 I agree with someone above who said that you go ahead and expand to 14 w/o worrying about ND now…..

                 My best guess is:

                 In 6-8 months, RU and Pitt are announced…..in 5 years, ND and Mo. are added.

                 LikeLike

                 July 26, 2010 at 12:28 am

              2. I still don’t know about Missouri. Regionally they would be a good fit but academically they also drag the conference down a bit. Now with the addition of Nebraska, their viewership strengths may now be negated over a short time. If Illinois brings the St. Louis viewership and Nebraska helps to bring the Kansas City viewership, Why pay Missouri a share of the conference purse? Some smart guy might be thinking this in the BT offices. My feelings are that Pitt will be in a better situation if the big ten does take Maryland than they are in the Big East. Pitt would be a quick and easy recoup for the ACC if the Big ten takes Maryland. It’s a basketball first league and Pitt has strong basketball and a history in Football.

                 LikeLike

                 July 26, 2010 at 5:04 pm

     3. Rutgers and ND are the closest things to virtual locks on a move to 16.

        The only question is what are the other two schools?

        I’d imagine a move to 14 without ND is highly unlikely, but would be either Rutgers-Maryland or Rutgers-Pitt. or Rutgers-Syracuse. I think they’d push hardest for Rutgers-Maryland because that gets you positioning on both NYC and D.C., and are probably the two most valuable schools in the east that the Big Ten can target right now. The backup would probably be Rutgers-Pitt. or Rutgers-Syracuse, and I don’t know which way that leads. I would think it would be Rutgers-Syracuse because that at least plants the flag directly in NY.

        After that I don’t see the Big Ten budging at all until ND wants to join a conference.

        Missouri is hard to see because of the Big 12 instability. If the Big Ten takes Missouri, then we send Texas/OU/OSU/Tech into the waiting arms of the Pac-16 and we send A&M into the SEC’s open arms. There’s no way we actively push for that kind of result.

        LikeLike

        July 26, 2010 at 7:43 am Reply

155. Hard data on conference revenues is really hard to come by but according to this solid article from the Lansing MI State Journal, each Big Ten team for the 2009-10 year received $24.67M, of which $15M came from television deals. This number is comparable to Notre Dame and the SEC currently. The Big Ten has the most upside however.

     http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20100725/GW/7250486/Big-Ten-Network-bonanza

     Big Ten schools each got $24.67 million from the conference in the 2009-10 budget year, according to MSU’s financial documents. Here’s how it breaks down:

     • Money from Big Ten Network: $6.498 million

     • Money from other TV deals: $8.432 million

     • Bowl games payout: $1.98 million

     • Big Ten Tournament: $350,000

     • NCAA money (basketball tournament, sponsorships): $7.41 million

     LikeLike

     July 25, 2010 at 7:57 pm Reply

     1. even the ND prof thinks the northeast is the key…

        http://noise.typepad.com/hey_joe/2010/07/our-bff-the-btn.html#more

        LikeLike

        July 26, 2010 at 12:47 am Reply

     2. Something that just occurred to me…

        …earlier on (like months ago) there was made a vey distinct difference between the “tv money” the BTN paid the conference (just as ABC/ESPN pays out), which came out to ~$6 million per year, and a “profit payout” which was based soley on the 51% ownership share the schools (collectively) own, which also came out to ~$6 million.

        Looking over that article, and the figures quoted, I see no mention of the “profit payout”, but I do see an oblique reference to the BTN payout as being “tv based” since the $8.4 million number is titled with “Money from other TV deals”.

        In this case, would it be correct to say (I think so) that there is actually ANOTHER ~$6 million floating around that is not accounted for in the posted article?

        If true (and again, I don’t see why not since I don’t see any BTN profit information) could that mean the Big Ten conference actually has started to feed its academic arm through its athletic arm via the BTN, thus why the lack of accounting here (since it wouldn’t show on the athletic “incomes”?

        LikeLike

        July 26, 2010 at 9:23 am Reply

156. more Big 10 expansion news,

     http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/big_ten_might_pick_big_apple_NXp9sYH28Xs3nYo8058CGK

     from NY Post, 10 days to chicago!

     Frank, can you get media credentials, and give us a front row seat for FtT?

     LikeLike

     July 26, 2010 at 8:51 am Reply

     1. “A college football presence in the metropolitan area remains very high.”

        Which can be achieved in the short term by putting the CCG in the Meadowlands or Yankee Stadium, until Rutgers, Syracuse, Maryland, Connecticut or some combination thereof comes to pass. Plant the Big Ten flag smack dab in the middle of the market you desire.

        LikeLike

        July 26, 2010 at 11:42 am Reply

        1. eapg,

           My gut feeling is I think a CCG in NYC or JerryWorld is an excellent idea, but I do see the economic support for Big 10 cities / states. If it was in Lucas, it would work best for me, but it is because I can drive quickly and would not need a hotel room. If it is in Chicago, it would probably be an overnight trip and staying with family / friends. If I went to JerryWorld or the Big Apple it would be a big deal trip, but it is an in your face move.

           🙂

           LikeLike

           July 26, 2010 at 12:27 pm Reply

        2. Agree that a CCG in NYC or JerryWorld would be an “in your face move.”

           I don’t know if Jim Delany has the ability to pull it off.

           The risk of a Chicago CCG is that if the weather is cold and nasty it will just reinforce the stereo types against the Big Ten. Recruiters will use that against Big Ten Schools. Plus, it’s not an image you want to project to the rest of the country.

           The CCG in NYC would capture a lot of media attention, and I think a lot of positive media attention, which the BT could use. It would also show off the Big Ten as a National Conference which in turn will help in landing ND, UT and other Big fish. Finally, it would help recruiting in the NE.

           LikeLike

           July 26, 2010 at 12:58 pm Reply

           1. I like the stereotypes against the Big Ten. I’d rather seek them out and shove them in the eye of the rest of the country than do a single thing to try and accommodate the self-centered cult of warm weather snobs.

              LikeLike

              July 26, 2010 at 1:57 pm Reply

     2. I wonder if getting 4 of Rutgers, MD, Syracuse, UCONN, or BC would be worth the expansion if ND still refuses to join the Big 10. 4 of those schools gives the Big 10 the corridor that Delany seems to want (from the way that the article portrays it). But I wonder if expansion without ND would be worth it for the Big 10 (even with adding that corridor).

        Also, I wonder if the Big 10 schools would consider BC if ND, MD, & Rutgers said they would come. That would give the Big 10 the Boston, DC, and possibly the NYC market (with Rutgers and ND). I haven’t seen a whole lot of discussion about BC, but they would be an interesting consideration.

        I still don’t see why further Big 10 expansion isn’t still on the table. The eastern markets that many believe that Delany wants are still available. Plus Delany’s original time table is still on schedule (even though he had to speed up the time table for Nebraska). It should be interesting to see what direction Delany goes in the next 6 to 12 months.

        LikeLike

        July 26, 2010 at 2:30 pm Reply

        1. Bamatab,

           You know, it sound like a even better bluff than an Idea. When ND here’s through leaked info that this is in the works, they will want In. They will torpedo one of those teams in the name of the great lady. AND , so will the Big Ten. Cross one off, add Notre Dame.

           LikeLike

           July 26, 2010 at 5:11 pm Reply

        2. Maryland’s not coming. Nor is ND.

           BC won’t be asked.

           Assuming enough votes, in 6-8 months Rutgers plus either Mo. or Pitt will be asked to join, beginning in ’12. The dispute over team #14 may derail expansion, however.

           Assuming expansion occurs, there’s a decent shot ND and Mo. would be added down the road…..5 years or so……

           LikeLike

           July 27, 2010 at 9:28 am Reply

157. Pingback: CBS Sportsline Observations on Missouri and Big 12 - CycloneFanatic

158. Article out of the ACC

     http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/jul/26/26accfootball/

     on conference realignment..

     “If you look at our history in (college) athletics, there have been changes for years and years and years,” Swofford said. “Go back to the beginning of the ACC when seven teams split from the Southern Conference. In my career, the (ACC) has had seven, eight, nine, 11 and 12 members. A lot of (conferences) have settled at 12 for a reason, up to 12 it seems to work pretty well.

     “We’ve done evaluations at 14 and at 16 teams, and had discussions. We know what it would be like. We know what the advantages and disadvantages are. It gets more difficult at 14 and 16, tangibly and intangibly, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.”

     Without expanding to 12 teams over the last decade, Swofford guessed the conference would be in a precarious position today.

     The spiraling cost of college football was an issue Swofford raised himself.

     FROM: the article

     LikeLike

     July 26, 2010 at 1:11 pm Reply

     1. And with football playing an increasingly bigger role in the collegiate athletics universe, financially speaking, basketball-oriented conferences such as the ACC are particularly vulnerable, outside of its North Carolina core. And Maryland (for the Big Ten) and Virginia Tech (the SEC) are thus the most obvious targets, albeit for differing reasons.

        LikeLike

        July 26, 2010 at 4:34 pm Reply

        1. Maryland’s not going anywhere.

           LikeLike

           July 27, 2010 at 9:20 am Reply

           1. And you have data to support this statement, yes? There is a lot of speculation that goes on here but much is based on something. The reasons for Maryland to be invited have all been stated and they have weight.

              LikeLike

              July 27, 2010 at 1:41 pm Reply

159. Just spend a week in Nebraska at both ends of the state. Didn’t meet a single person not absolutely thrilled to be in ‘Big Ten Country’ (do you realize these guys paid about $20 bucks/game for a couple of PPV games last year?). Also, it’s good to see the blog hasn’t died!

     Madison Hawk & PSU Guy, if you do the math on the article numbers (17.6M at 70 cents/month and 27.5M at 10 cents/mont), that comes to $8.4M/team just for subscription rates for a 51% take (i.e. NOT including advertising rates, which increased 30% last year!!).

     Don’t forget the opportunity costs in play. Whatever the real amount of subscription + ad revenue is (the gross of already likely to the tune of $12M/team/year), it’s being diluted by repayments to Fox for start up costs.

     Expect this number to explode in the next few years once this payoff is completed and as ad revenues increase.

     LikeLike

     July 26, 2010 at 1:16 pm Reply

     1. B10J,

        good to see you again. Do you know a projected payoff date? would be interesting to know as it might affect future adds. The sooner it is paid off, the sooner the BTN could charge premium on new entry.

        LikeLike

        July 26, 2010 at 1:49 pm Reply

        1. Thanks, Duffman. BTW, your analysis/dissertation above was amazing (and on point IMHO; I just hope some news toward that end comes out on the 2nd).

           From the Big Ten website (I’ve made some calls to see if any better info is available):

           • The Big Ten Network represents a 20-year partnership between the Big Ten and Fox. It will be majority-owned by the Big Ten Conference, with Fox holding a minority interest. The Network will establish its studios and headquarters in Chicago. Fox will handle the administration and daily operations of the Network. The Big Ten will establish general guidelines regarding the types of programs and advertising aired on the Big Ten Network to ensure consistency with the Big Ten’s brand values. As such, no alcohol or gambling-related advertising will be accepted.

           • “The Big Ten Network will provide our conference the ability to strengthen both its brand and its long term destiny as one of the leading academic and athletic conferences in the nation,” Delany said.

           • The financial terms of the agreements with ABC/ESPN and Fox were not disclosed.

           I’m actually surprised that the Big Ten members aren’t deferring accepting disbursement on the front end as opposed to taking as much cash as they are. On the other hand, times are hard, hard cash is valuable, and accepting the money has placed the Big Ten in a strategically advantageous position with respect to marketing itself for expansion, which makes the decision inspired and a win/win.

           LikeLike

           July 26, 2010 at 2:17 pm Reply

           1. You’re surprised the BT schools aren’t deferring cash payments? Apparently you’re not getting two calls a week from the U asking for $.

              LikeLike

              July 27, 2010 at 9:17 am Reply

              1. LMAO… That was kinda lame… Northwestern, U of I and Purdue are in my pocket monthly, and I oversee an endowment fund for NU. I just meant the Big Ten could save in the long term getting rid of the debt earlier.

                 LikeLike

                 July 27, 2010 at 10:05 am

160. It seems Mack Brown knows a thing or three:
     MB: I trust our boss. Our boss is Bill Powers and our AD. They have assured me that they think the conference is on stable grounds. The conference is committed to a lot of help in the future. We’re not sure if we’re talking about 10 years, 15 years, but at some point I can see us having some super conferences, because it’s been talked about for some time now.
     —————————-
     this says to me that if the Big 12 wants to be a member of the SC club they need to get some more teams in the next 5-10 years , and lose now. I still see the PAC X/XII having troubles get another 4 schools with out Texas being one of them. I am still going with the 14 team Conferences, they work better than 16 , and leaves wiggle room for some. but then again what do i know.

     LikeLike

     July 26, 2010 at 11:44 pm Reply

     1. hfb,

        Aside from the irony that the huskers can win the Big 12 this year (and assure no NC run for UT or OU) and could win the Big 10 next year (not sure how many teams in conference realignment can make such a claim). It shows a definite pecking order in who wins the “superconference” war.

        The Big 10 and SEC will be able to cherry pick the best to get to 14, and then to 16, as they are the two top conferences.

        The Pac 10 runs a bit farther back, but adding UT / TT / OU / oSu would go along way in cementing them in third, with a real shot of keeping up with the Big 10 and SEC every year going forward.

        These 3 are the only conferences that will not have to worry about someone else taking one of their teams in the next round of realignment.

        The Big 12 is a lame duck, but can keep on going as long as UT wants it to. Only 3 teams have a reasonable chance of bettering their position [UT, OU, and A&M] by moving to the Big 10, Pac 10, and SEC. The rest seemed doomed to a life in limbo, and will be at the mercy of what others do. I have spent some time adding teams to the Big 12 that get them back to 12, or possibly 16 but none of them allow the Big 12 to command media respect the way the Big 10, SEC, and Pac 10 can.

        The ACC is better off, but with no Top 10 ‘brand’ and the only one ‘brand’ left to add that would help them (ND) their ability to move into the upper values of a 14 or 16 team can never compete with the Big 10 and SEC. If the Pac 10 adds UT / TT / OU / oSu they will not be able to break into third place, as the Pac 16 will have a solid foundation with 3 of the Top 10 ‘brands’ in USC, UT, and OU. I have run multiple combinations, and can not get a 16 team combination of great value that can not raid Big 10 and SEC teams. If someone else can give me a 16 team ‘value added’ ACC be my guest. The best I could do was getting rid of a team like Wake, and adding ND among other moves and this is neither likely, nor gets me to a 16 team composition that can go head to head with the Big 10 and SEC. The only way they get to 3rd place is if the Pac 10 does not get UT and OU, and they add ND.

        The rest, starting with the BE and going down, can do nothing with 16 teams that will ever be able to knock the Big 10, SEC, and Pac 10 from control of the top 3 spots. I have tried multiple combinations, but can not squeeze more power into the BE and others to bring enough value to make them serious contenders.

        The Big 12 is gonna drop to Pac 10 status once CU and UNL are gone, just look at this:

        Nebraska (3) = 1994, 1995, 1997
        Oklahoma (2) = 1985, 2000
        Texas (1) = 2005
        Colorado (1) = 1990

        And what it looks like after the CU / UNL jump:

        Oklahoma (2) = 1985, 2000
        Texas (1) = 2005

        for those wondering this is Pac 10 status:

        Southern Cal (1) = 2003
        Washington (1) = 1991

        If I am missing a combination for the Big 12, ACC, and BE that could make them a serious contender for the value in the Big 10 and SEC be my guest, because I just can not see it.

        LikeLike

        July 27, 2010 at 8:20 am Reply

        1. Good analysis Duffman. I would add going forward, there is only one way those other conferences can get into the same frame of the Big Ten , SEC and Pac 10. That would be to beat them in head to head competition and break even or win more games. Then again this is only for the beer drinking shallow fan group. The academic strengths and research dollars are still a factor that winning football games may not be able to completely overcome.

           LikeLike

           July 27, 2010 at 1:54 pm Reply

161. Frank,

     How would you rank the following in terms of humor value to you?

     The Fake Jim Delany, The Fake Mike Beebe, The Fake Larry Scott, The Fake Mike Slive, and the Fake John Swofford?

     fJD is tweeting too much – but fJS is growing on me (it might be the Muppet background, as I keep thinking which ACC team fits each one of the Muppets in the picture).

     LikeLike

     July 27, 2010 at 8:33 am Reply

162. who is mike Beebe? you talking about Dan?

     LikeLike

     July 27, 2010 at 10:13 am Reply

     1. hfb,

        umm, yes

        Dan, Mike, Waldo, does it matter? Is there another commissioner in the country more forgettable? Or having less power?

        🙂

        LikeLike

        July 27, 2010 at 12:05 pm Reply

        1. How bout this?
           

           LikeLike

           July 27, 2010 at 1:58 pm Reply

           1. StvInIL,

              nice try!

              BeeBe went to Walla Walla Community College

              Mike Trangeese at least made the BE viable in basketball, had less to work with, and was married / related to some folks in power? That said, I see your point! nice pic BTW. He started with 7 basketball schools. Beebe started with 3 of the Top 10 football brands!

              😉

              LikeLike

              July 27, 2010 at 2:23 pm Reply

163. What will conference expansion mean to the “Average Joe” college football fan?

     It looks like we will have only two major football conferences in the future the BT and SEC. If the Pac 10 doesn’t land UT and OU they will be a distant third place contender. ND and possibly UT to the BT and the SEC with Texas a&m and VT will squarely pit a showdown between the Big Ten and SEC for both football dominance and just as importantly college football NEWS and COVERAGE.

     I can see why the BT wants to expand if it can get the right teams, since they will become one of the two premier conferences in the country and can expand the BTN coverage and revenue for each school at the same time. I can also see why ESPN doesn’t want this scenario to unfold, they will be forced to cover a major conference that they don’t have a TV rights contract with. But, I can also see where the result will be bad for the “Average Joe” college football fan.

     I’m a Big Ten fan so I’d like to see this unfold in the best way for the BT. But, it seems to me that the Average Joe college football fan will lose out if the mega conferences pan out. All the Big Ten Schools and SEC schools along with the Big Name Schools that can join in (UT, OU, A&M, ND etc) will secure higher, more stable, revenue streams at the expense of EVERY OTHER university out there. One thing that makes college sports appealing to me (and I think to others) is the “Cinderella team” that comes along almost every year. I think Cincinnati, TCU and Boise St. were a bit overrated, but it’s still great to see smaller, less well known schools, achieve notary each year. The NCAA basketball tournament secures the opportunity of having these Cinderella teams every year in the basketball tournament, but conference expansion is surely going to hurt “the little guys” in football.

     Most of us on this blog are BT fans. I’m certainly excited about UNL moving to the BT. But the “Average Joe” college football fan may not be associated with any one conference. That’s why I don’t mind putting the breaks on expansion for now. I’d like to see the mid-tier schools continue to have an opportunity to challenge the established football institutions every year. After expansion the haves in college football will have even more dollars, more TV exposure, more bowl games, and the have nots will have even less. The Iowa State letter that was posted by their AD when Iowa State thought that UT was joining the Pac 10 and Iowa State was going to be relegated to the MAC conference was pathetic.

     Sadly, I think that while expansion will be great for the BT, we will lose an element of diversity and surprise in college football after expansion occurs. Expansion may be a losing proposition to ESPN and to “Average Joe” college football fan.

     LikeLike

     July 27, 2010 at 10:54 am Reply

     1. First off, the formation of conferences themselves destroyed the “Cindarella” teams. By creating conferences, obstentiably to save on travel costs by competing against schools near to you, it made scheduling teams outside of the conference, especially during certain times of the year, difficult to impossible (just ask ND). This means there are less quality match-ups for those not associated with a conference and thus less liklihood a team, even undefeated, will be given top billing consideration (whether it be by pollster or computer).

        If you’re concerned about the viability of the mid-tier schools and the further centralization of college football, how about making the NCAA make some serious attemps to curb the comercialization of college sports.

        Schools are allowed to have X assistant coaches. Coaches can only be paid X. Lower scholarship limits. Start penalties for oversigning. Raise academic requirements. There are plenty of things to “even the playing field”, but IMO they just won’t do it.

        Course the joke is if they did “Joe Average” would probably be screaming anyway because his favored big name school’s competiveness would be hit hard.

        LikeLike

        July 27, 2010 at 11:49 am Reply

        1. yeah, that would work right up until those schools all left the NCAA.

           LikeLike

           July 27, 2010 at 12:06 pm Reply

           1. The Big Ten as a whole voluntarily practice many of those suggestions.

              Just saying.

              LikeLike

              July 27, 2010 at 12:10 pm Reply

     2. HawkeyeGator.
        I think your wrong about the Cinderella thing. She does exist, but only in College basketball. Not so much in college football. Year in year out your preseason top 25 does not really change that drastically to me. I would say though that the ride to the bowls have been made a lot shakier and uncertain over the last 15 years. Why? Scholarship allotments. Really good teams used to be able to horde great athletes or keep them from the ladder climbers in the past. Down from 100 now they are at 85. The only way to bring Cinderella back is to take away another 7 – 10 scholarships. This also opens up more opportunities for the Rudies of the world. Yeah I just don’t see Rice, Tulsa, Northern Illinois, San Jose State or Western Michigan playing in any meaningful bowl games soon.

        LikeLike

        July 27, 2010 at 2:12 pm Reply

        1. StvInIL,

           “Average Fan” and “Cinderella” are dreams

           Average Fan – this is a dying breed. I know this will sound like an old cranky guy, but what I have seen in my lifetime tells me I am more right than wrong. In the 60’s and 70’s you saw sports as a family affair. I am old enough to remember when the average fan could have four or eight season tickets that were not in the nosebleed section, and could afford to take the wife and kids.

           Then came the Wall Street “greed is good mantra” and those seats started adding ‘hefty’ donations. Pretty soon average fan was priced out, and the corporations began to move into the seats. At the same time the ‘add on fees’ [parking, concessions, merchandise, etc] started an escalated climb as well. Next came luxury boxes and corporate sponsorship, and it has moved forced more and more fans to the TV set to see a game. Maybe I am old fashioned, but real fans come from those who get to see live games, and fewer in the younger generation are getting that option.

           Cinderella – I am a basketball guy, and was at the Villanova game when they beat Georgetown. I was blessed to spend time with the guy in the wheelchair at the crummy hotel the team had for the Final Four. Villanova was no Cinderella that year, nor was Butler this year. Go back to the Texas El Paso game in the 60’s and they were a top 5 team with I think 1 loss, so there was no Cinderella there. The only reason they keep expanding the NCAA tourney is $$, not to feed the upsets. They could go back to 16 teams and still have 80% – 90% of the quality in the tournament. Add in the conference tourneys (another shameless $$ grab) and they have pretty much devalued the regular season games.

           The top 10 ‘brands’ in football / basketball may rise and fall by the season, but over the decades they stay pretty constant. Meaningless bowl games and 128 team NCAA tourney are there to make money, not determine a true champion (If the NCAA gets rid of the NIT and goes to 128 outright it will be another money grab). For parity to work you have to take from the haves, and give to the have nots. Would tOSU, USC, ND, TU, or BAMA give up their revenue streams without a fight? Sports are a zero sum game, for every winner there is a loser. The perennial winners will not give up their seat at the table, as there is no financial reward for them to do so.

           If you want to know what sports will be the football or basketball of the future, just watch your kids and grandkids. Their pocketbooks will speak for the sports they play, or can afford to go to now. X games, lacrosse, etc. who knows. A century ago Baseball, Horse racing, Polo, and Boxing ruled the roost. All things have a life cycle, and the more revenue you try to extract, I feel the more you shorten that life cycle. What does it cost to sit near the ice at a Michigan hockey game, then compare that to the same seats at Michigan football. What does it cost to sit behind home plate at a LSU baseball game, then compare that to the same seats at LSU football. The bigger the sport, the greater the barrier to entry both in players and fans.

           There is a reason there are not 100 pro franchises in the major sports. First is the funding required to make it go. Second is the talent. Resources are scarce and limited and will tend to get smaller over time, rather than grow. How many MJ’s are out there? How many BF’s? I think the media perpetuates the myth of the average fan and cinderella, but my gut feeling is they have gone the way of the Dodo bird or the Easter Bunny.

           LikeLike

           July 27, 2010 at 3:37 pm Reply

           1. Wow Duffman. I hung on every word. You’re a slight bit cynical but I can’t say I blame you because I can’t say that you are wrong. One baseball game for me my wife and son and his girlfriend is like a weekend vacation now with al the cost you mentioned. And I am not even a Cubs fan. I go to sox games when I can but end up leaving the park, a nice park and a nice atmosphere, feeling a slight bit suckered sometimes. Probably after a loss. 80 home games and I pay $25.00 bucks to park and $65.00 a piece to get in. But I feel the same way about a lot of events. I live not too far outside of Chicago and hardly go into town. All the nickel and dimeing drives me crazy. I still feel good about going to Northwestern games though.

              LikeLike

              July 27, 2010 at 5:44 pm Reply

              1. StvInIL,

                 Sad might be the better word. You want your kids and grandkids to have the same feelings you did. The problem is it is creeping into the college world. A dear friend who is in their late 70’s and had supported their college team for about half a century lost their seats a few years ago. They had lower endzone seats that were decent but not great. They took entire blocks of seats and converted them to ‘donor’ seats with a hefty donation. I could understand if they never used them, but they went to all the games as they were retired on a fixed income. They could not afford the added initial “donation” and the added annual “donation”. They lost their seats and now have to sit home and watch it on TV, or pick maybe one game to attend a season. I guess my feeling was why the university just could not wait till they got to old to go, or passed away. It was not a good way to treat lifelong fans. It seems like the college level is moving in this direction of “what are you giving me today” with no thought of what you may have done “yesterday”. On the other side of the equation “average” wages do not seem to be rising as fast as the cost to attend.

                 It does raise a point tho, does success mean the best teams are the worst offenders? Maybe do an informal poll on actual cost [face value + parking + concessions + “donations” + etc] for decent midfield lower seats for different schools. We have mostly Big 10 folks, but Bama and Alan are SEC, Hop Horn is Texas, Loki is Rice, vincent is MD?, and I know there are Missouri and Nebraska folks on here. I know we have ND folks on here and other schools have been on here before. what say you all?

                 LikeLike

                 July 27, 2010 at 6:47 pm

              2. http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?/CID=1094191

                 Ran across this a week or two ago. Answers some of your questions about the cost.

                 Some schools have required existing ticket holders to contribute to keep their seats. Fortunately Texas has not done that. Texas HAS gone up a lot on the price. It was $18/game in the mid-90s. Next year is $400 for season tickets (around $60 average), more if you buy individual tickets. Used to be the right to buy OU tickets was guaranteed w/season tickets. Now it takes a substantial donation. But noone is getting kicked out. It has started requiring (depending on demand) donations to get NEW season tickets.

                 I think baseball is the sport that has most hurt itself. It used to be very much a family game that anyone could afford. Its a big expense now. There are no cheap seats. Atlanta is $12 to park (not $25), but they make it up on the food! Houston is downtown, so if you are willing to walk, you don’t actually have to pay. Close in parking is $10 up to about $20 if you are only a couple blocks away. I remember going to games with my Dad in the old Crosley field and now old Riverfront Stadium. It wasn’t such a major expense.

                 LikeLike

                 July 27, 2010 at 8:14 pm

              3. @duffman
                 Lower level 40 yd line seats at Rice Stadium are $30 each. No donation required. I park about ten blocks away for free, not sure what it costs at the stadium.

                 LikeLike

                 July 27, 2010 at 8:30 pm

              4. loki,

                 I am liking Rice more and more, too bad they are so far away.

                 🙂

                 LikeLike

                 July 27, 2010 at 9:01 pm

              5. bullet,

                 thanks for the link but I tried it 3 times and got invalid link?

                 LikeLike

                 July 27, 2010 at 9:04 pm

              6. Still I’m right with you on the fact what makes it worth it (for me anyway) is the experience. I love being surrounded by 8500 people, most apathetic about football.

                 LikeLike

                 July 27, 2010 at 9:17 pm

              7. http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content/.asp?CID=1094191

                 LikeLike

                 July 27, 2010 at 10:03 pm

              8. http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094191

                 LikeLike

                 July 27, 2010 at 10:05 pm

              9. alright-this last one finally works. Shows ticket prices at all FBS schools.

                 LikeLike

                 July 27, 2010 at 10:06 pm

              10. bullet,

                  thanks for the link. it was a bit deceptive tho as it listed minimum donations, so the numbers were skewed. I was looking at one that said the ‘minimum’ donation was zero, but I know the ‘initial’ minimum is 5,000 with an annual ‘donation’ of 500.

                  On baseball, I went to a St. Louis Cardinals game last year and the ticket was 75 bucks, and the concessions were high enough I remember not getting anything to eat. The upside was that they let you bring in your own water which helped, but still if I had a wife and 2 kids that is substantial $$. I remember being a kid and getting into Cincinnati Reds games for pretty much nothing. Now a single game is expensive, who can afford season tickets any more?

                  I find myself going to secondary sports more like women’s basketball, hockey, and baseball as these are the sports you can afford to take a family to. I do not mean to grumble so much, but it is like how much is enough?

                  StvInIL,

                  I agree 100%, it is the nickel and dime stuff that annoys me most. Charging 2 – 5 bucks for a ‘handling fee’ on top of the face value annoys me the most. The other one is they used to give you a season ticket holder a “free” guide for the season, now it is 10 – 20 bucks. If you hit someone up for thousands in “donations” seems like you can throw in the “handling fee” and guide. It is like a bank dinging you with ‘fees’ now instead of making their money on interest rate spread.

                  For all of you,

                  I agree 100% about the experience thing. Loki, even if the crowds are small at Rice, you are still able to go and enjoy the experience without having to take out a loan. As I said awhile back, I have been to many Final Fours but it gets worse every year. I used to get decent tickets from the street scalpers, but now the big brokers have the best tickets and it is the “add” in that kills you. In order to get the ticket, you have to pay for a hotel room you do not need. It is getting crazy.

                  The Georgetown vs Villanova game was a “lifetime experience” and we got excellent lowers for like 2 times face value. The venue was small compared to the “domes” they play in now, and parking was 5 – 10 bucks for a lot a block away from the Final Four! I wish my wages had the same escalation as ticket prices. 🙂

                  LikeLike

                  July 28, 2010 at 4:28 am

              11. Large enthusiastic crowds make the experience. But even when you have a small crowd it can be a great experience.

                  I went to the Rice/SMU game a few years back when Rice needed to beat SMU to get to a bowl for the 1st time in 45 years. Crowd was about 25k (stadium originally 70k-but some end zone seats have been blocked off), a little more enthusiastic than normal for Rice. The Rice people laughed at how sterotypically preppy the SMU people were. Walked to the game, had lunch in the shopping area next to campus. Walked through a beautiful campus to a stadium with some of the best sight lines of any in the country. And after the game everyone went down on the field and was high-fiving the players.

                  LikeLike

                  July 28, 2010 at 9:13 am

           2. TBH, it probably costs me $100 per person to go to my PSU games.

              Now that includes, gas, tailgaiting, parking, seats, etc (though not lodging if I shack up somewhere other than with family/camp in my car), but in the end it certainly is not a cheap investment in either time or money.

              Still I’m right with you on the fact what makes it worth it (for me anyway) is the experience. I love being surrounded by 110,000 people cheering on State. And here’s the thing that hurts the most about the further comercialization of college football…they still tend to be much more “family friendly” than pro games…at least from an “atmosphere” standpoint.

              I can’t count the number of fights I’ve seen in the handful of pro football games I’ve been to (3 different stadiums up and down the eastern seaboard…and heck none of them was even Phile) between drunken morons who didn’t even care about the game.

              College games still hold some of that “magic”, even if it does seem to be costing more and more to experience that “magic”.

              LikeLike

              July 27, 2010 at 6:01 pm Reply

              1. At Northwestern games I could spend $75.00 for a premium game single game or under $30.00 per ticket for a MAC type opponent last I remember. We take a train in which isn’t more than $5.00 bucks round trip amd walk 1 1/2 blocks. Spend about $12 bucks for food per person.

                 LikeLike

                 July 27, 2010 at 8:39 pm

164. Jack Tatum tOSU RiP

     LikeLike

     July 27, 2010 at 1:55 pm Reply

     1. ESPN

        http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5413917

        follow up

        LikeLike

        July 27, 2010 at 2:28 pm Reply

        1. We remember him. RIP

           http://www.purduesports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/040507aaa.html

           RIP

           LikeLike

           July 27, 2010 at 3:02 pm Reply

165. Pac10 changing their name to Pac12.

     http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/07/pac-10-will-eventually-change-name-to-pac-12-/1

     Word on the radio today was that the BigXII was looking at new names also.

     LikeLike

     July 27, 2010 at 4:54 pm Reply

     1. loki,

        12 Pac, so close yet so far away. The folks at Coor’s could have become the official sponsor of the new combination.

        🙂

        Looks like you are safe for now, in the interview today Beebe said they were going to stay at 10 and not add to more to get back up to 12. it appears Rice will not come under the control of Darth DeLoss Dodds.

        Is just me, or is it a bit ironic that Deloss Dodd went to KSU [Big 12 North] and now works for TU [Big 12 South].

        LikeLike

        July 27, 2010 at 5:20 pm Reply

166. I do agree about Cinderellas for the most part. The first weekend of the NCAA tournament is about Cinderellas, but past that who actually wins? It’s pretty much always your top teams, especially since the committee got better at ranking the teams beforehand. It’s really not that much different in college football, only in football, it’s about regular season games (which makes sense given the far greater emphasis on the regular season in football). Appalachian State over Michigan and Stanford over USC are just a couple off the top of my head.

     LikeLike

     July 27, 2010 at 7:32 pm Reply

167. Dan Beebe interview today

     http://www.big12sports.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?catid=1308&id=717642

     here is the link

     LikeLike

     July 27, 2010 at 7:47 pm Reply

168. This is interesting.

     A home-and-home series between Texas and Minnesota, scheduled just last fall and set for 2015-16, has been canceled “due to a contract impasse concerning video rights.”

     Money quote from Minnesota AD Joel Maturi: “Our institution, student-athletes and fans were very excited about having a nationally respected program like Texas on our schedule. However there are complex rights issues in play that are beyond our control. It’s unfortunate that a mutually acceptable resolution could not be found that would have allowed the games to be played.”

     I can’t recall an already agreed-upon OOC series being canceled because of “rights issues.” Any guesses as to what they could be? I wonder if it had anything to do with away broadcast rights: Minnesota might have been concerned about whether the game in Austin would be shown in Minnesota if the game wound up on Bevo TV, and/or Texas might have wondered about the availability of the game on TV in Texas if the game in Minneapolis were shown on BTN.

     http://www.gophersports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8400&ATCLID=204971445

     LikeLike

     July 27, 2010 at 8:01 pm Reply

     1. Interesting news re Minnesota and Texas. That sure sounds like Bevo TV is already having an impact even though it is at least a year away from going live. It would be hard to believe that the holdup is on the Minnesota side.

        ABC/ESPN and BTN/Fox own the rights and they are both widely available in Texas and Texas/Big 12 has a relationship with both entities so I doubt rebroadcast rights are an issue. In contrast, if any broadcast rights fall to Bevo TV, Minnesota may have have any guarantees on live distribution or rebroadcast rights.

        The most surprising thing is that the announcement is being made now, five years before the first game of the series. If the real issue was rebroadcast rights, the parties have a long time to work this out. This could be a hint that the Big Ten is going to a nine game conference schedule also and both Texas and Minnesota wanted to get out of a BCS non-conference game, despite the press release statement about trying to find another opponent.

        LikeLike

        July 27, 2010 at 8:31 pm Reply

        1. @MadisonHawk,

           Without knowing any more than what’s in the linked-to article, I don’t think it’s really possible to guess whether the hold-up is coming from the Minnesota or the Texas side.

           What strikes me as particularly odd is that the series was just scheduled, well after BTN’s successful launch and while Bevo TV was already well within its planning stages. Would it be common for series to be officially announced, as this one was, without all the television details being worked out in advance?

           I’m not sure the more to a nine-game conference schedule would be the problem on UT’s end, as there’s been consistent noise from UT this year about looking to upgrade the OOC slate, and the games with Minnesota would have been consistent with that revised scheduling philosophy.

           Other than the changes in conference membership, which seems irrelevant to this specific home-and-home (unless your guess about the effects of a nine-game conference slate are correct), all that’s changed is whatever TV contract the Big 12 is now playing under, but, from my understanding, it hasn’t seemed to have changed that much.

           I think Bullet might be on to something below with a Pandora’s box possibly having been opened.

           LikeLike

           July 27, 2010 at 8:39 pm Reply

169. Sounds like Big Ten network trying to control the video rights, especially replays, and Texas not willing to give them up. If everyone gets a network, we could have only money games ooc. BT may have opened a Pandora’s box.

     LikeLike

     July 27, 2010 at 8:28 pm Reply

     1. Bullet, this has Bevo TV all over it (unless my hunch re both schools trying to avoid a BCS non-conference game to add another conference game is correct). The Big Ten has has had non-conference games with multiple BCS conferences appear on the Big Ten Network with no issues other than Texas. It is noteworthy that of all of the Big Ten’s non-conference games (including USC vs. Minnesota starting this year), only Texas vs. Minnesota five years out has had issues.

        LikeLike

        July 27, 2010 at 8:39 pm Reply

        1. @Madison Hawk:

           Texas announced a home-and-home with Cal at the same time, for the same years, at which the series with Minnesota was announced. There have been no indications that that series is in any peril. Assuming that remains on the books, why would Bevo TV only affect the series with the Big Ten school and not the series with the Pac 10 school? Not trying to be argumentative, just wanting to see why Bevo TV would be more problematic for one than the other.

           LikeLike

           July 27, 2010 at 8:53 pm Reply

           1. @ Hopkins Horn: I agree this announcement is very odd. The Big Ten has had multiple BCS conferences appear on the BTN (including the Big 12) and many future BCS non conference games announced. Similarily, as you indicate, Texas has OOC games with other BCS conferences and this is the only game announced to be cancelled. The true reasons are likely to come out eventually and it will be interesting to see what they are.

              My hunch is that there were some legitimate video rights issues at stake but the real reason is that the Big Ten may be heading for a nine game schedule and Minnesota wanted do lower the strength of their OOC schedule and/or have another home game. As you indicate, conference realignment is really the only new information.

              LikeLike

              July 27, 2010 at 9:22 pm Reply

              1. At least from the Texas side, a 9 game schedule is not directly a factor. Texas only has Cal scheduled ooc in 2015 and 2016, so they have 2 or 3 openings. Even if that were the case, the teams would usually reschedule a series that far out to 2017 and 2018.

                 Right now, noone owns a network except the B10. As everyone else starts thinking about it, there could be unexpected issues.

                 LikeLike

                 July 27, 2010 at 10:14 pm

     2. Nice catch, HopkinsHorn… As a Gopher’s fan, this is disappointing. To become the best you have to play the best… It’s nice to see SC on the sked, is unfortunate we won’t be playing Texas (at least not non-conf). I am not a fan of scheduling powder-puff cupcake games–so I hope the U can find a suitable BCS replacement game.

        I have watched many a replay on the BTN and love that this feature exists. It is really cool to see some of the old (and not so old) classic games. If video rights truly become a big issue, these schools, and/or conferences may end up killing their own cash cow. Of course, unfortunately, in the end, the fans pay for it. Either we pay for it literally (i.e. PPV), or, as Bullet mentions, we play only the non-conference pay you to play cupcakes. Non-desirable in either case.

        Hope this is a one-of-a-kind anomaly…

        LikeLike

        July 27, 2010 at 9:09 pm Reply

        1. I hope it’s a one-of-a-kind anomaly as well, but I fear it’s an indication of bigger problems to come.

           I’m also disappointed that the series was canceled. A Saturday afternoon watching football in Minneapolis probably would not have sucked.

           LikeLike

           July 27, 2010 at 9:16 pm Reply

           1. HH—You are right on… I think that even a Horn’s fan would like TCF Bank Stadium… she’s a beauty… The Minnesota blue eyed-blondes of Swedish descent are quite the beauties too!!

              LikeLike

              July 27, 2010 at 9:23 pm Reply

     3. As a Nebraska fan (someone familiar with some of the differences between how the Big 12 and Big Ten operate) I have to agree with bullet’s assumption being the most likely scenario.

        The Big Ten schools have handed over all of their video rights to the conference and the Big Ten Network. In The Big 12, many of those rights are either solely controlled or partially controlled by the individual member schools. Thus if (when) Texas launches their Bevo network, they are going to have a decent sized inventory of past Texas games to air in addition to live programming.

        I don’t think the hold up is on the live broadcasting rights. That has always fallen under the home team’s conference contract. Thus, if the game ended up on a Longhorn Network, Minnesota really has no say in the matter. I guarantee you as a longtime follower of the Big 8/Big 12 television contracts that Minnesota/Texas would’ve been picked up by at least FSN.

        Ultimately, like bullet guessed, I think there is some hangup on negotiating the residual rights over who controls what and subsequent re-airings of the games.

        LikeLike

        July 28, 2010 at 12:07 am Reply

        1. @Nostradamus: The reason I believe Bevo TV is the primary issue is that none of the other Big Ten OOC BCS teams such as Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, Miami, Missouri, Iowa State, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, Arizona and Arizona State have had any issues with rebroadcast rights. That is teams from five BCS conferences (including the Big 12) and Notre Dame who have come to acceptable rebroadcast arrangements with the BTN. Texas is the only outlier.

           LikeLike

           July 28, 2010 at 4:52 am Reply

           1. hawk,

              It does pose a question.

              If UT is a Big 10 target, how will rebroadcast values work for UT. Rebroadcast games are “free money” recurring income streams, and as such are pretty much pure profit. UT joining the Big 10 might not want to give up their “past” inventory if they have to share the revenue stream. Anybody have a thought on this?

              LikeLike

              July 28, 2010 at 5:22 am Reply

              1. @duffman. Great question; one which I believe gets at the heart of why Texas is unlikely to join the Big Ten in the near future. The Big Ten has a philosophy of sharing all telvision revenue equally believing that building the entire Big Ten brand will increase value for all schools, including the most valuable such as Ohio State and Michigan.

                 Texas has a philosophy that they bring significantly disproportionate value due to their population base and brand and it would be unfair to ask them to subsidize schools who do not contribute as much. Ironically, this is the same argument articulated by Jim Delaney on why the BCS conferences should not have to share more revenue with non-BCS conferences.

                 Neither position is inherently right or wrong, just different. However, unless their is a common vision, Texas and the Big Ten would be advised not to get together.

                 LikeLike

                 July 28, 2010 at 5:48 am

              2. hawk,

                 I will take it to the next step, as the Big 10 and SEC already share revenue, and it is fast becoming a possibility that the Pac 10 will now fall in line. UT’s inability to share may come back and bite them in the end.

                 LikeLike

                 July 28, 2010 at 6:05 am

              3. Powers made the comment that giving up Bevo TV with the P10 wasn’t about control. It was about having something of value and needing to get something of value in return. If the money’s right in a pooled conference network, there’s no issue in giving it up.

                 LikeLike

                 July 28, 2010 at 9:20 am

              4. Only way Texas can justify giving up Bevo TV is if a BTN (or Pac-16 TV) share is roughly equivalent in value.

                 But looking at the value of Florida’s local rights makes it seem likely that Bevo TV will be worth more than a 1/16th share of a Pac-16 or the BTN (with 16 including ND).

                 I think this is the same problem that the Pac-12 will have in the next go around.

                 They’re going to be hard pressed to catch up to the Big Ten and SEC if they fall behind in TV $ again, and Texas may be able to get a much more favorable deal with respect to keeping Bevo TV.

                 LikeLike

                 July 28, 2010 at 10:35 am

              5. @zeek
                 Last I looked Florida’s local rights fell ~ $8 million mark. Bevo TV numbers that I’ve seen estimate $4-6 million (who knows how accurate that is). The BTN payout was ~ $12 million ($6million for TV deal and $6 million “profits”).

                 Thing is Florida’s deal will not appreciate at all for the life of the contract (escalators aside). Bevo might grow if the channel achieves better penetration / advertising rates however it does run the risk of losing money if it doesn’t achieve certain rates.

                 IMO, Texas is choosing perhaps the worst method of profiting on its local media rights.

                 The “Florida” method might not achieve maximal gains, but it guarantees incomes for the life of the contract.

                 The BTN tries to maximize its payouts, but introduces some risk as nothing is locked in. However, it tries to mitigate the risk by banding teams together (via the conference)…the idea being that someone will always be up, even if we are down, and thus we should be stable overall.

                 Texas’ method tries to maximize its payouts, but has no (as far as I can see) method to mitigate the risk of their football team going downhill. IE: in good times their will be hoards of cash in bad the resevoirs will dry up.

                 I guess the future will hold which is actually the better model.

                 LikeLike

                 July 28, 2010 at 1:06 pm

              6. Interesting.

                 To me it seems somewhat obvious that for all except the most extreme cases, the conference network is better because of the ability to pull in revenue outside of the footprint. Of course, Texas is the most extreme case possible due to the size of its footprint and it being situated in the center of the country. But I still have to be skeptical as to whether Bevo TV can really make any money outside of Texas.

                 And this mini-rebellion out of A&M is interesting…

                 LikeLike

                 July 29, 2010 at 4:13 pm

           2. @Madison Hawk, If media rights are a legitimate issue, then we need to start looking at the differences between Texas, and all of the other schools you mentioned?

              1) It retains its media rights when many of the other teams you mentioned don’t. 2) It is getting ready to start its own network.

              LikeLike

              July 28, 2010 at 9:25 am Reply

        2. @Nostradamus
           I think you hit the nail on the head.

           If I was the BTN, I would try to get tv rights for any game involving a Big Ten conference members for replay purposes on the BTN.

           Reason being I can combine those games with native Big Ten alumni bases to expand the BTN into areas it currently doesn’t cover.

           For example, the Big Ten starts scheduling Texas schools (Texas, TAMU, TT, Baylor, Rice, etc) as OoC matches then in 5 years when it starts to argue why it needs to be on basic cable in Texas, despite not having a school in state, it can say “look at the number of BigTen alumni we have in your state PLUS we have targeted content for Texas centric schools also!”

           IMO, thats a great way to push the “national appeal” of the BTN without relying on national programs.

           LikeLike

           July 28, 2010 at 8:49 am Reply

           1. PSU Guy,

              Your idea of capturing the Texas TV market by having BT schools play Texas schools and then retaining reply rights and leveraging BT alumni in Texas is brilliant.

              I would add that this strategy can also be applied to the NYC market as well. In other words, the BT doesn’t capture NY by adding week schools like Syracuse and Rutgers, instead the BT strategically schedules OOC games against those schools and use the reply rights and NYC alumni to capture the NY TV market.

              Furthermore, I think the strategy may be easier for the BT to accomplish with NY as opposed to Texas. PSU already has OOC games set with Syracuse and RU through 2021. Iowa had games set against U of Connecticut in 2016 and 2017, but those games were mysteriously and unfortunately, in my opinion, dropped right after Nebraska was inducted into the BT.

              I think other BT teams could schedule ‘Cuse, RU, U Conn and thus the BT captures NY without having to use up a valuable BT membership opening on any of those schools.

              Regarding Texas schools, Iowa has OOC games set against North Texas, too bad the UT v Minn games were canceled. The BT should certainly inactivate members to play OOC games against Texas schools.

              I’ll reiterate that playing the CCG in NYC or JerryWorld will also go a long way to capturing the NYC and Texas TV markets without having to add a single BT member from those regions.

              The BT is really playing “Double Chess” by attempting to capture the NYC and Texas markets without having to acquire a single expansion candidate…brilliant.

              LikeLike

              July 28, 2010 at 10:58 am Reply

170. Off topic,

     Anybody following the Pitino thing in Louisville?

     Normally I do not go for the “gossip” stuff, but this thing just keeps getting stranger.

     LikeLike

     July 28, 2010 at 5:45 am Reply

     1. for the lawyers on this blog here is a link

        http://www.fox41.com/global/story.asp?s=12869703

        any legal insight to all this stuff?

        LikeLike

        July 28, 2010 at 6:00 am Reply

     2. day 2

        http://www.fox41.com/Global/story.asp?S=12875623

        The Lester Goetzinger stuff is unreal. Tiger Woods was more private, this is all playing out in US District Court.

        LikeLike

        July 28, 2010 at 3:28 pm Reply

     3. day 3

        http://www.fox41.com/Global/story.asp?S=12882592

        the first appearance of 15 second rick pitino

        LikeLike

        July 28, 2010 at 10:55 pm Reply

     4. day 4

        http://www.fox41.com/Global/story.asp?S=12890902

        cross of pitino, and other witnesses

        LikeLike

        July 30, 2010 at 3:38 am Reply

     5. day 5

        http://www.fox41.com/Global/story.asp?S=12898369

        things like this make me glad I live a simple life

        LikeLike

        July 31, 2010 at 1:46 am Reply

     6. day 6

        http://www.fox41.com/Global/story.asp?S=12909129

        prosecution witnesses

        LikeLike

        August 2, 2010 at 9:53 pm Reply

     7. day 7

        http://www.fox41.com/Global/story.asp?S=12916134

        prosecution rests

        LikeLike

        August 4, 2010 at 1:30 am Reply

     8. day 8

        http://www.fox41.com/Global/story.asp?S=12923404

        closing statements

        LikeLike

        August 5, 2010 at 12:18 am Reply

171. Frank,

     Are you no longer your blog?

     LikeLike

     July 28, 2010 at 9:41 am Reply

     1. @Milton Hershey – I’m still alive! News has slowed down quite a bit, so I’ve been taking some time off with family vacations and parties (my twin babies just turned 1). I’m working on getting a new post up in the next week and everything will ramp up again overall in the college football season. I’ll be voting in the BlogPoll now, so I’m at least going to have weekly posts on the state of college football in general.

        LikeLike

        July 28, 2010 at 10:46 am Reply

172. I mean… are you no longer updating your blog?

     LikeLike

     July 28, 2010 at 9:49 am Reply

173. Quick, Frank, I need a fix. You have been sorely missed. Glad you have had some down time with the fam.
     What to you make of the Delany-Big Apple story?

     LikeLike

     July 28, 2010 at 3:24 pm Reply

174. Did you ever wonder if this is the first place Jim Delany logs onto every day just to see how close we are to thinking of the inner sanctum?

     LikeLike

     July 28, 2010 at 3:34 pm Reply

     1. StvInIL,

        Frank is really Jim, why do you think I keep asking for free tickets for life.

        🙂

        LikeLike

        July 28, 2010 at 5:56 pm Reply

        1. In that case, Jim/Frank, can you get me parking at Ryan field? gratis?

           LikeLike

           July 29, 2010 at 10:31 am Reply

175. More on the Texas-Minnesota cancellation:

     “The UT spokesman said issues arose over Big Ten restrictions for Texas to use game footage on its coaching shows and BEVOD cable channel.”

     http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/longhorns/entries/2010/07/28/minnesota_serie.html?cxntfid=blogs_bevo_beat

     LikeLike

     July 28, 2010 at 7:58 pm Reply

     1. Does that mean no tOSU v Texas in the regular season ever again? No Big Ten Team v Texas outside of Bowl Games? It’s a harsh new reality brought on by TV and Cable rights.

        I don’t think this was the intent, but the outcome of this makes it harder for UT to go independent. IF the Pac and SEC follow the BT’s president here with BEVOD Cable rights, then UT independence means they have a very limited number of top tier schools that they can schedule in the regular season.

        LikeLike

        July 28, 2010 at 8:33 pm Reply

        1. I think this means no more Texas-Big 10 games period until this issue is resolved.

           I think this is a BTN+Bevo TV issue rather than “just” a Bevo TV issue. My tune will change if UT’s OOC games against Ole Miss and Cal, scheduled between 2013 and 2016, also wind up being in jeopardy, but I haven’t heard anything that would lead me to believe that’s the case right now.

           LikeLike

           July 28, 2010 at 8:43 pm Reply

     2. Hopkins,
        Does Texas currently use the network feeds for its coaches shows? I guess I’ve really never watched that carefully on FSN. I know Nebraska typically sticks to the Husker Vision (in house video production) cameras.
        ———————————————-
        As for what Texas is doing. In some respects I understand why they are taking the stance they are. They want the maximum inventory of football games they can get for their network. They also don’t want to diminish the potential value of the network by essentially giving up games.

        That being said, My understanding has always been that the home team and or the home team’s conference controls the live broadcasting and subsequent residual/rearing rights to non-conference games. It appears Texas might be trying to reinvent the wheel here if that is indeed the case. This is either a brilliant move, or something that will end up getting them blackballed by the Big Ten and any subsequent conference (Pac-10/12) that starts their own network.

        LikeLike

        July 28, 2010 at 8:47 pm Reply

        1. To be honest, I never watch the coach’s show, so I don’t know what is typically used, but my guess would be that Texas does something similar to what the Huskers do with the in-house feed.

           I think you’re pretty much right. I kind of thought the issue was more over UT’s rights to the game in Minnesota than the other way around, since that programming is more crucial to Bevo TV than the game in Austin would be to the BTN.

           Unanswered questions from the brief quote I posted:

           (1) By “game footage,” is that limited to enough footage as would be needed for highlights on a coach’s show (which would seem to be a pretty reasonable request), or would Texas (in a reinventing the wheel sort of way) want the ability to rebroadcast the game in its entirety?

           (2) If Texas was trying to reinvent the wheel here, was Texas offering Minnesota/BTN the same rights to footage to the game in Austin as they were seeking from the game in Minneapolis? Wearing my pro-UT hat, I would hope that would be the case from a strict matter of fairness, and wearing a pro-college football cap, that wouldn’t be a bad model for schools and leagues to start following if more leagues and teams start developing their own networks.

           LikeLike

           July 28, 2010 at 9:01 pm Reply

           1. Well since Fox owns part (same if it was ESPN or NBC or Comcast), the BTN is probably going to be extremely protective of their content. So sharing may be difficult to achieve.

              Its new ground as the BTN is relatively new and Texas is the 2nd one with a network.

              Of course, the expansion issue makes one wonder if either BT or UT is playing hardball. Personally, I think they’re both more interested in $ than revenge, but its possible.

              LikeLike

              July 28, 2010 at 9:23 pm Reply

              1. I can’t see any revenge angle here. Negotiations between Texas and the Big 10 never seemed to go anywhere at all, so it’s hard to see where any hard feelings would have emerged on either side.

                 LikeLike

                 July 28, 2010 at 9:28 pm

           2. I read that quote from the UT spokesperson a bit more carefully and I think the key phrase there is BEVOD that I somehow was glossing over. For those that aren’t familiar with it BEVOD is short for BEVO (Texas’ mascot) On Demand. It is a channel on Time Warner in Texas for $3.99 a month that basically shows UT content like interviews and old games. Essentially, a pre-cursor to a Bevo Network.

              So even if it is just highlights Hopkins, I think that is why the Big Ten is balking. Traditionally with a coaches show or even something like Sports Center, different media outlets and schools will trade footage and mention the network where it is coming from. ESPN isn’t really profiting much from showing a 1 minute highlight package from the Texas game on FSN. Nor is FSN profiting from breaking into a game to show the latest touchdown from the SEC game on CBS.

              My guess is Texas wants at least the coaches show with broadcast game footage, if not the game itself (@TCF in Minneapolis) on BEVOD. I’m also guessing the Big Ten isn’t happy about it, because it feels like Texas is profiting off it then when historically any form of retransmission and subsequent revenue generated from that has been sole property of the Big Ten.

              LikeLike

              July 28, 2010 at 10:09 pm Reply

              1. I’m not sure I would read that much into the use of “BEVOD”. If the new network is really going to be called “Bevo TV,” it seems quite plausible to me that the spokesman was using “BEVOD” and “Bevo TV” interchangeably. If we’re talking about access to highlights for a game five+ years down the road, I would have to imagine the issue for Texas is whether they’d have access to it for Bevo TV and not what exists today, in much more limited form and distribution, as BEVOD.

                 LikeLike

                 July 28, 2010 at 10:47 pm

              2. All I’m saying is there is an issue even if BEVOD doesn’t turn into BEVO TV. That being said it is fundamentally the same issue in either form.

                 LikeLike

                 July 28, 2010 at 11:08 pm

176. Just spent the day in Oklahoma with a several decades long OU administrator. He says the ‘obvious’ is the obvious. The immediate plan from a UT/TAMU/OSU/OU standpoint is what they’ve been saying. They want to move from prey to predator and expand the Big XII to a twelve-sixteen team conference as well (‘whatever’ that takes – they definitely want that CCG back). In that consideration, some existing teams are viewed as expendable, and no one would be concerned if they left (e.g. Mizzou, lol). UT and OU should be considered to be joined at the hip, as should OU and OSU also. TAMU is being ‘held in line’ (i.e. yep, they really wanted to go the SEC). Hold your hats for this one: it’s considered a certainty that Arkansas would come back to the Big XII.

     UT is not giving up BEVO TV for anyone; they believe if they wanted to be in the Big Ten or Pac-12 they’d already be there.

     OU/OSU will continue to hang out with UT because neither considers any other options to be as profitable as hanging out with UT, wherever it goes. T. Boone Pickens’ loot is mean to upgrade OSU to the OU level.

     Obviously this is not quite insider information, but it’s interested to get insight from some other perspective that our Big Ten centric universe (i.e. logic).

     LikeLike

     July 29, 2010 at 7:44 am Reply

     1. Big Ten Jeff,

        Thanks for the update, good stuff.

        There had been talk of the Big XII adding ND and Arkansas to get back to 12 teams. We all know the odds of them getting ND….

        The problem with the Razorbacks is how do you convince a team in a stable conference to take less money to join a less desirable conference, play an inferior schedule, and take the risk that the whole conference is going to dissolve? It’s a tall order. I think any University President who tried to make such a move would be sent for psycho analysis before they were replaced.

        So the problem the Big XII faces is that no big name school will join their conference. I don’t think that Air Force or BYU would join the Big XII at this point without some serious financial guaranties IN WRITING. The Big XII is way too unstable. See the article below about TAMU still looking to go the SEC route.

        I’d say the over / under for the longevity of the Big XII is: Two – two years.

        LikeLike

        July 29, 2010 at 8:32 am Reply

     2. Other than BYU, its hard to think of any upgrade over the “expendables” (Baylor doesn’t have anywhere to go-so they won’t). Maybe Louisville. Arkansas is an upgrade over Iowa St., but it seems doubtful they would leave SEC. And with BYU’s no Sunday policy, its harder to be TV friendly.

        New Mexico, Colorado St., Memphis, N. Illinois would all come, but are all steps down. I don’t see a financially positive 12 if anyone else leaves.

        LikeLike

        July 29, 2010 at 8:33 am Reply

        1. Geographically and in terms of share numbers of available teams, I don’t see any homeruns here. BYU would be the closest thing with Air force being a triple, if it could excel in a major conference. They would have to raid the Big East to pick up WVA, Louisville, and Cincinnati. 1hr, 1triple and one runner caught at third. 4 out of those five would give them 14 members. It might start the dominos falling again. It would be the bold moved needed to see the league last past the 2 year expectation.

           LikeLike

           July 29, 2010 at 10:53 am Reply

     3. This is starting to seem like a Miami Heat scenario with UT (Wade), OU (LBJ) and OSU (Bosh) agreeing to play together, and the rest agreeing to be a bunch of interchangeable fillers. Even so, as the analogy holds, it’s not inconceivable that the have-nots and nowhere-else-to-goers would assume the position of the Miami bench warmers looking for a ring – you can either be in Texas’ league or wander in the wilderness of the WAC, etc.

        If UT/OU/OSU pulls this off (even indefinitely), what do they care?), OU gets their $20M/year and easier access to a BCS game/title shot and Texas gets BEVO TV, keeps the predators (SEC, Big Ten & Pac-12 out of Texas (figuratively and literally), puffed up prominence and a cream puff schedule.

        Living down here for awhile and listening to all of this secession crap makes this posture very understandable and in keeping with a lot else going on here.

        LikeLike

        July 29, 2010 at 9:25 am Reply

177. Cracks are appearing in the Big 12:
     http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/texasam/7129321.html

     Texas A&M basically says if the money doesn’t add up, it’s gone to the SEC. I’m not sure if the SEC wants them without Texas/Oklahoma, but we may find out.

     LikeLike

     July 29, 2010 at 7:49 am Reply

     1. Nice find, M. Placed in context, this makes my above comments seems like pie-in-the-sky wishes of a still dying conference. TAMU’s gonna sue the Big XII to collect $20M/year. That’s rich!

        LikeLike

        July 29, 2010 at 8:25 am Reply

        1. Gut reaction is that the President, who is an Aggie from the days when all were in the corps and they even all had the same accent, is getting a lot of heat from alumni and friends about not joining the SEC and “sticking it” to Texas by doing so.

           LikeLike

           July 29, 2010 at 8:44 am Reply

     2. Here’s the money line from the article:

        The A&M official said Wednesday it wasn’t the school’s “concern” how the Big 12 got its money together for the revenue distribution — just that it lived up to its promise of $20 million annually, starting in 2012-13. The league’s pledge is oral, and the A&M official said the school’s lawyers are working to get the commitment in writing.

        LikeLike

        July 29, 2010 at 8:28 am Reply

     3. I just finished reading that (in print in my morning paper, what can I say, I’m old…) I really can’t blame aTm for asking for the promises to be kept and being put into writing. Honor counts a lot for the Aggies. I don’t think anyone in several conferences counts on UT’s word in anything anymore.

        LikeLike

        July 29, 2010 at 9:10 am Reply

178. Not to be the rain on this parade, but stop for a second, and forget about UT and OU.

     A&M will get their “20 million” and my guess is the “mystery group” aka ESPN / FOX writes it. Wait and watch, the Longhorn Conference will live on for awhile because it will cost ESPN way to much additional money if it does not.

     🙂

     ps. hawk, what post were your referring to:

     “See the article below about TAMU still looking to go the SEC route.”

     thanks

     LikeLike

     July 29, 2010 at 11:34 am Reply

     1. Duffman,

        I was referring to M’s post:

        Cracks are appearing in the Big 12:
        http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/texasam/7129321.html

        Maybe more accurately I should have said that TAMU is keeping it’s option open to go to the SEC if they don’t get their money – $20 M.

        I’m wondering the following:

        1) Does TAMU have regrets about not moving to the SEC when they had the chance?

        2) Is UT regretting the “ultimatum” they gave to UNL?

        It seems to me that losing Nebraska has created more of a problem than UT envisioned.

        LikeLike

        July 29, 2010 at 12:01 pm Reply

        1. hawkeye,

           there is a deeper issue. Will they still have an invite?

           Unless the Big 10 or Pac 10 add another team, slive will not be handing out invites is my impression. I am really thinking this is what UT wanted all along.

           a) they have an iron grip now that UNL and CU are gone.

           b) all they have to do is beat OU in the RRS, and they are in the BCS title game.

           LikeLike

           July 29, 2010 at 12:10 pm Reply

           1. Good call duffman.

              LikeLike

              July 29, 2010 at 1:32 pm Reply

           2. Supposedly the Big 10 is still shopping around on a 12-18 month time frame. If they do expand again, and the $20 million aTm was promised isn’t really $20 million after all, maybe the Big XII is in trouble again, sooner rather than later.

              Apparently there was a poll of aTm fans back in June that showed they were in favor of going to the SEC in similar proportion to UNL fans wanting to goto the Big 10 (> 85%). Unless that was just a whim or outlier, their will be continuing pressure on the aTm administration to move to the SEC.

              LikeLike

              July 29, 2010 at 4:11 pm Reply

179. The Only Post You Need To Read Today

     http://www.gatorsports.com/article/20100728/COLUMNISTS/100729454/1044?p=all&tc=pgall

     Which point does the author makes that most applies to your thinking?

     LikeLike

     July 29, 2010 at 11:42 am Reply

180. I made note of this awhile back

     http://www.imgworld.com/press_room/fullstory.sps?iType=13708&iNewsid=6650986&iCategoryID=

     but now they just got bigger, the benefits of being a private company as you stay under the radar.

     LikeLike

     July 29, 2010 at 1:19 pm Reply

     1. followup up

        http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2009-04-01-img-cover_N.htm

        in USA today

        LikeLike

        July 29, 2010 at 1:49 pm Reply

        1. It makes me sick. Some may see more freedom for the Universities through the income derived. I see them all going deeper into the Gordon Geko world of greed and money. Greed in this case unlike trickle down economies will trickle and further makes these schools elite businesses instead of a public mission based institutions. I don’t expect anything noble from IMG but I might from the U of M .

           LikeLike

           July 29, 2010 at 2:10 pm Reply

        2. Florida’s $10M Sun Sports contract is frequently referenced of proof of the SEC’s schools advantageous use of media rights on the secondary market. But this article’s timeline includes the Florida deal, and then shortly afterwards OSU receives $12M a year. Obviously these deals can include differing items, but it doesn’t appear that the SEC has a particular leg up in in this area. As I mentioned previously, Iowa has a $5M deal.

           LikeLike

           July 29, 2010 at 2:41 pm Reply

     2. Wow. So the bottom line is, even in the Big Ten, there still are means for individual universities to reap additional benefits in the tens of millions of dollars. I hope the universities are somehow indemnified against any inappropriate actions that may occur on ‘their behalf’ by IMG.

        LikeLike

        July 29, 2010 at 4:37 pm Reply

        1. B10J,

           My guess is that IMG will be the “donor” rep folks for the universities in 10 years or less. Why have say 12 different payrolls for each university in the Big 10, when they can have a central “office” and shave off 80% of the payroll. Ironic, the Ivy League is a non factor, but via IMG, they will “own” everybody else.

           i know when UL built their new arena downtown Host was the driving force, and now Host has been sold to IMG. Is it a sign of things to come?

           LikeLike

           July 29, 2010 at 5:07 pm Reply

           1. This is what makes me sick about it. More corporate monopoly and less real capitalism. And all that is good is swept up in to the same nasty douche bag of greed. Yeah, I guess I’m an idealist. One day you wake up and you find you have none cause you sold.

              LikeLike

              July 29, 2010 at 8:50 pm Reply

181. To follow up on Duffman’s post above regarding signs of things to come, here’s my question:

     Who’s really driving the car? This much we now know. The more we learn, the more apparent the predator vs. prey analogy continues spinning outward.

     One of the unanswered questions throughout the thousands of posts in all of this is what exactly is taking 12-18 months for the Big Ten to analyze? Of course, one option is that there are timing considerations (i.e. no announcements during a season). Alternatively, the Big Ten could be looking at all aspects of the altering landscape in ways that most of us haven’t yet conceptualized as a grand scheme with multiple connected parts. This might include a redo of the NCAA/BCS structure into a playoff system, various ways to capture national markets with the BTN, how to best compete directly with ESPN, ways to have the BTN own other conferences’ programming on the BTN, ways to partner with outside interests such as IMG, Nike, etc., ways to grow the CIC membership, on and on. All tactics toward the strategy of maintaining the superior academic, research, athletic and financially stable conference in the country.

     It now seems that in the new world order, IMG might be also acting as a predator; their behind-the-scenes acquisition of marketing contracts is as powerful a play as anyone else has put forth. It’s been obvious for some time that ESPN has more overtly sought to own the College Football landscape, from obtaining almost everyone’s broadcast rights ownership to blocking the formation of a Pac-16.

     Compare these collective considerations to the reactionary postures being taken by so many others, including other supposed ‘predators’ and prey.

     Where does this go from here? I’ve never thought this was only about the 12th-16th teams chosen; I’ve actually long thought this always had more to do with a long-game, tentacles approach to financial, academic and athletic superiority. On this blog, the idea that the Big Ten has been acting along its financial interests hasn’t gotten as much play as the more obvious ‘best fit athletically and academically’. I’d say “think like a University CEO” as well. If the Big Ten wanted to create a national conference, that doesn’t need to be limited to picking off Miami, USC, ND and Texas (for example), but just finding the best strategy to getting the BTN into first tier households all over the country while not upsetting the entire apple cart so we’d have no one left with whom to play. It could mean the CIC’s dominating the research landscape even more than it does now (with or without Johns Hopkins and Stanford). It could mean directing the charge toward a college football playoff on our terms (and yes, being even more competitive while doing so). And it could mean partnering with Fox, IMG, and any other funding entity willing to provide our institutions a level of financial security that promotes athletic superiority (as in the model pioneered by the YES Network and Yankees). Perhaps the 18-month challenge is finding the right price for the upcoming round of rights negotiations, because if the ACC and Big XII is being promised all that money for inferior products, imagine what the geniuses of the Big Ten can make happen.

     No matter what, the Big Ten is unique positioned and advantaged to do so in a way that doesn’t destroy the landscape and maintains some semblance of ethics. Even if all of this is in the grand plan, it probably would never be stated but would just ‘happen’. August 2nd can’t come quick enough.

     LikeLike

     July 29, 2010 at 8:05 pm Reply

     1. I honestly don’t think there’s some grand Machiavellian design to rule college football and be the “uber-predator” analogy everyone loves to use around here.

        Big Ten expansion started when the BTN was first officially announced, its just no one knew it yet. The BTN’s sole reason for existance was to help profit on un-utilized market potential (the Indiana’s, Purdue’s, etc of the world as well as “non-profit” sports like soccer or lacrosse) and thus further stabilize each of the Big Ten members athletic budgets.

        While they were at it, the universities also saw the channel as a means of communication and advertisment of each member school to potential student throughtout the BTN footprint. Ensuring they could maintain the 40,000 student enrollments, even if population swings in their home states meant there was less of a pool to draw from, ensured the schools’ brands would maintain the market draws the currently hold (and should even increase it as more and more of those students would probably disperse outside the school’s footprint…just as I have done).

        Moving to 14 or 16 with the right teams (and I HEAVILY stress “right”, the BigTen is simply too conservative to invite those it does not consider “equals” in every sense of the word) makes sense as after the “regular” tv deals taking out 3-4 games the 2-3 games a 12 team conference leaves you (during conference play) leaves not enough truly marketable content. And this is only based on “athletic payouts”.

        Again, assuming the right invites are made, the CIC will have huge influxes of resources and the possibilities for undergad/grad level collaboration expand greatly. That increase in academic quality/offerings will translate to getting more, and more of, the better academic minds and again ensure the BigTen schools remain at the top of the university system. IE: if you have the means to go to a BigTen school, with its top notch academics and athletics that few can compete with, why would you go anywhere else? (There are of course personal reasons, but I think you see my point.)

        With this understanding of how the process is being looked at I simply can’t envision a BigTen worldview where they particularly care what the rest of college football is doing, especially since football is only one aspect of what they are trying to do, let alone are trying to dismantle or fundamentally change it. To quote a movie…the BigTen is playing chess when the rest of the world seems to be playing checkers.

        The BigTen could care less if other conferences go to 16, get paid a couple million more for their football programs, or the top ranks of college football get pared back or expand (for the most part on all of those points). Again, the BigTen wants to stabilize, ensure, and grow its student enrollment levels, athletic income, and graduate level research expenditures to maintain its current position towards the top of all those landscapes and sees the BTN and conference expansion as the means to do it. In the end, yes, that will require $$$, but in the end I think (at least for this conference) the $$$ will always be pushed toward those endeavors the schools in the BigTen have always tried to excel at (though admittedly I can’t speak to the rest of the college landscape)

        And if that doesn’t happen, I as a PSU fan, will be royally P!$$3D off.

        LikeLike

        July 30, 2010 at 6:07 am Reply

        1. And thus my questions, “Who knows what the hell’s going on?” and “Why 12-18 months?”. Admittedly, I’m a big picture guy, but so are the people in decision-making capacities. Certainly there are entities looking to dominate the landscape (ESPN, Fox, IMG). Why wouldn’t a college conference take the same approach, especially one with the gravitas to actual impose its world view? Pursuit of business, academic and athletic excellence don’t have to be mutually exclusive and planning for it doesn’t have to be Machiavellian.

           All the articles expressing all the Big Ten schools’ joy about the extra revenue fueling academic pursuits and non-revenue generating sports makes it logical that these streams should be institutionalized and expanded upon if possible.

           I don’t disagree with much of anything you said other than the implication that following its best interests is a nefarious pursuit; in fact I think your last full paragraph makes my point nicely. I think 16 is a tactic, not a strategy or a necessary happenstance, and it certainly doesn’t preclude everything else happening. We certainly would agree that there are a very small number of universities that would be added at this point moving forward.

           LikeLike

           July 30, 2010 at 6:35 am Reply

           1. Speaking to your “Why 12-18 months?”…

              I actually had a timeline several months ago on why I didn’t think BigTen expansion would happen this summer.

              Basically it was based on the idea that expanding to 16 immediately was not in the BigTen’s interest because the national TV contract wasn’t set to be renogtiated until 2015 (why split early when you don’t have to?).

              2011 – Announcements made/accepted

              2012/2013 – First season of new play

              2014/2015 – Renegotiations w/ 1+ year of tv data to justify payout increase

              The thing that changed was the Big12 was a much more unstable entity than most believed and getting one of the bigger names (they wanted Texas, but Nebraska turned out to be much more available) was very likely.

              Thus they move quickly to snag a big name now, establish the Championship game, and are continuing to look at expansion candidate in 6-12 months.

              Thus the heavy focus on “integrating Nebraska asap” that was mentioned many times during the press conference. They need Nebraska to be on board and voting as the current BigTen does when (if) new additions are made.

              LikeLike

              July 30, 2010 at 9:46 am Reply

              1. Thanx, PSUGuy. Good analysis. It’ll be fascinating to see how this plays out. Much in the way everyone has said it would have been a shame if all of the hullabaloo was only about getting Mizzou and Rutgers, I believe it would be unfortunately if all of this drama was just about a better TV contract. I certainly don’t think so, but we’ll see.

                 LikeLike

                 July 30, 2010 at 10:34 am

182. looks like things may be percolating in Big XII land again. this from The Battalion Online (Texas A&M student paper):

     When Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe allegedly saved the conference this summer, he made a promise to the big three schools — Texas, A&M and Oklahoma. They would generate upwards of $20 million annually from the new television deal, a drastic increase from the $7 to $12 million accrued in 2009. Yet, nothing has been signed in regards to a new television deal and this money is contingent on other schools.

     In essence, the smaller schools from the conference would give up the money earned from Nebraska and Colorado’s exit fees in order to keep the ten schools together.

     Well, at Big 12 Media Days, Beebe seemed to dismiss the notion, basically stating that both Texas and Oklahoma had rejected the offer and that they’d get around to talking to A&M about this “hidden” money.

     Now, the A&M administration, surprisingly, doesn’t want to listen. They want the $20 million they were guaranteed last month. And if they don’t receive that money?

     According to the Houston Chronicle, the school will sue the Big 12 and look elsewhere — the SEC — for conference affiliation.

     The rumors began creeping up on President R. Bowen Loftin’s Facebook page today and in response, he sent out a message to Beebe stating that A&M wants the money promised during the oral agreement.

     “A key part of Texas A&M’s decision to remain in the Big 12 earlier this summer was the commissioner’s commitment that Texas A&M would receive a minimum of $20 million annually in future conference distributions,” he said. “We remain committed to the conference and fully anticipate that the Big 12 will honor its commitment to Texas A&M.”

     And if Beebe and the Big 12 don’t honor it?

     Well, then the mess from a month ago looks to get a little dirtier.

     http://www.thebatt.com/conference-realignment-debate-continues-1.1501503

     LikeLike

     July 29, 2010 at 8:35 pm Reply

183. From the Pac 12

     http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13681330/pac10s-scott-blames-texas-for-his-plans-demise

     link above, should read the whole article but this part caught my eye

     “The website Orangebloods.com was breaking most of the news during that time largely through unnamed sources. It went from being the first to report that the six schools were strongly considering the Pac-10 to detailing the hectic hours as the Big 12 saved itself with the promise of a windfall increase in future television revenue. Scott, though, seemed to suggest that the reporting was driven by a Texas source or sources with an agenda.”

     “Asked what person or persons may have leaked the information Scott said, “I don’t know … It could only be a small [amount of people] who knew what was going on.”When asked for a reaction, Chip Brown of Orangebloods.com refuted Scott’s accusation that the info was leaked by Texas.”Larry Scott is living in a fantasy world if he thinks DeLoss Dodds or Mack Brown leaked information to me,” Brown said.”

     Is it just me, but does this sound like total BS from the UT folks? I mean Scott said VERY few people knew yet here was orangebloods (which is a UT site) breaking the news every time. ESPN must have had enough good faith in the “source” for orangebloods to keep using them for the primary source for ESPN’s national reports. I did not see them quoting FtT, even tho there has been excellent debate here, and Frank has connections with the Big 10. I think I tend to believe Scott’s interview more that Chip Brown not being an “unofficial” mouthpiece for Dodds and Powers. I just can not see ESPN, with the potential liability, running the orangebloods stuuf without knowing a person like Dodds or Powers was the source. Of course if Chip Brown is telling the truth about Dodds and Brown, then by process of elimination his source IS Powers!

     Hop Horn and other Texas folks, is this the case?

     LikeLike

     July 30, 2010 at 9:34 am Reply

     1. @Duffman (and anyone else, I suppose):

        When Orangebloods started its reporting of the possible Pac 16, I, like most on here, assumed that Orangebloods was getting its info straight from the horse’s mouth. I wasn’t that familiar with OB other than the fact that it’s the largest Texas-related message board/reporting site out there, and it made sense to assume that it had a cozy relationship with The Powers That Be (no pun intended) at Texas.

        Having gotten involved with my writing on my subject and what not, I’ve started picking up a few things here and there which I didn’t know beforehand. Reading between the lines, I have learned that OB succeeds as a UT-based subscription site despite having poor relations with the UT Athletic Department. Apparently there’s no love loss between the owner of OB and Dodds/UT Athletics. (And this makes sense, if you think about it from the point of view that Dodds love having “control.” To maintain its 100K+ subscriber base, OB does have to break some occasional news beyond what one could get from UT directly or from the main papers covering UT. I’m sure that means reporting info [recruiting mainly, I’d surmise] that UT doesn’t necessarily want public yet.)

        So I think it is safe to assume that Chip Brown was getting his information from sources other that Dodds or someone authorized to speak for Dodds. Given the sheer size of UT, that does leave a myriad of possible sources available, all with their own agendas. (You’re theory of Powers being the source is an interesting one.)

        As to why ESPN would go with the OB reporting without knowing who the source was, do remember that (1) Chip Brown was a reporter covering UT for the Dallas Morning News for years, so I think it would be safe for an outlet like ESPN to trust his reporting if he says he has a source, and (2) ESPN, on that last critical Monday, was reporting for hours the exact opposite of what OB was reporting — ESPN had Texas still moving west while OB, accurately, was reporting that Texas would stay in the Big 12.

        LikeLike

        July 30, 2010 at 10:01 am Reply

        1. Hop Horn,

           Thanks for the info, and it would make sense if Powers was the “leak” in light of you point of contention between Dodds/MBrown and the OB/CBrown. I and others on here have been under the impression that OB was a UT site, and operated with their blessings as many other serious blogs do with their “home” school/team. Thanks as well for the previous background with CB and the DMN, it would explain better why they would use OB as a reliable source for ESPN to quote from.

           That said, I tend to believe Scott in the limited number of people in the “know” the Big 10 and SEC have been very tight in what has actually gone on behind the scenes. I am guessing this realignment stuff has been like state secrets in the “need to know” way, that very few actually are “in the know”. If the leak is not Dodds or MBrown, then there are probably very few others with real information. Aside from Powers (and saying it was not Dodds or MBrown) who else could be that high up to be the leak?

           LikeLike

           July 30, 2010 at 10:54 am Reply

           1. Let me backtrack a bit.

              Despite what seems to be a poor relationship between OB and Dodds/UT Athletics, that doesn’t necessarily dismiss entirely the possibility that Dodds, or someone close to him, was nevertheless the source of Brown’s information, if that’s how Dodds wanted to play his hand. I think the crucial piece, though, as you note, is that OB is not a Texas site, so its reporting doesn’t necessarily reflect what Dodds wants reported.

              Who would have been the source of the information if not Dodds or Powers? Who knows! 🙂 I think this starts becoming impossible to surmise, since there could be a number of different people, with different possible motivations. (Was the motivation an attempt to stop Nebraska from moving? Was it an attempt to keep Texas from moving by giving ample warning to various political powers in the Legislature about what was going down?)

              Someone will write the definitive book/article someday. That someone will have to be someone other than Chip Brown, since many would view his efforts, despite what seems to really be the case, to be those trying to get the “official” UT view across.

              (And that’s not to say that Chip might not have been too “pro-Texas” in this whole matter. I wear burnt-orange glasses, so that’s probably not for me to judge. Regardless of whether he was or was not parroting what Dodds wanted him to say [and, again, it seems doubtful], he is a paid writer [and part owner, I think, though I’m not sure] of a site which caters to UT fans, so it would only be natural for him to write, consciously or not, in a way which puts Texas in a better possible light, or else his livelihood might be at risk. Not much different than what you’ve seen from the media in any affected markets throughout this whole mess.)

              LikeLike

              July 30, 2010 at 11:24 am Reply

              1. Hop Horn,

                 Hop Horn = friend of Dodds = Chip Brown source, issue solved

                 (I kid, I kid 🙂 🙂 )

                 I agree about a book, but since no FOIA’s have surfaced since the BeeBe WHITE LETTER I have doubts if the true story will ever see the light of day. I agree about a Chip Brown book on the matter, the same way I would not read the Paulson book about the financial meltdown. Not enough objectivity.

                 LikeLike

                 July 30, 2010 at 1:41 pm

              2. And, regardless of his objectivity in covering the story, Chip Brown himself became part of the story, so a third party telling of the story, covering Chip as well, would be required.

                 LikeLike

                 July 30, 2010 at 2:47 pm

              3. I know for a fact that chip brown was receiving texts from the PAC 10 commissioner Larry Scott throughout this deal. A friend told me about a poker game where he was exchanging texts. Turns out they have connections that go back to tennis. Chip played tennis at sum and Scott was a tennis league commissioner or something…they Re longtime friends.

                 So one of chips sources was the commissioner himself.

                 LikeLike

                 July 31, 2010 at 9:47 pm

           2. According to Powers, the only ones who knew EVERYTHING were Powers, Dodds and Plonsky(women’s AD). But that doesn’t mean there weren’t a lot of people in the administration who knew a lot. And I’m sure everyone was comparing notes.

              LikeLike

              July 30, 2010 at 3:00 pm Reply

     2. I have no insider information, but early on I suspected that his source might have been from Texas Tech. Leaking the Pac 16 scenario ensured it would be politically difficult for UT or A&M to move without Texas Tech involved. If that had never been reported it might have been possible for UT and A&M to move to the Big 10 or SEC and say they couldn’t get a deal for Tech.

        From reports after the fact, it seems that the people at Texas Tech might not have been informed enough to be the source. Still, I haven’t completely abandoned the notion that someone there was the culprit.

        LikeLike

        July 31, 2010 at 12:05 am Reply

184. anyone read this yet? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/sports/29pacten.html

     LikeLike

     July 30, 2010 at 11:25 am Reply

     1. Not sure how this works out.

        But his goal is to have “more premier programming” than the “third-tier” games he said were on the Big Ten Network. The selection process for Big Ten football games greatly favors putting better games with greater ratings potential on ESPN, ESPN2 and ABC.

        So USC will never be seen east of the Mississippi? That’ll do wonders for their national exposure and rankings.

        LikeLike

        July 30, 2010 at 11:37 am Reply

        1. Yeah I agree.

           It’s a nice statement to make right now before he’s negotiated his TV contracts, but if he wants any team to be seen anywhere in the Central/Eastern timezones then the network partners will get to keep their first preference and his Pac-12 Network will get the third tier games.

           LikeLike

           July 30, 2010 at 11:43 am Reply

           1. IMO the idea is sound, but the conference implementation isn’t.

              Take a “theoretical” conference with its own tv network. If they could guarantee “premium” content games that draw a national audience the conference could use that national appeal to get the tv network on cable networks far outside the conference’s regional footprint.

              The Pac, IMO, just can’t do this as they don’t have enough national brands.

              The BigTen however might be able to…if Michigan returns to relevance, the next tv contract could give the first 3 selections to ABC/ESPN (as it is now), the rest go to the BTN or #4 goes to the BTN, #5 to ABC/ESPN (assuming they’ll never want more than 4 games).

              This gives a realistic possibility of always having one of the four “national” BigTen brands (PSU, OSU, UoM, Neb) on the BTN and creating premium content that would push the demand for the BTN outside of the BigTen footprint.

              LikeLike

              July 31, 2010 at 7:47 am Reply

              1. Yeah, having enough national brands is really the key to all of this.

                 That’s why I think a lot of people whiffed early on about Nebraska.

                 And it’s why the Big Ten probably won’t go above 14 (and is unlikely to go to 14 anyways) without Notre Dame.

                 Getting a 5th national brand (4 does it to a lesser extent as you point out) pretty much guarantees that you can have premium level content on the BTN every week other than possibly rivalry week depending on how divisions works and final games, but still, you have plenty of content that would draw nationally.

                 It’s interesting how that aspect of synergy only increases as you add another.

                 LikeLike

                 July 31, 2010 at 1:26 pm

185. Question for the lawyers on here?

     PSUGuy has given me something to think about.

     We have discussed contract clauses in terms of realignment in deals like the ESPN one with the SEC. What happens if a single driver school [like USC in the Pac 10] gets the Death Penalty? In theory they are still a conference member, but it has to effect media values, so does it allow the media contract to be reduced?

     In the Big 10 and SEC with their greater number of Top 10 programs this risk is mitigated, but in the Pac 10 the only brand is USC so there is no real extra team to take up the lost slot of USC.

     just curious

     on the flip side the Big 10 with the UNL add is now in the best spot with 4 of the top 10 ‘brands’. Also, to think like an optimistic pessimist does the BTN offer a backdoor for media access if a Big 10 gets NCAA bans from the major networks. Say tOSU found itself on probation and could not get national feed for the tOSU vs UM game, could it actually benefit the BTN if they can still carry it and broadcast it? Could this be an odd benefit of the BTN?

     LikeLike

     July 31, 2010 at 8:34 am Reply

186. Frank,

     http://www.killsometime.com/pictures/2215/Blonde-Upside-Down-Sign

     a pic for a future ND blog?

     LikeLike

     July 31, 2010 at 9:26 am Reply

     1. and one for usc,

        http://www.killsometime.com/pictures/1235/Mascot-Match-Up

        for when their ego flares up again

        LikeLike

        July 31, 2010 at 1:54 pm Reply

187. DEEP IN THE HEART OF TEXAS

     Guys,

     It seems like many of you believe that UT’s ultimate plan was to get rid of Nebraska and CU so that TU could be master of the Big XII. Maybe. But it seems like a bit of conjecture to me; I don’t think we’ll ever know UT’s intent. We do know what we now have: no UNL and probably no CU after 2010. IF this was UT’s intent than their business model sure is different than the BT and SEC model.

     Here’s the way I see it:

     Big Ten Business Model: Form a competitive league of large Land Grant Universities with mega research departments that are AAU members. Have large football stadiums with a fan base that travels well. Start BTN and leverage multiple bowl games. The money will roll in for all teams.

     SEC Business Model: Form a competitive league of large Southern schools with mega southern football tradition. Throw in some great BBQ and football, football, football. Leverage ESPN contract. The money will roll in for all teams.

     Both business models are established and work well.

     NEW Texas Business Model: Drive good schools like CU and UNL out of the Big XII. Create a patsy conference of lackeys and OU. (This guarantees many “Ws” and no one to poach Texas talent also an easy path to the BCS title game). Start BEVOD TV network. The money will roll in for UT, and the other schools should just be glad to get whooped and take what money they can get. It MAY WORK OUT, we don’t know yet. But it certainly is a different business model than those established by the two major conferences.

     The loss of a major market (Denver) and a major national brand name (UNL) as well as the loss of the CCG has got to hurt, right? If you guys are correct, and Texas really wanted the situation that they now find themselves in, than they could have gone about it in a much more business friendly manner. What UT should have done was expand to 14 or 16 schools first. They could have added UT friendly schools (Houston N. Texas) a brand name school like Arkansas and schools that will maintain the Big XII footprint (Colorado State, Memphis, Cinci) then after the conference was positioned it could have deep sixed CU and UNL.

     My point is that if TU wanted a patsy league of friendly schools it could have gone about it in a much more business friendly manner so that they wouldn’t have lost the CCG and been stuck in an unstable conference.

     I don’t think that TU is in a position of strength right now. If TAMU leaves for the SEC or if BEVOD TV doesn’t work out, UT will have to reconsider its options. Maybe the new world order will work out great for UT. Texas is a winner both on and off the field, their administration seems to be very forward thinking, more so than most of the other major players. I think that Texas is making the best out of what transacted, and they’re doing a good job of it. But I don’t think the current situation was their ultimate game plan.

     LikeLike

     July 31, 2010 at 10:19 am Reply

     1. hawkeye,

        I would add 2 points to the SEC model

        Large Public Land Grant Institutions

        Very hot coeds

        I think the UT model is SWC II, a Texas (the state) league that UT can dominate. It looks like they are doing a pretty good job right now as the #3 and #4 teams in the league have left the building so to speak. they still pretty much control the remaining teams, and can add TCU and Houston to get back to 12.

        LikeLike

        July 31, 2010 at 11:59 am Reply

     2. NEW Texas Business Model: Drive good schools like CU and UNL out of the Big XII. Create a patsy conference of lackeys and OU.

        The tinfoil hat is on a bit too tight. 🙂 Why would Texas drive CU out if it wanted a “conference of patsies.”

        The loss of a major market (Denver) and a major national brand name (UNL) as well as the loss of the CCG has got to hurt, right?

        I don’t think Texas minds losing the CCG at all. I know Brown has always disliked it. And the increased revenue from dividing the TV pie 10 ways instead of 12 makes up for the lost CCG TV revenue.

        What UT should have done was expand to 14 or 16 schools first. They could have added UT friendly schools (Houston N. Texas).

        Don’t forget that Texas left a dying conference with lots of irrelevant schools like UH and Rice (poke, loki, poke!) 15 years ago. There’s no interest in “rebuilding” with schools like that.

        Perhaps the biggest thing that kept me from being completely despondent about the way realignment turned out for Texas (I still wish we had made a move to join the Big 10 or Pac Whatever) is that the Big 12 didn’t make the biggest mistake it could have when a couple of schools left and tried to replace them with what would have automatically have been inferior schools, driving the medium of the conference down. The only pair which made sense to me was Utah and BYU (but only if Mizzou, and not CU, had been the second school to leave). Standing put at 10 was the smartest move, and I am glad we’ve moved to a true round robin in a conference in which every school, other than Baylor, cracked the Top Ten at some point in the last decade (yes, ISU did too at one point), and six of the ten schools have been in the Top Six in just the last three years alone (and those six schools don’t even include sleeping giant A&M). So don’t think that Texas has automatically created a “patsy” conference, and don’t dilute what remains with the likes of UH or CSU or UNT.

        LikeLike

        July 31, 2010 at 6:09 pm Reply

        1. Hop,

           UNL is a brand no matter how you look at them. It could have been they thought Missouri would be the other north team to split, but when the Big 10 offer did not come things went sideways. My long ago prediction was UT, TT, OU, OSU, KU, and CU to the Pac 10. CU knew a Big 10 invite was not in the cards, and the absence of the Missouri invite just made them move faster. The Big 12 had UNL, UT, and OU as their anchors, CU just took the invite and ran. How many MNC’s do KU, OSU, ISU, KSU, TT, TAMU, Baylor, and Missouri have between themselves. Say what you will but with Big Red out of the picture it makes UT and OU easy picks to win it all most every year.

           LikeLike

           July 31, 2010 at 6:23 pm Reply

           1. Nebraska Big 12 conference record, by season, for the last eight seasons:

              2002: 3-5
              2003: 5-3
              2004: 3-5
              2005: 4-4
              2006: 6-2
              2007: 2-6
              2008: 5-3
              2009: 6-2
              OVERALL: 34-30

              I don’t understand how losing a school which has barely played .500 football inside the conference for nearly a decade (a pretty good sample size) significantly weakens the conference. I wouldn’t quibble with “slightly weakens,” but anything stronger than that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

              As you state, though, NU is a “brand,” and losing NU is much more important from that standpoint than it is from a competitive standpoint.

              LikeLike

              July 31, 2010 at 6:37 pm Reply

              1. Hop,

                 ND has been down, same with pretty much every other “brand” team. The difference is time, as every top team has come back from prolonged droughts. Outside of the group this can not be said. I was surprised to see Illinois had done so well in the early part of the century. Alabama in the years between Bryant and Saban was not in the same favor. Sure the huskers could stay down from here going forward but I would not take that bet. I feel the same about IU in basketball as a program that can recover easier that the majority of basketball programs in the country. Over time probability takes hold for a certain level of success.

                 You can look at the Huskers a totally different way. They had great success in the Big 8, and fell off after they became the Big 12. Away from the Big 12 you could see a resurgent Nebraska. Certain programs just seem to win through multiple decades and coaching staffs.

                 LikeLike

                 July 31, 2010 at 7:22 pm

              2. @Duff:

                 Away from the Big 12 you could see a resurgent Nebraska.

                 I’m glad to see you’ve come around to my way of thinking: take Nebraska away from Texas and its “patsy” conference and move them to the competition they’ll face in the Big 10, and they stand a chance to be resurgent. 🙂

                 LikeLike

                 July 31, 2010 at 8:58 pm

              3. Hop,

                 I was thinking of the Nebraska fans on here and what they were saying. I watched the Big Red Thrashing Machine when I was younger, and I saw them live in the Orange Bowl. I follow the games at the time, but I do not follow the recruiting and much of the off season goings on. The UNL fans on here said that when Nebraska was in the Big 8 they did not recruit the state of texas heavily, so my comment was more aimed at UNL getting back to however they used to recruit more than the conference membership.

                 The Husker fans have not been on here much since they moved to the Big 10, but I would appreciate commentary from the Big red fan base on their thought about recruiting in the Big 8 era, The Big 12 era, and now the Big 10 era?

                 LikeLike

                 July 31, 2010 at 9:15 pm

              4. I think Nebraska’s success in the Big XII was/is largely a function of coaching. Osborne went 9-1 in conference play including CCG’s and an MNC.

                 Solich initially had success, until TO recruited players left and the DC retired. Solich could not recruit offensive skill players.

                 Callahan’s staff was good at closing on recruits, but the defensive coaching was not good and he lost the team, like with the Raiders.

                 Being in a conference with Texas teams should have opened up Texas recruiting to UNL, but neither Solich or Callahan really took advantage of the opportunity.
                 Pelini has recruited Texas more heavily, but not sure if that will continue. I think the hope is that being in the Big 10 will give UNL more national exposure week to week, which should aid national recruiting.

                 UNL has always recruited the local region heavily, with quite a few recruits out of Missouri and Colorado, and Kansas JUCOs. Not sure how the switch to the Big 10 will affect that. I suspect that as long as the team is doing well on the field, they will still be able to recruit the region with success.

                 As HH has said, for the remaining (former) Big XII north teams, things are not going to get any easier on the field, so the choice for many of these kids might be between a competitive UNL in the Big 10 or the local Big XII punching bag.

                 LikeLike

                 August 1, 2010 at 8:08 am

              5. Correction – Osborne went 17-1 including CCGs.

                 LikeLike

                 August 1, 2010 at 8:48 am

              6. HH,
                 There you go again.

                 Nebraska’s no great loss to conference, mediocre at best, look at their record last 8 years, more a brand than a competitive program blah blah blah. Give it a rest.

                 As if TX didn’t post some lackluster results and losing seasons before their current coach. Also see Michigan, Alabama, USC and every other traditional CF power.

                 LikeLike

                 August 2, 2010 at 9:49 am

              7. The record speaks for your argument Hopkins. But I would go with 12 years, not 8 for a more honest trend. That being said, I don’t believe in that wild master plan either. I do though believe that Texas will be walking into CC instead of busting a door down. OU can be one injured QB away from making this situation very visible to those who have a harder time getting to win their conference outright.

                 LikeLike

                 August 2, 2010 at 2:25 pm

188. I don’t think UT wanted the “Big12–” scenario until the very end.

     IMO, first choice was to join the Big Ten with multiple partners, but that was never really an option.

     After that fell through the Pac came calling and offered UT’s second favorite (maybe even more so than BigTen really)…Colorado, UT, TT, TAMU, Ok, Ok St.

     Problem is at this time word had gotten out about Texas shopping around (and that meant more than just Texas). Nebraska called up some folks in the Big Ten and the talks started in earnest. TAMU decided that if it was going to change conferences, then it wanted to go to the SEC (who showed mutual interest) instead. Baylor got on the horn screaming about being left behind and schools like Rice, Houston, etc started lobbying to take TAMU’s place (if it went to the SEC).

     Thus, UT was facing the very real possibility of joining the Pac without all of the members it wanted (and more so being forced to re-accept teams it had ditched long ago), where it would lose some of its eastern exposure, while simultaneously allowing Texas to become official SEC recruiting grounds. What’s more, high profile teams in the current conference (Nebraska) had already read UT’s “body language” and had made their escape plans meaning there could be no “return to status quo”.

     IMO, it was always UT’s idea to be the king of whatever division it eventually joined and allowing any other conference entrance to its home recruiting grounds meant the possibility of slowly losing its prestige and thus the status of “king of whatever division it was in”.

     When TAMU to SEC became a real possibility and the Pac pushed hard for Utah to block the likes of Baylor coming along, on then did UT backpedal hard and pushed in the Texas legislatures to keep “all the Texas schools together” and reformed the Big12– in the form it is today.

     LikeLike

     July 31, 2010 at 12:59 pm Reply

     1. The Big Ten pretty much told Texas early on that it would only join on our terms (no Bevo TV and no one else with them except Nebraska).

        I guess I would agree that Texas’ optimal scenario would be Texas/A&M/Oklahoma and probably Notre Dame (although I really don’t think Texas cared that much about TTech other than for localizing the conference) into the Big Ten. And it would get to keep Bevo TV somehow in the arrangement.

        Clearly, when you start at two totally opposite endpoints (Big Ten wasn’t having A&M or Oklahoma, despite what we thought about A&M), there really isn’t a place to start negotiating, so that went nowhere.

        The A&M to the SEC angle is the most interesting part of this.

        Getting Texas/A&M/Tech/Oklahoma/OSU to the Pac-16 with Colorado is the ideal outcome, but that’s now foreclosed somewhat by the Utah to the Pac-12 scenario.

        Thus, Texas now knows that if it ever joins the Pac-16, A&M will go to the SEC. Is that a scenario that Texas will choose if it has to? It did salvage the Big 12 even though a Pac-16 where it would keep Bevo TV seemed to at least be somewhat of a possibility depending on where the negotiations went.

        In the future, Bevo TV and A&M to the SEC are going to be huge issues for Texas to deal with if it wants to join the Pac-16. If there is a Pac-16 Network, how would they co-exist? How much is the Pac-16 willing to give up to take Texas, clearly a lot, although Scott implied that a Pac-12 Network would be “all rights in”.

        I think Texas can let go of A&M now that there’s not really a spot for it since Texas/Tech/OU/OSU seems to be the Pac-16 scenario.

        But that Bevo TV issue may end up keeping the Big 12 alive for a while longer than most suspect. Although I get the feeling that A&M will force the issue if the Big Ten/SEC payouts start to lap the Big 12 again…

        LikeLike

        July 31, 2010 at 1:34 pm Reply

        1. I really don’t think you can underestimate how much UT wants to ensure only one conference can have access to the Texas markets/recruiting…and UT rules the division of the conference that has access to Texas.

           LikeLike

           July 31, 2010 at 4:53 pm Reply

     2. IMO, first choice was to join the Big Ten with multiple partners, but that was never really an option.

        I’m not sure I believe this anymore, and I say this as someone whose belief in this statement drove much of my writing and predictions on the subject.

        I haven’t seen or read anything, on or off the record, that indicates that Texas really had any interest in moving to the Big 10. We know that Powers spoke with Gee, but one would have to assume that Powers spoke with someone out of the SEC at some point, and we know Texas was never moving to the SEC. (As much as I was wrong about Texas having interest in the Big 10, I’m now convinced, from what I’ve read in post-mortems, more than ever that I was right about Texas not having any interest in the SEC. Don’t believe anyone if they write that Texas will find itself “backed into a corner” and will have to join the SEC one day. Ain’t gonna happen.)

        I tend to think that the reputed quote from Powers to an interested party early in the realignment madness (something along the lines of ‘we have no interest in flying our softball team around the Midwest”) did in fact reflect the goals of the UT administration.

        I dislike knowing that was the truth, but I think that was the case.

        (There’s a slim chance, by complete coincidence that has noting to do with my writing on realignment, that I might have the opportunity to speak with Powers in the next couple of months. This is what I’d be more interested in learning more about.)

        LikeLike

        July 31, 2010 at 5:59 pm Reply

        1. In the interview with the Statesman after the wave subsided, Powers said Texas never really talked with the Big Ten once it was determined that the “Tech problem” was a non-starter with the Big Ten.

           He also said that SEC attempted to gauge Texas’s interest and was told Texas had none.

           I’ve pretty much decided that this was a political deal all the way.

           Rick Perry seems trapped in the 1970s, and said before everything went down that if he had his way, they’d re-form the Southwest Conference.

           Powers, in the Statesman interview, said Texas was “proud” to be tied to Tech. This indicates that Kent Hance’s ties to Perry were unbreakable. That made Texas like Kryptonite to the B10.

           Nonetheless, they went down the road with the Pac-10 as Colorado and Nebraska split away. Meanwhile, the Aggies were intent on going to the SEC. It was reported that the Board of Regents favored that move.

           IIRC, Beebe had not come in with the updated revenue guess from Fox, or the ESPN agreement to pay the full boat through 2016.

           But Texas told Larry Scott on Sunday that it was not coming to the Pac. And A&M’s raucous regents suddenly went silent, then the president said they were staying, too. I believe that is because they were ordered to keep the B12 intact. Exactly why, I am not sure.

           But, even if Beebe had floated the new revenue number, it was only based on an estimate tied to a projection. That’s not a basis on which to make a billion-dollar decision that could last for a generation or more.

           The only explanation that makes sense is that politics overwhelmed Texas and A&M.

           My hope is that when the new B12 breaks up, the new homes of those schools will be so clear that not even politicians can get in the way.

           LikeLike

           August 1, 2010 at 3:26 pm Reply

189. TEXAS (the state of) FINAL THOUGHTS

     Hopkins Horn,

     Thanks for your comments on my post above. All were insightful.

     I should have made more of a distinction between on field strength and “Average Joe interest” lets call it fan appeal. As a BT and SEC follower I didn’t really follow the Big XII until expansion cropped up. You’re correct in that the Big XII is still pretty strong on the field with Tech, aTm and OSU. Losing CU and UNL is as more a fan appeal issue, especially as far as the national audience. I think besides UT and OU the national brands in the Big XII were Nebraska and CU. Duffman hits on this issue. Losing those schools hurts the national appeal of the Big XII as much as anything. Certainly the Big XII is more Texas centric than ever before. As I stated, I don’t follow the XII as much as the other conferences….(although I’m certainly going to catch some of the Big XII games this season, especially UNL v UT). Maybe UT wants a Texas centric conference, but you have got to think that’s going to hurt the TV contracts despite what Mr. Beebe has promised.

     You raise the key point that UT does not want the state of Texas split up between conferences with the SEC getting a foothold in Texas. PSU Guy also brought his up. I think it’s a curtail part of conference expansion going forward. I could see where splitting the state would hurt UT’s recruiting, and TV market share. The SEC has a great product for anyone who loves college football (B-ball isn’t bad either with Kentucky and UF). It’s hard to quantify, but if aTm joined the SEC and did well, I think it could spur a major and possibly permanent shift in power between UT and aTm. That is a shift in power in favor of aTm.

     As it is now, with the two schools in the same conference aTm seems to be the permanent second tier team in Texas, even if aTm has few good seasons, we all know that UT will hold the #1 status in the hearts of most Texans. Any advantage aTm could gain would be minor and temporary. BUT, if aTm jumped to the SEC and did well, it could upset the apple cart of the status quo. The SEC brings with it exciting teams, LOTS of big time publicity on ESPN. I would think that it gives aTm a real advantage over UT. Top ranked kids could be convinced to come to aTm if they are going to play against ‘Bama, LSU, and the Vols. Gainesville and Athens are a hell of a place to play. Ames, Iowa, Manhattan (?) … not so much. Tech and OU are great, but those are only two games a year.

     The bottom line is that UT’s biggest problem right now is the possible defection of aTm (and possibly OU along with them) to the SEC. I would think that UT would treat aTm REAL Nice. For example, make sure that they get the $20 Mill that aTm seems to be banking on.

     One more thing about OU. OU, like any big time program will do what’s in their best interest. Up until now it’s been in their best interest to stick with UT. Understood. But, if OU sees greener pastures in a stable, money making SEC in the years ahead they will look out for their best interests and make that more. This too has to give UT pause for concern. There’s only so many schools UT could lose and still have a viable conference………..

     LikeLike

     July 31, 2010 at 8:02 pm Reply

     1. Good thoughts, just wanted to clarify something, since I think it was directed at me:

        You raise the key point that UT does not want the state of Texas split up between conferences with the SEC getting a foothold in Texas.

        I don’t think I made that assertion. (If I did, please point it out, because I wouldn’t agree with it now.) I know others have, including those who follow and want what’s best for Texas, but I’ve never really been that concerned with that factor, as I’ve tended to think that most concerns about entering markets for recruiting advantages, or locking markets down for recruiting advantages, are for the most part overblown.

        LikeLike

        July 31, 2010 at 9:02 pm Reply

     2. HH…I think maybe he got me confused with you on that subject. I’m a firm believer that UT does NOT want Texas split up. It remembers too well the 90’s mediocrity and sees its ability to dominate the locals as the top necessity to maintaining its national prominence.

        Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think UT is “scared” of having the state split, but I do think that all things being equal, its going to do as much as is practicable to maintain the “one conference” access to Texas.

        LikeLike

        August 1, 2010 at 5:34 am Reply

     3. Hopkins Horn,

        My Bad. I may have gotten you mixed up with PSU Guy on the “UT does not want Texas split issue.” To me it’s not just a recruiting issue but most importantly a media coverage issue.

        First Recruiting: aTm to the SEC would be bad for UT because (1) it would give ‘Bama, LSu etc and inroad to Texas talent (obvious). (2) Texas kids may be swayed to aTm over UT because they see the SEC schedule as more dynamic. They want to play against the ‘Bamas, Georgia’s and UFs of the world instead of just OU and the other lesser players like ISU, KU, KSU. The status quo means that UT will dominate aTm 95% of the time, the best way for aTm to grow out of UT’s shadow is to change something. A move to the lucrative and media hyped SEC is the best way. Which leads me to the main reason for aTm to look at the SEC……..

        PSU Guy,

        Media coverage is the big reason UT wants to hold aTm within the Big XII gravitational pull. Here in Florida UF gets the lion’s share of the coverage over Florida State. While UF’s on field success is a major part of the reason for this, I constantly hear FSU fans complain about the ACC schedule and ACC coverage or lack thereof. It’s one of those things that there is no data for, but it sure feels like FSU would benefit if it was in the SEC. The Texas situation would be the opposite of FL with UT being in the weaker conference (Big XII) and the second tier school (aTm) in the stronger / more highly covered conference the SEC. UF doesn’t have its own TV network so I would think the media issue would be all that more important to UT with the anticipated launch of BEVO.

        Additionally, if aTm joined the SEC a lot of the “Average Texas Joe Football Fan’s” attention would suddenly gravitate to the SEC. Teams like LSU, UF etc all of a sudden are talked about more. The SEC CCG in Atlanta all holds a lot more significance. Again the impact on UT is very hard to quantify, but I would think UT would see the spotlight moving eastward. If UT has an off season, there’s still plenty of news happening with aTm in the SEC. I have to think that UT sees this as a negative. I think UT would view this as a big negative outcome of aTm moving to the SEC.

        Industry leaders (like UT) tend to be risk adverse and they always keep an eye on what the competition is doing. For example, Microsoft matches moves made by Apple, Google or the old NetScape. UT took the more conservative route in keeping the Big XII together, I think they’ll keep an eye on aTm and keep them in the fold as long as they can.

        LikeLike

        August 1, 2010 at 10:51 am Reply

        1. You may have gotten HH mixed up with me. I was definitely concerned about splitting the conference. I don’t know how the administration felt about it. I think it would hurt Texas, OU and A&M. LSU, Arkansas and to a lesser extent Alabama, Auburn, TN and UGA would have a better shot at getting the top tier players than the B12 N schools. Similarly, USC, UCLA and to a lesser extent AZ and ASU. Right now, Texas, OU and A&M fight it out for the very top with only a handful getting out.

           I doubt very seriously it would help A&M. At worst, they could become an Arkansas who went from a national power to an also-ran in the SEC.

           I’m inclined to take Powers statements at face value. P16 didn’t look very attractive when they could get the same money in B12-2 (and remember-the Pac10-12-16 money is speculative at this point also).

           LikeLike

           August 5, 2010 at 9:22 pm Reply

        2. Bullet,

           You and I agree on the splitting of the southern Big XII. UT and OU see this as big recruiting problem for them. I think if A&M jumped to the SEC it would hurt OU and UT recruiting more than it would hurt A&M’s. UT and OU would have only negative consequences from the defection, they would now have to fend off the SEC Big Boys from picking off some top Texas recruits. A&M would have that issue, but they would also have the benefit of playing in the top football conference in the nation. They conceivably have a new recruiting angle and may actually improve their recruiting standards.

           One thing we learned from expansion is that the big football powers are very conservative – they will not jump to a new conference unless they A) have no choice or B) see real tangible benefits from making the change.

           Nebraska felt that it had no choice, so it made the move to the BT. ND did not see the immediate tangible benefit of joining the BT so it stayed independent.

           A&M has on open option to the SEC that UT does not have. I think it’s only a matter of time before A&M exercises that option. UT certainly knows this and they’ll do all they can to prolong A&M’s inclusion in the Big XII. And you can bet the UT is planning on what to do when A&M defects.

           LikeLike

           August 6, 2010 at 8:37 am Reply

           1. Yes, if A&M has a good coach they’ll recruit well in the SEC. They will still be playing in Texas far more than any other SEC school.

              Certainly there will be recruits who want to stay close to home who find the SEC schedule more interesting than the Big 12 or Pac 16 schedule that UT will play.

              LikeLike

              August 6, 2010 at 9:51 pm Reply

190. Frank,

     glad you are enjoying your kids

     you had mentioned a new post in the future, were you waiting till after monday and tuesday? are you going to any part of the media days?

     http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=5420728

     this is an ESPN link on the NCAA and their current issues

     LikeLike

     August 1, 2010 at 9:32 am Reply

191. http://www.detnews.com/article/20100802/SPORTS0203/8020407/1361/Nebraska-might-not-be-Big-Ten-s-last-expansion-move

     Nebraska might not be Big Ten’s last expansion move
     Matt Charboneau / The Detroit News
     Chicago — While Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said the conference has “paused” in its expansion efforts, he did not rule out further expansion in the future.

     Speaking at Monday’s Big Ten kickoff, Delany said that university presidents informed him they wanted to “pause, but not necessarily turn our backs on expansion.”

     It was announced in June that Nebraska would be the conference’s 12th member, and Delany says the Big Ten is focused on helping Nebraska become integrated into the conference.

     In 2009, the Big Ten announced a 12-18 month study of expansion, and Delany says his conference will continue that study after the integration of Nebraska is complete.

     Schedules, conference alignment and possible championship game sites are being discussed here by the university athletic directors.

     When those issues are resolved, Delany says expansion could come up again.

     “That is when we will determine what, if any, further steps are necessary,” he said. “But we are not involved in any specific expansion ventures right now.”

     LikeLike

     August 2, 2010 at 1:50 pm Reply

192. Update from today’s b10 meetings:

     Divisions expected in 30 to 45 days

     Delany claims there WILL be a 9 game schedule in 3 to 4 years

     There will be a new logo, but the Big Ten will remain the Big Ten, regardless of the number of schools

     LikeLike

     August 2, 2010 at 1:54 pm Reply

     1. I think JD wants the 9 game BT schedule to accomodate expansion…..really no “need” for 9 game schedule with a 12 team league….but certainly would need it in a 14 team league….to keep rivalries intact…..does sound like if any expansion does occur, it would be for 2013 season……BT pres. are pretty conservative, so they might want 2 seasons with Ne. first to settle things down….

        LikeLike

        August 2, 2010 at 4:16 pm Reply

        1. I agree. It sounds to me like Delany is looking at 14 teams for 2013. I’m thinking Rutgers and Maryland will be joining the Big Ten. So how would the divisions look?

           Assuming we start in 2011 with KISS divisions (six west teams and six east teams), the simplest way to accommodate Rutgers and Maryland is to put them in the east division and shift Purdue to the west. The divisions would then look like this:
           WEST__________________________EAST__________
           Iowa ———————— Ohio State
           Wisconsin ——————- Michigan
           Minnesota ——————- Michigan State
           Nebraska ——————– Penn State
           Northwestern —————- Maryland
           Illinois ——————– Rutgers
           Purdue ———————- Indiana

           To preserve the rivalry between Purdue and Indiana, they could be given an annual non-divisional game. This would also provide an opportunity to have an annual game between headline teams that are not in the same division (Nebraska vs Penn State, Wisconsin vs Michigan, Iowa vs Ohio State). That will leave two non-divisional games to rotate around the remaining teams.

           Thus, each team will have three non-conference games, six divisional games, one annual non-divisional game, and two rotating non-divisional games.

           LikeLike

           August 2, 2010 at 5:27 pm Reply

           1. Makes sense, although Purdue might end up in the East and Indiana thw West (which has a bigger rivalry with Illinois?).

              A lot of this will depend upon who becomes the new president and athletic director at Maryland; we should know their identities in the next few months.

              LikeLike

              August 2, 2010 at 6:57 pm Reply

              1. The Purdue Cannon is presented to the winner of the University of Illinois-Purdue University football game. It all started in 1905 when a group of Purdue students took the weapon to Champaign in anticipation of firing it to celebrate a Boiler victory. Although Purdue did win the game 29-0, Illinois supporters, including Quincy A. Hall, had discovered the Cannon in its hiding place – in a culvert near the old Illinois field – and confiscated it before the Purdue students could start their “booming” celebration.

                 LikeLike

                 August 2, 2010 at 7:11 pm

              2. The Old Brass Spittoon is presented to the winner of every Indiana-Michigan State football game. First presented in 1950, it was Michigan State’s idea to start up the trophy and Indiana quickly accepted. It’s believed that the spittoon has been around since both universities were established.

                 So Indiana should stay in the east with Michigan State, and Purdue should go west to be with Illinois.

                 LikeLike

                 August 2, 2010 at 7:18 pm

              3. vincent,

                 reading todays press what do you think about this? Delany has pushed the expansion off to December / January to allow the Terps to get their house in order? I.E. Maryland is the next invite?

                 LikeLike

                 August 2, 2010 at 7:54 pm

           2. i get the whole market approach, but if we’re going to 14, i think i’d rather have pitt and mizzou

              LikeLike

              August 2, 2010 at 7:13 pm Reply

              1. I think I’m in the minority on this board, but I hate to see Mo. get screwed in this whole deal.

                 That said, I think Mo. gets screwed in this whole deal.

                 If you read Delaney’s recent comments, as well as those of Barry and L. Carr, RU looks like an absolute lock as team 13.

                 Then it’s down to Mo. or Pitt (MD is a pipe dream).

                 PSU wants 2 eastern teams. Also, the pres. at NW and Michigan are concerned at the academic hit the Big 10 took when Neb. came on board. I think you have to go with Pitt over Mo. to get their votes.

                 I personally think Mo.’s got a lot going for it……I think they get in with ND 5 years down the road…..

                 LikeLike

                 August 2, 2010 at 9:05 pm

              2. shroom,

                 I see your point, as missouri is a decent school with AAU status, but it is like the next tier down because of no football or basketball strength. To complicate matters the St. Louis market is a pro team city. All the Top 10 “brands” are in college towns with no competition from pro teams. If you can only add 4 to get to 16, it just feels like Missouri just misses the cut. No FF’s or MNC’s just does not help their cause and their football stadium is not selling at capacity (around 90%) so they just do not have that extra thing to get them in.

                 LikeLike

                 August 2, 2010 at 9:42 pm

              3. In addition to NW and UMich, the former interim president of Illinois was on record saying Missouri was not an academic fit. Obviously it is hard crow about the great fit of Nebraska and maintain that Missouri is not a fit, unless the athletic side of criteris is weighted more heavily.

                 I think it comes down to circumstances. Rightly or wrongly, Missouri is likely to always be there for the big 10, and this might have been a unique opportunity to get Nebraska.

                 It now is pretty obvious that the Nebraska addition was a spur-of-the moment decision, outside of the parameters of the expansion study.

                 LikeLike

                 August 3, 2010 at 4:29 am

              4. Missouri’s academics hurts it chance in the Big ten but I believe nothing hurts it more than the fact that Nebraska came in first. I say this because as far as viewership, The Illini can pick up the St. Louis market. That’s takes care of the eastern part of the state. Soon Nebraska will pick up the Kansas City market. That takes care of the western part of the state. This escalates as the big 12 loses relevance. Columbia , MO is not Columbus, OH. They would have to challenge or take CC to combat this pincer move. So why add Mizzu and pay them a purse when you can take their market through Nebraska and Illinois.

                 LikeLike

                 August 3, 2010 at 7:27 am

           3. What about splitting up a 14 team division like this: West -Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Minn, Mich, MSU, NW; EAST – Ill, Pur, IN, OSU, PSU, RU, MD. Then you add one permanent cross division rival for Mich/OSU, Neb/PSU, NW/Ill (which is what the SEC does). If you look on a map, this is a pretty good geographical split also. Plus it is competitively balanced. Then if/when you go to 16 and get ND and say Syracuse or Pitt or BC, then you can move Ill over to the east and make MSU & ND permanent cross division rivals. This way it stays geographically and competitively balanced and I believe that the major rivalries are kept (although being an SEC guy I’m probably missing a couple).

              LikeLike

              August 2, 2010 at 7:40 pm Reply

              1. Hold on. You want to put Nebraska, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa in the same division? Four of the top six teams in one division, two in the other? That’s not competitive balance. The top teams need to be evenly divided: three in the west and three in the east.

                 LikeLike

                 August 3, 2010 at 2:09 am

              2. I sense Delany’s dream setup is four pods of rotating divisions:

                 A: Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse
                 B: Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State
                 C: Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue
                 D: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

                 No, the pods aren’t competitively balanced — in a majority of years, thw weakest team in B will be better than the strongest team in C — but with the rotating pods, it really doesn’t matter. With some out-of-pod rivalries protected annually (Notre Dame-Purdue, Penn State-Michigan State, Minnesota-Michigan, etc.), it can be set up so that every Big Ten member visits the others at least once every six years, whether the schedule be eight or nine games.

                 And while Delany may prefer nine games, limiting it to eight may be a condition for getting Notre Dame. If that’s a sticking point and the Big Ten prefers to play nine games, invite Pittsburgh instead of ND, put it in A and Penn State in B, and make Pitt-PSU an annual out-of-pod rivalry.

                 LikeLike

                 August 3, 2010 at 7:50 am

     2. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/08/02/bigten-media.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

        More confirmation.

        LikeLike

        August 2, 2010 at 7:11 pm Reply

193. Not to beat a dead horse, but the A&M stuff does not seem to be dying down:

     http://blogs.chron.com/aggies/2010/08/loftin_whatever_it_takes_regar.html

     To me, the only reason A&M stayed is the money. They don’t have the cash to pay the exit fee and they were enticed by the exit fees from the other schools. The leadership seems to almost want the Big 12 not to be able to come up with the money so they can bolt to the SEC.

     It would be beyond amusing if they collect the money from Nebraska and Colorado but then leave a few years later.

     LikeLike

     August 2, 2010 at 2:33 pm Reply

     1. M,

        Collect their money, use it to pay off the 16 million debt, then bolt for the SEC. 🙂

        LikeLike

        August 2, 2010 at 6:23 pm Reply

     2. I believe I have heard of this before. “Take the money and run”.

        LikeLike

        August 3, 2010 at 7:11 am Reply

194. On to 14 without Notre Dame?

     “I don’t see them as a player,” he said when asked about the possibility of Notre Dame coming into the Big Ten. “I think (Irish athletic director) Jack Swarbrick has been consistent about their commitment to the Big East and about their commitment to independence (in football).”

     Yes, this may be posturing, but it is an important signal for Delany to be sending out…

     LikeLike

     August 2, 2010 at 7:43 pm Reply

     1. ND and the Big East is only as stable as the Big East. If they lose 1 or 2 teams to expansion and other conferences ramp up to 14 or 16 then ND will get smoked out. The absolute best place for them to run is the Big Ten, second would be the ACC. Else they would be like Texas in a league of their own with diminishing respect for both over time.

        LikeLike

        August 3, 2010 at 7:19 am Reply

        1. If the BigEast loses teams the only thing that will go away is the football arm of the conference (and that doesn’t prevent them from adding new teams as they did last time). The BigEast will return to its bball/other sports roots.

           How is this in any way a problem for ND, who would then still be independent in football and a member of a conference in all other sports?

           LikeLike

           August 3, 2010 at 8:59 am Reply

           1. Yeah, I think this is the right angle. If the Big Ten takes say Rutgers/Pitt or Rutgers/Syracuse next year, I would just expect the Big East to split into two.

              The football schools would be in one conference and the non-football schools in the other.

              I think ND wouldn’t mind staying in a non-football conference of that nature.

              LikeLike

              August 3, 2010 at 9:11 am Reply

              1. After the Big Ten and SEC take their pick of members from the ACC and Big East, I believe Swofford and Beebe will then take the best of what’s left from the Big East to restock their conferences, although Beebe would probably be limited to Cincinnati, Louisville and South Florida (and would make the Big 12, or whatever it will be renamed, 12 again, assuming A&M is picked off by the SEC).

                 LikeLike

                 August 3, 2010 at 9:54 am

              2. If the Big 10 tales RU and Pitt, the ACC probably takes U Conn and Syracuse. You could still have a very good bball league, but the Olympic sports would suck, plus you’ve lost 4 very good academic schools, and you’re left with the St John’s, Cicny, and Louisvilles of the world……..

                 LikeLike

                 August 3, 2010 at 10:10 am

              3. they might not mind staying in a non-football conference of that nature but will that conference have a broad enough array of sports to meet ND’s needs? the conference affiliation is not just important for ND’s basketball program but its other sports. ND would need affiliation with a conference with similar profile. a football program not only provides the revenue to support a larger athletic program but I believe through Title IX requires a breadth of teams to offset the large football commitment. would a football less Big East remenant be able to accomodate ND?

                 LikeLike

                 August 3, 2010 at 10:11 am

              4. Couple points— If the Big 10 goes to 9 games and 14 teams, no way they’ll go back to 8 with 16 teams just to placate ND……so perhaps the ND ship has finally and permanently sailed……….

                 If so, would ND to the ACC be that bad for the Big 10? That would make the ACC more competitve against the SEC in recruiting in shared and border states………

                 LikeLike

                 August 3, 2010 at 10:21 am

              5. vincent,

                 I concur with your thinking about beebe and swofford! excellent point!

                 🙂

                 LikeLike

                 August 3, 2010 at 10:24 am

           2. My thoughts are PSU is that there are slim pickings for replacements that also play football. The options will not have a long history or not have a large national or regional following and will make the Big East a less weighted conference than it once was. Will ND want to be associated with a viable but more diminished conference or would they rather be a member of the Big 14, 16? Logically I would assume the later. But then it ND, no guarentees.

              LikeLike

              August 3, 2010 at 11:02 am Reply

195. Frank,

     saw your twitter on memphis to the Big East, looking at the source my guess is it is another false rumor, but we shall see tomorrow.

     LikeLike

     August 2, 2010 at 9:55 pm Reply

     1. Duffman, I really believe The BE best hope is to be aggressive.
        I would make a hard run at the bottom 3d of the Big 12. Just about any of those teams would help BE football. Mizzu and Kansas would strengthen BE basketball. They can now really consider jettisoning some Non football playing schools.
        Now they can split into an East and Midwest division format. Kansas, K-state, Iowa state and Missouri continue to play regionally along with Louisville and Cincinnati. I would not blame them (BE) for tying. Those teams from the Big 12 second division would have an option that also includes some of their old rivals. And ND stays in the BIG East.

        LikeLike

        August 3, 2010 at 7:41 am Reply

        1. Isn’t there an issue there though? I’m not sure about the Big East’s guidelines, but can’t the non-football schools split off with impunity in the situation that schools are added or subtracted? That will likely play into whether the Big East can be aggressive. There was some rumblings earlier that the non-football schools would split up if the situation changed in any direction (addition or subtraction), which may bind Marinatto’s hands.

           LikeLike

           August 3, 2010 at 9:16 am Reply

           1. I think you are right about that. But those non football playing schools are far out of the scope of the invent horizon. As we know its football that drives the bus. The schools with football teams will fall more in line with the aspirations of the Big East. The schools that cannot afford to have a football team will be happy cleave themselves off from the football aspirations of the Big East as it may be prohibited. They won’t miss what they never had or have not had for many, many years.

              LikeLike

              August 3, 2010 at 11:10 am Reply

196. Anyone else feel that the conferences statements very much point non-geographical divisions? From the statements about competitive balance and rivalries being 1 and 2 and the support for a 9th game (which is needed more with a non-geographical setup where permanent crossover games are needed) I would be surprised if the divisions are geographic.

     I am guessing something like this (with the most room to move at the bottom of the lists).

     American:
     Ohio State
     Michigan
     Wisconsin
     Minnesota
     Michigan State
     Northwestern

     National:
     Penn State
     Nebraska
     Iowa
     Purdue
     Indiana
     Illinois

     With 8 conference games, this would have sacrificed Iowa-Minnesota (which I think both schools would have grudgingly accepted since they at least got to add Nebraska/bring Michigan back every year). With 9 though and a 5-2-2, that rivalry can extend and other smaller ones like Ohio State-Illinois can go back to being yearly.

     LikeLike

     August 3, 2010 at 10:18 am Reply

     1. Problem with that is what happens if you do expand, with eastern teams? Then you have PSU stuck in the western division…

        Minehaha should be in the same division as Iowa, Wis., Neb., and Ill., imo…

        I’d go with the straight geographic split, although it does also cause problems if RU and Pitt are added—

        OSU
        Mich
        MSU
        PSU
        RU
        Pitt
        IU

        Wis
        Minn
        Ill
        Neb
        Iowa
        Pur
        NW

        Only change needed would be to ship Pur to the west…..but east looks even stronger relative to the west…..

        LikeLike

        August 3, 2010 at 10:41 am Reply

        1. I just don’t think you can arrange the divisions with the plan of expansion when you don’t know a) if you’ll expand anytime soon and b)who you’ll be expanding with.

           The Big 12 North was once better than the south, but the south had the recruiting territory and bigger name brands. I think you’ll risk the same thing in the Big Ten if you put OSU, Michigan, and Penn State together. Wisconsin and Iowa are great now, but can more easily slip down a level and neither have the in-state recruiting advantages or huge name to make up for it.

           I guess I’m in the minority here, but I just don’t see what’s so appealing about a pure geographic split other than it being easy to show on a map. I know the ACC is looked at as a failure for failing to divide that way, but the Big 12 created serious long term problems for precisely the opposite reason.

           LikeLike

           August 3, 2010 at 12:26 pm Reply

           1. I think the Big 12’s problems had more to do with inequitable revenue sharing and Texas (State of) being a unique hotbed of high school talent. The Big Ten splits the money evenly, and no state in the Big Ten is a class unto itself for recruiting in the way that Texas is.

              LikeLike

              August 3, 2010 at 1:03 pm Reply

              1. No Big Ten state is like Texas for recruiting I’ll definitely agree there. With that said, Ohio and Pennsylvania are the best two states in the Big Ten for recruiting and I think you would be giving the west a disadvantage there if both states are solidly in the east.

                 I actually think equal revenue sharing is being overplayed a little. Nebraska was benefiting from it in the Big 12, not hurt by it. It was however hurt by being in a division with fewer traditional powers that was relying on other programs to be closer their peaks.

                 LikeLike

                 August 3, 2010 at 2:59 pm

              2. You say Ohio and Pennsylvania are the best two states in the Big Ten for recruiting. What happened to Illinois? It has a bigger population than Ohio and Pennsylvania. Is there a problem with high school football in Illinois?

                 LikeLike

                 August 3, 2010 at 3:09 pm

           2. As a faithful follower of Big 12 football, it seems to me that the divisions became unbalanced because the southern teams have a significant recruiting advantage. Not only is the Big 12 population concentrated in the south, the quality of high school football is higher in the south. As a result, the southern schools have a wealth of talent available within a few hours drive. It is much easier for them to recruit quality players than it is for schools in the sparsely populated, wintery north.

              As far as I know, this is not an issue in the Big Ten. All the schools are in similar position when it comes to recruiting Florida and Texas. And, althought some states have a larger population than others, there is not the same imbalance there is between Texas and the rest of the Big 12.

              LikeLike

              August 3, 2010 at 2:59 pm Reply

     2. Off the Neb rivals site….Big 10 WP since 1993—(all games)

        OSU .797
        PSU .703
        Mich .695
        Pur .520
        MSU .494
        IU .354

        Neb. .760
        Wis. .687
        Iowa .580
        NW .480
        Minn .453
        Ill. .383

        If you went with this geographic split, East WP approx. 59.4%, Wset approx 55.7%.

        LikeLike

        August 3, 2010 at 10:53 am Reply

        1. They have pushed this decision back another 30 – 40 days. At first I believe it was to be unveiled at the Big Ten meetings which are currently going on this week. There must be some real problems with this at the BT office. Otherwise you all know that we have gone through many permutations here for them already. I would bet this also has to do with future expansion possibilities and what scenarios make the future alignment an easier puzzle to fix.

           LikeLike

           August 3, 2010 at 11:34 am Reply

           1. Divisions not being announced this week is not indicative of a problem. They were never going to be announced this week to begin with.

              LikeLike

              August 3, 2010 at 11:50 am Reply

        2. mushroomgod, this is kind of my point in why I don’t get why the supposed East/West split is so “imbalanced.” That looks pretty close to me; close enough that I don’t see how “competitive balance” has been so warped as to ruin the league.

           LikeLike

           August 3, 2010 at 12:11 pm Reply

     3. Personally, I consider all the noise about these other factors they’re considering as an effort at being PC and trying to look progressive, to placate critics. It seems like every time you read about this, someone is saying “You can’t put Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, and Penn State all in the same group.” Well, no shit Sherlock, but nobody is proposing that; the supposedly “unbalanced” East/West split only puts 3 of those 4 in the same group.

        I really don’t think anything much can be read into the noises that are coming out of the league office, because I think what they say is designed to be all things to all people.

        LikeLike

        August 3, 2010 at 12:09 pm Reply

197. In thinking about how to do divisions, this is kind of the framework I’ve been operating on, in roughly this order of importance:
     1. Nebraska and Ohio State cannot be placed in the same division under any circumstance. Rationale: these are the 2 most accomplished programs in the league. Especially in light of the next item, this is unacceptable.
     2. Michigan must be in the same division as Ohio State. Rationale: Rematches in college football are highly disfavored. Moreover, it isn’t enough to just play every year; a real rivalry has to only allow one team to get what they want. The only way you do that in a divisional league is to be in the same division.
     3. Michigan State must be in the same division as Michigan. Rationale: This is the best in-state rivalry in the Big Ten. There is no chance of these teams being split up.
     4. Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota must all be in a division with each other. Rationale: These teams all have histories with each other dating back a century. Frankly, I consider the league’s willingness to accommodate Minnesota on this point (notwithstanding their lack of recent competitiveness) to be the sine qua non of the league’s commitment to treating everybody as an equal.

     When you take those 4 rules, it gives you 2 groups of 3 teams: Michigan-Michigan State-Ohio State, and Wisconsin-Iowa-Minnesota, with Nebraska needing to be opposite OSU.

     Some pundits have said that PSU, OSU and UM cannot be in the same group because it’d be “stacked.” However, given the above, there are only 2 ways to place PSU opposite OSU.
     1. You could fuse the two groups of 3 I’ve mentioned. That gives you these divisions:
     A: MICH-OSU-MSU-WISC-MINN-IA
     B: NEB-PSU-ILL-NW-PUR-IND
     2. You could put PSU, NEB, and 1 other team with the WISC-MINN-IA group, and the remainder go with UM-OSU-MSU. Thus (e.g.):
     A: MICH-OSU-MSU-PUR-ILL-NW
     B: NEB-PSU-WISC-MINN-IA-IND

     I do not consider either of these groups “balanced,” and it really goes to show how this ridiculous rule prohibiting PSU from going with OSU and UM is impeding everybody’s consideration of this question. The knee-jerk reaction is just really, really wrong. By contrast, if you allow PSU to go with UM-OSU-MSU, that forces Nebraska into the other group (Rule No. 1), leaving you with 2 groups of 4: NEB-IA-MINN-WISC, and UM-MSU-OSU-PSU. Now you must only apportion the 4 remaining schools into 2 groups of 2. Logically, you’d want to keep them as in-state pairs. I would guesstimate that the PUR-IND pair is slightly weaker (on average) than the ILL-NW pair, so it makes sense to put the PUR-IND pair with the “eastern” group (which is probably slightly stronger than the top 4 in the “west”).

     Given this framework, though, the “geographic” split is the only one that makes sense to me. The only way to get around it is to break one of those 4 rules, and I quite honestly think those ought to be sacrosanct in any alignment of the Big Ten, regardless of who belongs or future expansion.

     LikeLike

     August 3, 2010 at 12:25 pm Reply

     1. I agree with this argument, though I would add in that Nebraska should probably be with the western trio.

        The only reasonable alignments to me are straight geography or something like your scenario 2 where PSU gets flipped with either Illinois or Northwestern (hopefully Illinois). That setup is probably imbalanced to the west, especially if Michigan doesn’t return to its previous level.

        LikeLike

        August 3, 2010 at 1:32 pm Reply

        1. The logic of my 2nd scenario doesn’t allow for PSU getting flipped; it is trying to obey the hypothetical rule that PSU can’t be with OSU/UM. If you flip PSU with anybody in the 2nd scenario, they’re breaking that rule. (But, I’m just trying to illustrate why I think it’s a dumb rule.) The only team that could be “flipped” in the 2nd scenario is IND, for either ILL or NW.

           LikeLike

           August 3, 2010 at 2:00 pm Reply

           1. Rereading my comment, I realize how confusing it is. By “flipped” I meant flipped from the geographic alignment. If PSU can’t be with OSU and Michigan, the preferable alignment is
              (Ioa-Minn-Wisc-Neb-PSU) with one of Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern or Illinois. Northwestern seems like the natural candidate to put in the west to me and its not just because the Wildcats have a winning record against everyone in the rest of that division the last 15 years (except Nebraska).

              LikeLike

              August 3, 2010 at 2:26 pm Reply

        2. That setup is massively unbalanced to the west. Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin and Penn State are currently ranked teams. That puts four ranked teams in the west and only one ranked team in the east (OSU). Even if Michigan recovers, those divisions are still very unbalanced.

           LikeLike

           August 3, 2010 at 2:04 pm Reply

           1. I agree, which is why I think this demonstrates how absurd the whole notion of the East/West alignment being “unbalanced” is.

              LikeLike

              August 3, 2010 at 2:23 pm Reply

     2. Excellent analysis. Those two groups of three are the key to maintaining important rivalries. I would be very surprised to see a divisional structure that splits them up. So, where do we go from here? We could put the two groups together to form a very strong north division (your option 1) or we could use Minn-Iowa-Wisc as the foundation for a west division and OSU-Mich-MSU the foundation for the east. Clearly the second option is more balanced.

        Once you put Minn-Iowa-Wisc in the west and OSU-Mich-MSU in the east, the remaining teams fall into place naturally. The two strong teams (Nebraska and PSU) need to be separated to maintain balance, so Nebraska goes west and PSU east. That leaves four teams — the Illinois pair goes west, the Indiana pair goes east.

        LikeLike

        August 3, 2010 at 1:54 pm Reply

        1. That is exactly my reasoning if I was going through this in my own, affirmative steps. I was trying to construct an argument from the premise that PSU can’t go with UM/OSU. But your thinking is exactly right: once you start with those two groups of 3, Nebraska naturally goes with the western group, PSU almost has to go with the eastern group (or else you become way imbalanced in the “west”), and then there’s no reason not to split the Indiana and Illinois schools into East and West groups.

           LikeLike

           August 3, 2010 at 2:22 pm Reply

     3. The one thing I don’t think will happen will be Iowa-Wisconsin-Minnesota in one division. That’s actually the biggest reason I think 9 games is on the schedule. If there are 9 conference games, they can be divided and with a 5-2-2 they can continue to play every year. Before 9 games looked likely, I suspected they’d put Minnesota with Wisconsin, make Iowa and Wisconsin a yearly crossover and try to make it up to Iowa and Minnesota by making Nebraska a yearly game for Iowa and bringing Michigan back every year for Minnesota. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it’s the only way with 8 games you could divide the big names (and attention and interest that goes with them), ensure as much competitive balance as possible, and preserve most rivalries (and I think every important could would have been preserved other than the one mentioned above).

        Nine games changes everything though so that it’s possible to reach all objectives. If they go to 9 games, the only remaining advantage to east-west alignment are that it’s easier for outsider to figure out who is where (if they can name the teams and locations to begin with) and that fewer or no crossovers ensures more games against the remaining out of division teams.

        All in all, I’d definitely vote for 9 conference games in a non-geographic alignment.

        LikeLike

        August 3, 2010 at 3:12 pm Reply

        1. You don’t think Iowa-Minn-Wisc will be in the same division? I hope you are wrong. The longstanding relationships between those schools are every bit as important as the those between Michigan and Ohio State.

           Minnesota-Wisconsin: one of the most heated rivalries in college football and is most-played rivalry in Div I-A football, with 118 editions dating back to 1890.

           Minnesota-Iowa: have played 103 times since 1891. Floyd of Rosedale is a bronze pig trophy that is awarded to the winner of the annual game. In 2008, Rivals named Floyd of Rosedale the top rivalry trophy in college football.

           Wisconsin-Iowa: The teams first met in 1894 and have played annually since 1924.

           I think it is a mistake for you to rely on two crossover games to maintain rivalries. When the Big Ten moves to 14 teams in 2013 (and maybe 16 after that), at least one of those crossover games will disappear. If you are committed to maintaining traditional rivalries, you really need to put them in the same division.

           LikeLike

           August 3, 2010 at 4:03 pm Reply

           1. I know how important they are and that piece of the puzzle combined with “competitive balance” (which I interpret partly to mean big name balance), is what makes this process so difficult. In a 5-2-2 we can achieve both though, and I think the conference is going to appreciate that fact.

              As for the next round of expansion, I’m not counting on it. If it comes, you can redo divisions then if need be, but in the meantime, you have to plan for what you’ve got. It was 20 years between Penn State joining and Nebraska coming and it may 50 years before there is another expansion. I think any move which is based on the assumption of further expansion will be a mistake.

              LikeLike

              August 3, 2010 at 9:41 pm Reply

           2. Rivals that you don’t put in the same division are being treated as 2nd-tier rivalries. Pairings of that sort include Michigan/Minnesota, Ohio State/Illinois, and, if MSU’s AD is to be believed, apparently MSU/NW. Those are the kinds of rivalries you preserve with a locked-in interdivisional game. Minnesota/Iowa/Wisconsin fall into the higher category. They must be in the same division or the Big Ten has lost a very important component of its soul.

              LikeLike

              August 4, 2010 at 12:22 pm Reply

              1. Adam – I can speak from personal experiences as a SEC alum/fan and witnessing 18 years of divisional play in the SEC. LSU’s annual SEC East opponent is Florida. Over the last 10 years, both teams have competed at the highest levels and their annual game is by no means a “2nd tier rivalry.” Prior to divisional play, Florida was also an annual opponent for LSU.

                 Auburn was not an annual opponent of LSU’s prior to divisional play. But since Alabama was down for most of the last decade, the winner of the LSU/Auburn game was in the driver’s seat for the SECW crown. So while there wasn’t much history between the two schools, LSU/Auburn has developed into a great rivalry.

                 The point I’m trying to make is that if you play a team every year and the game means something most years, ie championships, then you have a 1st class rivalry.

                 The Big Ten is going to divisional play and that’s a good thing. There will be some changes, some games will be sacrificed, some traditions altered, but after 18 years divisional play in the SEC I can say that its better than ever . . . even though we don’t get to pound Kentucky every year anymore.

                 LikeLike

                 August 4, 2010 at 1:03 pm

              2. i just think these two “blocks” are not negotiable as being divided if the divisions are to retain any credibility or sense.

                 MN-WI-Iowa
                 MSU-UM-OSU

                 LikeLike

                 August 4, 2010 at 9:14 pm

              3. Alan, I don’t think that the LSU/Florida situation is applicable. You’re talking about 2 programs that have both been in the national championship conversation on a more or less routine basis. No Big Ten schools have been. Moreover, the fact that LSU/Florida happened to end up growing into a great rivalry is neither here nor there; if it was a critically important Alabama/Auburn-level rivalry at the time that the SEC divided, it would have been a terribly stupid idea to rely an interdivisional game to preserve that.

                 LikeLike

                 August 7, 2010 at 9:14 pm

              4. Adam – Just because teams are in different divisions, in the SEC at least, that doesn’t relegate them to 2nd-tier rivalry status. You may not think that LSU/UF is applicable ( I disagree), but what about Auburn/UGA or UTn/Bama?

                 The Auburn/Georgia is the oldest rivalry in the South, and don’t even think about telling anyone in the states of Tennessee or Alabama that their game on the 3rd Saturday in October is 2nd-tier. Historically (pre-polling) Bama & Tennessee were the dominant teams in the South. These games are very big deals. If not for Auburn/Georgia, Tennessee/Alabama, and to a lesser extent LSU/Florida, the SEC might have adopted the Big XII 5-0-3 scheduling model.

                 I do understand that the Big Ten is older and y’all have all those trophies/buckets/axes to play for, but you can’t put everyone in the same division. Adam, you can speculate, but I can speak from 18 years experience, that when LSU plays Florida annually it a VERY BIG DEAL. So is Bama/Tenn & Auburn/UGA. Furthermore, when LSU plays Georgia and Tennessee after a 3 year lay-off, those games are also VERY BIG DEALS.

                 Also, divisional play has created some great rivalries that didn’t really exist prior to expansion such as Tennessee/Florida, Georgia/South Carolina, LSU/Auburn, LSU/Arkansas, and with the Spurrier angle South Carolina/Florida have been very intense games.

                 The bottom line is that you need to embrace the change. The Big Ten will be a better conference because of its expansion.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 11:25 am

              5. Alan is right when it comes to the Bama/UsluT game. I hate UsluT almost as much as I hate the barn (Auburn). The Bama/UT rivalry used to be one of mutual respect (yet still very anticipated), but over the last 20 years it has turned into an extremely bitter and hate filled rivalry. The barn and UsluT played in the SEC championship in 2004 and there were many Bama fans that were joking that they prayed that the Georgia Dome would implode (well I’m hoping that they were joking). I hate UlsuT and if I said otherwise I’d be lying.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 8:35 pm

              6. “it was a critically important Alabama/Auburn-level rivalry at the time that the SEC divided, it would have been a terribly stupid idea to rely an interdivisional game to preserve that.”

                 You’re mistaking College Football (with a bowl system) with the NFL (with a playoff system).

                 With the Bowl system, every game on your team’s schedule counts. Any loss will hurt your ultimate standing.

                 Florida-FSU is a pretty heated rivalry despite not even being the same conference. Same for South Carolina/Clemson and Georgia/Georgia Tech. Lots of schools take their rivalry with Notre Dame seriously, even though it doesn’t affect their conference record. As others have spoken, there are several SEC cross-divisional rivalries that are very heated.

                 The rule for scheduling Big 10 officials need to remember is that you don’t want cross-divisional games played in the last few weeks of the season. If there is going to be a rematch in the conference championship game, you want time between the 2 games.

                 If MSU and Michigan get put in separate divisions but are set as permanent rivals, I don’t think that would reduce the intensity of their annual midseason rivalry. Now, if OSU and MSU get put in separate divisions, that would change the rivalry, because the game would be moving to elsewhere in the season.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 9:41 pm

198. The twitter message to Frank today about TV’s unofficial veto power over superconferences…doesn’t the Big Ten, through the cable network that it owns, have the ability to ignore this if it so desires, especially if Delany and the university presidents sense that through enhanced subscription numbers, it can overcome any disadvantage from ESPN/ABC or Fox on ensuing contracts? (Especially if cable/satellite outlets such as Comcast and DirecTV are receptive to Big Ten expansion.)

     LikeLike

     August 3, 2010 at 2:11 pm Reply

     1. The Big Ten has the ability to ignore it because we’re not looking to blow up any other conferences.

        When it comes down to it, we’re not going to destroy the ACC or Big 12-2 in any scenario.

        The Big East may lose a few, but they don’t have the kind of clout that would matter.

        Plus, ND is independent.

        Any way you slice it, no one can stop the Big Ten from inviting Rutgers/Pitt./Syracuse, etc. since it would clearly be in their best interest and there would be no way to save them by getting a network to agree to pay the Big East big $ like the Big 12-2 seems to have accomplished.

        And Notre Dame is independent, so no one could really stop the Big Ten from inviting them…

        LikeLike

        August 5, 2010 at 1:13 am Reply

199. Heh.

     To close out the Texas-Minnesota story, by what I am sure is a complete coincidence, Texas has seemingly* already negotiated and set up a replacement series for the same years (2015-16) with Notre Dame.

     Since Cal is already on Texas’ schedule for those years, adding ND in addition to existing Minnesota games would have left Texas with a pretty difficult OOC schedule, since the Big 12’s round-robin format will only allow for three OOC games.

     It sure is crazy coincidental that these rights issues with Minnesota and the BTN emerged just when Texas was looking to book a series with Notre Dame. 🙂

     http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/8/3/1603609/texas-vs-notre-dame-in-2015-16

     * I say “seemingly” because it hasn’t been officially announced yet, but Orangebloods is apparently reporting it, and I’ve learned the hard way to believe them.

     LikeLike

     August 3, 2010 at 6:16 pm Reply

     1. Interesting insight, HH… Seemingly schemingly, eh!?!

        After seeing what Brewster stated at BTN coaches media day, was/is pretty obvious that the Univ of Minn was/is pretty peeved about losing that high profile series with Texas. Of course, he did state the U is pretty close to replacing with another high profile BCS team… Will have to wait and see who that will be… Gators?? That’d be fun. Of course they rarely leave the sunshine state in their pre-season…

        On another note…

        Great Plains: Great Lakes:
        -Gophers -Wolverines
        -Badgers -Spartans
        -Hawkeyes -Boilermakers
        -Cornhuskers -Hoosiers
        -Wildcats -Buckeyes
        -Illini -Nittany Lions

        =Perfect competitive sense
        =Perfect natural rivalry sense
        =Perfect geographical sense

        =COMMON SENSE… K.I.S.S…. Let’s play some football…

        LikeLike

        August 3, 2010 at 8:04 pm Reply

        1. By the way, I’ve never chimed in on the division debate, FWIW.

           From my neutral perspective, anything other than a natural east-west geographic division doesn’t make sense to me and would probably leave people wondering, a la the ACC, as to which school is in which division.

           Everything is cyclical. Don’t make divisional line-ups based on who’s good now.

           LikeLike

           August 3, 2010 at 8:18 pm Reply

        2. A lot of people on here are coming to the realization that the East-West split is the only logical way to go……………if you’re concerned about imbalance, agree to review the set-up every 5 years…….

           LikeLike

           August 3, 2010 at 8:49 pm Reply

           1. Keep it simple, and don’t try to predict what will happen in 20 years. Another great thing about this plan is that, in the event of adding 4 eastern/southeastern schools, Purdue and IU are easily moved to the west, and no historic rivalrys are compromised.

              LikeLike

              August 3, 2010 at 9:42 pm Reply

              1. Yes, except if you add RU and Pitt and put them in the East, and move IU and Pur to the West, you’ve made the East stronger and weakened the West, imo. I know Purdue’s been good at times over the years, but I don’t see them doing much in the next 5-7 years. Also, RU’s been weak over the years, but I think they’ll be relatively strong in the near future. So, to me, the East-West split gets a tad dicier with expansion – unless you add Mo instead of Pitt….

                 LikeLike

                 August 4, 2010 at 8:55 am

200. One of the advantages of KISS divisions for the Big Ten is that it puts Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State in the east division. Some people think this is a disadvantage, but think about it. When the Big Ten expands to the eastern seaboard in 2013, Rutgers and Maryland will play in the east division. That means every year Michigan will play on the east coast; every year Ohio State will play on the east coast; every year Penn State will play on the east coast. How great is that! Big Ten alumni on the eastern seaboard will relish the opportunity to see those teams every year.

     LikeLike

     August 3, 2010 at 9:06 pm Reply

     1. I stated it above, but I do think it’s a mistake to expand on the assumption of further expansion. If we do expand again to the east though and its an east-west split, I hope its only to 14. If you’d assumed 4 more eastern teams (even if one is Notre Dame who would insist on being in the east), it would be less like the Big Ten expanded and more like it dissolved from an Ohio State scheduling perspective.

        I’ll refrain from going back to my arguments against the KISS format as I think I’ve probably bored enough people with them, but I really hope the conference doesn’t go that way (looks like I’m being outvoted though 🙂 )

        LikeLike

        August 3, 2010 at 9:49 pm Reply

        1. I hear what you are saying. If OSU ends up in a division with four new teams, it won’t feel like the Big Ten any more. As Nebraska found out when the Texas four joined the Big8, new arrivals can turn a conference upside down. That’s why it’s good Nebraska comes in alone in 2011, and further expansion waits until 2013. In fact, if you want to propose that only one eastern team should be added in 2013, I won’t argue with you. However, I think the Big Ten will be okay adding Rutgers and Maryland at the same time. But that should be the end of the expansion (unless Notre Dame or Staford wants to join — don’t hold your breath).

           Fourteen is good number. Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland are enough to extend the Big Ten footprint from Great Plains to Eastern Seaboard. The new markets and additional inventory of games will boost the BTN, and the research programs of Maryland and Rutgers will boost the CIC. Penn State will be happy to have two companions in the east, and the Big Ten alumni on the east coast will be happy to see their teams playing in their_neighborhood.

           Going beyond fourteen does not significantly add to those benefits, and it threatens to alter the character of the Big Ten and risks diluting the per-school payout from the BTN.

           LikeLike

           August 4, 2010 at 1:52 am Reply

           1. I really have to say I dislike that mentality, especially since it seems to be so prevalent.

              The Big Ten is bigger than geography. I mean I’ve always seen the Big Ten as a collection of large universities with a heavy emphasis on academics, especially graduate level research focused in the practical sciences, and from an athletic side an interest in fielding a large number of diverse sports.

              How in any way shape or form does being a mid-western, mid-atlantic, eastern, or any other location matter toward those sets of attributes? Adding schools on the east (or south or wherever) is not going to “dilute” the BigTen brand UNLESS those schools don’t value the same items the Big Ten currently holds so dear.

              Which only leads to counter your other comment that 14 is the top the conference should go. A team like Pitt is the equal in every way listed above to Rutgers and Maryland. UConn is better academically than our newest addition Neb and has similar success in sports over the past 10 years. Mizzou is roughly equal to Neb academically and does very well in sports (though admittedly is no where near a “top” brand”). Vande, VA, and many others discussed on this board also could easily slide into the discussion.

              And that doens’t even get into schools that might actually fit if given time to adjust like ND or Syracuse, even if they aren’t perfect matches now.

              Facts are adding any of those schools would help the BTN payouts and most would not even hurt the national tv contracts. Most, if not all, are at the very least “acceptable” academically, especially since Nebraska’s addition. To point, they are good schools, good brands, and IMO its the typical “old guard afraid of change” mentality showing through more than hard facts that folks saying “we shouldn’t expand because it just doesn’t feel like the Big Ten anymore”.

              Heck, I actually think even from a scheduling standpoint 16 teams works better as it allows a conference to break up into smaller “pods” (though I hate that term) and allow more varied scheduling while still satying within conference games.

              Anyway, sorry for the rant, I just don’t like it when folks spout the talking-heads drivel about the Big Ten being a “mid-western” conference and that any additions are going to turn it into the next Big12 debacle.

              The Big Ten knows what’s important and only allows (so far anyway) teams that share the view that those are important and I just really don’t think its going to matter if schools from New York, California, or wherever are added. Its still going to be the Big Ten.

              LikeLike

              August 4, 2010 at 8:32 am Reply

              1. I’ll go with Steven on this one…….I see no reason to go beyond 14 unless ND is ready to jump.

                 Although I’d like to see RU and Pitt added, I recognize neither is in the same class as PSU in terms of added value.

                 RU is a geographic and culural reach, plus has no significant history of athletic success. And it’s basketball program is poor.

                 Pitt’s fan base is questionable, and it plays off campus. It’s campus is very “urban” in a way OSU and Minn. are not, in that it is very compacted.

                 Mo. has no record of outstanding athletic success, and it would be rated the lowest academic school in the BT, just behind Neb.

                 U Conn is not an AAU memeber, although it should be. That’s an important technicality. It’s enrollment is only about 24000, about 16000 less than the avg of the other BT public schools. And it’s a gepgraphic reach.

                 Syracuse is private, too small, too cold, too remote. and with insufficient research $s.

                 Lets face it, if there were no BTN, the BT would not be looking to add any of these schools. Given that there is a BTN, RU and Pitt make sense for added inventory, RU for TV sets, Pitt for academics. But adding 4 is diluting the product too much, imo.

                 LikeLike

                 August 4, 2010 at 9:20 am

              2. There comes a point when a conference completely loses its feel though. A 4 pod 16 conference might work (although I wouldn’t support it either), but if you get 2 divisions of 8, with a big push to the east, we would be replacing a lot of games against Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, etc, with east coast schools. There’s nothing wrong with that except I like the teams we play now. I like all the tradition and familiarity with them. If the conference expands to that point, I’ll very much miss the conference we lost.

                 example of division based on east-west with 4 east coast teams (counting ND as east coast)

                 Ohio State
                 Michigan
                 Penn State
                 Michigan State
                 Maryland
                 Rutgers
                 UConn
                 Notre Dame

                 This would leave 7 of the other 10 current teams in the other division. Pods would admittedly help this case a lot, but it would still be replacing a lot of games.

                 Side note: I do think there is something to be said for conferences being regionally defined. The Big Ten can work a northern conference rather than simply a Midwestern one, but I think it helps when you can passionately get whole areas into the conference even when their team isn’t that good.

                 LikeLike

                 August 4, 2010 at 10:28 am

              3. Eric,

                 That is why I don’t think the league is going to expand to 16, probably not even 14. The schools aren’t going to add new members if it means OSU/PSU/UM play the “newbies” every single year, but venture out to Iowa once every 4 or 6 years.

                 The presidents make the decision; Delany answers to the presidents.

                 LikeLike

                 August 4, 2010 at 11:02 am

              4. As a Big ten Fan I would feel disconnected by a pod system in the way that some people like mega churches and some find those grotesque expressions of a faith community.

                 LikeLike

                 August 4, 2010 at 11:35 am

              5. PSU, your anti “the big ten is a Midwestern conference “ rant leaves me scratching my head.
                 The fact is from its humble beginnings its history has bore that out. For you regionalism makes no difference. For most it does. You seem to have a professional sports mentality with this. Even in professional sports there is always an effort to create regional divisions. This is about logistics but it’s also about interest. If there is enough teams in a region there WILL be a division based on regionalism. One more thing I might add is that making a conference too far reaching and disconnected to its base makes it more vulnerable.

                 LikeLike

                 August 4, 2010 at 11:56 am

              6. PSUGuy, I have written extensively on other threads why I think the Midwestern character of the Big Ten matters a great deal. I don’t care how much money is at stake, the Big Ten must say Midwestern. Squeeze as much money out of the Midwest as you can, but don’t try to be something you aren’t. If the money isn’t in the Midwest, then make do with what you’ve got. Your position appears to deny the existence of common cultural ties in broad regions of the country; those common cultural ties are extremely important, to me anyway.

                 LikeLike

                 August 4, 2010 at 12:29 pm

              7. You know its funny I get labeled a “professional” college sports guy (fairly or not) when the joke is all my arguments tend to be focused on things completely away from sports $$$.

                 Facts as I see them are the Big Ten conference is the ONLY conference that actually takes a much larger view of what a conference is and what it should provide to its member schools.

                 Not only is it a way to minimize athletic travel, promote regional competition, or a means to stabilize and maximize athletic revenues (as all conferences currently are), but the Big Ten is also no kidding a vehicle by which its member schools improve the academic status and offerings each member currently enjoys.

                 If NJ, MD, Pitt & Mizzou were added (a less than ideal 4 team addtion mind you) you’re looking at a $2+ BILLION addition to the CIC.

                 You’re talking literally MILLIONS of library volumes, which will soon be available to ALL Big Ten students via an electronic respository system UoM (or MSU, I can never remember which) is developing with Google.

                 You’re talking about increasing the already huge percentage of graduate students who graduate from Big Ten universities, and thus the visibility & influence the conference gets in academic circles because of it.

                 Do these sound like “professionalization” of the college sports landscape?

                 Truth be told they speak to that “bigger” idea the Big Ten conference seems to go after…stabilization of the ENTIRE university (for its member schools), not just its athletics.

                 People bemoan the lose of playing Minnesotta every year (and in fairness if you’ve been playing a long time I can get behind the tradition angle), but ignore the fact that there are TONS of Big Ten fans in the mid-atlantic region (and elsewhere) that would die to have access to their schools more regularly. Hell, Indiana has a “home” game at FedEx field in DC this year. I mean, how much of a “cultural diconnect” can there be when you have enough conference alumni in an area to justify a “home” game 1000 miles away?

                 Say what you guys want, I still think you’re looking at the conference with the wrong worldview. the Big Ten is not “mid-western”, “rural” or any other mundane geographical description (and if so why are schools like Northwestern, OSU, and other urban schools in it?).

                 Its a collection of schools who believe in a very specific university mission. And if the current Big Ten universities see schools out there that share those beliefs, I’d be very disappointed if they sacrifice the further expansion in scope of that belief system just because they want to play the same team they’ve been playing for the past 100 years.

                 All life is change. The trick is knowing how to do it intelligently.

                 And that’s one thing I’m glad to say I think the Big Ten does know.

                 LikeLike

                 August 4, 2010 at 1:02 pm

              8. @Adam

                 I get what you’re saying man, I really do, but here’s the thing. If you REALLY believe that the “make do” mentality is the way to go, then get ready to face the real possibility of watching your (MY) schools lose their prominance.

                 I’m not talking about athletics and I’m not talking about academics…I’m talking about all of it.

                 I’m not one to think the Rust Belt will die off and the Big Ten will be left in a barren wasteland like the old Big 8, but I do think shifting demographics and the possible economic outcomes of such a shift could very well hurt most, if not all, of the Big Ten universities the long term.

                 I’m talking about not having enough money to continue the research funding levels they currently do. Having to raise tuition to private school rates and watching student body levels drastically decline or drastically cutting back on the level/amount of academic offerings to maintain price levels.

                 These are not small institutions. They require a LOT of support and sadly the places that have been the best to them over the past 100 years may simply not have the ability to support them in the coming century.

                 My own Pennsylvania has steadily been cutting the amount of money it sends PSU’s way and as a result PSU’s overall budget is becoming more and more reliant on its own sources of funding (state funding accounted for only ~25% of the schools budget, and none of the athletic, last time I checked).

                 In any case, even though I get your point, I still don’t agree with it. To me the Big Ten is about their goals and where they want to go, not so much where they come from or how they act.

                 LikeLike

                 August 4, 2010 at 1:20 pm

              9. One last post to illustrate my point…

                 PSU’s latest Operating Budget… ~$4 BILLION.

                 Even if you only look at General Funds (the “typical” college expenditures)…~$1.6 BILLION.

                 PA’s funding (ie: from the state) for the same year…$~200 MILLION.

                 And that number has been fairly static for some time.

                 LikeLike

                 August 4, 2010 at 1:54 pm

              10. Bah, that $200 million number should be $368 million (wrong fiscal year).

                  Point still stands.

                  LikeLike

                  August 4, 2010 at 2:01 pm

              11. I actually agree with PSUGuy on this.

                  Another thing to think about is alumni.

                  The Big Ten has enormous numbers of alumni outside the footprint because of how big the base is. The Big Ten Network does allow it to tap into them, but expansion is also about that.

                  NYC and D.C. are probably the two most important markets in terms of where alumni are outside of the Big Ten footprint besides being huge markets in and of themselves.

                  Pennsylvania isn’t Midwest by any definition and yet it fit perfectly into the Big Ten.

                  There’s no doubt in my mind that we can go up and down the eastern seaboard and find schools that would fit the profile without diluting the brand.

                  How are Rutgers/Maryland/Pitt. any different from Purdue/Indiana/Michigan State in any tangible way? Large student bodies with strong academic credentials that will do solidly athletically in the Big Ten. And other than Pitt. they bring markets…

                  Yes, you try to add national brands where you can, but obviously there’s only 10 universities on the Top 10 All Time wins list by definition. You can’t find another 4 Nebraskas or Penn States to add.

                  LikeLike

                  August 4, 2010 at 2:19 pm

              12. Barren wasteland of the old Big 8? That’s harsh. Demographic trends for cities in the old Big 8: Denver, KC, Ok City, Omaha probably compare favorably to many in the industrial Midwest.

                  LikeLike

                  August 4, 2010 at 7:00 pm

              13. @schwarm
                  Well forgive a bit of the comedic exageration.

                  While the cities may have grown at comparable rates the states have not.

                  Considering the reason why the Big 8 fell apart in the first place (at least from a money perspective) was due to the extremely low population density I think my point still has merit.

                  LikeLike

                  August 5, 2010 at 9:03 am

              14. PSUguy,
                  You make some good arguments of which I already acknowledge. In as much as I can agree with your salient points, I still cling to my own.
                  I see no reason why they cannot coexist. My argument being that the Big Ten conference does have a Midwestern identity and probably always will. You can’t wipe out history.

                  To say that you’re a Californian, or a Midwesterner or a New Yorker brings together images in one’s mind of someone’s identity right or wrong. These are strengthened by growing up in the region or having had the opportunity to travel to those locations. Thus these identities may likely have a visceral meaning to the individual. ie I grew up in the South or I went to college in the Midwest or my wife and I are moving to California. There is much more information coming across than just a word or a location and this is the part that you tend to gloss over or don’t understand. There is history, there is a lifestyle there are common expectations.
                  Thus the conference is connected to it’s history, its location and its common expectations and values.

                  LikeLike

                  August 5, 2010 at 2:01 pm

              15. If my school couldn’t afford to maintain its athletic program without conference expansion outside the Midwest, I would rather see them follow Chicago and drop/de-emphasize the athletic program altogether.

                  LikeLike

                  August 5, 2010 at 8:47 pm

              16. Don’t underestimate demographics. Ohio has 25% less high school students than it did 30 years ago-and the population has been growing-which is about to change. I just drove around the midwest in areas I hadn’t been in for about 25 years. There just is not the money as there is across the west coast, east coast and the growing areas of the south. Chicago may be doing fine, but there are a lot of areas that aren’t. One reason (not the only one) there is such a diaspora of B10 alumni is the relative abundance of professional jobs in other parts of the country relative to the midwest. The good manufacturing base has been disappearing- much overseas, while auto plants disperse to rural areas and small towns in the south (not the big cities-Atlanta has lost Ford and GM plants in recent years). Now, after driving a lot on the interstates-the market for truck drivers in the midwest is REALLY healthy.

                  LikeLike

                  August 5, 2010 at 10:09 pm

              17. @StvInIL
                  Here’s the thing. I was born in central PA, within spitting distance of PSU’s main campus. I grew up in western PA and to this day I describe myself as a “PA Mountain Boy”. All the people and cultural of that location has helped make me who I am today.

                  And that person is someone who has been living outside of PA for the past 6 years and realistically (and sadly) will most likely never return.

                  I had to follow the work and start my own life, but it forced me to realize I had to make a decision. Do I want to be a person who’s past is a part of me, or is that past what defines me.

                  I’ve said before that all life is change and thus I didn’t allow the past to define me. I left PA and am doing great (well, mostly anyways). I can honestly say my life would be nothing like what it is now if I had stayed, and to be fair maybe it would have been better, but I have to admit I don’t think it would have.

                  In context of the Big Ten, it is great to have such a storied and firm history from which to draw on, but in the end the conference is going to have to make a decision on what is more important. Being labeled a “Mid-Western” conference or potentially losing that tag to ensure the realities of our times don’t prevent the universities from doing that which they excel at.

                  I’m not saying they MUST go to 14, 16, 57, etc. I’m saying if the facts come in and it looks like the smart thing to do, the fact the Big Ten was historically a “mid-western only” conference should bear minimally, if at all, in the decision process.

                  @Adam
                  Its not a matter of watching your school go the route of Chicago. Its a matter of watching your school lose the OTHER aspects of the university. I would be very disappointed if PSU lost its academic rankings (and thus my investment in that education becomes worth less) because it doesn’t have the local base to maintain the levels of excellence it achieved prior. How would you feel about the same happening to your school?

                  LikeLike

                  August 6, 2010 at 8:47 am

              18. Of course I don’t want it to happen, but until it actually does happen (i.e., until it comes to pass and has to be remedied), I’m not interested in selling out the Big Ten’s midwestern soul speculating that doing so may become necessary sometime in the indefinite future.

                  LikeLike

                  August 6, 2010 at 4:49 pm

           2. Adding Maryland and Rutgers at the same time has an added bonus. They are teams from two different conferences. There is no baggage broth fourth like bringing along 4 teams from the same conference might do. They simply come in like two kids from different 6th grade classes on the first day of Junior high.

              LikeLike

              August 4, 2010 at 11:43 am Reply

              1. I’ll go part way to defend PSU guy. I think it is important to define your brand, protect and grow it. Some things are important, and some are not. The fact that the big ten is in the midwest does not define it. You have the MAC, the MVC, and even the big 12 if you define the midwest broadly enough, and yet the big ten institutions are distinguishable from them. What makes the big ten a unique brand are large research oriented schools with national alumni that compete at a high athletic level. That being said, the BTN changes the equation, and to be considered for expansion you have to bring more to the table than you will take from it, and that limits some of the schools that would otherwise be considered potential big ten schools. The geographic component is there, but it is only a practical consideration, for example Texas saying they did not want their softball team flying around the midwest. You can see that the BTN pushes geographical expansion into new television markets, and the practical travel consideration restrains this tendency.

                 When you look at things this way, there are simply not that many candidates that fit the bill for expansion, and mostly to the East.

                 LikeLike

                 August 4, 2010 at 2:50 pm

201. vincent,

     per our conversation long ago about the BE being safer than the Big 12 or ACC

     http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5435085

     looks like I am right so far that the memphis to the BE was bad rumor

     LikeLike

     August 4, 2010 at 12:29 am Reply

     1. Screw you, we’re from Texas.

        With that out of the way:

        1) Since schools cycle, the B11+1 worrying so much about competitive balance may suggest that they are looking at short-term scheduling and are likely to continue to expand. Otherwise you go with the many benefits of a natural geographic split since the competition would probably somewhat even out over time (witness MI at the moment.) There’s enough in NE, WI, and IA (with NW and IL having their moments and MN potential) that it probably wouldn’t be as skewered as the B12 North became.

        2) Don’t be shocked if ND-TX ends up an in-conference game. Could see the formation of an oxymoronic Independent Conference with UT-ND-OU-USC anchors and their tagalongs if we do go to 4 16-school super conferences.

        From what has come out it seems apparent that Delany’s first choice vision was 4×16, and if TX had gone to the P16 then the dominoes would have quickly fallen that way (with ND forced into the B11+5.) Mack Brown said he was convinced that was happening the night before TX scuttled the P16 deal, and Mack was in the loop. Delany appears to still be on the expansion train preparing for departure, though hinting that a Jan-June 2011 wrapup might be delayed.

        Even if he can’t land TX, 4×16 (and ND) may well hinge on TX being ready to move. B11+5 forming and TX moving into another super conference surely forces the SEC and then the final alignment. But perhaps the payoff from consolidating to 4×16 are so high that Delany would make the move even without ND. Hence Delany may feel a slight delay to accommodate TX is in the B11+1’s interest even if TX’s destination is a wildcard that risks ND.

        The Texas governor’s race is in November and the legislature will meet from Jan-May 2011, then not meet again until 2013. However with contentious redistricting, special sessions might stretch into the fall. Once all that is over then several political landmines are defused and we aren’t as likely to see the same level of state political pressure exerted to prevent movement. Late 2011 or early 2012 may be the perfect time for TX and aTm to jump. (Oh yeah, that Longhorn TV thingee should be launched by then. P12 commish recently said that wasn’t a deal-breaker, FWIW.)

        While the Ags are salivating on their bibs for the SEC, the conventional wisdom is that TX has no good choice but the P16 if 4×16 emerges. Not so fast, my friends. While TX wants no part of the thieving SEC nor to be a lonely frontier extension of the B11+5, they would prefer a better fit with more control then in the P16 (especially with Aggie gone.) Unless they get an 80% approval requirement for conference matters, 4 votes to 12 is a losing hand that 5 to 11 would not have been.

        Hence I would expect TX to at least make a play at forming their own super conference to fit alongside the SEC and B11+5 and let the P12 and ACC leftovers partner for the 4th super conference. Despite their weakened status at the moment there continue to be rumblings of unrest from USC in the P12. If ND is forced into a conference (4×16 or equivalent is about the only way, and even that isn’t assured to be enough) then they’d prefer it to be on their terms, not the relatively inflexible B11+1’s. Thus an opportunity for a USC-OU-TX-ND alternative.

        Such an Independent Conference could allow for greater merit-based revenue allocation than the B12-2 and P12 currently employ. This could better enable individual school channels and TV deals loosely affiliated with an overarching conference channel, the content pie spread more thinly but the revenue thresholds lower.

        Utilizing pods could allow for as few as 6 or 7 conference games and more flexibility, perhaps even an uneven number of annual games fit in. Divisions that change every year. By starting from scratch such a conference could customize to fit the desires of the anchors in a way the SEC, P16, and B16 could not. USC, TX, and ND might find such a conference could offer more money, scheduling flexibility, and promotion (individual channels and TV deals) than any other conference. Semi-independence in the convenience of a conference format for the 3 schools perhaps most able to go independent.

        USC-OU-TX-ND as anchors would get stellar TV interest, enough that could threaten SOME of the supposed truisms that “No one would leave X conference for Y.” Going to 4×16 is such a shift that it likely creates its own stability for all of the surviving 4. But who would they bring along? At that point probably their choice of the P12, B12-2, BEast, and perhaps AR. ACC, too, if the B11+ and SEC raid them. Too many possibilities to conclusively predict, but one possibility might be:

        Cal, UCLA, USC, AZ, ASU, BYU, TTech, Baylor (Texas politics,) TX, OU, OK St, AR, ND, UConn, Pitt, Navy.

        Lots of big names and medium names and the necessary schedule breathers, but everyone has several neighbors. Obviously plenty of schools can be swapped in and out and rationalized for such.

        Don’t be fixated on trying to fit into neat 4-school geographic pods. That can be mitigated and optimized with the flexibility of 1 to whatever number of annual rivalries that would vary for each school, divisions that change every year, and NFL-style scheduling.

        Why would schools leave the P12? How are they going to grow into the P16 without ‘watering down’ if TX won’t join and 3 other super conferences are forming? They’re Achilles’ heel is geographically isolation. So if TX and ND appear close to forming a super conference, USC may see the writing on the wall. If they go, others will follow.

        Then you have ample pickings from schools desperate not to be left on the outside of 4×16. Big enough names for strong TV appeal but currently tenuous enough to settle for uneven revenue splits and other compromises. Witness the MO-ISU-KS-KState volunteered payoffs to keep the B12 intact. ND-TX-USC wouldn’t be asking for such payments, but rather merit/appearance-based distribution, individual school channels, etc.

        Not saying such an Independent Conference is likely, but rather a possibility. Due diligence would suggest that TX will explore this or similar before re-entering negotiations with the P12, unless they’re ok with joining without aTm (I doubt it.)

        3) Playoffs – I used to be against 4×16 super conferences, but am now ok with it IF they allow a provision for a qualified outsider team to make their playoff system. In fact I think such a clause is certain to happen before they can actually pull off 4×16 and keep Congress from killing it.

        Here’s how it could work. 4 conferences where each pick 2 teams to advance to an 8-school playoff using 4 New Year’s (BCS) holiday bowls. 4 winners play on-campus afterwards, with the championship in climate-controlled 100K seat Jerry World in the center of the country.

        Have a provision where the highest-ranked outsider could replace the lowest-ranked of the 8 4×16 playoff qualifiers. Use a BCS-style computer/poll/committee system to determine rankings.

        However, the outsider team can’t replace a 4×16 team if they have the same number of losses, despite the rankings. Thus the outsider from a supposedly weaker non-4×16 conference must have a better overall record than the team they would replace.

        There are various ways the 4×16 could decide who there 8 playoffs teams are, this is just one of them. Interesting that an 8-school playoff is what Mack Brown advocates, and presumably TX. After being labeled the villain who blocked playoffs, Delany probably wouldn’t mind creating them as his legacy before he retires. A playoff would satisfy many of the fans who otherwise would scream for Congressional meddling should 4×16 come about. Thus TX and Delany’s end games may be similar and not what conventional wisdom expects.

        LikeLike

        August 4, 2010 at 1:45 pm Reply

202. For those of you that like pods, you can design very nice pods for a 14-team Big Ten. First, you put Wisc-Minn-Iowa in one pod and OSU-Mich-MSU in another. Nebraska goes in the third pod with Illinois and Northwestern, and PSU goes in the fourth pod with Indiana and Purdue. This puts a headline team in each pod and perserves traditional rivalries.

     When the Big Ten goes to 14 teams, the two new teams will go to the two closest pods. For example, if Maryland and Rutgers are the teams, one will go into the PSU pod and one will go into the OSU pod. That gives us two 3-team pods and two 4-team pods. So the OSU pod (4 teams) joins the Wisconsin pod (3 teams) to form a division (while PSU and Nebraska do the same). After two years, the divisions reform, with OSU-Nebraska in one and PSU-Wisconsin in the other.

     In addition to the six divisional games, the Big Ten will have three crossover games. This will enable Wisc-Minn-Iowa to play Neb-Ill-NW every year and PSU-Rutgers to play OSU-Maryland every year.

     LikeLike

     August 4, 2010 at 3:34 pm Reply

     1. I really don’t think you move to pods till you hit 16.

        You can still have an intimate league with 14 teams and 9 games. 6 games against division, 3 cross-over. You play every school every 3 years (if you have 1 mandated cross-over rival).

        In fact, I tend to believe that a move to a 9 game season is a precursor to a 14 school Big Ten with divisions.

        LikeLike

        August 4, 2010 at 3:57 pm Reply

        1. Yeah, I prefer static divisions too — even for 16 teams. However, rotating pods work well for 14 teams and enable all teams to play each other at least two years out of four. Static divisions are simple (and I do like simple), but they do limit cross-divisional contact.

           LikeLike

           August 4, 2010 at 5:05 pm Reply

           1. “Static divisions are simple (and I do like simple), but they do limit cross-divisional contact.”

              Solution: don’t expand so much that you need to do something goofy like pods in order to ensure sufficient cross-divisional contact.

              LikeLike

              August 6, 2010 at 4:52 pm Reply

203. Well, I broke down and read about 20 pages of the 163 page thread on the Md site about conference expansion….and have some general comments—-

     1. If that site is representative, there is some enthusiasm amoung MD FOOTBALL fans for a move to the Big 10….I wonder what their bball fans think, as bball is probably the more dominent sport there…..When people talk MD football, they should realize that MD averaged 44000 fans last year, and is 4-44 all-time against the Big 10 (mostly PSU). I really don’t see the Big 10 taking MD ahead of Pitt because Pitt has the natural rivalry with PSU (and a little with OSU), has $200M more in annual research $, including a top-rated medical school, has a much better football history (football is just more important in PA than in MD, and would generate much less controversy (do you really want a school in the league when 40-60% of the fans don’t want to be there?)

     2. All that said, if MD DID agree to come to the Big 10, I think the addition of RU, Pitt, MD, and Missouri to go to 16 teams would be very solid. I’ve been one that has said don’t go to 16 with no ND, but if you can get MD and eliminate having to add Syracuse you’ve really added 4 pretty impressive schools that fit the Big 10 blueprint. All but Mo. are rated in the 50s or 60s by US News, so you have enough academic cover to add Mo. All have eenrollments ranging from 27000-37000…..All are significant research schools….

     3. So that means no ND, but……..I really think the 9 game conference school JD is pushing eliminates ND anyway. They’re going to go to the ACC or some version of the BE where they can play 7 conference games….and the Big 10 won’t back down from 9 games once the league goes to 14 teams….I really think if the Big 10 went with these 16 teams it would be set for 50 years……and the divisions set up well:

     RU
     Pitt
     MD
     PSU
     OSU
     MSU
     Mich
     IU

     MO
     NEB
     Ill
     Minn
     PU
     NW
     Wis
     Iowa

     4. The loss of rivalries would certainly be a concern…if you played 6 from your division with 1 protected rival from the other division, you can only play 2/7 of the other division teams each year, even with a 9 game schedule….BUT…with this split you do play all the “essential” rivaly games each year….UM-OSu, UM-MSU, PSU-OSU, PSU-MD, IU-Pur (protected game), Ill-NW, Iowa-WIS, Minn-WIS, Minn-Iowa, Neb-Mo, Neb-Iowa, Neb-Wis, Neb-Minn, Ill-Mo.,Ill-Pur …then have Iowa as UM’s cross-rival, Neb as PSU’s, and Wis as OSU’s….so from this IU fan’s perspective, we would only play Ill, Minn, NW, WIS, and Iowa once every 3 years or so….these ARE old rivals, but until the 70s or so, we only played them every few years…it would not particularly bother me to play MD, Pitt, and RU every year and 2/7 of Mo, Neb, Ill, Minn, NW, Wis, and Iowa every year…

     LikeLike

     August 4, 2010 at 4:56 pm Reply

     1. shroom,

        I agree on your point #3

        could this mean you might be getting on the MD bus? GASP! *faints*

        MD should be the better get over Syracuse, When I read some MD site back in march – may (probably linked in earlier FtT) the MD to the Big 10 was running around 75 – 80 %. With a new president and AD coming in it will be interesting to see.

        LikeLike

        August 4, 2010 at 6:11 pm Reply

        1. I agree that Maryland (and Rutgers) should get higher priority over Syracuse for a 14-member Big Ten. But if it goes to 16, SU is a viable candidate if it can either boost its own research or continue developing solid alignments with the SUNY system. New York state remains a valuable asset despite its economic woes of late, and Syracuse is the only way for the Big Ten to tap into that resource.

           LikeLike

           August 4, 2010 at 7:31 pm Reply

           1. Rutgers/Maryland to me seems like the one possibility that the Big Ten might move on in the next year in to a move to 14 without Notre Dame if it is possible.

              Rutgers/Pitt. or Rutgers/Syracuse is a viable backup plan over the next 2-3 years, but Rutgers/Maryland gives you everything you want in the east in terms of markets/academics and targeting of Big Ten alumni in NYC/D.C.

              If the new leadership has a lot of Big Ten roots, then we could see a push by the Big Ten, but until we know, it’s impossible to really speculate on the Maryland side of things.

              I look at Maryland as being similar to Nebraska in the one respect that if there is a window of opportunity I think the Big Ten would act.

              Rutgers is guaranteed to be #13, the question is who is the partner. Does it have to be Notre Dame? (According to Delany this seems to be a no.)

              Then you ask if Maryland is open for business? If they are, I think we act on it.

              The question is how the leadership at Maryland will view all of this…

              Will they really want to move Maryland within a year of taking over? etc. All important questions to be determined in the future.

              LikeLike

              August 4, 2010 at 7:59 pm Reply

        2. It still seems very doubtful to me….imo, the Big 10 presidents seem pretty passive on the expansion issue, by and large…..they didn’t even include Neb. in the original expansion study even though most everyone on this site considered them a prospect….Neb. essentially fell into their hands….there is zero indication that anyone at MD has been contacted, directly or indirectly, about expansion….so odds are, if they do expand, that they will go with one of the schools in the original study.

           What could change that dynamic would be strong leadership by the new pres. and AD at MD. If they took the initiative of contacting the Big 10, the Big 10 pres. might be more willing to think outside the box….I don’t think the pres. are looking to sell a school on the BT……..I would think it highly unlikely that a new pres and AD would have the gonads to make such a huge initiative on their first year on the job……….

           LikeLike

           August 4, 2010 at 8:15 pm Reply

           1. shroom,

              I remember early discussions on here with Frank or somebody else about looking at who was not in the 5 expansion targets mentioned in the december article. Nebraska and Maryland were mentioned. I still feel as was in the early discussion that the 5 candidates were “secondary” schools as ND, UT, UNL, MD would be primary, and not need such research. i tend to still think this even now, and why Nebraska was not the surprise others thought it was.

              I still think with folks like Delany and Slive that they will be much mire likely to backdoor discussions than someone like Scott or Beebe. I am willing to accept this thinking as wrong, but have not found conclusive proof that such is the case. I guess we will have to wait and see after the season is over, and sometime into the new year.

              LikeLike

              August 5, 2010 at 12:08 am Reply

              1. Except……ND was one of the 5 studied. The others were RU, Mo., Syracuse, and Pitt.

                 LikeLike

                 August 5, 2010 at 9:06 am

     2. The one reason I’m still on the Maryland bus is the huge uncertainty in the situation.

        Until we know who’s actually going to be running Maryland we shouldn’t count anything out…

        In fact, I tend to also think that the Big Ten may be waiting to see what happens there. The two most important positions are unfilled and until we see who the next Prez/AD are, we cannot know what happens to Maryland.

        I’m really hoping that they’re former Big Ten or Big Ten educated guys.

        If they’re ACC people, then I think we can put a damper on the discussion.

        That really is the most important wrinkle to all of this.

        LikeLike

        August 4, 2010 at 7:51 pm Reply

        1. zeek,

           remember delany and slive both were educated in the ACC. I feel a new Pres or AD from the ACC would not hurt the Big 10 position. I know Yow leaving for NC State might slow an SEC move that way as she came from Kentucky to take the job at Maryland. I agree tho, who they hire should be a good indicator which way they are leaning.

           LikeLike

           August 5, 2010 at 12:13 am Reply

204. shroom, say it isn’t so. You actually see a possible crab cake in the Big Ten future?

     If academics were a bigger part of the equation I can see Pitt & Maryland as the top invitees now that the two prima donnas are off the board. UMD-College Park started a new strategic plan which is going to require access to more resources which PSUguy has pointed out are part of the benefits of the CIC.

     LikeLike

     August 4, 2010 at 6:09 pm Reply

     1. Well, I really like the combo of RU, Pitt, MD, and MO., in conjunction with Neb. With these 5 schools you would get:

        1 huge fball school
        3 above average fball schools (Pitt, Mo, RU — I know RU’s history isn’t that great, but I like their immediate future…)
        1 football school that is below avg but doesn’t suck like IU or Minnehaha
        3 very good bball schools that cover for Neb and RU
        3 solid olympic sports programs (Neb., Mo., MD) that cover for Pitt and RU
        3 schools ranked in the 50s-60s by US News, that cover for Neb. and Mo.
        2 huge research schools (Pitt, MD) + 3 others that are above average
        4 schools that are unquestionably the primary u in their state
        4 new states/markets, plus 1 other school in a state with a huge population (PA)
        4 schools with enrollments between 27000-37000
        3 eastern schools, 2 western schools
        4 schools whose fans would be very pleased to be in the BT
        3 schools which to me are perfect cultural/geographic fits (Neb, Mo., Pitt)

        Each of the schools, when considered individually, has very obvious weaknesses; however, the weaknesses are offset by the strengths of the others when considered in combination.

        I don’t think this would be described as a “home run”, but it would be very solid..with none of the nasty aftereffects of adding ND….If I was JD I’d get busy trying to sell it to the MD officials and the Big 10 presidents……

        LikeLike

        August 4, 2010 at 8:49 pm Reply

        1. Some more thoughts—

           Really don’t think this plan has much of a chance of happening, at least in the short-run. However, once you look at it it really smacks you in the face as a solid “50 year plan”. If you drop MD and add Syracuse I would say it sucks — MD is the key to going to 16 if ND declines — Syracuse, U Conn, GT, Miami, BC, KU don’t cut it, for one reason or another…

           I would grade this expansion as follows

           Football B+
           Basketball D+
           Olympic sports C
           Geographic Fit B
           Cultural Fit B+
           Institutional Fit B+
           Academics B-
           Research B
           Markets/BTN B+

           LikeLike

           August 5, 2010 at 8:59 am Reply

           1. 2 mushroomgods?

              LikeLike

              August 5, 2010 at 11:26 am Reply

           2. if you had to go with a smaller college like the ‘Cuse then the other orange & blue, Virginia, would be more desirable at this point. However, the sports history of the Orange is much better than the Cavs. Which is more important if it was down to these 2 @ #16: the past, the present or the future?

              LikeLike

              August 5, 2010 at 11:32 am Reply

              1. IMO I think its more about teriary considerations at that point.

                 Syracuse, with Rutgers and the PSU/UoM/OSU/Rest of BigTen Alumni, will lock down New York, NYC (as much as it can), and make good inroad’s into New England.

                 UVA arguably splits VA with VT (though there are a lot of Big Ten alumni iin the area).

                 Then again, UVA academics are much better.

                 Still, I think Syracuse would be the preferred choice based on markets & athletics with the understanding its (Cuse) academic/research rankings need to improve.

                 LikeLike

                 August 5, 2010 at 11:41 am

205. Some info on the U. of Maryland presidential search: There’s a good chance that an interim president will be named, according to a report in the Diamondback a few weeks ago. However, were that to happen, it would be appointed by Kirwan, who oversees the entire university system and, as we know, has ties to Ohio State:

     http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/next-president-might-not-be-permanent-1.1497552#5

     It’s entirely possible university officials are deferring until after the gubernatorial election to appoint a permanent president, perhaps fearing Big Ten membership could be a hot potato politically among some constituencies in the state and that it might be better to wait to avoid potential demagoguery, particularly from the status quo camp whose interest in the university is limited to basketball games against UNC and Duke.

     http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/next-president-might-not-be-permanent-1.1497552#5

     LikeLike

     August 4, 2010 at 9:06 pm Reply

     1. Hopefully, you guys find someone like Theresa Sullivan who just took charge of UVA.

        LikeLike

        August 6, 2010 at 2:23 pm Reply

206. Has anyone suggested a two-division set-up with a promotion/relegation structure? Because that would be cool. 🙂

     LikeLike

     August 4, 2010 at 9:46 pm Reply

     1. Hop,

        how would you have it look?

        LikeLike

        August 5, 2010 at 12:14 am Reply

     2. Right. You want promotion-relegation, you get promotion-relegation. Start with two geographical divisions, six teams in each, five divisional games, four crossovers. The top three teams in each division use three of their crossover games to play the top three teams of the other division. That produces nine headline games for televison and gives each team the same strength of schedule. The remaining crossover game rotates through the three bottom teams.

        Meanwhile, the three bottom teams play three crossover games versus the bottom teams of the other division and one game versus a top team.

        At the end of the season, the best bottom team in each division is promoted to the top group (and the worst top team demoted). But this only happens if the promoted team finishes higher in the division than the demoted team. Considering that the top teams are facing much tougher competition in their crossover matches, it is quite likely that the best bottom team will finish higher than the worst top team. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t deserve promotion.

        This could begin in 2011 with Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin as the top west teams and Michigan, OSU and PSU as the top east teams. Nebraska would play Iowa and Wisconsin in conference and crossover to play Michigan, OSU and PSU. Five tough games. Each of those teams would face similar schedules. Five tough games for everyone.

        Meanwhile Illinois and the other bottom schools will have easier schedules. If Illinois finishes ahead of Northwestern and Minnesota in the end-of-season conference ranking, it will have an opportunity for promotion. If Iowa is the worst performing top team in the west division and it finishes below Illinois, then it will be demoted and Illinois promoted. Then in 2012 Illinois will play with the top teams and Iowa will play with the bottom teams. A similar promotion-relegation will occur in the east division.

        ADVANTAGES
        * maximizes headline games
        * makes lower-level matches more interesting
        * adds excitement to finishing 3rd (not 4th)
        DISADVANTAGES
        * more tough games may increase injuries
        * a few teams will meet only 1 year in 3

        LikeLike

        August 5, 2010 at 1:18 am Reply

        1. Oh that sounds too European. back to a nine game confrence schedule please. 🙂

           LikeLike

           August 5, 2010 at 2:13 pm Reply

207. Testing.

     LikeLike

     August 5, 2010 at 1:14 am Reply

208. Couple other disadvantages.
     1.) makes it harder for a big ten team to win the national championship with probably one extra tough game a year.
     2.) Schedules are typically made years in advance, and this structure would only allowing scheduling after the preceeding year.
     Still, I really like this alot. All advantages are relavent to BTN, therefore I think this has a great shot at consideration. Another advantage is that it easily accomodates expansion.

     LikeLike

     August 5, 2010 at 10:51 am Reply

     1. As far as scheduling goes, only the crossover games would be affected by promotion-relegation. You could still schedule the divisional games years in advance. Moreover, if all crossover games were played on the same four Saturdays, uncertainties could be minimized by holding the games at west stadiums for weeks 1 and 3 and at east stadiums for weeks 2 and 4. That way the home teams could book facilities and make arrangements in advance.

        LikeLike

        August 5, 2010 at 12:59 pm Reply

     2. It sounds like a good fit for Canadian College football. It’s (College Football) too important to to use that setup here.

        LikeLike

        August 5, 2010 at 2:15 pm Reply

209. From this link

     http://www.tidesports.com/article/20100805/NEWS/100809836/1011?p=all&tc=pgall

     2 observations

     a) SEC now has 2 in the top 5

     b) UCLA is #10, but is not a NC machine

     LikeLike

     August 5, 2010 at 11:32 am Reply

     1. In rank

        BIG 10
        BIG 10
        SEC
        BIG 10
        SEC
        BIG 12
        PAC 10
        SEC
        SEC
        PAC 10

        and the powers in CFB are BIG 10 and SEC, what a surprise 🙂

        LikeLike

        August 5, 2010 at 11:35 am Reply

        1. I think they should all get to work on the most comfortable college football stadium. With 100,000,000 of your closest friend around you, don’t know how many of these make the cut. Once you get over 40 you are also looking around for more washrooms and closer concessions. Selfishly I jest.

           LikeLike

           August 5, 2010 at 2:22 pm Reply

     2. Duff – Here’s my observation of your observations:

        1. If you look further down the list of stadium capacities, you’ll see that SEC has 6 of the top 12, and 9 stadiums with capacities over 70,000 (top 32).

        2. UCLA may have stadium capacity with the Rose Bowl, but they rarely fill it up. Miami, Tulane, UAB, and Rice all play in stadiums with capacities over 70,000, but always plenty of room to spread out.

        3. Alabama gives visitors by far the worst allotment of tickets in the SEC. That end zone nosebleed pictured in the above link is where I’ll be in November 2011.

        LikeLike

        August 5, 2010 at 2:22 pm Reply

        1. Another observation… probably already stated somewhere in these threads…

           Each of these 10 teams play in markets with no direct competition with a Pro Football team. Many are in markets where there’s NO direct competition with ANY pro sporting teams.

           Lot harder to sell college football seats (regardless of the team’s performance) in a town that is also selling out pro baseball, pro football, pro and college hockey, and some pro basketball seats during the college football season… SEE Minneapolis.

           Also see other large markets dominated by Pro sports… NYC, Chicago, Pittsburgh, St Louis, Miami, Seattle, Denver… Those hometown universities all battle uphill…

           LikeLike

           August 5, 2010 at 2:54 pm Reply

210. For Immediate Release
     Contact: Scott Chipman, Big Ten Conference
     August 5, 2010

     INDIANAPOLIS’ LUCAS OIL STADIUM SELECTED AS PROPOSED SITE
     FOR 2011 BIG TEN FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
     Big Ten will conduct thorough review process to determine site or sites for 2012 and beyond

     Park Ridge, Ill. – The Big Ten Conference announced today that Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis has been chosen as the proposed site for the inaugural Big Ten Football Championship Game to be played in December of 2011. The conference office will begin a 30-day period to negotiate a one-year agreement with Indiana Sports Corp and Lucas Oil Stadium to host the game. Once the 2011 agreement is in place, the conference office will conduct a thorough process over the next year to determine the location of the Big Ten Football Championship Game in 2012 and beyond.

     “We are excited to work with Indiana Sports Corp and Lucas Oil Stadium to finalize an agreement to hold the inaugural Big Ten Football Championship Game in the city of Indianapolis,” said Big Ten Commissioner James E. Delany. “We felt at this time it was important to identify a site for the first championship game and then spend more time with other cities and venues with respect to both our basketball tournaments and the football championship games in the future. The city of Indianapolis has been an outstanding host for our basketball tournaments, and we look forward to holding our first Big Ten Football Championship Game in Lucas Oil Stadium.”

     The 115th season of Big Ten football kicks off on Thursday, Sept. 2, as Indiana hosts Towson, Minnesota plays at Middle Tennessee State, and Ohio State welcomes Marshall. The conference’s other eight teams open action on Saturday, Sept. 4.

     LikeLike

     August 5, 2010 at 4:12 pm Reply

     1. Miles from Lincoln to Arlington: 651
        Miles from Lincoln to Indianapolis: 641

        Miles from Lincoln to Kansas City: 195
        Miles from Austin to Kansas City: 738
        Miles from Columbus to Kansas City: 658

        Miles from Columbus to Indianapolis: 175
        Miles from Austin to Arlington: 199

        Just sayin’.

        LikeLike

        August 5, 2010 at 4:22 pm Reply

        1. Just saying “what” exactly?

           LikeLike

           August 5, 2010 at 4:34 pm Reply

           1. Just Sayin Nebraska will have to travel whether it be Arlington or Indianapolis to pick up a much awaited CC crown.
              But honestly Big Ten Geographic’s won’t be rearranged for Nebraska, over night or ever. They are the new guys n the block. And they got more than just a big travel itinerary coming into the conference. Horn’s just sticking the Nebraskans with the pitch fork a bit. Why not, I guess you got to be able to take as well as dish.

              LikeLike

              August 5, 2010 at 4:58 pm Reply

        2. Airfare from Omaha on 12/3 and returning 12/5
           Dallas: $331 (with a connection in Milwaukee)
           Indianapolis $218.

           Just saying…

           Also not really sure why you put Kansas City on there. It was quite obvious the Big XII had no intention of playing there anymore.

           LikeLike

           August 5, 2010 at 4:53 pm Reply

        3. My educated guess is that Tom Osborne and Harvey Perlman knew how to read maps before they made the decision to apply for Big Ten membership. Yes, Nebraska will have to travel about the same distance for the CCG, but they will not have to worry about the CCG being a non-neutral site. There might be some argument with that if Purdue or Indiana make the CCG but I don’t see that happening in the near future. Even if either did it is not like either school is a “heavyweight” in the conference.
           From what I’m seeing, Nebraska will have no regrets being a Big Ten member. Even after the honeymoon cools they will have a prominent place in the conference.

           LikeLike

           August 6, 2010 at 5:32 am Reply

           1. So a Big 12 CCG in KC between Nebraksa and Texas would be a “neutral site” game, and a CCG in Arlington would not be, despite the fact that the distances between Austin/Arlington and KC/Lincoln are practically identical, and it’s slightly longer to get from Austin to KC than it is from Lincoln to Arlington?

              Makes no sense to me.

              LikeLike

              August 6, 2010 at 10:48 am Reply

              1. KC is a KU city. Arlington is a UT city.

                 I think that’s the problem.

                 Indy technically belongs to Purdue if anyone but I don’t think anyone is worried about that kind of home field advantage.

                 And Penn State has to travel almost as far as Nebraska. That’s as fair as it gets, when two of the heavyweights have big travel to get to it and it’s not in Ohio or Michigan this time around…

                 LikeLike

                 August 6, 2010 at 11:00 am

              2. Cowboys fans get first dibs at CCG tickets in Arlington, so how neutral is it?

                 LikeLike

                 August 6, 2010 at 4:46 pm

        4. # of consecutive years BXII title game in Arlington: 5

           # of consecutive years Big 10 title game in Indy: 1

           LikeLike

           August 6, 2010 at 11:41 am Reply

     2. This is a terrible idea. Playing a conference title game in Indy in a dome. How original…..This game should be played at noon in Green Bay. Then rotate it around. Cleveland, Deroit, Chicago etc… Now we just mix our game in with all the other conferences that day.

        LikeLike

        August 5, 2010 at 5:00 pm Reply

        1. I’m so with you here MAC. But the pussies who will buy over-prices tickets will want to be comfortable at all times. Perhaps I am becoming one of them. If I have to drive to Indi to see a game late in the season, I guess I cant complain that I can go see the game in a button down oxford shirt if I wanted to. But the purist in me really wants to see that game in Chicago with the elements. The Pussies in SoCal and Georgia will show their news clips of a game in 85 degrees sunshine and the other will be in a dome. We will look unique and REAL if there is 3 inches of snow on the ground and the elements play a role in a game in Soldiers field. I think it should be automatically played every other year in Soldiers field. I don’t hear the bears complaining about playing football in real weather.

           LikeLike

           August 5, 2010 at 9:38 pm Reply

           1. I went to the SEC championship game in 2001. Only time I’ve been to an indoor game for college. It reminded me of going to a game in the old Kingdome. Boring and generic. The SEC folk seemd to like it though which is what matters I guess. Looking back on it that game was where Tennessee started to fade into norlmacy and LSU became a national power again.

              LikeLike

              August 6, 2010 at 3:08 am Reply

           2. StvInIl – weather cuts both ways. For most of the football season, the Big Ten plays in ideal conditions, ie 50s, 60s, 70s. A few years ago, I was in Wisconsin in early September and went to an early afternoon Wisconsin Badger game (sunny, low 70s) and never broke a sweat. At the Green Bay game that following Monday night, I had to buy a sweatshirt, but was otherwise very comfortable.

              Current temperature in Baton Rouge is a cool (for us)87 degrees, relatively low humidity (for us) at 67%, with a heat index of 103 degrees. By comparison, current temperature in Chicago is 77 degrees, with 53% humidity and a heat index of 81 degrees.

              In early September, there are plenty of locations in the SEC where the game time heat index will exceed 110 degrees.

              LikeLike

              August 6, 2010 at 11:11 am Reply

              1. Your right Alan,
                 It cuts both ways. This is why I was interested to see one of the Big ten teams in Austin in late august or September and also see the UT come to Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota or Northwestern late in the season with freezing temps and sleet. Par for the course for us but I would have liked to see how much it affected those guys.

                 LikeLike

                 August 6, 2010 at 5:32 pm

              2. Alan, that’s a good point that is often overlooked. Especially among us Midwesterners. I went to a Vols game in late August in Nashville a few years ago. It was brutal. I think that was the first game of the season the year after LSU beat UT in the SEC Title game in 01.

                 LikeLike

                 August 7, 2010 at 8:07 pm

        2. Agree totally. Indoor football sucks – see e.g. MN in the Metrodome. Rotate as follows:

           1. Lucas Oil
           2. Soldier Field
           3. Ford Field
           4. Lambeau Filed

           Gives you every other year outside and would, I think, help recruiting. Kids want to play in these venues. Particularly 2 and 4.

           LikeLike

           August 5, 2010 at 10:03 pm Reply

           1. Sounds like a winner JJ. The only honest argument they have is I believe the indoor stadiums offer more seats. but its not like they will lose money on this deal. If the top half of the conference sells out routinely why shouldn’t these games which are a once a year event.

              LikeLike

              August 6, 2010 at 8:49 am Reply

        3. This first year it will be easier to fill Lucas than a bigger outdoor stadium. Tough tickets create a buzz, full stadiums look good on TV, and the Luke is loud, which will play well on TV as well. This is a good, safe, choice for the first year only. Would have been shocked if it went any other way.

           LikeLike

           August 6, 2010 at 4:28 am Reply

        4. I think the idea here is just to quickly pick a site for the 1st game, which isn’t that far off, and think through a longer term solution moving forward. Seems like reasonable way to go until expansion dust settles

           LikeLike

           August 6, 2010 at 11:46 am Reply

     3. rr3,

        Mixed emotions – being a stones throw from Lucas, I will prolly be able to get tickets every year (not like IU will play there *sigh*). That said, I would dig an outdoor venue better, football in domes leave me – “meh”

        LikeLike

        August 5, 2010 at 5:41 pm Reply

        1. duffman,

           i too have mixed emotions, but Indy has done a good job partnering with the conference to host the bball tournaments. Given the relationship, it probably was a no brainer to have their first. I’m sure that Delany and company wouldn’t want to be seen checking out other stadiums after the summer we’ve had. This announcement allows everyone to cool off a bit, so that due diligence can occur without the glare of speculation, rumor and innuendo. I think it was the right thing to do. I do hope, however, that some of the games get played outside and that all of the professional team venues get a chance to host the game…

           LikeLike

           August 6, 2010 at 9:31 am Reply

211. Interesting to see UT and ND finalize a four game series, starting in 2015 . . . lends quite a bit of credence to the link between UT and ND.

     LikeLike

     August 5, 2010 at 5:07 pm Reply

212. The story:
     http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/08/notre-dame-texas-make-football-series-official.html

     LikeLike

     August 5, 2010 at 5:08 pm Reply

213. RU is not a Big Ten caliber school. I can’t believe they are getting so much consideration. Any eastern expansion should start with the south east… Begin with UVA, MD and VT. Then express interst in ND. If they do not move forward, invite Vandy and close the book on expansion.

     Forget schools like Rut, Pitt, Mo, Uconn and others (Cuse could fall in this category as well). The Big Ten should swing for the fences – not scrape the bottom of the BE barrel.

     LikeLike

     August 5, 2010 at 8:37 pm Reply

     1. I’d prefer not to have a school from a state that was in the CSA during the late war………..

        LikeLike

        August 5, 2010 at 9:16 pm Reply

     2. Its really not about the Rutgers you see today but the Rutgers that maybe tomorrow. But more importantly, the Rutgers that delivers NY/NJ markets up on a silver platter. If they can do that, they can remain mediocre indefinitely to the conference as they have delivered the goods. I just don’t buy Vandy as they will deliver academics but little else. Outside of UVA and the University of Florida, UT, Georgia Tech and Maryland I don’t see those any other southern schools as viable options. Duffman has made some good arguments for Kentucky but Kentucky does not bring the Football credentials.

        LikeLike

        August 5, 2010 at 9:49 pm Reply

        1. It’s been several decades since Rutgers was an ersatz Ivy, playing the likes of Princeton, Columbia and Cornell. It’s now a Big Ten-caliber institution academically, evolving into a large land-grant school. Athletically, it hasn’t quite built an overall program the way Maryland or Virginia have, but it has all the tools in place to do so — and Big Ten membership would play an immeasurable role in that quest.

           With Notre Dame out of the equation and Texas either too big for its britches or a hostage to Lone Star politics, Rutgers and Maryland are the surest bets the Big Ten has in further expansion, as both would firmly plant the conference footprint within Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor.

           I’d take Virginia over either Syracuse or Pittsburgh because it’s superior to both in academics and athletics. But UVa’s cultural ties to the ACC are far stronger than Maryland’s, even though both are 1953 conference members (UVa technically isn’t a charter member, as it didn’t join until December of ’53 and thus wasn’t involved in ACC competition that inaugural fall).

           Virginia has a longtime rivalry with North Carolina; for decades, UVa and UNC met in the season-ending football game (and yes, UNC was playing Duke and N.C. State at this time; Tech’s archrival at this time was, believe it or not, Virginia Military). UVa sees itself as a southern institution, and while it certainly realizes the benefits the Big Ten would have (its new president has ties to the U. of Michigan), some in Charlottesville might be reluctant to leave.

           LikeLike

           August 5, 2010 at 10:57 pm Reply

           1. Thanks for the insight on UVA Vincent.

              LikeLike

              August 6, 2010 at 8:55 am Reply

           2. vincent makes a good point, as folks forget history. NC State vs UNC was the MCBB game in the ACC before coach K got to duke. VMI, like Army, Navy, Air Force have slipped down due to enrollment limitations and all the commitments in addition to sports. I have UVA as a Big 10 possible, but are you saying they may be SEC possible? I know Slive graduated from there, but Delany is a UNC guy.

              I am still not sold on Syracuse, as they are private, and pretty far away from the NYC market. I am a fan of Pitt, as there is nothing wrong with them, but they just mean footprint overlap with PSU. If Pitt’s location was switched with say Syracuse I think they would be a top candidate.

              LikeLike

              August 6, 2010 at 9:17 am Reply

              1. No, I don’t envision UVa as an SEC candidate for much the same reasons UNC isn’t:– it considers itself “southern,” but not deep south. In other words, too urbane and sophisticated for the SEC. Virginia Tech, on the other hand, does have an SEC mindset, given its devotion to football.

                 (And regarding VMI — up through the 1960s, it used to face Tech in Roanoke on Thanksgiving Day.)

                 Oh, one more thing: I recall bein in a UVa bookstore in the 1970s, and one of the items sold was a shot glass with four level markings. “Cavaliers” was at the top, “Terrapins” at three-fourths level, “Tar Heels” at half-level and, at the bottom, was “Hokies.”

                 LikeLike

                 August 6, 2010 at 11:49 am

           3. I am one Virginia grad student that would love for UVa to join the Big
              Ten, but I don’t know if my opinion reflects the general consensus.
              As far as rivals, the only game that people get disproportionately
              excited for is the turkeys; I didn’t realize Virginia played UNC last at one point until I read your comment.

              As far as cultural ties, UVa is very strongly connected to Maryland, UNC and Duke. Outside of those, I don’t think there is any desire to be connected to the others. Charlottesville itself has a bit of an Austin-in-Texas vibe. The city is quite different than most of the surrounding state.

              Virginia the state is experiencing a bit of the flip side of emigration from the midwest. Increasing, the students (even the undergrads) are the children of transplants and far more of the faculty were educated at Big Ten schools than ACC schools. I don’t know if any serious offer has been given, but I think the administration (including the new president from UM) would seriously consider it.

              LikeLike

              August 6, 2010 at 12:38 pm Reply

              1. Well, any invite to UVA would have to be some sort of package deal with Maryland.

                 If there’s an opportunity, then the Big Ten would probably jump, but no one really knows how willing anyone is to move at those schools.

                 However, UVA’s new president as of August 1 is Sullivan who has the strongest possible Big Ten ties with education at MSU/UChicago and as the former provost at Michigan.

                 Obviously, she would have to see the benefits from the point of view of UVA, but her background would make it easier for her to be willing to move.

                 If Maryland looks for a person like her to be president, then things could get interesting.

                 LikeLike

                 August 6, 2010 at 2:16 pm

     3. Pitt is pretty far from the “bottom of the barrel”

        LikeLike

        August 5, 2010 at 10:00 pm Reply

        1. Yeah, Pitt. would be the #1 target right now if it was in New York, New Jersey, or Maryland. I’m pretty sure we can say that with complete confidence.

           The only issue with Pitt. is the overlap in geography. That’s really the only downside to Pitt. In almost every other aspect it fits the profile as perfectly as any school currently in the Big Ten.

           LikeLike

           August 6, 2010 at 12:26 am Reply

           1. Both Pitt and Missouri are in the same boat now. While they may be good geographic and possibly cultural fits for the conference, at the point in which they enter, which is post Penn State and Nebraska, their benefits have been compromised by their predecessors. Compromised in a way that makes them redundant. The Focus now is East and possibly South limited to about 4 southern possibilities. If we take ND and TX off the table, the focus increasingly is towards NY. They may get that with Syracuse and Rutgers but this is in no way a sure thing. They can split the difference and take Rutgers and Maryland which I believe would be the best move if they can’t guarantee the that both Rutgers and Syracuse will deliver. That moves also damages not one but two conferences and puts into play NY, NJ, Baltimore, DC, and the Virginia Suburbs.

              LikeLike

              August 6, 2010 at 9:13 am Reply

              1. I agree. I felt like Pitt and Nebraska were almost mutually exclusive. Pitt offered football strength but no new markets. UNL offered more football strength but virtually no new markets. Nebraska severely reduces the liklihood of Pitt getting invited. Schools like Rutgers, MD, SU offer potential and markets, but little current strength.

                 LikeLike

                 August 6, 2010 at 12:27 pm

              2. That’s actually a very interesting argument Bullet.

                 And I think I agree with the premise that we weren’t going to take more than 1 pure football power other than ND. The rest of the schools probably do have to help with positioning on markets/recruiting, etc.

                 LikeLike

                 August 6, 2010 at 2:20 pm

           2. Re if Pitt were only in NY, NJ or MD (Zeek)

              Good point Zeek. Maybe Pitt can relocate the school to NY or NJ?

              Or even better, perhaps they can move to Texas, in which case, however, they might join the Big 12.

              LikeLike

              August 6, 2010 at 11:14 pm Reply

              1. Well, the point was to state how good a fit Pitt. really is in every aspect except the monetary aspect.

                 Pitt. makes perfect sense for a conference that needs a regional football power that moves the dial in the Northeast and brings a fairly sizeable chunk of the Penn. markets.

                 The ACC is probably the best fit in terms of mutual benefits.

                 LikeLike

                 August 7, 2010 at 2:29 am

     4. I like VaTech and UVA and Vandy, but I don’t think the cultural fit is there at all.

        The Big Ten is the Big North in terms of geography and culture. Only Maryland really fits in naturally of the ACC schools.

        Adding a clump of ACC schools may not be the best way to go if you end up creating a clique that doesn’t really fit in well.

        Also, UVA seems tied to the NC group much more than any other ACC school.

        LikeLike

        August 6, 2010 at 12:24 am Reply

214. Yes IU has the tan one, but I can sleep easier knowing they do not have 15 second Rick. Nobody won this train wreck but it should serve all college coaches a lesson in what not to do when you are a high level coach.

     http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/guilty_over_secs_of_shame_q3bqBcBT1orQw4PSQWUqVK

     Shows over, move along, is it just me or has this been the longest off season for college football? It seems like the first kickoff is still so far away!

     LikeLike

     August 6, 2010 at 9:06 am Reply

     1. 15seconds, $10 million, 26 years in prison.
        Boy, life has sure gotten complicated here in 2010.

        LikeLike

        August 6, 2010 at 11:09 am Reply

215. Am I posting in real time yet?

     LikeLike

     August 6, 2010 at 4:25 pm Reply

     1. yes.

        LikeLike

        August 6, 2010 at 5:45 pm Reply

        1. PN,

           are you the old PN or a new one, your icon is different?

           LikeLike

           August 6, 2010 at 10:56 pm Reply

216. Late to the game, but PSUGuy and Playoffs Now, you’re on point. The Big Ten is a national athletic and academic conference that is based in the Midwest. Think like Delany. Obviously this is the case, else we wouldn’t have expanded to PSU and wouldn’t be considering or chasing UVa, MD, Rutgers, Texas, etc.

     What’s the emotional attachment to the Midwest anyway? Why are we being so parochial? Admittedly, I’m from Chicago, which fancies itself the Midway instead of the Midwest, but why be stuck with that stereotype? The Ivy League isn’t defined as a collection of East Coast Universities. What we represent is much greater than corn. We’re the premier conference of academically inclined land grant universities in the country and just happen to be predominantly in the Midwest. We’re from it, not defined by it, and yes, we’re damned proud of that part of it as well.

     PS: Playing in a dome sucks. It had to be Chicago (biggest stage possible) or New York (coinciding with a Rutgers announcement) for the inaugural event, else we should have taken the show on the road.

     LikeLike

     August 6, 2010 at 7:01 pm Reply

     1. Place matters. It has always mattered. Geographically detached cosmopolitanism is a conceit of those of the elite who are unconcerned with community and the duties owed to it, and instead focused on the self.

        LikeLike

        August 6, 2010 at 8:50 pm Reply

        1. Adam, that’s just parochialism. In our personal lives, we all want better for our kids and bless them as they go away to school. We personally travel the world even though there’s no place like home. I’m proud of my roots and want to show them off to the world, not wallow in them. That’s isolationist. A multitude of Big Ten alumni have taken jobs the world around, and I can assure you, many of us have never thought of the Big Ten as the “Great Midwest Conference” or “The Big North” (although as a Chicagoan, I’m still torn and a little disgusted at the notion of bringing NYC into the fold).

           Even as we divide into two camps on this, the bottom line is clearly TPTB are thinking along the lines of those of us that believe in something greater than geography. Or do you really think UNL was brought on because they’re neighbors? Why was neighbor Mizzou blown off? Why is Delany harping on NY? Why is JoePa whining on about East Coast this and that? Do you really think Maryland is so hot about joining a collection of midwestern teams? This conversation was effectively addressed with the addition of PSU. The Big Ten has midwestern roots but isn’t a midwestern conference. I’m as proud of that as anyone, but I see the big picture.

           LikeLike

           August 6, 2010 at 9:21 pm Reply

217. BTJ,

     I suppose you could use PSU as evidence the BT isn’t essentially a midwest conference and that land grant institution status defines and drives the BT’s growth strategy and identity. But I disagree.

     Penn St is the exception, not a trend to BT “midwesternism”, and borders the pre-expansion footprint. The latest expansion of Nebraska borders the footprint and is midwestern. The BT doesn’t need to stretch or morph itself into something that includes Texas, Florida, or NYC to flourish and grow in the classroom or feed sports TV deals. I side with Adam–place (AND culture)does matter in college as far as conference affiliations. I never thought Texas had a chance of becoming part of the BT, even though it is a fine school in every way and a great fit on paper. No disrespect to Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, Miami, Connecticut, Syracuse etc, I’d be very surprised if schools like this end up in the BT.

     I also think your concept of the BT as a land grant conference breaks down as well. Several BT schools don’t meet this criteria: Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Northwestern, & Chicago. Or did you mean to use to term loosely referring to large public schools–then there’s Northwestern and Chicago to consider. And let’s not forget Notre Dame repeatedly offered–that small private religious school in the midwest that happens to take football very seriously.

     And speaking of football, JD is running a sports conference. I don’t think any new member will be a school or location where college football isn’t important. I still don’t buy “capturing the NYC/NE market” scenario, because CF never was and never will be a big deal in that part of the country even in any large metro area. I live in Chicago, the epicenter of Big Ten, and I watch, read, and listen to a lot of sport programming. CF is almost an afterthought here, well down the list after pro sports in terms of coverage other than Saturdays during the CF season. I attended the first BXII title game back in 1996 held in St Louis and most people there weren’t even aware the game was taking place—in St Louis Missouri! I just don’t see pro towns like NYC making Rutgers a good candidate or basketball states like Maryland making much sense. If the BT really feels the need to expand further, give PSU an eastern playmate like Pitt(at least they take football seriously in western PA even if its the same market–well, 2 schools in one state seem to work OK in Indiana and Michigan) and add Missouri for your southern strategy or Notre Dame for your national brand.

     Or leave it at 12. Is it a given that further BT expansion must and will take place? The BT went 2 decades before expanding, though I’m sure they considered it behind closed doors and kept their options open. Are JD’s recent comments really any more than that now that they pulled the trigger with Nebraska? What do they really gain? Is growth always good? Always necessary? Does the BT need to constantly be in shark mode, constantly moving forward to feed? The BT may take its time absorbing Nebraska, take a deep breath, and when they look around….decide everything is fine as is. Let’s face it, events turned differently than even JD figured once the expansion music started playing. Who knows what the college landscape, TV deals, etc will be like in a few years.

     LikeLike

     August 7, 2010 at 8:59 am Reply

     1. I disagree. I think we’re actively looking for colleges that fit the Big Ten brand regardless of location.

        And our footprint also includes alumni. The Big Ten’s active footprint is the schools’ geographic footprint, but the passive footprint is the alumni and to a lesser extent fans of the institutions outside of the footprint.

        NYC and D.C. both have quite large concentrations of Big Ten alumni, and are markets that only play well to big time sports.

        I tend to think that Rutgers and to a lesser extent Maryland both have a lot of untapped potential. Rutgers and Maryland would get a lot of value from visits by the Big Ten powers. Then again so would any institution, but those two would add much more value due to their proximity to big markets and their large student populations/alumni bases.

        Rutgers is the one university that I would put in the category of being most likely to be able to increase its stadium capacity by another 40% in the next 20 years because New Jersey seems like it would almost be a natural college football kind of area if they had a state college worth rooting for… and Rutgers is finally putting the effort in towards becoming that. Plus, Rutgers is one of the few giant public institutions out there that is really awakening to football like it didn’t before, so a lot of that potential is finally becoming active.

        We’re not going to find another 2 or 4 Nebraskas or Penn States to get us to 14 or 16. Even if we assume that we’d leave a spot open for Notre Dame, you still need others that fit the bill in terms of recruiting grounds and additional markets.

        And the Big Ten has been in attack mode for pretty much 17 years straight now. Every 3-5 years, Delany stirs the waters on expansion. We’ve discussed expansion no less than 4 times since adding Penn State.

        LikeLike

        August 7, 2010 at 9:41 am Reply

     2. As I argued on another thread, PSU is an outlier, but a defensible outlier; the central and western portions of Pennsylvania are culturally midwestern in a way that the eastern portion of the state is not. I had tried to get at a definition of midwestern by describing it as that portion of the country with the Midwest’s unique blend of agriculture and heavy industry, 19th-century anti-slavery sentiment, and Catholic urban dominance. These factors produced a distinctive cultural milieu which I, for one, intend to adhere to.

        No doubt, it is good for the Big Ten financially that the alumni are spread all over, creating demand for Big Ten athletics around the country. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it or feel no better than ambivalent about the choices those alumni have made to abandon the Midwest rather than cash in on the winning lottery ticket of life they got when they were born or raised here. I suspect that James Hoffa and Robert Rubin are not exactly best friends, even if they need each other and must cooperate to some extent to advance the interests of the Democratic Party. That is an imperfect characterization of my feelings about the Big Ten’s alumni diaspora.

        LikeLike

        August 7, 2010 at 11:19 am Reply

     3. I also agree that the Big Ten ought to stay at 12. I find the constant demand to be in “shark mode” tiresome. There really ought to come a point where enough is enough. Particularly when further expansion opens up such a hornet’s nest of divisional alignments, scheduling, and general political concerns.

        LikeLike

        August 7, 2010 at 11:22 am Reply

        1. We’ve been in shark mode every 3-5 years…; just go back to 2007 and there are a ton of articles about Delany dropping the “expansion” word. Nothing happened that year.

           Being in shark mode is a way of saying that we’re a powerful conference that can move as it wills. There are articles that this period has even helped Big Ten recruiting because of how much front page coverage it gets.

           LikeLike

           August 7, 2010 at 2:28 pm Reply

           1. Driving the CF agenda and being a major player—shark mode good. Expanding for the sake of expanding, or even in relentless pursuit of more $$ and marketshare at the expense of losing your identity–not so good?

              And for all the expansion talk and sword rattling, fact is the BT has made only two VERY conservative expansion moves in 20 years. They added schools in geographically bordering states with impeccable football pedigree and solid academics.

              As Hawkeye/Gator says below, the “list of potential new members is very short”.

              The next move—if there is one—will be much trickier. Maybe there won’t be another for another 5-10-20 years.

              LikeLike

              August 7, 2010 at 4:30 pm Reply

     4. We can argue about what defines the Midwest and which states were anti-slavery all day long, but those arguments are all backward looking.

        One thing is for sure, the Jim Delany is looking forward regarding which schools will bring in the highest dollars in athletics and research funding. He doesn’t give a shit if those dollars are generated north or south of the Mason-Dixon line. As a matter of fact, his statement about a “shift in demographics to the south,” appears to give a priority to southern demographics.

        We aren’t living in the 1960s where regional identity defined people. For better or worst, mass media (TV, Internet) have made the US (the World) a smaller place. Heck, it may be easier and faster to fly from Chicago to Miami, than to drive from Chicago up to Green Bay. The Universitues of Texas, Florida and North Carolina are super candidates for the BT. If they wanted to join, the BT all the BT Presidents would welcome any of those institutions with open arms.

        This crazy Midwest vs the south drama has to end, the Civil War ended 150 years ago.

        LikeLike

        August 7, 2010 at 11:40 am Reply

        1. Hawkeye/Gator. The civil war is long gone but the cultural war is as current as the war on terror. While the mid west stretches geographically from Ohio to Nebraska there are still yet probably another thee Midwest’s within. And three can be defined in more detail even within a state.
           I would divide states like western PA and east Ohio, extreme eastern Lower Michigan as Midwest but having some eastern influence. Minnesota, Wisconsin, the rest of Michigan and the top third of IL and IN as Upper Midwest. The planes states like Nebraska, Kansas, SD and the Northern quarter of Missouri as Midwest. In all states there is a City culture, a suburban culture around a major city and the rural culture.
           They all have some commonality but more so than if you were to take these and compare across another region being the mid-south (Kentucky Tennessee and parts of Missouri, IL and IN) Northeast Southeast, Southwest or Western.
           Just saying there are no differences does not make it so.

           LikeLike

           August 7, 2010 at 5:35 pm Reply

        2. Not to say that a conference has to have a regional identity, but they definitely exist. There is a huge difference between Texas and Georgia, let alone Texas and Ohio.

           LikeLike

           August 7, 2010 at 6:16 pm Reply

218. Seems like Rutgers and Maryland and such schools are synonymous with “untapped potential” in all the posts when it comes to sports/TV/revenue/eyeballs. So you’re banking completely on alumni interest to carry you through. It would be a roll of the dice.

     Why does the BT need to take that approach when there are surer ways to grow the pie?

     LikeLike

     August 7, 2010 at 10:21 am Reply

     1. In terms of on-field performance, Maryland has shown its “potential.” The Jim Tatum teams of the early 1950s posted three unbeaten regular seasons, winning a national title in 1953 and beating a national champion in ’51. (In those days, the wire services made final votes on national champions before the bowls.) In contrast, until a few years ago Rutgers had only one bowl appearance to its credit, and that was in-state.

        What did Maryland football in, ironically, was membership in the ACC (which had been designed for football). Schools such as N.C. State and North Carolina put more of an emphasis on basketball, and football in the ACC deflated into an afterthought.

        Put Maryland in a football-oriented conference with a better recruiting angle, and while it might not be a perennial Rose Bowl contender, it would be competitive. And Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio State would far more easily fill Byrd Stadium than would Clemson, Florida State or even Virginia Tech.

        I can understand the controversy over Rutgers, but Maryland already has a big-time heritage where football is concerned.

        LikeLike

        August 7, 2010 at 11:53 am Reply

        1. Vincent,
           Not to pick on Maryland, but you’ll never make a football case for them joining the BT. They are at best a very mediocre football school in every way.

           Byrd Stadium ranks 58th in D1 size, 51,500, can’t even fill that with an avg 2009 attendance of 44,452 which is below the Division 1 avg of 45,545. They’d have the 3rd smallest stadium and 2nd worst attendance in the conference.

           Maryland is just over .500 in the last 50 years, 63rd out of 111 D1 schools, and even worse in JD’s competitive balance period.

           Its not just the Terps, I’m sorry, I find all these “eastern school X will deliver the NE market” arguments very weak. People back there just aren’t that interested in CF. The facts are there for all to see. Let alone the cultural fit etc factors which I think are a big part of what gives CF/sports its unique appeal.

           Adam’s post on scheduling more nonconference games with different eastern teams makes the most sense to me for getting TV ratings and ad revenue.

           LikeLike

           August 7, 2010 at 2:33 pm Reply

           1. I’m happy for the Big Ten to use nonconference games to increase exposure in the east. However, it may be difficult to find enough eastern schools willing to host six Big Ten teams per year, every year (which is the exposure you get from adding Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten).

              LikeLike

              August 7, 2010 at 4:45 pm Reply

           2. ChicagoRed,
              Academically Maryland walks into the conference on two feet with it head up. Then settles into the top half of the BT.
              The potential viewership as we discussed includes DC, Baltimore, and Virginia Suburbs. And they are all untapped Eastern televisions’ for the BT.
              Athletically its basketball is an immediate boost to the BT and it does have a noble history there. Football has a great upside that over a short time should deliver because of two new things. One is an influx of money and the second being a change in culture to a Big Ten culture. I don’t know why Indiana does not win more football seasons but I feel better about Maryland’s football future in the BT than I do for Indiana. I have watched Indiana over the years and there is a lot about their football that actually looked good. But I guess in the Big Ten good isn’t good enough. You still do have to win games.
              Being geographically contiguous with Pennsylvania and being a one state skip from Ohio and NJ is a good thing in building a regional comfort level. Given the Big ten wide national alumni disbursement it would make it seem even more powerful if it also had the people in the nation’s capital state involved and had a rooting interest in Big ten sports.
              Imagine redskin’s stadium filled for a meaningful game with Penn State, Nebraska, Ohio State late in the season? This is the upside of a successful Maryland marriage to the BT.

              LikeLike

              August 7, 2010 at 6:07 pm Reply

219. RE: RUTGERS :

     There seem to be a lot of discussion about Rutgers to the BT on this site. I understand that RU is a Big Land Grant University near NYC. It seems that the main reason behind an RU invite is that it will help the BT with exposure to the NYC markets. But, as I wrote before, the way to capture the NY market is by putting out the best product, not by incorporating RU into the BT. I certainly can understand RU from an academic and research perspective. No problems with academics, my concern would be with the athletic side of it.

     FRANK THE TANK outlined his leanings about expansion after the UNL invite when he wrote:

     “National Brand Value Trumps Local Markets
     For all the talk about TV markets and cable subscriber rates, expansion decisions really came down to a pretty basic calculation: which schools do Average Joe Sports Fan in Anytown USA want to watch? After Notre Dame and Texas, the consensus has long been that Nebraska fit that bill better than anyone.”

     Following Frank’s logic, it doesn’t make sense that by pitting a Big Ten school against Rutgers the NYC market will pay more attention to Rutgers. Or that the NYC market will somehow further embrace the Big Ten. If the SEC is putting out the most interesting and best product the NY market covers the SEC. I may sound like a broken record (or a scratched CD) on this, but the way to gain the NYC market is for the Big Ten to field the most exciting and competitive college football in the country. In short, “Average Joe Sports Fan in Anytown USA” does not want to watch a Rutgers game. I can tell you that the “Average Joe NYC fan” does not want to watch a Rutgers football game. Signing up dubious Rutgers or Syracuse will not help the BT to gain inroads to the NYC market.

     Jim Delany was interviewed recently by the New York Post. He said that when you come to NY you had, “better bring you’re A Game.” RU is just not an “A game school” in either football or basketball. Agian, UT, ND, Miami capture the NYC market more than RU or Syracuse would.

     The way to capture the NYC TV market is to:

     A) Consistently present top ranked, well known, teams (tOSU, UM, Penn St. Miami , ND and Nebraska). The Big Ten’s “A Game.” In support of this, the game-to-game national ratings for Nebraska games rack up big numbers – routinely in the 3.0-to-4.5 range. In nine nationally televised games in 2009, Nebraska averaged a 3.57 rating. (That’s about the same as Penn State’s ratings). The Nebraska average is more than double that of Rutgers’ national average in 2009 (1.51). (Data is from Pennlive.com)

     B) Have BT schools play as many OOC games against RU, Syracuse and U Conn as possible. Playing all three NY area schools on a consistent basis in both football and basketball will bring in the NYC market (as much as the BT can bring in the NYC market…) without having to bring in any of those schools as full BT members. Throw in some OCC games with BC and the BT gets exposure to the entire NE without having to add a member and slice thinner pie slices for existing BT members. Early on Frank the Tank wrote that RU alone is not enough to bring in the NYC market. He advocated a combination of Syracuse and RU to capture NY. This OOC strategy does precisely that and you can add U Conn and BC to the list.

     Another major problem that has not been addressed is that Rutgers will not be competitive against the top half of the big ten in football or basketball. RU might not manage more than one win against the bottom half of the Big Ten in football in a given year. That just doesn’t make for appealing college football. I can see RU going 0-8 or 1-7 in the BT for years. RU fans may actually despise the BT for relegating their Scarlet Knights into a perennial bottom dweller! Just think how disillusioned you’d feel if your school joined a conference that kicked the shit out of your football team by a score of 45 – 7 every Saturday. It’s like saying, “Join the BT, you’ll have access to the CIC, but we’ll kick the snot out of you in athletics. What we really want from you is your TV audience for our Big Ten Network.” That’s not the Big Ten way. It’s not the BT way of treating member institutions.

     On the other hand, many fans in NY will tune into ND v any BT team or Texas v a BT team. The BT still has to catch up to the SEC’s football product, Rutgers just doesn’t help, but, UT, ND, or Miami will help the BTN. Let’s face it, the BT passed over Mizzu like a luke warm beer. And on paper Missouri is a good fit for the BT. It has strong men’s basketball, it is a similar land grand university, it’s the major school in a large Midwestern state. So why did the BT pass on Mizzu? One big reason was that the Tiger football team just didn’t cut it. Neither does Rutger’s team. By the way, Mizzu was on that first, “red herring” list of five schools that the BT was going to “review” for expansion, just like Rutgers.

     Let me know what I’m not seeing, but to me, it looks like Rutgers is low on the Big Ten’s expansion list.

     LikeLike

     August 7, 2010 at 11:01 am Reply

     1. But the problem is that we don’t play enough on the East Coast.

        As Alvarez has mentioned, we’ve sort of stunted Penn State by not having it play more in its natural backyard in the east and not creating east coast rivalries (even if it dominates them).

        Sending Penn State to Maryland or Rutgers every year is a way of unlocking a lot of Penn State’s east coast value, not just gaining the marginal value of adding those schools to the Big Ten.

        It’s really not that easy to just schedule those schools often and send the big boys in; Penn State already tries to do that plenty…

        LikeLike

        August 7, 2010 at 2:25 pm Reply

        1. PSU needs to schedule their old rivals of Pittsburgh, Maryland, Syracuse and Rutgers more often. JoPa always favored the 4 cream puff schedules and hasn’t played these schools enough.

           LikeLike

           August 7, 2010 at 4:17 pm Reply

     2. Zeek,

        Rutgers certainly does hold some value for the BT. Unlocking “Penn State’s East Coast value” is a consideration. But every new school added by the major conferences (SEC, Pac 10) and the last two added but the BT (Penn St and UNL) were very competitive in conference play. If RU had a strong football program (Top 20 every few years) they would have been invited into the BT long ago.

        It’s frustrating because the Big Ten’s list of potential new members is very short. The Big Ten has established itself as an elite conference; it’s only going to invite a select list of high academic schools with national football programs to join the BT. There may only be five universities that the Big Ten would consider, Maryland may be one of those five schools. In my opinion Mizzou and RU aren’t on that elite list of potential invitees.

        LikeLike

        August 7, 2010 at 2:49 pm Reply

        1. We talk about if Pittsburgh were in a non-Big Ten state…what if Syracuse, with its stellar football tradition (which admittedly has been struggling for much of the past decade) were a large public institution instead of a medium-large private college, or what if Rutgers had a football heritage (1959 national title, the famed #44, etc.) similar to SU’s? (I’m a native Syracusan who cannot stand the silly reference “Cuse.”) It’s interesting to ponder.

           Were it the former case, I am certain Syracuse would vault ahead of Rutgers in the Big Ten expansion sweepstakes, especially since upstate New York does have a quasi-midwestern mindset not dissimilar to western Pennsylvania. Were it the latter, Rutgers would be a lead-pipe cinch.

           LikeLike

           August 7, 2010 at 3:08 pm Reply

        2. Are you kidding about the SEC and Pac-10 additions?

           What exactly have Arkansas/South Carolina done other than fill stadiums well? They’re not national brands in any sense of the word.

           And Colorado/Utah? Utah’s had the BCS buster reputation the past couple years which is plus, but I’m not really sure we know how competitive they are in a BCS schedule.

           Colorado was a powerhouse back in the formation of the Big 12, but it’s sort of lost that and I don’t think many consider them to be that competitive any more. Maybe Pac-10 recruiting will help but that didn’t seem to be their problem.

           I’m not sold that Arkansas/South Carolina have really proven themselves to be anything other than lower/mid-level SEC schools at best. The best thing they did was give the SEC its CCG.

           We’re not going to find 4 Nebraskas/Penn States to get us to 16. We’re going to have to find schools that can fit in like Arkansas/South Carolina. I see Maryland/Rutgers fitting that model quite well and bringing much better markets than those two schools brought to the SEC.

           LikeLike

           August 7, 2010 at 3:17 pm Reply

           1. Zeek,

              I’m not at all kidding about the SEC and Pac 10 additions. South Carolina is ranked #12 on Forbs list of MOST VALUABLE COLLEGE FOOTBALL TEAMS. It had a profit of $37 Million and it made $6.8 million this season with the debut of a points system that ties donations to football seating assignments. Like it or not the Gamecocks are a national power. Arkansas was ranked #17 on that list with a profit of $20 million. The Hogs are ranked #13 in preseason polls. Both of those schools would place in the upper half of the Big Ten year in and year out. Not only do they make a lot of money they are competitive.

              CU has been a national power house in the 90s, but is now down on it’s luck. It will be competitive in the Pac 10 (probably middle of the conference). The Utes have gone to bowl games and won in the last five years straight! They beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl in 2009! When the Utes join the conference in 2011 they will be a contender and with USC down the Utes may be in the running for the Pac 12 championship.

              Just compare those teams to Rutgers. You’ve made my point….. RU just doesn’t compare to the teams added to other major conferences. Not in revenue and not in on field competition. It would be somewhat ugly to see RU play a Big Ten schedule unless the Scarlet Knights improved quite a bit.

              LikeLike

              August 7, 2010 at 3:43 pm Reply

              1. The methodology behind that Forbes study is dodgy at best. They basically guessed a bunch of numbers and added them together.

                 On the field, Arkansas and South Carolina have been non factors. Their records since joining the conference:
                 Arkansas 62 76
                 South Carolina 52 83

                 You and I must have a very different conception of the meaning of the word “competitive”.

                 LikeLike

                 August 7, 2010 at 4:25 pm

              2. Making money is different from being a national power.

                 I’ll give you that Arkansas has been a bit competitive, getting to 3 SEC Championship games at least even though they have yet to win one, but you really have to be joking about South Carolina.

                 “In 18 seasons, Arkansas has only posted a winning divisional record four times, based on actual results and excluding games later forfeited.

                 In 18 seasons in the SEC, the Gamecocks have been to seven postseason bowls, the biggest being the Outback. Only three times have the Gamecocks posted a winning record in their division. In 18 years, how many times do you think the Gamecocks have gone north of winning eight games? Once.

                 The school has also managed the daily double of going 0-8 back to back in the SEC East in 1998 and 1999, a combined 1-21 during those years in all games.”

                 Either way Arkansas fits in below Alabama/LSU/Auburn, and I guess above the Mississippi schools in the West, but South Carolina hasn’t really distinguished itself from Kentucky or Vandy as being well below Florida/Tennessee/Georgia.

                 And in terms of all-time wins, South Carolina is only above Vandy and Mississippi State sitting at .500.

                 Over the past 18 years, Arkansas could be described as being in the Purdue/Mich St./Northwestern (3rd quarter) tier of the SEC, whereas South Carolina could be described as being in the Illinois/Minnesota/Indiana tier (4th quarter) of the SEC.

                 Isn’t that what we’re looking for?

                 LikeLike

                 August 7, 2010 at 4:52 pm

              3. I have to agree with Hawk,

                 Aside from the point he makes about the Forbes value I think of several things the schools have gained since joining the SEC

                 a) NCAA championship for Arkansas (basketball, track & field)

                 b) NCAA championship for South Carolina (baseball)

                 c) expanded the SEC to arkansas and south carolina (the states). If you doubt this value look at their stadiums before entering the SEC, and now. USU @ 80,000 + now rivals Clemson and their history and Arkansas @ 76,000 + [both are in the top 20 – 30 in size in the USA]

                 d) Arkansas has 3 SEC west championships (17% of total) in football and had they not fumbled in the closing seconds of the Vols game, would have been playing for a NC.

                 e) South Carolina has been able to attract coaches like Holtz and Spurrier (while not NC contenders) it represents a big step up in image in attracting top coaches.

                 Sure PSU and UNL were a home run for the Big 10, but I will give the SEC credit for taking 2 lemons, and making lemonade. If there are 2 schools with such limitations (population, markets, etc) that have come so far. Please, feel free to enlighten me?

                 LikeLike

                 August 7, 2010 at 5:18 pm

              4. I think the point is if Arkansas/South Carolina can come in and Arkansas can get to 3 SEC CCGs out of 18 seasons, while South Carolina really hasn’t done much except get quality coaches (1 season over 8 wins in 18 years), why can’t we do the same with Rutgers and Maryland.

                 Rutgers is being judged on its value in the Big East, Maryland is being judged on its value with the ACC.

                 We’re judging Arkansas and South Carolina based on their value in the SEC after 18 years.

                 Why can’t we do the same in potentially viewing Rutgers and Maryland as how they would be in 18 years of being in the Big Ten?

                 I really don’t see much risk in taking on two massive state schools in states that respond well to football but haven’t had a reason to show up for college football in much bigger numbers because they’re not viewing big time college football.

                 How often does Maryland get visited by schools like Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan? I’m not entirely sure Florida State/Miami are as big a deal in Maryland as the Big Ten schools would be due to location/lots of Big Ten alumni from those schools in NYC/D.C., etc.

                 And Rutgers doesn’t get anything like that right now, yet it’s been at 100% of capacity at 50,000 and done a great job of expanding in the past 10-15 years. I could easily see Rutgers being at 70,000+ after 20 years in the Big Ten and compiling a record similar to Arkansas in the Big Ten.

                 Maryland and New Jersey respond well to pro-football, but they don’t yet have a chance to respond to college football in a big way. The Big Ten could do that for those programs in a similar way to how Arkansas/South Carolina have performed in the SEC.

                 LikeLike

                 August 7, 2010 at 5:36 pm

              5. The comparison for Rutgers would be Cincinnati, Louisville, USF. Those were schools who didn’t belong in the BE, but had potential. And Cincy or UL have been near the top every year. USF has regularly been in bowls.

                 The question is whether you bet on potential. Rutgers probably has more potential upside than any school in the country.

                 LikeLike

                 August 7, 2010 at 6:25 pm

              6. I’d like to know the capacity of the stadiums for South Carolina and Arkansas (the latter plays in both Fayetteville and Little Rock) prior to their joining the SEC, compared to what they have now. (Or what Penn State’s capacity was upon joining the Big Ten.)

                 I would believe that Maryland and Rutgers would see their stadia capacity increase by a comparable percentage after a number of years in the Big Ten.

                 LikeLike

                 August 7, 2010 at 7:33 pm

              7. If this helps, I go back to some of the first conversations on this blog. Early on Frank and I went back and forth, and he has changed my thinking on some points but he did get me to define my Top 10 “brand” argument. With this in mind I am back to my original argument between adding a “brand” or “developing” one. Lets revisit the “brands” and how things will play out.

                 Big 10 = tOSU, UM, PSU + UNL
                 Big 12 = UT, OU – UNL
                 SEC = BAMA + 1
                 Pac 10 = USC
                 IND = ND

                 Looking at the list all these teams are pretty well ensconced in their current conference and unlikely to move to the Big 10 with the exception of ND at some point in the future (seismic according to swarbruck). Now I go back to the original debate I had with Frank between adding programs vs “developing” them. With the addition of UNL the “adding” has pretty much been done. Now we are no longer looking at home runs, but solid base runs with upside potential to add value to the end score. In short, the Big 10 might not get another “brand” so the adds that take it to 16 will be driven more by academics and markets. Like and Arkansas or South Carolina, adding Rutgers and Maryland can fit this bill quite well while Pitt (overlap) or Syracuse (private) create additional problems that these first 2 do not.

                 In essence, the low hanging fruit has been spoken for, but there are still good (but not great like a PSU) fruit left on the tree in the expansion to 16. I think bullet is looking at this correctly in the value of upside and adding Rutgers (I would add MD as well), as opposed to UC, UL, Syracuse, Missouri, etc. I still think Uconn is the long term sleeper here, but it may be so far away in development time as to be off the expansion radar for the Big 10.

                 LikeLike

                 August 7, 2010 at 8:02 pm

              8. vincent,

                 from what I can see researching:

                 USC: 72,000 – pre SEC

                 with the following quote:

                 Williams-Brice Stadium was sold out prior to the start of each of the last seven college football seasons and consistently ranks in the top 20 in average attendance and the top 15 in total attendance. For the 2008 season, the stadium was 17th in average attendance and 13th in total attendance.

                 On November 17, 2001, the stadium’s single game attendance record was set when 85,000 fans watched the Gamecocks beat Clemson by the score of 20–15.

                 Williams-Brice Stadium is considered one of the loudest venues in the country. During a game against Florida in 2001, ESPN announcers indicated that they had to shout to hear each other’s comments inside the pressbox.

                 Arkansas: 44,000 – pre SEC

                 This was from a box score from the Arkansas vs Baylor game in Fayetteville that year. At the time Arkansas was doing well (after this game they went into a losing spiral). If anybody can offer better info please do.

                 here is some info;

                 In the year 2001, the stadium was expanded to a 72,000 seat capacity from its previous capacity of 51,000 seats. In addition to the additional seating, several improvements were made. A new scoreboard was installed with the, then, largest Smartvision LED screen (often incorrectly referred to as a Jumbotron; it is nicknamed the “PigScreen”) incorporated into it. Also, luxury boxes, expanded food court, revitalized locker rooms, and the Bob and Marilyn Bogle Academic Center were all part of the improvements that were made. The Frank Broyles Athletics Center, home to the Razorback Athletic Department and named after Frank Broyles, is located at the north end of the Stadium; the Center was built in 1975 and renovated in 1994 and also features the Jerry Jones/Jim Lindsey Hall of Champions, a museum to University of Arkansas sports.

                 It lists current capacity as 76,000

                 LikeLike

                 August 7, 2010 at 8:30 pm

              9. vincent,

                 ps I will defer to PSU guy and others for the Pre Big 10 PSU numbers.

                 pps I got the pre SEC numbers from the web, so if someone has better first hand data, please post and link it

                 thanks

                 LikeLike

                 August 7, 2010 at 8:35 pm

           2. Even if we could find 4 Nebraskas/Penn States to get us to 16, would we really want to add them? The Big Ten already has six topnotch teams. Add four to that, and the Big Ten becomes the Conference of Death. With ten top teams (and only six weaker teams) it’s nearly impossible to survive unscathed and get to a national championship.

              It could argued that the current Big Ten, with six top teams and six weaker ones, is already too topheavy. The competitive balance in the Big Ten would be improved by adding two middle-of-the-pack teams, especially if those teams come from large state universities with topnotch academics.

              LikeLike

              August 7, 2010 at 4:13 pm Reply

              1. Exactamondo.

                 I think all of the 4 expansion candidates (RU, MD, Pitt, MO) would be mid-range teams, which the BT doesn’t have a lot of right now.

                 Presently there is a pretty significant drop from the OSU, PSU, Neb, Mich, WIS, Iowa group to the MSUs,Purdues, and NWs. I would argue that NW is overachieving now, MSU underachieving…..All 4 of the expansion teams would be in this group, ahead of Indiana and Minnehaha.

                 Of the 4, Pitt and MO may have the best programs, but RU and MD aren’t far off.

                 What I like about the potential of adding these 4 teams is that if they are added, the Big 10 becomes THE Northern Conference of the US—From the Canadian border to the MD line, from NY to the beginning of the West, the Big 10 would contain nearly every significant large, state-funed or state-related research school. Only exceptions would be fringe schools like U Conn, KU, Iowa State, KSU

                 LikeLike

                 August 7, 2010 at 8:54 pm

              2. “Of the 4, Pitt and MO may have the best programs, but RU and MD aren’t far off.”

                 Rutgers is nowhere near any of those other schools. They have had a total of 38 wins in 19 years in the Big East and a combined 4-51 against the Miami, VT, BC, and WVU group. While they have improved a little recently, they basically gone from being Indiana to Illinois.

                 As a football conference, the Big Ten is definitely made weaker if Rutgers is added.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 3:01 am

           3. Zeek – when Arkansas joined the SEC, it was a national power. In the SWC, Arkansas won or shared in 13 football championships (as recently as 88 & 89) and won the national championship in 1964. Obviously, Arkansas is not as consistently competitive in the SEC as it was in the SWC, but its stadium is much bigger, and there is more fan interest than ever. They consistently fill a 75K football stadium, a 20K basketball stadium, and a 10K baseball stadium. Arkansas also won a NCAA basketball title as a member of the SEC, and played in 5 New Year’s day bowls (2 Cap Ones & 3 Cottons)

              South Carolina is a little different story. The ‘cocks were most likely a back-up plan to the back-up plan, after UTX/A&M, and FSU didn’t materialize. That being said, they have been competitive and field very good teams. South Carolina fans have to be the most loyal fans in America. The ‘cocks have never been great, but 80,000 fans fill a decent but not great off-campus stadium in a terrible location (state fair grounds) for 7 Saturdays every Fall.

              FWIW, South Carolina had never won a bowl game prior to joining the SEC. Since joining the SEC, USCe is 4-3, and 2-1 against Big Ten schools.

              South Carolina and Arkansas have had good teams since joining the SEC, they just haven’t been as good as Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU & Tennessee.

              Months ago, I posted that during the last round of conference expansion, the Big Ten hit a home run with Penn State, while the SEC hit two stand-up doubles with Arkansas and South Carolina, but the SEC may have gained more. Look at the national focus on the SEC Championship game. 6 of the 12 BCS NCs are from the SEC. 9 stadiums with capacity over 70K. 7 stadiums with capacity over 80K.

              All that being said, I think Nebraska is another home run for the Big Ten.

              LikeLike

              August 8, 2010 at 12:18 pm Reply

              1. Yeah I don’t disagree with any of that. In fact I am one of those who think that the combination of Arkansas/South Carolina and the SEC CCG was a better expansion outcome than the Big Ten moving to 11 with Penn State.

                 My point is that the Big Ten should focus on finding programs that we think can be like Arkansas or South Carolina for our next move. I don’t think we need more national programs unless Notre Dame ever changes its mind.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 12:29 pm

              2. Soooo…what are you saying here, Zeek? Rather than PSU and Nebraska, you’d rather have had Rutgers and Maryland? Going forward, you’d rather have “prospects” rather than “blue chips?”
                 My question is why the Big Ten needs to expand further in any case. Let’s face it, if Notre Dame expressed interest in joining the Big Ten they would have a place at the table forthwith…and then you’d have an opening for a “lucky” school like Rutgers or Maryland to round up to 14. Otherwise I cannot see the logic. The Big Ten has their CCG. IMO they need two more schools, prospects or otherwise, like a hole in the head. We can talk “superconferences” all we want but for the most part this is pie-in-the-sky daydreaming. Adding a national name is “worth it.” Otherwise, the value is questionable.
                 The thing about the SEC is that they already had a wealth of high-profile teams that had won national championships and drew national attention – teams like Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU. They added Arkansas (which did have a solid pedigree in the SWC) and South Carolina not as “prospects” or to expand in new markets but rather…just because they could. As Alan says they were a back-up to a back-up but still OK.
                 The Big Ten has four “top tier” teams now in OSU, Michigan, PSU, and Nebraska. Iowa and Wisconsin are close to being in that mix.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 6:41 pm

              3. I’m not saying that at all.

                 In terms of additions, clearly Nebraska/Penn State/Big Ten CCG is far greater than Maryland/Rutgers/Big Ten CCG or Arkansas/South Carolina/SEC CCG.

                 I think we made a mistake in not moving to 12 a while back, but hindsight is 20-20 and Nebraska may or may not have been as good an addition at that point in time, or may not have fit as well academically, etc. (although they were already AAU at that point in time, but of course they’ve won 3 NCs since then).

                 I think both the SEC and Big Ten see themselves as trying to find more additions that make sense from more of a markets point of view while looking for competitive programs even though they may not be historic national brands. Hence, the SEC is looking at A&M, while I think the Big Ten is going to consider other additions.

                 You go after markets if there are openings for them, like the SEC going after A&M. Going over 12 makes sense if you have enough name brands and you’re going after markets.

                 I think we’ve reached that point just as the SEC did. And if you assume that we’ll wait on Notre Dame to go to 16, we can take on Rutgers/Maryland as #13 and #14.

                 I agree that we needed national name brands to get to 12 since the Big Ten was not as deep at the top before adding Penn State and Nebraska.

                 I just tend to think that there is compelling value in taking on two large state schools that are strategically located and have programs that can be competitive around the middle of the Big Ten.

                 I’m fine with stopping at 12 with Nebraska, but I don’t see the harm in going to 14 with the right schools, since we’re realistically only thinking about Notre Dame as a national brand that would consider the Big Ten if it looks for a conference.

                 As Bullet made the point earlier, look at how USF has performed in the Big East. If Delany thinks he can have those kinds of results with Rutgers/Maryland in the Big Ten, I think he might go for it.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 10:53 pm

              4. I’ll admit that the most likely outcome is that we wait for Notre Dame to change its mind and then go for Notre Dame/Rutgers (although I really don’t see Notre Dame changing its mind unless the BCS isn’t renewed).

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 10:55 pm

              5. I don’t think the big ten should wait for ND. I think the BT has waited long enough. I think the best strategy is to continue to force the action my making incremental moves. One new school each year put more pressure on ND and gets the Dominos rolling. I think a 16 team conference will be a somewhat ugly thing. The only reason to do it is to capture those big contracts from television. Beyond that there is no good reason to become so big. We lock it up at 14 and take ND and only ND at 15 or 14 if they ask.

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 9:26 am

              6. If the Texas A&M stories are true, then it may only be a matter of time before the BXII blows up. I guess I agree that the “Tex-TTech-Okl-OkSt to the P10” scenario seems most likely. However, the resultant chaos might bring about ND as the consolation prize to the B10. So I don’t think there’s any reason to give up on the Domers.

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 9:41 am

     3. Hawkeye/Gator,
        WHY RUTGERS?
        (A ) I think I have waxed prolifically on the importance of having a local connection to the conference. Of which you were not in totally swayed. So I won’t try to change your mind, I just want to once again present the reason you are asking the question. While Newark is a long way from Chicago, the geographic center of the Big Ten, it is thousands of miles closer to people who will associate Rutgers with the Big ten conference. While in down year the casual fan may not come to see Rutgers play, they may come to see a winner such any of the conference top 4. They will come and dream, and plan for a future in which Rutgers will in a given year be on equal footing with the top four in a home game. (and the TV’s are on The BTN)

        (B) Again the connection is the thing. It’s the difference between getting slapped around by your brother or a total stranger. Since its (BT) family, there will be more (local NY/NJ) interest as opposed to the neighborhood bully stealing your lunch and going about his business. There is also definite built in opportunities for payback in conference.

        ( C) About getting the sheet kicked out of them in basketball and football. I invite you to look at the charter member Northwestern’s record from say 19 72 to 1995 or so. http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Northwestern.htm It was not pretty. But eventually they learned high academics notwithstanding, that if they wanted to compete, and they did, they had to make a certain amount commitment to coaching and facilities. If you can’t do that then you might as well be a boxer with hands tied behind the back. The lowering of colleges football scholarships from 100 to 85 also help drop a few more athletic kids in their mitts that other schools would have horded.

        (D) Missouri is a superior athletic program to Rutgers historically. And it is contiguous with Big ten states. My guess is the biggest problem with Missouri is that it is Not NE and it is not TX and it is not ND. That being said the second biggest problem is since it wasn’t one of those three, and its lower academic score, it is in the role of a throw in. If NE or ND or TX had said we will only come in with Mizzou then you can see the point. Done and done in that case.

        I myself am not completely sold on Rutgers, but I think I have some possible answers to why

        LikeLike

        August 7, 2010 at 7:00 pm Reply

        1. StvInILL,

           I certainly understand your points (A) and (B) on why the BT should consider RU. Getting East coast exposure and planting the BT flag in NJ and close to the NYC market is understandable. Those are all sound reasons and they’re precisely why so many people on Frank’s site are so pro RU.

           However, no one really knows how successful the conversion of NJ and NYC audiences to the BT would be. There’s a degree of risk involved and I’m sure that’s a major factor for Jim Delany. If RU had a stronger football program, even a middle of the pack program JD would be much more willing to take a chance on Rutgers.

           Adding RU would certainly be a 180 degree change in what we’ve seen so far. The BT has added high profile and highly competitive teams so far (UNL and Penn St) and we know for a fact that other candidates were also high profile, competitive schools (Texas and ND). Other major conferences have only added big name, competitive schools. I don’t think that I’m going out on a limb to say that RU is just not in the same league as Arkansas, South Carolina, CU and Utah. RU is not in the same league as those teams far as Dollar Value, Name Brand and Competitiveness on the field. We also know for a fact that the BT passed up a “middle of the road” school in Mizzou, which was practically pleading for a BT invite.

           So, inviting RU would deviate from what we’ve seen so far. RU would be a “project school” for the BT. It might pay off years down the line. Maybe it’s worth the chance. But, the BT has never entered into the business of taking on “project schools” in the past. It would be a change in direction for the BT.

           RANDUM MUSINGS :

           – Someone brought up the idea that the BT can’t keep adding teams of the caliber of UNL and PENN ST because the BT would become too tough, a “death star” conference. It’s an interesting point, but the BT still isn’t as tough as the SEC. The SEC model of super competitiveness is working, I see the BT following that model. Again, the evidence points to the BT looking at brand name, competitive, schools (ND, TU) and shunning schools like Mizzou.

           – RU’s opening game this year is against Norfolk State. I never heard of that school, but, I’ll follow RU this year to see how they play. RU gets NO Coverage down here in Florida. Indiana University gets way more coverage than RU, so I’ll have to follow their web site. No RU games are televised down here either; again, it’s a bit hard imagining the BT devoting such a valuable slot to a school with so many question marks.

           – On a personal note, it would be great for Iowa to play in NJ. Hayden Frey recruited heavily and quite successfully in NJ. ( All-American Linebacker Andre Tippett was out of NJ) Current RB Shonn Green also from NJ. So, I see the value of NJ, but think RU is down the list from other BT candidates.

           – Nice link to the Northwestern football site. The Wildcats had One Win from 1978 to 1981. A total record of 1-41-1….with one win in four years, Ouch! I think that could be RU’s fate in the Big Ten……..

           LikeLike

           August 8, 2010 at 1:10 pm Reply

           1. You say the BigTen still isn’t as tough as the SEC. Just wait a year or two. After Nebraska joins and Michigan recovers, the BigTen will be just as tough as the SEC. I’ll happily take OSU, PSU, Mich, Neb, Iowa, Wisc over FLA, UGA, Tenn, Bama, Auburn, LSU.

              LikeLike

              August 8, 2010 at 5:30 pm Reply

           2. Wow, talk about jogging my memory. You say they were 1-41-1 from 78’ to 81’.
              Lol! What futility? If I recall correctly the one tie was an opening day 0-0 tie with in-state Illinois.

              LikeLike

              August 10, 2010 at 2:39 pm Reply

              1. @StvInIL – “If I recall correctly the one tie was an opening day 0-0 tie with in-state Illinois.”

                 I’m at a loss as to how this hasn’t been shown yet as part of the Big Ten Network’s Greatest Games series.

                 LikeLike

                 August 10, 2010 at 3:03 pm

        2. “- Someone brought up the idea that the BT can’t keep adding teams of the caliber of UNL and PENN ST because the BT would become too tough, a “death star” conference. It’s an interesting point, but the BT still isn’t as tough as the SEC. The SEC model of super competitiveness is working, I see the BT following that model. Again, the evidence points to the BT looking at brand name, competitive, schools (ND, TU) and shunning schools like Mizzou. ”

           I think adding tough schools is a good idea if you stick to 8 conference games. Going to 9 conference games seems to me a bad idea. Instead, they should require every school to schedule 1 or 2 home and away series with good teams. If the conference is as good as they believe, a team can go 4-4 in conference and should be 4-0 against decent non-conference foes to qualify for a bowl. Any school that doesn’t have the required number of ‘good’ non-conference teams should lose a big of conference TV money.

           I like the idea of the top conferences getting bigger, but I dislike the idea of moving to 9 conference games and getting less connectivity between the conferences.

           LikeLike

           August 8, 2010 at 9:48 pm Reply

220. “I can see RU going 0-8 or 1-7 in the BT for years”

     bring them on, IU has something to look forward too!

     🙂

     hey we take our wins where we can get them, I feel no shame

     LikeLike

     August 7, 2010 at 1:24 pm Reply

221. From the land of ESPN polling:
     http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=pollindex&pollId=95035

     Should Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska be split equally between divisions in the 12 team Big Ten?

     Overall, the split is 55-45 between “Yes definitely” and “Not necessarily”. The per state breakdown is particularly interesting. Nearly every state is for “Yes definitely” except Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Missouri.

     LikeLike

     August 7, 2010 at 1:55 pm Reply

     1. I find Penn State’s 60-40 split to be most interesting. But is that just Nebraska and Penn State lauding themselves as big dogs that need to be split up without thinking of the consequences?

        I wonder how they would feel though about a split that essentially is East-West but Northwestern switched with Penn State?

        Would PSU fans really want those kinds of travel demands? Any split seems to assume that Nebraska/Minnesota/Iowa and possibly Wisconsin or Illinois will be together. Adding Penn State to that group means a lot of travel for those fans.

        Of course there are other splits that require almost as much travel by Nebraska as Penn State, etc. We’ll have to see what people think about specific options.

        I’m sort of on the East-West split since it’s hard to judge which programs will be good at any given time. And I have no idea what ACC divisions are; I’d hate for it to be that confusing for non-Big Ten fans, since you want it to be easy to understand for them if they’re figuring out who’s in the conversation for what…

        LikeLike

        August 7, 2010 at 2:31 pm Reply

        1. For PSU, right now the only Big Ten schools within semi-sane driving distance are OSU, Michigan, and Michigan State. MSU is 7.5 hours one way. The Indiana schools are 9+ hours one way.
           It’s fascinating to me how everyone all of a sudden is thinking the travel demands on PSU in a “Western” Big Ten division would be so awful, yet everyone pooh-poohed the travel distance when talking about Texas joining the Big Ten.
           In a six-team division, PSU would play at worst three away games in a “West” division (in that case I’d assume PSU would get 2 home and one away in the opposite division to make 4 home, 4 away in-conference). Depending on who’s in which division, it might not be much worse than PSU’s 2011 sked where they play at Illinois, at Minnesota, at Northwestern, and at MSU.

           LikeLike

           August 7, 2010 at 7:00 pm Reply

     2. I would think that between Barry Alvarez and Gary Barta (Iowa AD) that they have enough pull to keep Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa in the same division. Those schools all have long standing rivalries and trophy’s that they play for. Iowa has been playing the Gophers for Floyd the Pig since the 1930s. That said, you have to think that Nebraska will be in the west along with those three.

        The only question becomes whether or not you shift PSU out west to balance the top 4 brand names or keep PSU in the east. I’d love to see PSU in the west so that we play them every year, but I could understand where PSU fans wouldn’t want to travel so far for all those games with the western schools.

        Keeping a simple east – west split may give Wisky and Iowa room to keep developing in football. The west would be much weaker in b-ball. Although having Illinois in the west would help with strengthening west’s b-ball.

        LikeLike

        August 7, 2010 at 3:10 pm Reply

     3. Looks like the fans in Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota realize that their historic rivalries are at risk if Nebraska and PSU are put in the same division. If PSU goes west to play with Nebreska, it is inevitable that Wisconsin will go east to play with Michigan and OSU.

        LikeLike

        August 7, 2010 at 3:27 pm Reply

222. Thinking aloud, these pairs should be together:

     Minnesota, Wisconsin… Iowa, Nebraska… Illinois, NW…

     Michigan, MSU… Purdue, Indiana… Penn State, Ohio State…

     The top group would be the west in a straight east-west split, the bottom obviously the east…

     If you try to move any group of two to the other half, it always ends up being more unbalanced than a straight east-west split in addition to upsetting some rivalries… A straight east-west split makes too much sense, lets not overcomplicate something simple.

     LikeLike

     August 7, 2010 at 4:42 pm Reply

     1. Make that two triplets and two pairs:
        Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa… Michigan, MSU, OSU…
        Purdue, Indiana… Illinois, Northwestern…

        Those are your key historical rivalries.

        LikeLike

        August 7, 2010 at 4:59 pm Reply

        1. MSU, Ohio State isn’t too important for either, not nearly as important as Ohio State, Penn State.

           LikeLike

           August 7, 2010 at 5:30 pm Reply

           1. But Michigan-OSU is probably the most important rivalry of all. You would be crazy to split them up. So Michigan needs to stay with OSU, and Michigan needs to stay with MSU. That makes it a triplet.

              As far as PSU goes, it has been in the Big Ten for less than 20 years. Before that, PSU played OSU only eight times (last in 1980). So the PSU-OSU rivalry has little historical significance.

              LikeLike

              August 7, 2010 at 6:00 pm Reply

           2. Ohio state and Illinois also have a long albeit decided rivalry. Yet I believe Illinois has the most wins over OSU next to Michigan.

              LikeLike

              August 7, 2010 at 7:13 pm Reply

223. There have been some crazy brilliant insights since my last post. Let me clarify my position.

     I am speaking to my view of the landscape based on what’s happening, not my personal opinion.

     If I was being true to myself, I believe PSU to Nebraska is a mighty fine footprint. I (personally) believe adding NYC is a yuk (I’m still debating whether MJ’s or Pippen’s dunk on Ewing was better), adding ND and Texas invites disharmony into our mist, and adding Mizzou, Kansas etc. is a Meh. But…it’s not about my homespun NU/UofI/Purdue-based love of corn. It’s about what’s best for the Big Ten.

     As I analyze Delany (per Frank’s initial challenge to think as a President/Commish), what I see is an expansion strategy that has analyzed the largest available land grant universities, regardless of geographic considerations (and yes, some institutions such as NU and U of C on the CIC side, and ND as a consideration are exceptions to the rule, either through grandfather considerations or National Brand status). Nebraska was added despite the geography; it is a top-10 brand. Notre Dame was/is being chased despite the drama/geographic redundancy (of Indiana). If it was about geography, we’d have picked Pitt/Mizzou and would be done with it.

     It’s clear that if it was my business to run (and I believe I’m closer to Delany than the geographic homers on the board), I’d consider creating a national conference, consisting of the top 10 brands that don’t destroy our core identity, with is probably top tier academic / research / football institutions > Northern universities > Midwestern universities. Thus, on this board we’ve been postulating/fantasizing about Rutgers, Maryland, UVa, Florida, Texas, BC, Syracuse, etc.

     I’m all too sure my opinions don’t mean squat to JD and company. If any of us are intelligent enough (and I certainly know this to be the case) to contribute to the conversation (in case someone is reading), it might behoove us to read the tea leaves as they’re playing out and as hints from the powers that be suggest they might be.

     LikeLike

     August 7, 2010 at 7:21 pm Reply

     1. Also, Frank; WTF? We miss you, man! Feed us some knowledge! Does it seems like we’re behind the curve? On a few occasions, you’ve said something new was forthcoming from you. Is this over until December? Is it time to stop thinking about expansion and start thinking about how to optimize our current reality? There have been many nice thoughts about how to grow into certain markets without having teams in those locations… JD certainly seems to have moved on past the ND/Texas train.

        LikeLike

        August 7, 2010 at 7:53 pm Reply

        1. B10J,

           I think Frank is enjoying some baseball and kid time right now before the football season gets rolling again. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong Frank

           🙂

           ps.. from a law point of view what is happening between the chicago paper and the recruit?

           LikeLike

           August 7, 2010 at 8:39 pm Reply

           1. @duffman – Yeah, a new post will be coming up soon – I promise!

              As for the Sun-Times/UK issue, it looks like the Sun-Times is standing by its story. FWIW, I’ve heard that the $200,000 figure actually makes this story fairly credible to recruiting insiders – this is supposedly known on the street as the “going rate” for top Chicago recruits. If they had thrown out a crazy number such as $1 million, it would look like a false story.

              Can’t say that I’m very surprised with Coach Cal at the helm. It’s no wonder that he was pushing heavily for an NBA job over the past few months.

              LikeLike

              August 9, 2010 at 1:09 pm Reply

              1. I just don’t know how you can hide 200k. The athletes or their parents will go on a spending spree and it will be obvious-to any competitor of the team who got the recruit.

                 Maybe the NCAA investigators just aren’t very competent. If memory serves correctly, Texas A&M attracted attention in the late 80s because their QB, who came from a poor family, suddenly started driving a new Trans-Am around campus, but A&M got nailed for everything but that (the biggest items were summer jobs with pay but no need to show up-small potatoes compared to a new car-but maybe easier to prove).

                 LikeLike

                 August 9, 2010 at 2:57 pm

              2. @bullet – The other way to get around this is for a booster that owns a company to all of the sudden hire a recruit’s parent/sibling for a job. Coach K purportedly hooked this up for Chris Duhon’s mother as part of the recruiting process, so even the vaunted Duke can get sucked in.

                 LikeLike

                 August 9, 2010 at 3:36 pm

              3. BTW Frank; I traveled to Chicago last week (incidently during the B10 meetings) and decided to try Gibson’s. Excellent steaks & service. A president of a company or two was there, but Jordan and James and Delany weren’t. I’ve been to Morton’s and the Palm (but not the Chicago locations) and would rate Gibson’s better.

                 LikeLike

                 August 9, 2010 at 3:07 pm

              4. @bullet – Yeah, you can’t get much better than Gibsons. I’m a fan of Keefers and David Burke’s Primehouse, as well.

                 LikeLike

                 August 9, 2010 at 3:36 pm

224. I think we’ll see Michigan & tOSU in different divisions eventually. Maybe not in 2011-2012, when they’ll still have to play an 8 game league schedule, but once they go to a 9-game conference slate, I see the split being between North & South

     North
     Michigan & MSU
     Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin

     South
     NU + UofI
     IU + PU
     tOSU + PSU

     Wisconsin and Iowa will fight over who gets to be Nebraska’s season-ending rival. All the other season-ending rivalries will be quite clear (yes, that means I see OSU-Michigan switching places with the OSU-PSU game and becoming an early season conference game). You may see the Big10 take over the Big12’s Thanksgiving Friday slots on ABC, with Nebraska-Wisconsin in the morning and OSU-PSU in the afternoon.

     Finally, the protected interdivisional rivalry games (2 of them) will be
     Illinois & Northwestern vs. Wisconsin & Iowa
     PSU vs. Nebraska
     PSU vs. MSU
     OSU vs. Michigan
     OSU vs. Minnesota (to throw Minny a bone)
     PU vs. MSU
     PU vs. Nebraska
     IU vs. Michigan
     IU vs. Minny
     (PU & IU may switch, but one of them will get Michigan & Minn, the other will get MSU & Nebraska).

     The big obstacle is getting Michigan & OSU to agree to split up, but if they are willing to do so, a lot of problems with equality will be solved:
     1. All of the other 8 teams get 1 of Michigan/OSU in their division (as well as 1 of the 2 nouveau powers PSU & Nebraska).
     2. The 4 teams that don’t have attractive cross-divisional rivals (Minnesota, MSU, IU, and PU) will all get 1 of the Big 4 as one of their rivals. Illinois & Northwestern have Iowa & Wisconsin.
     3. Michigan & tOSU + Nebraska & PSU play each other once cross-division as well as a weaker team, so none of the Big 4 have a big advantage or disadvantage vs. the rest.

     LikeLike

     August 7, 2010 at 11:23 pm Reply

     1. It’s been kind of weird in these expansion threads. I didn’t know I had one, but I found the one idea I can’t accept and remain a college football fan. I didn’t want expansion (even though I love Nebraska in the Big Ten). I don’t want a CCG. I don’t want an east-west split. I don’t want a larger playoff and I definitely don’t want superconferences. With all that said, I could accept it all and keep on routing for OSU and the Big Ten just the same.

        My line in the sand though is the OSU-Michigan game. If they move it off the last game of the year, I can’t route for the Big Ten anymore. I’ll still be an Ohio State fan, but I just won’t be able to route for the conference as a whole at all anymore.

        LikeLike

        August 9, 2010 at 12:02 am Reply

225. Some thoughts on expansion from Bleacher Report writer Jason Dunigan; I don’t always agree with his observations (and I can’t completely trust anyone who refers to the Big Ten head as “Delaney”), but there are enough cogent points here to make it a decent read.

     http://bleacherreport.com/articles/430836-expansion-aftermath-expansion-future-shock

     To encapsulate, he believes that in three years, we’ll see these changes:

     The Pac-12 adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State

     The Big Ten adds Notre Dame, Rutgers, Missouri and Maryland

     The SEC adds Texas A&M, Florida State, North Carolina State and Virginia Tech

     The ACC, down to eight members after the Big Ten and SEC raids, assimilates the seven remaining Big East football conference members (Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Connecticut, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati and South Florida), with Temple also joining

     All four of the above conferences will have 16 members.

     Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas and Baylor will comprise the nucleus of a reformulated Big 12 conference that also brings in Texas Christian, Brigham Young, Boise State, Memphis, Houston and several others, retaining its BCS status.

     LikeLike

     August 8, 2010 at 6:56 am Reply

     1. While I’m sure the SEC would like to extend its footprint into North Carolina, and from an athletic department standpoint maybe NC State would like to get out from under the shadow of UNC and Duke, I’m not sure how academia at NC State would view a move to the SEC. After Jim Valvano left, and it was publicized that he only graduated 3 players during his tenure, a Chemical Engineering professor was made the interm AD, and I think academics became more of a priority. Unless athletics is going to take more of a priority, I don’t see a move to the SEC for NCSU.

        LikeLike

        August 8, 2010 at 8:00 am Reply

        1. Schwarm, 3 players???
           The man should have been let go long before his untimely demise. That’s criminal!
           I wonder what coach” K” did during that time period?

           LikeLike

           August 8, 2010 at 11:00 am Reply

           1. IIRC, 2 of them were already there when he took over.

              LikeLike

              August 8, 2010 at 11:04 am Reply

226. Normally someone else beats me to posting links like this, but I thought this was notable:

     http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/08/greenstein-big-ten-divisions-taking-shape.html

     LikeLike

     August 8, 2010 at 9:38 am Reply

227. Reading through the clutter of this short article, this is what stood out to me.
     “There’s no debating that 1993 is the starting point for analyzing data. That’s Penn State’s first Big Ten football season and the beginning of the “modern Big Ten,” in Delany parlance.”

     “in an effort to achieve what commissioner Jim Delany calls “competitive fairness.”

     “Delany said he hopes to have the divisions determined by early-to-mid September”

     LikeLike

     August 8, 2010 at 11:08 am Reply

     1. I guess what jumped out at me was Alvarez reframing the situation as evenly dividing the top 6, rather than the top 4. The KISS divisions do, in fact, evenly split the top 6.

        These comments remind me of the purposefully vague things they were saying earlier. I don’t know how many times I read someone like Alvarez say that the Big Ten has 4 big brands and “you can’t put all 4 in the same division.” The problem is that nobody had suggested putting them all in the same division; the question was whether putting 3 out of the 4 in the same division was somehow unacceptable (I say no). This statement that you have to evenly split the top 6 definitely reframes the debate and is also more specific.

        LikeLike

        August 8, 2010 at 11:28 am Reply

        1. Yeah when you start hearing talk all of the sudden about the Top 6 schools, it really only points towards a straight up natural East West split.

           LikeLike

           August 8, 2010 at 12:16 pm Reply

           1. On the flip side, I saw that MSU’s AD was quoted as saying that he (a) wants to be in the same division as Northwestern, and (b) he doesn’t want protected inter-divisional games.

              Perhaps this thinking is so far outside the mainstream that it won’t matter, but it cuts against what Alvarez had to say to some extent.

              LikeLike

              August 8, 2010 at 12:38 pm Reply

              1. Here is the original article from MSU’s AD:
                 http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20100803/GW01/8030339/Chicago-market-has-appeal-for-Spartans

                 He says that he wants to play Michigan, Penn State and Northwestern each year and doesn’t want protected cross divisional games. Following that logic, the only division that works would be:

                 MSU-Michigan-OSU-Northwestern-Penn State-?Illinois

                 If anything, this would even more competitively unbalanced than the East-West split. I doubt this is anything but a pipe dream for MSU.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 12:55 pm

              2. Wow, MSU’s AD said that?

                 I don’t get the historical connection there.

                 Northwestern has more to do with Purdue than MSU or any of the schools in the east…

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 12:55 pm

              3. Well that’s a nice idea I guess.

                 But I’m not seeing why it’s so appealing to him. From my experience with Northwestern games, the only 2 games that are a really deal in Chicagoland are Michigan at Northwestern or Ohio State at Northwestern as far as Northwestern home games go.

                 Wisconsin at Northwestern is also a fairly big deal due to proximity; same goes for Illinois at Northwestern as far as state bragging rights go. Purdue is always an interesting game for actual NU fans, but for the rest of Chicagoland it’s just another game.

                 The rest of the games really depend on how well the opponents are doing (i.e. Iowa/Penn State), or how well Northwestern itself is doing…

                 I can get why the eastern schools may want to split Northwestern and Illinois up though.

                 Illinois as a recruiting area has always been up for grabs since neither Northwestern nor Illinois dominate it, so that’s probably one of the reasons.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 1:05 pm

              4. Best case scenario for MSU’s AD to get most of what he wants (IMO) would be the KISS divisions and MSU having a protected inter-divisional game against Northwestern; that’s the sort of “rivalry” (if you can call it that) that the inter-divisional games are meant to protect. Although I would probably make MSU’s protected inter-divisional rival Wisconsin, but that’s just me.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 1:12 pm

              5. UNL fans will probably show up at Evanston in numbers. A relatively close game, easy to fly to, and an easier ticket than about any other in conference.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 1:14 pm

              6. Nebraska invading Evanston? This is a concern. As a Northwestern fan I don’t want to see the stadium painted red. Badgers are known to do that too but they no longer count on coming out with a W’s anymore. Actually just thinking of that first game is getting me excited. There is no way I miss that one.

                 What ever the new Conference alignment; I say Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois are my must for NU. You can’t always count on beating a Penn State or Ohio State, but those other games really decide what directions were headed in.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 2:59 pm

              7. Yeah, schwarm. I was speaking about the past.

                 In the future, I think Nebraska at Northwestern will become the clear #3 to Michigan and Ohio State in terms of consistently filling up Ryan Field and generating interest in Chicagoland. That really speaks to how valuable Nebraska is.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 3:27 pm

              8. This is a play for the ‘east’ coast teams [Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, MSU] to get the Chicago market. They want to make sure they play games in Chicago where a great % of their alumni eventually reside.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 6:59 pm

              9. Michigan State’s biggest alumni group, outside the state of Michigan, is in Chicago. Therefore, playing at Northwestern every two years is very desirable.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 9:10 pm

              10. @zeek – NU fans will also help fill Minnesota’s stadium. One more reason for an East/West split. Iowa/NU and Wisky/NU will be coveted tickets, and UNL games at Minn and NU will be big roadtrips for UNL fans.

                  LikeLike

                  August 9, 2010 at 7:38 pm

              11. sorry for interchanging NU and UNL – trying to get used to NU already being taken.

                  LikeLike

                  August 9, 2010 at 7:40 pm

228. vincent,

     thanks for the link but Jason Dunigan needs to give a shout out to Frank, you, me and others on this blog that set up this scenario months ago. I still think Missouri is toast when UVA & UNC are there for the Big 10 instead. I also see another team besides FSU as they are a one horse show (all success was under Bowden) so they will have added pressure on Jimbo, if he fails then that program could go south quick. Plus UF already is top dog in the state.

     Looks like the blogger looked at this blog, and just put his byline on it.

     LikeLike

     August 8, 2010 at 12:33 pm Reply

     1. whoops, that was supposed to attach to your post

        LikeLike

        August 8, 2010 at 12:34 pm Reply

229. Alabama/Michigan at Jerryworld in 2012?

     http://mgoblog.com/content/michigan-alabama-dallas-2012?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mgoblog+%28mgoblog%29

     Sounds like Jerry needs a marquee game in 2012 due to no Big XII CCG so he’s going for this. Would be interesting if it happens.

     LikeLike

     August 8, 2010 at 1:21 pm Reply

     1. Guess there won’t be one either in 2011, should have noted that. Still this is an interesting rumor for now. Interesting to see Alabama scheduling this right after Penn State.

        LikeLike

        August 8, 2010 at 1:23 pm Reply

        1. LSU & Oregon will be playing at Jerryworld in 2011.

           Alabama under CNS has always tried to play at least one major out of conference game. We played VT last year and Clemson the year before that, both on a neutral field at the Georgia Dome.

           LikeLike

           August 8, 2010 at 2:04 pm Reply

           1. Yeah, Alabama’s one of those schools that hasn’t shied away from scheduling a big time opponent early in the season. Could be an interesting next 3 seasons with Penn State and possibly Michigan now up to bat.

              LikeLike

              August 8, 2010 at 3:35 pm Reply

     2. I would not agree to this if I were Michigan. If I’m Michigan, I am not agreeing to these neutral sites in lieu of my home field; if a team doesn’t want to come to Ann Arbor, Michigan can find (or afford) someone else to play. If Alabama wants to take its “home” turn at JerryWorld, that’s their business, but if I were Michigan I would not agree to anything that didn’t see the other team visiting Ann Arbor.

        LikeLike

        August 8, 2010 at 1:27 pm Reply

        1. I agree adam, that does not make a bit of sense. Of course if they go and win it’s a big moral and recognision booster that the M is back. In 2 years Rodregus will be doining sports shows or looking at a bright(er) future at Michigan.

           LikeLike

           August 8, 2010 at 2:48 pm Reply

           1. Both schools are far enough away, it could be a fairly empty stadium. LSU should do a good job vs. Oregon, but Alabama is quite a drive.

              LikeLike

              August 8, 2010 at 3:44 pm Reply

              1. Bama fans travel extremely well. They will have absolutely no problems selling their allotment of tickets.

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 7:59 pm

              2. Bama,

                 no offense but I thought you guys had the craziest football fans in the country. if wmtiger is right how come Michigan gets the bigger payday?

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 8:04 pm

              3. duffman,

                 Don’t believe everything you read, especially from a blogger. Here is a link to a Mobile newspaper that is probably a little more reliable:
                 http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/08/alabama-michigan_in_dallas_pos.html

                 Apparently Alabama sources are saying that the game in not as close to being finalized as the UM blogger is stating. And if you think that UM is going to get more money or more seats, then I have some beach front property in Arizonia to sell you. The way that these neutral site games work (which Bama has been part of the last two years) is that both schools get the same ticket allotment and the same payout. ESPN will probably broadcast the game since both schools have a contract with them. The only concession that UM might get is for the Big 10 to get the right to show replays on the BTN (if they get any concessions at all). I will have to see it to believe it if UM gets more money than Bama. Again, don’t believe everything you read on a blog. 🙂

                 LikeLike

                 August 8, 2010 at 8:16 pm

        2. Insiders say M & Alabama got a huge payday from JJ, even more for M as they get to be the home team.

           LikeLike

           August 8, 2010 at 7:08 pm Reply

           1. How much is a lot? With greater than 100K seats, Michigan is already making well over a few million per home game.

              LikeLike

              August 8, 2010 at 8:08 pm Reply

230. Found an interesting comment made by Harvey Perlman pertaining to Big Ten expansion. He states that the Big Ten was NOT planning on making any decisions until September or October.

     When given an ultimatum to disclose its intentions, Nebraska acted.

     “It certainly put pressure on us, but in some ways it worked to our advantage,” Perlman said. “I don’t know if the Big Ten would still have made a decision. It was out of their time frame. They indicated they wouldn’t make any decisions on expansion until September or October at the earliest. It worked out for us.”

     Here is the link to the story.

     http://cjonline.com/sports/football/2010-08-07/column_chancellor_extols_nu_move

     LikeLike

     August 8, 2010 at 8:09 pm Reply

     1. Not really interesting. It merely backs up what Delany said about a 12-18 month timetable. September/October is a lot closer to that than June was. Nebraska got added when they did, because of the ultimatum. It was made perfectly clear when it happened.

        LikeLike

        August 8, 2010 at 8:55 pm Reply

231. I know some have denigrated the Michigan St.-Penn St. game but this from JoePa is interesting:

     “He likes the regular-season finale against Michigan State and feels some loyalty to the Spartans because they — former coach George Perles — accepted Penn State to the league in the 1990s by offering up such a rivalry game. Penn State won’t be looking to just toss Michigan State aside because someone better comes along, he said.”

     As far as that goes, I’ve always expected a Nebraska-Iowa end to the season, and it sounds as if JoePa leans against changing Michigan St.-Penn St. as their finale.

     http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/blogs.detail/display/4635/All-access-with-Paterno–Two-hours-of-JoePa-Q-A.html

     LikeLike

     August 9, 2010 at 1:12 am Reply

     1. Wasn’t MSU one of the schools that voted against PSU entering the Big Ten in the first place? I think this has been linked to before, however:

        http://www.blackshoediaries.com/2010/6/22/1523717/penn-state-history-joining-the-big

        According to this MSU was supposedly one of the schools that didn’t want the Lions in the first place.

        LikeLike

        August 9, 2010 at 3:26 am Reply

        1. I think UM was the one that voted agaisnt them. There was one other but I don’t think it was MSU. Perles was really excited about it and I think he helped the entry a lot. He made that ugly-ass trophy they play for.

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 7:20 am Reply

232. More than anything Silverman as the Big Ten Network president tends to echo Delany’s thoughts on the value of different things in the Big Ten, especially re: Nebraska as a national brand helping in the east more than the eastern schools themselves, etc.

     This is what he’s saying about the possibility of an Ohio State-Michigan rematch:
     “The second game would be bigger,” Big Ten Network president Mark Silverman said, just talking ratings. “As a TV person, it is one of the highest, if not the highest regular-season games out there. I don’t think having a second one would impact the TV ratings.”

     You have Gene Smith echoing that. Could that be the way things are leading right now, especially since Delany might be seeing that kind of ratings bonanza as well?

     http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/24377/could-michigan-ohio-st-split-help-league

     On the other hand, I tend to think of Florida State-Miami as a cautionary tale because of how poorly they’ve done in the ACC even though the ACC divisions, location of the ACC CCG, etc. were designed around maximizing that game and a possible rematch (that hasn’t occurred) the past decade.

     While I do think Michigan will come back, I don’t like the idea of putting stock in the Ohio State-Michigan rematch scenario because I don’t think it’s worked well at all for Florida State/Miami/ACC the past half decade.

     It just seems to me like the game loses a bit of value if it’s held earlier, and all this talk of a rematch is problematic if they are few and far between (especially with Nebraska/Penn State/Wisconsin/Iowa around and Michigan in a down period right now…), since the Big Ten CCG will be big enough regardless of its participants.

     LikeLike

     August 9, 2010 at 3:29 pm Reply

     1. @zeek – I REALLY hope that the Big Ten doesn’t f**k this up. I cannot tell you how much I can’t stand the ACC divisions, which is what I fear will happen if the Big Ten thinks about this too much.

        LikeLike

        August 9, 2010 at 3:38 pm Reply

        1. That’s my biggest fear as well. I mean, as someone who’s watched Florida State/Miami extremely closely, focusing on a potential Ohio State/Michigan rematch and using it to shake up everything is a recipe for disaster.

           I really think the competitiveness aspect has been worried about too much.

           Especially if we’re moving to 9 games. I mean, has anyone complained in the past 15 years that Northwestern/Iowa/Wisconsin, etc. don’t face the eastern Big 3 as much?

           The current Big Ten has Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State with the hardest schedules year in/year out, yet no one complains.

           All of a sudden we’re worried about the fact that the West will be light, when the western teams are already set up in sort of an East/West split based on the way current scheduling works for the 11 schools?

           LikeLike

           August 9, 2010 at 5:10 pm Reply

        2. Frank I second what you say.

           As a 1978 alum of Ohio State and been following them since the late 60’s. I can live with them being in separate divisions. BUT IF they move The Game from the last weekend, I am done with the Big Ten. It will piss me off so much that I will not be watching any more Ohio State or Big Ten games.

           The tradition of Ohio State and the Big Ten will be compromised in my thinking. The Game wont mean the same. Living in Ohio, most of the football games in High School are patterned after the Ohio State vs Michigan game, meaning our rivalry games are usually the last game of the year.

           As a traditionalist, moving The Game changes everything and I wont be part of it. I just as soon become a fan of the SEC. I just hope the Big Ten does noit over think this, otherwise they are going to piss off a lot of people.

           As far as Gene Smith, he does not have a clue since he is NOT an Ohio State grad. Might be from Ohio but that does not make him a Buckeye.

           LikeLike

           August 9, 2010 at 6:29 pm Reply

           1. Feel exactly the same. I’ll go along with a ton of things I don’t agree with (from expansion to begin with, to separate OSU-Michigan divisions, to the KISS divisions (still think a 5-2-2 would work much better)), but move OSU-Michigan from the end of the year and my interest in the Big Ten is done. I’ll still route for Ohio State, but no one else.

              LikeLike

              August 10, 2010 at 11:28 am Reply

              1. Moreover, I would ask, what is the point of playing the last game of the year unless the game is set up to be comparable to the current season-ending game? It is not in any way comparable if they may be playing again the week later in the game that “really matters.”

                 LikeLike

                 August 10, 2010 at 7:31 pm

     2. Unless you’re doing the ACC random method, splitting UM and OSU, trying to preserve a lot of rivalries and balance leaves you really with just:
        UM
        MSU
        UW
        IA
        MN
        NW
        in one and
        PSU
        OSU
        IU
        PU
        IL
        UNL
        in the other

        That still leads to 3 “brands” in one division and a lousy setup for UNL. Which leads you to the question of why not just KISS?

        As others have pointed out, there are a lot of 3 way rivalries. So even if you like the random splits (I seriously dislike them), keeping rivalries is challenging under the ACC method.

        LikeLike

        August 9, 2010 at 4:20 pm Reply

        1. Why couldn’t you switch UNL & NW? That would even out the big 4 “brands”, although it does make one tougher than the other by adding Wisc & Iowa with UM & UNL.

           LikeLike

           August 9, 2010 at 6:40 pm Reply

           1. @bamatab-That’s the point. Not only are 4 of the top 6 in one group, but the OSU/PSU group gets 2 of the bottom 3 in IU and UI and the 1 private school in NW. So you split the brands but have significantly more disparity than straight E/W.

              LikeLike

              August 9, 2010 at 8:52 pm Reply

              1. bullet, yeah the straight East/West split is probably the way that the Big Ten needs to go when all is said and done. It keeps more of the major rivalries together (at least the ones that I’m aware of), it splits the big 6 evenly and thus makes the conferences a little more even, and it makes it a lot easier for the non-Big Ten college football fans to keep up with the divisions (unlike the ACC). They just better hope that Iowa & Wisc don’t pull a Colorado and start to revert back to playing mediocre football.

                 LikeLike

                 August 9, 2010 at 9:17 pm

     3. Once a year is great for the OSU UM game. I think if they play twice a year it will diminish the rivalry from a casual fan perspective. Not that a year end game of significance wont be. But eventually some may just decide to skip the first one. The game is less of an event if it can be seen twice in one year.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 7:36 am Reply

233. If the BigTen uses KISS divisions there will be three top teams in each division. This will provide 6 headline divisional games (3 in each division) plus 4 or 5 headline crossover games (assuming there are three crossover games which rotate without fixed matchups). Add the CCG and that yields 11 or 12 headline games per year.

     The number of headline games can be increased to 16 per year by giving the top teams permanent crossover games with each other. This would be great for television and great for the fans, but it would be a very tough schedule for the top teams. Morever, the weaker teams would have no crossover games with the top teams (unless a 4th crossover game were added).

     Perhaps the best option is to use two crossover games for top teams to play top teams. That would provide 6 headline games (making a total of 13 for the year). The remaining crossover game could then rotate through the other teams. For example, each year Nebraska could play PSU, one of OSU/Mich, and one of MSU/Pur/Ind. Meanwhile, MSU could play NW each year, plus one of Minn/Ill and one of Neb/Iowa/Wisc.

     LikeLike

     August 9, 2010 at 4:22 pm Reply

     1. Problem long term is are Iowa and Wisconsin going to stay where they are? I think for the immediate future they will, but they don’t have the name brand of the others and a few mistakes could push them down in a hurry and there is no guarantee they’ll be back. That doesn’t mean east-west split isn’t best, but it’s a cautionary note that should be learned from the Big 12 North.

        If we are going to go with 2 crossovers games, I say divide up the 4 big names and 6 most successful over the past 17 years.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 11:33 am Reply

234. I like East-West. Maintaining the rivalries is important in college football, and they lose something being in different divisions. With nine games sounding likely in the future the schedules will still be balanced. Someone suggested a crossover scenario keeping Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State in different groups of two, and the same for Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska in the West. One group rotates off the schedule, the second flips the home and away game, while the third group rotates on. That way everyone plays all of the teams in the other division 2/3 of the seasons.

     An example crossover schedule for Nebraska:

     Year 1: Michigan, at Michigan State and at Ohio State, Indiana.

     Year 2: Ohio State, at Indiana and at Penn State, Purdue

     Year 3: Penn State, at Purdue and at Michigan, Michigan State

     The top six teams play four of the others every season and the schedule is balanced for the other six teams.

     LikeLike

     August 9, 2010 at 5:55 pm Reply

     1. Texas turned down playing “a very high-profile Big Ten team” because the BTN insisted on severely restricting TX’s use of highlights. Same reason MN was dropped.

        http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/08/09/future-texas-football-scheduling/

        And no, having just added ND to the same years a Cal, it isn’t because TX was afraid to play MI or PSU or whoever it was.

        LikeLike

        August 9, 2010 at 9:33 pm Reply

        1. With the Big 12 losing a CCG and Nebraska, Texas needs to beef up its OOC schedule.

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 1:41 am Reply

        2. The most interesting thing I read from that article is that the Texas/BigTen issue was a legitimate one from the BTN side of the fence…

           …in other words Texas will be pushing hard to “own” larger portions of other people’s rights than normal in order to provide additional content for its BevoTV.

           They could be having problems with more conferences than just the Big Ten if that turns out to be the case.

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 9:35 am Reply

           1. Especially if the Pac-12 has a conference network up in the next few years. The Big East is looking at it (yes I think it’s a joke of an idea, but still).

              This could become a bigger problem for Texas than it was originally. If they get shut out of Pac-12 and Big Ten opponents, that would not be good.

              LikeLike

              August 10, 2010 at 12:04 pm Reply

              1. Wouldn’t you think it likely, if more conferences (and, possibly, schools) establish their own network, the greater likelihood there is that a general scheme of higher levels of sharing will be worked out amongst the various parties?

                 So long as it’s just Texas and the BTN, both parties can dig in their heels, as there are plenty of options for both parties elsewhere, but if the Pac 12 or the Big East start a network with the same sort of sharing policies which the BTN seems to have, wouldn’t future Pac 10-Big 10 games and Big East-Big 10 games become a bit more problematic to schedule?

                 LikeLike

                 August 10, 2010 at 9:39 pm

              2. Or, from Texas’ perspective, you work to fill up the entire decades OOC slate as soon as possible and negotiate shared TV rights before the Pac 12 and other conferences/schools have networks set up.

                 I somewhat wonder if Texas is taking this approach. I cannot ever remember Texas schedule an OOC 10 years out, as it just has with ND, and even the 7-8 lead time for the MD series supposedly being negotiated has a bit more lead time than UT OOC series normally have.

                 LikeLike

                 August 10, 2010 at 9:42 pm

              3. You’ve got a point. Usually beyond 5-6 years there isn’t much scheduled by UT. Just some general understandings that they will try to work something out.

                 LikeLike

                 August 10, 2010 at 11:18 pm

235. Is it just me?

     I think it has been easier to game the realignment easier than how to do the divisions! Everybody on here has some excellent points and the more I look at it the more frustrated I get. It is like a jigsaw puzzle that you get almost close to finishing only to find the last piece does not quite fit right. On top of that there is no perfect solution. I put all the names on magnets and keep moving them around the fridge (which has caused me to put on a few pounds, the things we sacrifice I suppose 🙂 ) hoping that some mystic tumblers will fall in place and there will be the EUREKA! moment. Alas, I just wind up raiding some leftover kung pow chicken, and a package of tofu nearing expiration.

     Anybody else having a similar problem. Am I doomed to soon be making mashed potatoes into Lucas Oil like a scene out of Close Encounters! Will there be division help groups like AA and Weight Watchers? Can it be that we still have almost a month till the season kicks off? (sorry pro exhibition games leave me “meh”) and time is dragging along in some slowed down dimension of time like when you were a kid staying awake on christmas eve.

     *wanders back to the kitchen to play with the magnets again, and I think there is some ice cream left in the freezer*

     LikeLike

     August 9, 2010 at 9:52 pm Reply

     1. You could always start working on the Pac 12. They have some difficult issues. Or re-jiggering the ACC.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 10:19 am Reply

        1. Personally, I think that the ACC comes down to what you do with the 4 schools in North Carolina:
           1. Boston College should go with Virginia Tech as the schools that defected together from the Big East; Virginia Tech should go with Virginia as the in-state rival; Maryland obviously should be placed with the Virginia schools.
           2. Florida State and Miami should be placed together as elite rivals; and it would be pretty imbalanced if you put Clemson and Georgia Tech (two average-to-better-than-average programs) with the other group, so throw them in with Miami/FL as well.
           3. Then it’s just a matter of how you split up the schools in North Carolina. My sense is that the geography is totally irrelevant, and at any rate I know nothing about North Carolina geography. My first inclination would be to put Wake Forest and Duke with the Virginia group, and NCST and UNC with the Florida group, in part because I think that would actually make for a more interesting basketball schedule. Whatever you do in the ACC, you’re going to have 2 Duke/UNC games with no guarantee of a “rubber match” in the ACC Tournament, but if they’re in different divisions (and you use divisional play in basketball), the odds are pretty good that that if that rubber match occurs, it’s in the Tournament Championship Game. (I say all that to demonstrate how aiming for a particular postseason matchup makes sense for basketball in a way that it does not for football.)

           As for the Pac-12, in my mind the schools break into logical groups: California+Arizona, and the Pacific NW+Mountain schools. If you were worried about geography it’d come down to whether the schools in northern California are in relation to Colorado/Utah (I have no idea). But that alignment keeps all of the in-state rivals together, keeps the two newbies together. It’s impossible for everybody to play the Los Angeles schools every year, so someone is going to be unhappy no matter what you do.

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 11:33 am Reply

     2. I see what you mean, duffman, but that’s why I made my 4 rules. Just to re-state:
        1. Ohio State and Nebraska can’t be together.
        2. Michigan and Ohio State must be together.
        3. Michigan State and Michigan must be together.
        4. Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota must be together.

        Those 4 rules have helped me think through this process. (If you abide by them, the only sensible solution is the KISS alignment.)

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 11:16 am Reply

        1. Really, I would argue that there should be rules 5 and 6 as well:
           5. Illinois and Northwestern must be together.
           6. Purdue and Indiana must be together.

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 11:54 am Reply

        2. I agree rules work well. My are similar, but a little different, which leads to different results.

           1. Ohio State and Michigan must play the last game of the season against each other.
           2. Instate teams must play each other.
           3. Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota must play one another.
           4. Penn State can’t be the only eastern team in a western division and must play Ohio State.
           5. To the extent possible with above rules, the 4 big name schools and big 6 from last 17 years must be divided evenly.

           Since I don’t require the games to be in-division, it’s possible to work all 5 rules with a 5-2-2. That does create issues of its own though and there’s a good argument for ignoring my rule 5 and going with geography. I’m just not sold on it.

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 11:56 am Reply

           1. In my mind, it isn’t enough just to play; an in-division game and an inter-division game are worlds apart, at least for certain rivalries. OSU/UM and UM/MSU are the first 2 I think of. I am not sure that having Wisconsin/Iowa/Minnesota be in-division necessarily matters, but all 3 can’t play each other on an 8-game schedule unless they’re in the same division, and I think a 9-game schedule is an unfair mistake (4 home/5 road for some, 5 home/4 road for others) which (likely) loses money.

              LikeLike

              August 10, 2010 at 12:10 pm Reply

     3. Agree completely. There just isn’t a perfect arrangement, so it comes down to what you value most. I could see a lot of solutions, but all have holes.

        The PAC-10 is probably more difficult as mentioned though. They have literally everyone wanting to play in southern California every year, have the California schools wanting to play together, and have to worry about rematches in a zipper.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 11:38 am Reply

236. One (perhaps) unintended consequence of the divisions will be the relegation of some to ‘permanent’ also ran status. All of this talk of a Big Six (which had never previously been a designation) might prevent the rest from ever being able to rise up. Iowa and Wisconsin, which historically have been no sure things, should marketing their newly minted status to the max. Of course I speak with an eye toward Northwestern’s valiant efforts over the last 15 years to break through; likewise Purdue, MSU and Illinois should be very concerned about their future ability to recruit in this proposed new world order.

     LikeLike

     August 10, 2010 at 7:36 am Reply

     1. On the list of uphill recruiting battles for Northwestern, I doubt not being listed among the “Big Six” is even worth mentioning.

        I’ve probably made this point too many times, but if the Big Six talk leads to East-West divisions, Northwestern has a winning record against all their divisional opponents over the last 15 years (except Nebraska). Appearing in 5 championship games in 15 years would be a much bigger gain than any harm caused.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 7:51 am Reply

        1. True, but I know where we’ve been and don’t care to go back there again!

           Stop State at 28!!!

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 8:26 am Reply

        2. If you’re a fan of northwestern, you got to have some confidence about their ability to win or steal one from the big boys in fourth quarter. They (NU) are not THE destination for 5 star recruits but tend to be competitive with those schools that are over the past 15 years. There is something to be said for coaching, developing and a system in college football.

           My feel as a fan is that the big boys are often looking past NU to some team down the schedule. If the game is within 12 points into the 4th it’s game on! for Northwestern.

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 9:57 am Reply

           1. I feel great about Northwestern ability to never quit and to claw back into games.

              I am a bit dismayed that they always (especially last year) seem to give the opponent several touchdowns before showing up to play.

              LikeLike

              August 10, 2010 at 1:13 pm Reply

     2. Methinks Alvarez and Bielema unilaterally raised themselves to newly minted Big Six status. Wisconsin is very close to Big Four (OSU, PSU, Michigan, Nebraska) status but not quite there. Iowa actually has quite a ways to go but since 5 doesn’t split cleanly I suspect Wisconsin crowned Iowa because they would like to maintain the Neb-Iowa-Wis triumvirate.
        I give Wisconsin much credit, but they are simply not consistently in the league of the Big Four.
        As far as the “also-rans,” they can and do break thru, but not with the frequency they need to be consistent performers.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 9:55 am Reply

        1. Although they are consistently competitive, WI is one of only 4 schools not to win a share of the B10 this decade. They last won in 99. MSU was 90 and IU and MN shared a title in 67 (along with Purdue). The also-rans break through more in the B10 than any conference other than the P10.

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 10:24 am Reply

           1. bullet – the also-rans will stop breaking through as soon as the Big Ten starts playing a CCG. Right now in the Big Ten, the also-rans can share a conference title with one of the big boys. The CCG is a Cinderella killer. Ask Arkansas and Mississippi State. Taking it a step farther, Ole Miss has shared in a couple SEC Western Division titles, but they’ve never made it to the SEC CG. The divisional/CCG format rewards head-to-head matchups, and teams that catch a break with the schedule rarely sneak through.

              Comparing conferences with “shared” titles and conferences with CCGs is apples and oranges.

              LikeLike

              August 10, 2010 at 2:11 pm Reply

              1. True, but still only 7 Big 12 schools in 15 years and 8 SEC schools in 20 years have won division titles-finishing the best of only 6 teams. Vandy, UK and S. Carolina haven’t really even sniffed the east title (although that could change this year). And while they didn’t have to win a CCG, those 8 B10 teams have been to the Rose Bowl as conference champ since 95 (except maybe Iowa-not sure about them-but they were 8-0 one year in a 2 way tie), not just as a co-champ behind Ohio St.

                 LikeLike

                 August 10, 2010 at 5:38 pm

              2. bullet – the point I’m trying to make is that because the Big Ten doesn’t currently have a CCG, there have been 27 Big Ten champs in the last 17 years. Since the SEC has a CCG, there have been only 17 SEC Champs in the last 17 years. You can’t brag about how many different conference champs the Big Ten has had when compared to another conference that plays by a different set of rules. It’s apples and oranges.

                 If we are still having this conversation after 17 years of Big Ten CCGs, I’ll bet that only 6 (of the current and near-future) Big Ten teams will have played in the Big Ten CCG and that less than 6 teams will have won. Sorry, Purdue, Illinois & Northwestern fans. I doubt you’ll get much of a sniff of the CCG. Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Kentucky fans can commiserate with you.

                 Looking back at the Big Ten since Penn State joined, 1995, 1999 & 2001 are the only years that Ohio St, Penn St, and Michigan didn’t win or share part of the Big Ten championship. Of the shared titles, only the 93 Wisconsin and the 04 Iowa teams finished ranked higher than one of the Big 3 that they shared the title with (Ohio St & Michigan, respectively).

                 LikeLike

                 August 10, 2010 at 9:47 pm

              3. I’d bet it would be more like 9-10 that have played in the championship game, but we won’t know for a long time. And I’m not bragging-I’m predominately a B12 and SEC fan-just an opinion about the strength of the bottom half of the programs-most of them can rise in a particular year.

                 LikeLike

                 August 10, 2010 at 11:25 pm

              4. “there have been 27 Big Ten champs in the last 17 years.”

                 “If we are still having this conversation after 17 years of Big Ten CCGs, I’ll bet that only 6 (of the current and near-future) Big Ten teams will have played in the Big Ten CCG and that less than 6 teams will have won”

                 The SEC has had 36 participants in the title game in 18 years, meaning that the Big Ten has had fewer conference champions than the SEC has had division winners. However, only 3 times has someone outside of the Big 6 been in that game.

                 Conversely, in the Big Ten, 5 of the 27 winners were from outside of the traditional powers, including 2 outright champions.

                 I don’t know how anyone can look at those statistics and say that even though these teams have won the conference 1/3 of the time, they will not be able to win half of the conference.

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 8:56 am

              5. M – here’s why I say what I say.

                 The 2001 Big Ten champ was Illinois. They lost to Michigan, which finished the season 8-4. That year, Ohio State & Iowa finished 7-5, and Wisconsin & Penn State had losing seasons. 2001 was probably one of the most “down” years in Big Ten history. Illinois had a good team that year in a bad Big Ten, but they were exposed/destroyed by a hot-but-not-great LSU team in the Sugar Bowl that year (sorry Frank). I doubt we’ll see the rest of the Big Ten be that bad again.

                 In order to make it to a CCG, you have to win your division and come out ahead in all the tie-breaker scenarios. Let’s look at the 12 team Big Ten and assume that they employ the KISS divisional alignment. In order for Purdue, for example, to win the Big Ten East, they would have to hope for Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan all to have a down year, be on probation, or catch a break with their own cross-divisional schedule.

                 The last time Arkansas won the SEC West, they had one of the most talented backfields in SEC history with Darren McFadden and Felix Jones, and they caught a scheduling break. That year, the Hogs played at Vandy, at unranked South Carolina, and at home versus a good, then 13th ranked, Tennessee team. They also got LSU and Alabama at home. That year, LSU beat Arkansas who beat Auburn who beat LSU, so the SECW champ was determined by their SEC East record. LSU beat Tennessee, crushed UK & lost at the Swamp to eventual BCS NC Florida. Auburn lost to a Georgia team with its backs against the wall in the South’s oldest rivalry. That year, Florida finished #1, LSU #3, Auburn #9, and Arkansas #15.

                 In 2002, Arkansas also represented the SECWest in the SEC CG. Alabama had the best record at 6-2, but was on probation. Arkansas, Auburn & LSU all had a 5-3 conference record. I think Arkansas made in the the CCG on the 5th tie-breaker.

                 I’m not saying that its impossible for Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois or Michigan State to make it to the Big Ten CG, but by looking at 2 of the 3 SEC examples, it will be very difficult and they will need some luck too.

                 Then, if one of the non-top 6 make it to the CCG, they will most likely have to play one of the top 6 from the other division. As I said before, the CCG, at least in the SEC, is a Cinderella killer. I suspect it will be the same in the Big Ten.

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 10:46 am

237. FWIW, the Northwestern poster who supposedly got someone chewed out by Delany is at it again:
     http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=145848409&mid=145848409&sid=901&style=2

     The executive summary is that ND and Texas are still the targets. The nine game schedule is partially to pressure ND by limiting its opponents, both directly and indirectly from other conferences adopting similar stances.

     I have serious doubts about the veracity and the effectiveness of this plan, but this blog has shifted a little bit too far towards wild speculation and needs more crazy rumors to balance out.

     LikeLike

     August 10, 2010 at 8:02 am Reply

     1. Only problem I see with that logic (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that any ‘pressure’ MSU, UM and Purdue would feel would be self imposed, given that 8 of 11 schools would have to sign off on a 9 game schedule prior to its implementation.

        Consider that even under this scenario, UM might not be inclined to give up one of their biggest rivals, Purdue has an in-state incentive to play ND, and MSU has more than held their own against ND, which is more impressive from a recruiting and prestige standpoint than just having ND on their schedule.

        There seem to be better ways than going through these contortions to compel a ND/Texas entry to the Big Ten. Weren’t there concerns expressed by both schools regarding a 9 game conference schedule? Wouldn’t this have an opposite effect?

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 8:38 am Reply

     2. Big Ten Jeff,

        Your 100% correct. MU, MSU and Purdue have every incentive to keep ND on their schedule even if there are only 3 OOC openings.

        Furthermore, I think the BT want to schedule as many games against ND as possible. It would be even better if Northwestern or another team picked up a OOC game with ND. Right now ND plays 25% of there games against BT schools. If they pick up another BT school it means a full 1/3 of there schedule is against the BT. They become a quasi Big Ten member and this makes it a step easier to become a BT member.

        I do think the UT and ND package is still a viable strategy for Jim D. He hasn’t given up the ghost. And he doesn’t strike me as the kind of person who will give up easily. Plus, it’s a long term strategy. The BT waited almost 20 years to add UNL, they’ll wait 4 or 5 years for ND to “see the light.”

        To get the required 8 votes from existing BT members JD has to have expansion candidates that are serious money makers with strong academics. Thus, UT and ND are still the ‘hr’ target schools.

        Divisions would be simple with UT going to the West with UNL, Wisconsin and Iowa. ND would go east with it’s traditional rivals along with tOSU and Penn St. I suppose they’d have to guarantee ND and UT a cross over protected rivalry.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 10:11 am Reply

        1. Pursuing Notre Dame and Texas doesn’t preclude Delany from also pursuing Rutgers and Maryland, as the latter two would be #13 and #14 (bolstering the Big Ten along the eastern seaboard), while the former would be #15 and #16 (boosting the Big Ten national brand).

           Moreover, I think the Big Ten has made clear that it will set the conditions for membership, not UT or ND, so no one it doesn’t want will go along for the ride (e.g., Texas Tech or Boston College). The closest thing it might agree to would be to make ND-UT a protected rivalry, which makes good marketing sense to begin with.

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 10:58 am Reply

           1. I think ND is still the long term wild card but UT is off the table.

              A&M wants the SEC

              ttech will not get an invite from Big 10 or SEC

              UT will not go to the SEC, but will not want to go it alone [Big 10] and will have to let tech and possibly baylor tag along for the ride.

              UT’s options = where they are, or a Pac 16

              LikeLike

              August 10, 2010 at 11:17 am Reply

              1. I think this sums it up nicely.

                 LikeLike

                 August 10, 2010 at 9:45 pm

        2. “It would be even better if Northwestern or another team picked up a OOC game with ND.”

           Northwestern actually used to play ND fairly regularly. Overall, there have been 46 games between the two.

           The last game was in 1995; various Wildcat fans have posited differing explanations for the series ending (*cough* cowards *cough*).

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 1:22 pm Reply

     3. Personally, I think a 9 game Big Ten means that Notre Dame is probably not going to join the Big Ten unless the BCS is revamped for a playoff between 4 superconferences (which is still far away).

        I think a 9 game Big Ten is a precursor to a move to 14 before the next negotiation of the contract, and I don’t see Texas joining the Big Ten.

        There’s a gulf a mile wide from where Texas is on revenue sharing and an all rights in network and where the Big Ten is…

        Nebraska made the leap to the Big Ten’s position, when it used to be against all of those concepts during the 90s.

        Texas has no reason to give up Bevo TV, and Notre Dame has no reason to join a 9 game Big Ten unless it’s path to the National Championship is threatened.

        As long as ND has a viable path to the NCG, they don’t need the Big Ten.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 10:41 am Reply

        1. I agree with you zeek on the ND aspect (though I will admit to thinking their time of having this luxury is numbered to “only” a few more decades), but disagree when it comes down to Texas.

           While Texas is a large, prestigious academic institution with strong athletic programs, there are some things that I think will actually prevent them from being as able to pull off “The ND”.

           First off, while there are a lot of students at UT, I have to believe they tend to be a very regional school.

           With Texas (the state) requiring admittance of the Top 10% (or whatever it is nowadays) to its state universities UT (and the other schools) are having problems with not having the ability to be more selective in their incoming freshmen classes. On one hand this can hurt that academic prestige (Top 10% of a bad school means freshmen not ready for college level courses) on the other it means slots that could be available for students outside the schools regional area are used up by the local products (who as mentioned above are not always better). I’ve actually heard the latter is a major complaint of the UT admissions office.

           ND, by recruiting (academically) nationally is able to place its alumni nationally and is able to (at least in some small way) maintain its national prescence. I don’t see Texas being nearly as able to do this.

           What’s more, while ND has its own channel (NBC) it hasn’t (to this point anyway) tried to use programs’ for its own purposes “post game”. With BevoTV that is going to be exactly the way UT will utilize its OoC games. I could see many teams (especially ones in established conferences) saying “thanks, but no thanks”, or demanding payment in return…further cutting into the profit margins of a channel that, by the articles I’ve read, will be much narrower in profits than the BTN (even from a “planning” standpoint).

           Point being, Texas is one of the few schools that COULD pull off “The ND”, but I see enough disimilarities that I wouldn’t say their success is a given.

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 11:40 am Reply

           1. True, I agree with you on all those factors that make ND different from Texas.

              ND has NBC and the Big East to put all its other programs in…; Texas probably won’t be able to find such accomodations.

              In any case, I don’t think the Big Ten will target ND or Texas until they change their mind on a lot of these issues.

              The difference with Texas and any other large public university is that it has such a big state/region backing its TV numbers that it tends to become less likely that it would join the Big Ten as time passes.

              LikeLike

              August 10, 2010 at 12:09 pm Reply

        2. One interesting thing about BevoTV and the BTN (which certainly are driving both groups’ activities) is that they appear to be mutually exclusive and prohibitive of grouping.

           Consider UT in the Big Ten. All other Big Ten schools have assigned rights to the BTN. Thus, what games would UT have to show on BevoTV? There wouldn’t be enough content unless special considerations are made, and of course why would this be done? Didn’t need to do it for Nebraska, and we wouldn’t have to do it for ND – both of which are bigger historic brands than Texas.

           Texas to the Pac-10 gives them BevoTV in its desired form, control over half the Pac-10, and a better cultural/geographic fit. UT doesn’t belong to Austin. It belongs to Texas.

           I’d be beyond impressed if Texas to the Big Ten ever happened.

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 12:02 pm Reply

238. Texas couldn’t even come to terms on a non-conference game with a B10 team without expecting media rights rules to be twisted for their benefit. There is zero chance they join the conference.

     LikeLike

     August 10, 2010 at 12:13 pm Reply

     1. Greg, at this point I would not be disappointed if they never did. I just do not seeing “peace in our time “with Texas expectations and ego in the conference. I would be satisfied to work on the Eastern strategy incrementally, one school each year. Encouraging ND to come along by implications. I would take ND at 15 and lock it up. Texas would be free to grab the brass ring with no chance of tag alongs. This would be the implication.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 1:25 pm Reply

239. Just out of curiosity, is there any thought that the Big Ten might take ND and stop at 13? I know it sounds kind of crazy, but 20 years of 11 teams was kind of crazy too. The MAC currently has 13 teams, so it’s not like it’s against the rules or something.

     Just kind of throwing it out there.

     LikeLike

     August 10, 2010 at 1:37 pm Reply

     1. One thing I can say for that idea is that you can have an unbalanced side by strength and an unbalanced side by number of teams simultaneously.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 2:43 pm Reply

        1. That’d be one major difficulty. For all the angst about how to split the divisions and what’s “balanced,” I cannot see ND joining unless they’re in the “East” and keeping their longstanding rivalries with Purdue, MSU and Michigan. If people are frustrated now, having that group add ND on top of all the current sturm und drang would be some kind of Alignment Armageddon.

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 7:16 pm Reply

     2. @Adam – Seeing that the Big Ten had 11 teams for so long, it’s not completely out of the question, but I’ve seen enough comments from the ADs that no one ever wants an odd number of teams again. ND’s value would also likely be leveraged to make inroads in the NYC market, likely by inviting Rutgers or Syracuse to give the Big Ten a physical presence that would be asked for by cable providers plus the fan presence of ND and Penn State.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 3:01 pm Reply

        1. I agree it would be weird, but I figured if people can talk seriously about USC or Miami joining the Big Ten, I wouldn’t be laughed at too hard by broaching the subject.

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 7:14 pm Reply

     3. The start of any ‘seismic’ event is Texas A&M not getting its alleged $20mil in media revenues and taking the SEC up on its invitation…

        If and when that happens, the former Big XII is in real danger of dying which opens up the rest of the conference to be swallowed up by the Big East, Mountain West, Pac 10, SEC, Big Ten conferences.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 3:33 pm Reply

        1. And CUSA will get stuck with Baylor…

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 4:09 pm Reply

240. other expansion news…

     http://www.detnews.com/article/20100810/SPORTS07/8100426/1004/SPORTS/CCHA-boss–Penn-State–very-attractive–as-potential-member

     LikeLike

     August 10, 2010 at 6:25 pm Reply

     1. This would be awesome. One of the reasons I was high on ND joining was I was hoping it’d be a catalyst for starting a Big Ten Hockey Championship. Could this be a catalyst toward that happening anyway? I would love that.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 7:34 pm Reply

241. Anyone talking re-alignment? want to float this…..Delany said records from 93 as a sample size seems fair….then said competition-tradition-geography in order of importance.

     Is this to much travel for PSU?

     Division 1: UofM(94)OSU(106)MSU( 63)Purdue(63)Indy(33 )NW(59)=418 league wins since 93.

     Division 2: NEB(98)PSU(86)WIS(7 9)IOWA(71)MN(44)ILL( 45)=423 league wins since 93

     Sectional games
     UofM-NEB/OSU-PSU/MSU-WIS/PURDUE-IOWA/INDY-MN/NW-ILL/

     of course you could switch Indy and Illini. and adjust accordingly I think.

     I keep thinking to protect rivals you need to keep (wis,iowa,mn) together because if they split you lose wis-iowa because no way PB axe is going to be shelved, it is the longest running b10 rivalry game.

     I mean iowa-wis-mn equate 194 conference wins since 93. But
     purdue-msu-nw is 185 wins. 9 games in 17 years.

     what am I missing?

     LikeLike

     August 10, 2010 at 6:29 pm Reply

     1. You split Illinois and Northwestern for starters. Also, subjectively, Nebraska-PSU-WIS-IA seems a hell of a lot stronger than UM/OSU. I don’t think you can measure “balance” precisely, but let’s not blind ourselves to the fact that Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa all have young coaches. Yes, PSU’s coach is an octogenarian, but Michigan’s is facing a fresh round of allegations of misconduct and the cloud continues to brew over Ann Arbor.

        I do not consider balance to be a major concern but that alignment appears to me to make a mockery of the concept.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 7:38 pm Reply

        1. Well Adam you may not see balance as a major concern, but Delany said it was his top concern.

           splitting Ill/NW doesn’t mean they won’t play every year. they r the cross sectional game.

           If you want to talk about coaches what if Ferentz leaves? He may be the best player development coach on the planet. and they still have 71 league wins since 93. which puts them closer to msu and purdue historically then the top tier.

           perception and reality are different if you look at the numbers.

           uofm-osu-msu-pur=326 league wins since 93
           neb-psu-wis-iowa=334 league wins – 8 wins in 16 seasons?

           now put nw in the osu league and you have another solid program bringing 59 wins in that same time period.

           The only reason the first division has less wins is because of Indy (33) switch indy with illinois and the first division has more overall wins than the mighty neb-wis-iowa-psu league.

           OK Adam try again now with facts…..which rival game am I missing?

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 8:18 pm Reply

           1. As I said, you split Illinois/NW. All in-state pairs should be in the same division.

              And notwithstanding Delany’s statement of priorities, I think he is wrong and, if he actually pursued that, would be a betrayal of what the Big Ten stands for. My interest in the league would evaporate.

              LikeLike

              August 10, 2010 at 8:49 pm Reply

              1. There is not a man, woman or child that is or should be worried about the LoL Trophy rivalry. Neither school cares very much about it.

                 I think nearly all Northwestern fans would be more upset about losing Ioa and Wisconsin games.

                 LikeLike

                 August 10, 2010 at 8:59 pm

              2. As I said? really?

                 Again how does splitting NW and ILL hurt the league? even when they play every year.

                 I guess I missed the part when Delany quoted you at the press conference about state teams staying in the same division.

                 Evaporate really? You feeling alright tonight?

                 You kind of sound like my wife……when her sex drive evaporates because I disagreed with her about the sex appeal of Eva Longria….she likes her hair and I like her ass than boom, evaporation….

                 lighten up.

                 LikeLike

                 August 10, 2010 at 9:05 pm

              3. I don’t know why Delany needed to quote me at the presser for me to have an opinion on the subject. I think the list of priorities he’s articulated is wrong, misguided, and a betrayal of the Big Ten’s principles.

                 LikeLike

                 August 10, 2010 at 9:12 pm

              4. Competitive Balance-Tradition-Geography

                 Sounds like the End of The Big Ten.

                 Here is an opinion try Midol.

                 LikeLike

                 August 10, 2010 at 9:24 pm

              5. As an Iowa fan, if we are forced to host Nebraska-PSU-WIS-NW-MN every other year, sign me up!

                 LikeLike

                 August 10, 2010 at 9:30 pm

     2. You want to put four ranked teams in one division and one ranked team in the other? That’s crazy. It’s also crazy, in a conference that is 1100 miles east-west, to create a compact division in the center (300 miles east-west) and put the eastern and western outliers in the other division (sending them on 1100 mile road trips).

        I’m sure Ohio State fans will love your division. It gives them relatively short distances to travel to games, and it provides an easy path to the CCG for OSU.

        LikeLike

        August 10, 2010 at 9:31 pm Reply

        1. When push comes to shove, logic will prevail and the simple East-West divide will take place.

           LikeLike

           August 10, 2010 at 10:05 pm Reply

           1. One other reason I’m partial to East-West, is that it is really easy to add Maryland/Rutgers later and push Purdue to the West division in order to maintain balance.

              LikeLike

              August 11, 2010 at 12:09 am Reply

              1. I think this is a good point. Almost any mix of 2 credible candidates could be added without upsetting the apple cart.

                 1. Missouri and Rutgers or Maryland? You’re adding a middle-of-the-pack team to both sides. Little major change.
                 2. Rutgers and another eastern team? Just slide Purdue over.

                 The wild card, I suppose, would be Notre Dame, although I would argue that in the era of the “modern Big Ten,” they haven’t been anything all that special. Moreover, because at least 2 of the “East” teams would already be playing them annually anyway (MSU and Michigan), I’m not sure it’d do that much to change the competitive dynamics.

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 6:07 am

              2. I suppose you could also slide Indiana over if you added 2 “eastern” teams, but I’m assuming you singled out Purdue because they’re the stronger program.

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 6:09 am

              3. Yeah, it’s hard to push Indiana over because you don’t want to be perceived as strengthening the East…

                 Purdue on the other hand has been as strong as Michigan State as being in the 7-9 range of the Big Ten.

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 12:18 pm

              4. I say that in part because I couldn’t tell you where West Lafayette is in relation to Bloomington in Indiana. I don’t really know much about Indiana geography other than that Indianapolis is pretty much right in the center, and South Bend is close enough to the Michigan border that it would have been within Michigan if the borders hadn’t been fiddled with (becoming the so-called “Toledo War”).

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 12:45 pm

              5. Purdue is to the northwest of the University of Indiana.

                 

                 So it would work geographically as well since Purdue is closer to Illinois.

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 1:00 pm

           2. Just don’t see the logic competitively with an East West split……Nebraska is a new member and will have growing pains and Wis and Iowa are not top tier teams since 93. That is fact.

              too many are taking the last 2-3 years and projecting it across almost two decades.

              The big four should be split so the B10 doesn’t have a big 12 north situation.

              If that means sending UofM PSU or OSU west then great. but it must be done for the good of the league.

              You think OSU has it easy…..I’m sure every Wis Iowa and NEB fan would be jumping for joy, because they can play in a CCG without having to beat PSU, UofM or OSU. That is a joke.

              Maybe you must split Wis and Iowa also like many say…but then you must be ready to lose a long time yearly rivalry game. because as I said the PB axe is untouchable.

              Alvarez wants you to believe that this is an equal competitive split but like a senator lobbying for a gov project he is just looking out for his constituency.

              West-Neb-Iowa-Wis-MN-NW-ILL=396 league wins since 93.

              East-OSU-UofM-MSU-Pur-Indy-PSU=445 wins since 93 and that is with only (33) from Indy. (no offense)

              No way this is competitive balance. Maybe last year it was. But like Delany said we are looking 50 years down the road.

              In addition if Joe Pa psu agree to moving west or staying east with Uofm and OSU I believe he knows some east coast teams are on the near horizon and another realignment will occur.

              East West may be easy but it is not the compeitive balance Delany has preached.

              LikeLike

              August 11, 2010 at 1:43 pm Reply

242. I think a lot of people are looking at divisions the wrong way. First, you cannot assume further expansion when making the divisions. You make them for the existing league and adjust them if need be in the future. With a 9 game conference schedule, you can include 2 locked rivals to preserve rivalries. The key to divisions is TV appeal, especially for the championship game. Splitting the big 4 equally maximizes the chances of 2 of them meeting in the CCG, and increases the diversity of the likely match-ups. IA and WI just don’t pull the same sort of national following, whether their fans like it or not.

     That being said, I analyzed all 462 possible alignments for balance and then rivalries and geography. I used the individual records for each season, both conference and overall, and compared divisions in total and also just the top 3 (to prevent the best and worst versus the middle as a choice), and used both averages and standard deviations. The east/west split was 106th and hurts the TV package, and does not save many (if any) rivalries in a 9 game schedule.

     200 choices split the top 6 equally, and 120 of those split the big 4 equally. I examined the top 50 of those in more detail. 16 of them also equally split the 3 geographic pods of teams (PSU/OSU/MI/MSU, IN/PU/IL/NW, NE/IA/WI/MN) which is good for preserving rivalries (it guarantees the western teams they can all play each other, for example). Of these, the best choice is:

     OSU/MI/WI/MN/IL/NW vs PSU/MSU/NE/IA/PU/IN

     That is based on my feeling that keeping OSU and MI together is important for preserving tradition and not diluting The Game’s TV appeal. I think it will become more regional if it is not at the end of the season with a CCG berth potentially on the line. Swapping IL and IN would improve balance at the cost of the intradivision pairings.

     If the league wants to split them up for those rematch possibilities (about once every 6 years by my calculation), the best choice is:

     OSU/MSU/NE/IA/IN/PU vs MI/PSU/WI/MN/IL/NW

     LikeLike

     August 11, 2010 at 4:30 am Reply

243. anybody still want texas?

     http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_15706569

     “”Here’s my bottom line — and I’ve never said this publicly before — but we spent $400 million on facilities, and if someone wants to bully up and do that,” Dodds said, “I’m for equal sharing.”

     no wonder they were not happy with A&M to the SEC had they made the Pac 10 jump! UT’s goal is to keep a stranglehold at all costs (and they outspend pretty much everybody) and to heck with fellow conference mates that could use equal revenue sharing to compete against them. I am even of a stronger mind that they are not of the “community” mind of the Big 10. If the Big 10 is seriously pursuing them, after all that has come to light, I am saddened by Big 10 leadership.

     I am upset (especially as I know IU will never be able to compete with that kind of spending) that such arrogance is tolerated by the other football schools. At least ND has been an independent and USC has carried the water for the Pac 10. Texas has no excuse as their water has been shared by UNL and OU. I am glad to have the Huskers in the Big 10 family if for no other reason than to allow them to get away from UT. I know the Yankees thrive on this type of thinking but they are a professional team that does not exist because of academics and state funding. I will get off the soapbox now but that ME, ME, ME, thinking just burns me up and will be the downfall of college sports.

     LikeLike

     August 11, 2010 at 6:50 am Reply

     1. One of these days, the Austin house of cards will start tumbling down, either by the inability to pay A&M the money it wants, thus resulting in their bolting for the SEC, or by the other schools in their conference finally deciding they are tired of playing serf.

        When that happens, Texas will either be forced to came calling on a conference, trying to hammer out the best deal it can, or go it alone as an independent, resulting in all sorts of havoc for its teams other than football.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 8:40 am Reply

        1. yes but if and when that happens Texas will head to the Pac 12. the Pac 10/12 has already made it clear they will over a better deal to UT than the Big Ten will. And the Pac 12 will have no other options to expand and will have to cut UT a sweet deal. They’ve made clear they will accomodate both Bevo TV and a number of friendly programs to accomodate them. If A&M bolts to the SEC a package of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the Pac 12 would be much more likely than Texas going solo to the Big Ten on the Big Ten terms.

           LikeLike

           August 11, 2010 at 8:59 am Reply

           1. Vincent & Hank – I’m not sure if A&M has an open-ended solo invite to the SEC and make it a 13 team conference. Maybe Fla State or VA Tech, or even Oklahoma is waiting in the wings. I don’t know, I just don’t think the SEC would take a #13 A&M without a #14 right behind.

              LikeLike

              August 11, 2010 at 10:54 am Reply

              1. I’ve assumed a partner for A&M in SEC expansion was a given (probably Virginia Tech, possibly Florida State, perhaps both if the SEC decided to take in a second member from the west, say, Missouri).

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 11:39 am

              2. alan,

                 I tend to agree, SEC will probably add in pairs.

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 11:56 am

              3. Vincent – I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt Mizzou is on the SEC’s radar. Sure, Mizzou shares a border with Arkansas, but Arkansas is a remote outpost in SEC country itself.

                 During the last week of July, my son and I spent several days in KC and St. Louis for our annual tour of MLB ballparks. I’m now up to 21. I did get to see my Baltimore Orioles win a game – until Showalter very rare, and play in old Negro League unis – very cool. In St. Louis, we saw Carpenter and the Cards win a 1-0 extra inning ballgame. BTW, KC BBQ is everything its cracked up to be.

                 Mizzou is about 2 hours from both KC & St.L. right in the middle of the state. We stopped by the campus and a nice girl at the stadium giftshop looked the other way while we went into the stadium. In the SEC, Mizzou’s stadium would rank somewhere between Kentucky and Ole Miss. Great video board though.

                 At no time in 5 days, did I feel like the state of Missouri was any thing but a mid-western state, not that there’s anything wrong with that. I never saw anyone in KC or St.L wearing Mizzou gear either, but I was hanging around MLB ballparks though. My impression of Mizzou was decent campus & stadium, but it just doesn’t look like a cultural fit for the SEC.

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 1:45 pm

        2. The other schools in the conference will never tire of playing serf, as the alternative is to take a $10 million or more pay cut to play in an inferior conference. That includes you, Missouri, the Big 10 doesn’t want you now and they won’t want you in the future.

           If Texas ever decides to become a free agent again, the line will form to the left, they’ll have multiple suitors (every conference except the Big 10), all of them offering various concessions/enticements. You’re fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

           LikeLike

           August 11, 2010 at 9:23 am Reply

     2. Agree in full.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 8:46 am Reply

     3. I guess my question is to what end does Texas pursue this path? Surely they can read the tea leaves and see that they won’t be well supported by other BCS conferences as an independent (unless they pursued a UT + scraps (meaning other schools in Texas/Oklahoma) philosophy; is that enough? The Big IIX is a Dead Conference Walking; A&M is outta there as soon as they don’t get their $20M.

        Maybe they just want the Pac-12 to pay the buyout fees referenced in the article?

        The weird thing is assuming failure, what would they hope to negotiate that they couldn’t negotiate now with either the Big Ten or the Pac-12 (meaning negotiating power would be the same or less, but not greater)? That’s a lot of Texas Hold-em to believe someone’s still going to want them more after watching how much drama they’re caught up in.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 8:58 am Reply

        1. B10J,

           I think Texas wants a return to the old SWC where they can rule the roost. I just feel bad for Loki, because it might put Rice in the mix to 12 or 16 should A&M bolt.

           LikeLike

           August 11, 2010 at 12:01 pm Reply

           1. No, that’s definitely what Texas doesn’t want. Been there, done that, didn’t end so well.

              LikeLike

              August 11, 2010 at 1:38 pm Reply

              1. Be fair…UT wants a SWC 2.0

                 They want to be the biggest fish in whatever pond they are in and, IMO, actually don’t care if the remaining members of its conference are no where near its equal in athletic performance, figuring (maybe rightly so) that no one else will be able to recruit effectively in their conference footprint.

                 IMO, that’s the main reason why UT doesn’t want TAMU to go to the SEC. If a mid-level Texas recruit could stay close to home and either realistically have a shot to play back-up for UT (and mostly only in the Great Plains areas) or maybe get a chance to start for TAMU (and play throughout the SEC) what do you think would be taken more often?

                 I think a lot players would take option #2 and that could in turn hurt UT’s depth and thus make it more vulnerable to becoming a Nebraska down the road.

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 3:42 pm

              2. Noone at Texas wants an SWCII. A number of us hated to see the SWC go, but we ALL knew it was necessary. Noone at Texas wanted UNL to leave. We just wanted Osborne to retire so we didn’t have to listen to his whining. Not too many wanted CU to leave (maybe the ones who got things thrown at them in Boulder). Unless they have an unusually good team that year, the reaction to 6 of the other 11 schools is a yawn by the fans. We just lost 2 of the other 5.

                 And PSUguy-you underestimate A&M. They have 45k students and already differentiate themselves as a university. They aren’t as far behind Texas as most other “state” schools are behind U of schools. Plus, being #2 in Texas with its recruiting is a whole lot better than being #2 in virtually any other state.

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 9:16 am

              3. No one at Texas wants a SWC II, they just want drastically imbalanced revenue sharing, complete control over all the decisions in the conference, and only a small number of other schools that could even attempt to compete against them.

                 They don’t want SWCII, but they aren’t willing to do anything to prevent it.

                 In some sense, Texas’ current conference is not particularly distinguishable from the SWC.

                 Compare schedules from before and after:

                 Oklahoma=Oklahoma
                 Texas A&M=Texas A&M
                 Texas Tech=Texas Tech
                 Baylor=Baylor
                 Rice=Rice
                 TCU>Kansas State
                 Arkansas=Missouri
                 Houston<Oklahoma State
                 SMU<Iowa State, Kansas

                 It's an upgrade, but not one I'd feel great about if I were a Texas fan.

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 10:03 am

     4. “We spent $400 million on facilities, and if someone wants to bully up and do that, Dodds said, “I’m for equal sharing.”

        This statement is not the future of college football; it’s the demise of college football. Not many state universities could sustain such an arms race. More importantly, and institution which primary focus is higher education should not be running a professional sports franchise at the detriment of academic pursuits. And if you say no tax payer dollars were spent in the fundraising, you miss the point of the mission and you miss where that money could have been spent to lift the lives of Texans.

        I think all Texas people are confused in thinking they are Jerry Jones or George Steinbrenner. Their ability to robustly raise funds for the athletic department isn’t so much an advantage as it is a rigging of the game of college football in their favor. The rest or the schools or at least quite number more schools must be in the same ball park to call this thing a competition.

        My thoughts are that if Texas can change their ways they are welcomed in the big ten. But I do not believe it is in the political makeup of those who have the power to make decisions.

        They seem largely authoritarian and prone to dominate all situations.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 10:35 am Reply

        1. StvInIL,

           I agree on your demise statement. With the cost of attending, pretty soon the average guys will get priced out. At that point I will be done with major college sports. I already find myself attending “secondary” sports more often due to affordability.

           LikeLike

           August 11, 2010 at 12:04 pm Reply

           1. Your point taken Duffman. Tuitions are getting questionably high in relation to a 22 year old college grad going out to get a job that will help him pay it back. One has to question the worth of such an education.
              But my focus was on the death star athletic departments in these same universities. The ones like Texas and The OSU have grown out of their scope. Maybe in another 15 years the athletic departments will be looking at the academia with the fish eye because they believe them to be a drag on the athletics in some way.

              LikeLike

              August 11, 2010 at 12:23 pm Reply

              1. They already do.

                 If you don’t believe me then why do you have programs constantly trying to circumvent GPA and other academic elligibility requirements?

                 Could imagine the uproar if Bowl Game representation were dependent upon such academic requirements?

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 3:46 pm

              2. I certainly agree that spending has gotten way out of hand for college athletics. Of course, I’m not sure what can be done about it– pretty hard to put toothpaste back in the tube, after all.

                 As an OSU fan, though, I should point out that all the fundraising and higher ticket prices not only goes to facilities-building and coaches’ escalating salaries, but also to support 35 other sports (well, 34, as basketball supports itself). Contrast that to Texas, which offers half that number of sports.

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 5:01 pm

              3. The B12 schools tend to have fewer sports than the B10 schools. The Texas philosophy is to try to be nationally competitive at everything they do-so fewer sports. Texas has also been at the forefront in women’s athletics, so that means no expansion on men’s sports in order to try to get closer to gender equality. So football supports the 15 or so non-rev sports (baseball, basketball, women’s basketball and volleyball pay their own way).

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 8:09 pm

     5. The same thing would be said of the B10 by the WAC, MWC, CUSA, MAC and Sun Belt. Or by Iowa St. and Missouri. And all of college football was saying it of the P10 and B10 when they refused at first to join the BCS. Their argument: We made the Rose Bowl the most valuable bowl and we aren’t going to share that–unless we get a lot of value in return. Sounds just like what President Powers was saying.

        As for the spending getting out of control part of your comment-everyone is involved in the facilities race. Results are showing that better facilities are paying off. Outdated facilities (see Texas A&M 5 years ago) result in a decline in competitiveness. So spending is working, which makes it difficult to control. The Knight commission is talking about it, but I don’t know how it gets under control. Reducing scholarship limits deals with some of the costs, but not the facilities.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 10:56 am Reply

        1. I agree in a sense, bullet, but what I find troubling about the Texas comments is the attitudinal posture that they reflect. It’s kind of the difference between the political candidate who hates going to fundraising dinners but does it anyway because that’s how the game is played, and a political candidate who relishes going to them and enjoys the experience. One is more likely to be earnestly trying to craft better public policy in an imperfect world, while the other is cynically disinterested in good public policy and just enjoys power.

           I’m more comfortable with the first than the second.

           LikeLike

           August 11, 2010 at 1:01 pm Reply

     6. I have long expected a lot of the MAC schools to drop down or drop football, especially with the facilities race and increase in coaching salaries. But all of them are hanging on. And a bunch of commuter schools in the South are adding or re-instating football(UCF,USF,FIU,FAU,UAB,ODU,UNCC,GaSt,USA,UTSA,SELU,Lamar off the top of my head from the last 15 years or so). It can’t be all ego. It appears that football inspires alumni involvement more than anything else. So it pays off indirectly, even though directly almost everyone not in FBS and most in FBS lose money.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 11:04 am Reply

        1. I read somewhere that most every football program makes money, not every athletics program, which means by definition almost any school can field a team and use the profits to pay for the minimum of Title IX sports.

           The thing is, I think having a football program is a huge draw to prospective students as they feel its part of the “college experience”. Once they graduate, then yes it becomes an “alumni driver” and a vehicle for school interest/donations.

           The whole point is, football becomes the method by which a school, that may not have the national exposure, expands its student body and eventually its overall university.

           IDK, but sounds reasonable to me I guess.

           LikeLike

           August 11, 2010 at 3:29 pm Reply

        2. Bowling Green is the “poorest” MAC school for athletics. In 2007 they generated $16,320,676 in revenue and spent $16,320,676. They open a new basketball arena this year and built a separate workout facility on campus for athletes about 10 years ago. They are also raising millions to refurbish the Ice Arena. (They keep calling me for donations)

           Akron just built a new football stadium. And they are planning on building a new basketball arena downtown. I look for Akron to try and jump to C-USA sometime in the next 10 years.

           LikeLike

           August 12, 2010 at 8:23 pm Reply

     7. @ Duffman-regarding the $400 million

        UT’s facilities were not randomly gold plated. They really did need updating. Disch-Falk (baseball) was the premier facility in the country for many years, but it was built in 1974. The Superdrum (basketball) was very nice at the time, but that was 1977. Memorial Stadium was really getting pretty nasty in the concourses under the stands. It leaked and was home to tens of thousands of bats-maybe even a million (the bats aren’t in the stadium but you can still see a million or so heading out from the Congress Ave. bridge in Austin every night). An endzone facility had been built, but the main stands had last been updated in the early 70s. And it was built for track as much as football, so the sight lines are not ideal. When they removed the track to improve the seating, they needed a new track stadium. The Texas Relays regularly draw around 20k every spring and the state high school meet is also in Austin. Further, for gender equity purposes, UT added soccer (combined with the track stadium) and softball (stadium built near baseball stadium). They’ve also dramatically improved the gyms and sporting facilities for the non-athletes. Those facilities had probably not been significantly updated since the 50s or 60s. I think the swim center has had major upgrades. It was the premier facility when built in 1977-but think about any local pools that are 30 years old-they need work. UT had just not done much during the 80s and early 90s regarding its sports facilities.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 12:04 pm Reply

        1. So then it was simply time for a major upgrade of facilities. But that is not what this statement is saying.

           “Here’s my bottom line — and I’ve never said this publicly before — but we spent $400 million on facilities, and if someone wants to bully up and do that,” Dodds said, “I’m for equal sharing.”

           This is a demonstrably arrogant and self serving statement. There is no sugar daddy out there of this proportion. But revenue sharing has not contributed to the demise of any program in the Big Ten. The U of Chicago did deemphasizes sports over academics many years back and are no worse for wear and are still true to their mission, higher education.

           LikeLike

           August 11, 2010 at 12:58 pm Reply

           1. I read his comment in the context of the B12 revenue sharing philosophy. 50% is shared equally and the other 50% is shared based on appearances-the idea is that 50% is an incentive to try to upgrade your program (i.e.-spend the money).

              There actually are at least 2 sugar daddies of that proportion. Ask Oregon and Oklahoma St-Phil and T. Boone.

              LikeLike

              August 11, 2010 at 3:37 pm Reply

     8. It’s hard to blame Texas for being valuable.

        I mean, if anyone wanted Texas, in hindsight they should have sealed the deal 20 years ago.

        Texas maintaining its quasi-independence by moving from the SWC to the Big 12 essentially stabilized its situation and allowed it to become the #1 school in the country in terms of value to a conference.

        Texas probably is unhappy with the Big 12 situation. The problem is that Texas has no ideal landing spot because it is far away from the other 3-4 population centers of the US (California/Florida-Georgia/Midwest/NC-VA) in terms of power conferences.

        The most ideal marriage is California-Texas, but even that is stacked towards California because the Pac-12 would only add Texas and 3 more at this point.

        Texas wants to be like Notre Dame but realizes that it doesn’t have the same situation (NBC/Big East), so it has to live with the Big 12-2 as a way of maximizing its strength.

        I do think Texas wanted to keep the Big 12 whole though: 1) there’s no reason for Texas to want a 9 game conference schedule; every other year they’re going to trade a home game for a Big North visit, and they lost 2 of the best conference stadiums/cities to visit on the road, 2) Texas doesn’t want the Big 12-2 to become the Big 2 and Little 8, which is exactly where the Big Ten was all those years of Michigan/Ohio State and the 8 sisters, and 3) the Big 12 CCG in Jerryworld had huge value to Texas both $-wise and as an easy way to showcase itself on the biggest pro-football stadium stage in the country that outdoes any CCG venue.

        Texas doesn’t want to run into a situation where the Big Ten and SEC can send their undefeated schools ahead of it.

        Texas wants a conference that it can dominate but that can also be a consistent top conference in the country. The Big 12-2 is not really that distinguishable from the Pac-12 now as being far behind the SEC and Big Ten.

        Academically, image-wise Texas loses Colorado and Nebraska which were 2 of the top research institutions in the Big 12 other than Texas/A&M, and the Big 12 looks pretty much the same as the SEC now in terms of institutional research power/academics.

        Finally, this is all still a powder-keg. Texas knows that this conference is like a House of Cards waiting for a school to be pulled.

        Texas is buying time right now, but the situation is fundamentally unstable. There’s always the wild card chance that A&M needs to go to the SEC because A&M’s balance sheet is nowhere near the gold plated Texas balance sheet.

        The Big Ten and SEC are going to reload and blast away the Big 12’s TV contract in the next renegotiations. It won’t even be close, and Beebe won’t be able to save the situation next time.

        LikeLike

        August 12, 2010 at 1:04 pm Reply

        1. This is a good write-up, but I do have one quibble:

           The Big 12-2 is not really that distinguishable from the Pac-12 now as being far behind the SEC and Big Ten.

           It reads as the the “far behind” is going to quality of play and not to “ratings powerhouse” or other such off-the-field factors, as it comes after a sentence in which you mention that Texas wants to be in a “consistent top conference”. If I am reading that incorrectly, my apologies.

           I don’t know how you can say that the Big 12 will be “far behind” the Big Ten come 2011, even with the move of a team that’s barely managed to play .500 football within the conference for the better part of a decade from the Big 12 to the Big 10.

           The remaining members of the Big 12 have made five BCS Championship appearances in the last eight years. Current and future members of the Big Ten managed three appearances over the same time frame.

           Five remaining Big 12 schools have made appearances, late in the season (mid-November or later), in the Top 4 over the last three seasons alone. I’m going to guess, without doing the research, that a similar claim cannot be made about current and future Big Ten schools.

           It’s a fair discussion as to which conference might be stronger on the field as of 2011, even after the Big 12 has shed two schools which have been an aggregate several games under .500 in conference play over the past eight years.

           But the description of “far behind,” if it’s being applied to the Big 12 being far behind the Big 10, isn’t applicable.

           LikeLike

           August 12, 2010 at 2:20 pm Reply

           1. I mean that in terms of national perception from the point of view of media writers, not the point of view of actual play (which is the 2nd way you indicated it).

              Media writers care about national brands. You can say what you want about Texas Tech/Oklahoma State, which have performed quite well the past couple years, but media writers tend not to weight that as much as a national brand on the rise (i.e. Texas/Oklahoma, but A&M doesn’t count until it gets back in the game).

              I can guarantee you that next spring the Big Ten will be 2nd on all of the media depth charts and the Big 12 will be fighting the Pac-10 for the 3rd/4th place slots.

              Whether the Big Ten will have earned such a distinction is not really the point I’m trying to make. The media always does this: see Cal’s pre-season ranking almost every season…

              LikeLike

              August 12, 2010 at 2:58 pm Reply

              1. It depends. If Nebraska can win the Big 12 in its last season and OSU can live up to its pre-season ranking and advance to the BCS Championship Game, while TX and OU reload with newish QBs, then, yes, the Big 10 would be ranked higher.

                 But if the Big 12 has another season like 2007 or 2008, which involved multiple highly-ranked teams not named Nebraska, then it would be hard to see how the Big 12 would be ranked lower, perception game be damned, come 2011, especially since UT and OU will most likely have established vets at QB by that stage.

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 4:29 pm

           2. As HH likes to remind us, CF history is “BT” (before Texas) and “AT” (after Texas) which started 8 years ago when when Texas began their current run.

              LikeLike

              August 12, 2010 at 8:01 pm Reply

              1. No, if I were to pick Texas-centric dates, I would go back at least two more years, since Texas won at least 10 games every year in the decade.

                 Eight years represents two complete round robin cycles with the Big 12 schedule, so all the North schools would have played all the South schools the same number of times within that time frame.

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 10:14 pm

              2. Dont blame you there , if we go all the way back back to the 90’s we get all those losing & 5 loss seasons.

                 But Texas is the dominant power now in CF since they’ve won one NC in 40 years and have all those TV sets 🙂

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 10:54 pm

              3. Actually, the point of my dates was to show the relative strength of the remaining Big 12, including OU, not just Texas in particular. But if you want to say Texas is the dominant power, more power to you. Your words, not mine. 🙂

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 11:06 pm

        2. The B10’s next TV contract will be interesting. The B12 and P12 think they will be comparable to SEC/ACC with their next round. Will the B10 set the bar much higher? If so, that definitely will cause people to re-think their situation in 2015/6. And what will ND’s next contract be? They are behind right now.

           I will disagree with your academics comment. The B12 still has 5 AAU schools and 3 (TT, OU, Baylor) with high aspirations in the immediate future. The SEC has 2 with only 2 or 3 really trying to get to the AAU level. The B12 had the 2nd highest % of AAU schools in FBS and still is 3rd, close behind P12.

           LikeLike

           August 12, 2010 at 2:27 pm Reply

           1. I dislike debating the academic angle because there’s two sides, the perception of academics and the actual academic quality of an institution.

              A lot of these institutions got their AAU membership 90 years ago or so. Some got them recently (Texas A&M/Georgia Tech).

              Some of those AAU memberships really should be revoked (i.e. Syracuse). Syracuse hasn’t really competed at all for research money and clearly would not earn AAU membership if it was determined today.

              I hate knocking an institution like that, but such is the fact of the matter.

              Now, your point re: perception is probably true because no one really cares that many of these AAU membership designations were earned a long time ago and there’s no review of institutional quality.

              In actuality though, the point is quite debatable. If you negate Texas/A&M and Vanderbilt/Florida; you’re left comparing Georgia and the rest of the SEC with Iowa State/Missouri/Kansas and the rest of the Big 12.

              If you look at the actual $ being spent on research by such institutions, the two conferences are indistinguishable.

              Yes those 3 do have AAU membership, but it’s hard for me to say that those institutions are clearly of the top AAUs quality whereas Kentucky, etc. are not.

              You could say the same of Nebraska even.

              And I will accept that the Big Ten’s premise of big research institutions will be totally shot if we invite Syracuse and then claim that its AAU membership is proof of everything as Delany seemed to imply earlier.

              LikeLike

              August 12, 2010 at 3:17 pm Reply

              1. From the standpoint of desirability as a conference, perception is what matters. Of course, it all depends on the department. I had a friend transfer from UCLA to UK because it was better in her field (interestingly she was at UCLA in 75, UK in 78 and working on her master’s at UH in the Phi Slama Jama years-schools were probably recruiting her to go to their place for her Phd.). But the perception is that the AAU schools are better. I’ve had several friends from SEC West schools say their schools weren’t that good. None of them have the perception of being good. In the B12, its really just KSU, OSU, Tech and OU that have that perception and Tech and OU are both making major visible efforts to improve their standings.

                 I agree that determing which schools are better is very difficult, but I think it is clear the B12 still has a much better perception than the SEC. And the perception of more cheating in athletics (something else that’s difficult to prove) adds to the perception of being a lower quality school.

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 9:47 pm

244. Interesting but sad read. Supports the easy pickings view of the Big East.

     http://bleacherreport.com/articles/433447-i-tell-ya-the-big-east-gets-no-respect

     LikeLike

     August 11, 2010 at 8:59 am Reply

     1. Every other conference, even the ACC, was designed from the outset as a football conference. The Big East, alone among BCS leagues, is perceived as a basketball conference, “now with football!” Until the Big East’s football members develop the cojones to break away and form their own all-sports conference, they will never be viewed as more than a stepchild of a basketball league.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 9:45 am Reply

        1. During basketball season there is “no worries mate” for the Big East. But during football season this awkward conglomerate of schools is obvious to itself when you look at their vulnerability to predation by other conferences. I do not believe though that their football product is inferior overall. I do believe that the basketball only Catholic segment is not in line with what they (BE) wish to become.
           I think the Big East best bet for unity and long term stability would be to transform the league.

           I. With no more than 2 exceptions they should not include schools that do not play division I football.
           II. Go on the offensive and recruit if that is possible those disaffected schools in the Big XII.
           Kansas and Missouri won’t hurt their basketball persona at all. lately K-state wont either. These schools have played Div I football for a long time and will lift the middle of the current Big East.

           LikeLike

           August 11, 2010 at 11:20 am Reply

           1. As long as the Big East is run out of Providence, don’t expect any of those things to happen.

              The best solution for the Big East football members is to have both it and the ACC be plucked by the Big Ten and SEC. What’s left of both conferences can blend into a new one, likely under ACC auspices.

              LikeLike

              August 11, 2010 at 11:29 am Reply

              1. There are still all those Catholic basketball only schools though. It seems to me their interest are not completely the same as a WVA or a UCONN or a South Florida. These schools can fit the model of a modern conference. I am not so sure that without football that St. Johns and Marquette and Georgetown fit.

                 LikeLike

                 August 11, 2010 at 11:46 am

     2. The BE is, IMO, a cautionary tale regarding superconferences. St. John’s, Seton Hall & DePaul were national powers. Providence was a tourney regular and Rutgers and USF were looking like they were developing good programs. Now they are all lousy. UL and UC were top 15 teams, not merely happy to get in the tourney. 9th place in your conference is not a good recruiting position. I think the BE was too strong in bb and its been a disaster. They’d all be better off if they split. FB schools could expand their conference to 9 or 10 and get more exposure year round. ACC, SEC and B10 schools are “collegial” with each other. Would they still be at 16? Or would they be unstable? Would the gap between the haves and have-nots widen?

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 11:24 am Reply

        1. The Big East’s problem isn’t so much size as it is differing cultures. Seton Hall, West Virginia, De Paul and South Florida are wildly disparate institutions with vastly different athletic traditions and aspirations. A 16-team ACC or Big Ten or SEC would at least have all institutions operating on much the same page.

           LikeLike

           August 11, 2010 at 11:35 am Reply

           1. And this is why it would be in their best interest to divide accordingly. Of the conferences you mentioned a good degree of long term stability also helps to define them.

              LikeLike

              August 11, 2010 at 11:51 am Reply

           2. There certainly are dramatically different cultures. I do believe the size coupled with the historical strength is a problem with regard to basketball.

              LikeLike

              August 12, 2010 at 9:22 am Reply

     3. B10J,

        nice photo of rodney and writing style keeping form!

        thanks for the link, yeah in realignment their saving grace is they do not touch the Pac 10 or SEC and only have to worry about the Big 10.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 12:11 pm Reply

245. @Alan from Baton Rougue

     I see your focus on a one particular year and I counter with wall-o-stats.

     I looked at each year of the Big Ten+Nebraska since 1993 and figured out who would have played in the title game assuming no divisions (i.e. just take the two teams with the best record). If there was a tie, I gave each team partial credit.

     Here is the result:
     Team Appearances Appearances/year
     Ohio State 8.3 .49
     Nebraska 7.5 .44
     Michigan 5.2 .30
     Penn State 3.3 .20
     Wisconsin 2.6 .16
     Iowa 2.3 0.14
     Northwestern 2.2 0.13
     Illinois 1.5 0.09
     Purdue 1 0.06

     Predicted East Appearences/Year 1.05
     Predicted Bottom 6 Appearences/Year .27 (4.7 total)

     In other words, Ohio State would have appeared in about 8 title games or about 50% of the time. The “Bottom 6” would have appeared about 5 times or about 27% of the time.

     Doing the same calculation for the SEC since 1992:
     Florida 12.3 0.68
     Tennessee 6.5 0.36
     Alabama 5.5 0.31
     Auburn 4.3 0.24
     LSU 3.3 0.18
     Georgia 2.3 0.13
     Mississippi 1 0.06
     Arkansas 1 0.06

     Predicted East Appearences/Year 1.17
     Predicted Bottom 6 Appearences/Year .11 (2 total)
     Actual Bottom 6 Appearances/Year .17 (3 total)

     For actual appearances, I got rid of the two times a school was ineligible for the game, with the net effect of switching an appearance from Arkansas to Auburn.

     As you can see, the lower tier teams in the Big Ten have had much more success at getting to the top 2 than the equivalent SEC teams. Furthermore, divisional play helps these teams get to the title game more often than they should.

     The same effect has happened in the Big 12:
     Texas 7.2 0.51
     Oklahoma 5.5 0.39
     Nebraska 4.7 0.33
     Kansas State 3.3 0.24
     Colorado 2.7 0.19
     Texas Tech 1.2 0.08
     Texas A&M 1 0.07
     Kansas 1 0.07
     Missouri 1 0.07
     Oklahoma State 0.5 0.04

     South Appearences/year 1.06
     Predicted Bottom 6 Appearances/year .37 (5.2 total)
     Actual Bottom 6 Appearances/year .43 (6 total)

     There’s two takeaway points here. First, the difference between the bottom and top of the SEC is much greater than the differences in the Big Ten, so using the SEC results are particularly useful. Second, breaking into divisions allows bottom half teams to be in the title game more often than they “deserve” not less.

     As far as actually winning the game, I tend to think you’re right about that. “Bottom 6” teams are 1-8 (or 1-9 if you count the year Arkansas shouldn’t have been in the game).

     In 2000 the championship game would likely have been Northwestern-Purdue so one them would have won. I also think ’01 Illinois had a good of shot as anyone that year. The overall record would have been something like 1-4 or maybe 2-3.

     LikeLike

     August 11, 2010 at 12:07 pm Reply

     1. M – I guess two reasonable people can look at the same stats and come to different conclusions. But looking at the actual wall-o-stats, I see the 95 Northwestern team and the 01 Illinois team as the only non-Big-3-medium-2 teams to win outright titles since 93. The 95 Wildcats championship was literally a once-in-a-lifetime (or two) occurrence. For the 01 Fightin’ Illini championship, which I detailed above, they benefited from a bunch of usually great-to-good Big Ten teams all sucking during the same year. FWIW, Illinois did look good for the 1st quarter of the Sugar Bowl that year.

        M – you know the Big Ten much better than I do, but I’ve been watching divisional play in a top conference for 18 years. I stand by my statement that divisional play makes it difficult for a non-traditional team to make it to the CCG, as outlined in my earlier post.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 2:26 pm Reply

        1. Your focus on outright championships is misleading. Though you’re right that the bottom 6 only has two in 17 years, there have only been 8 total in that time:
           1994 Penn State
           1995 Northwestern
           1997 Michigan
           1999 Wisonsin
           2001 Illinois
           2006 Ohio State
           2007 Ohio State
           2009 Ohio State

           So 1/4 of all outright championships have been won by “bottom 6” teams.

           Divisional play is not what is stopping the lower level SEC teams. They simply have not been able to overcome the gap.

           No matter how you look at it, that would not happen as consistently in the Big Ten. In geographic divisions, these would be the title games:
           1993 Nebraska vs Ohio State
           1994 Nebraska vs Penn State
           1995 Northwestern/Nebraska vs Ohio State
           1996 Nebraska vs Ohio State
           1997 Nebraska vs Michigan
           1998 Nebraska vs Ohio State
           1999 Wisconsin/Nebraska vs Michigan State
           2000 Northwestern/Nebraska vs Purdue
           2001 Illinois/Nebraska vs Michigan
           2002 Iowa vs Ohio State
           2003 Iowa/Nebraska vs Michigan
           2004 Iowa vs Michigan
           2005 Northwestern vs Penn State
           2006 Wisconsin vs Ohio State
           2007 Illinois vs Ohio State
           2008 Northwestern/Nebraska vs Penn State
           2009 Iowa/Nebraska vs Ohio State

           4 “non-traditional” teams end up in the CCG: 1999 Michigan State, 2000 Purdue, 2005 Northwestern and 2007 Illinois. 4 others would be in if they won the tiebreaker with Nebraska: 1995 Northwestern, 2000 Northwestern, 2001 Illinois, and 2008 Northwestern.

           These teams would not have gotten shut out to the extent of the SEC and I doubt that would occur in the future.

           This also shows how its much easier to go to the conference title game than win the conference outright. Teams can often get into the title game with a 6-2 conference record, but that record would have won the Big Ten only once in that time period (2000).

           LikeLike

           August 11, 2010 at 3:38 pm Reply

           1. In defense of Alan’s position, several of the B10 “other guys” managed to skip 2 of the big 3 in the year they won. One of the problems with 11 teams. On the other hand:

              Last title won:
              Vandy-never
              S. Carolina-never (69 ACC)
              Arkansas-never (89 SWC)
              UK 1976
              MS 1963
              MS St. 1941
              TN 1998
              rest have won since 2004.
              And prior to division play a lot of the SEC schools played a limited number of conference games, giving the little guys a better chance of winning (similar to the B10 skipping 2 of the Big 3).

              B10
              MN 1967
              IN 1967
              MI St. 1990
              WI 1999
              Purdue 2000
              NW 2000
              IL 2001
              rest have won since 2004

              4 of the old SEC 10 didn’t win a title in the last 15 years before divisions, in addition to not winning since then. From 64 to the start of division play UK’s 76 was the only one from the bottom 4. 8 of the B10+1 have won in the last 15 years and 9 in the last 20.

              And in the P10, despite USC’s dominance this decade, 7 of the 10 schools have won titles this decade, 9 of 10 since 98 and all since 93.

              LikeLike

              August 11, 2010 at 4:50 pm Reply

246. this out of SI

     http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/08/10/new-era/

     expansion folks might look at points 1, 4, 5 (an earlier thought about UCLA as UT has already been there), 7 and 10

     ND debaters might want to look at # 7

     LikeLike

     August 11, 2010 at 3:50 pm Reply

     1. Great post as usual. An exerpt from the article:

        Texas’ decision to remain in the Big 12 turned what could have been a revolutionary restructuring of the college landscape into a more modest real-estate shuffle, with only four schools (Nebraska, Colorado, Utah and Boise State) changing addresses.
        However, as Pac-10 commissioner Scott said last month, “The level of excitement and interest that happened around the superconference idea — the positive feedback I still get from TV networks and others — suggests to me that at some point in the future the superconference will emerge and we’ll be having the discussion again. But I can’t predict when that will be.”

        One logical date: 2016. That’s when ABC/ESPN’s current deals with the Big Ten and Big 12 expire. By then, the Big Ten Network and soon-to-be-forthcoming Pac-10 Network will be well established, and Texas, Oklahoma, et al., may be compelled to reevaluate their options. The Pac-10 and Big 12 could merge, the Big Ten could get even bigger, or perhaps a brand new league will emerge.
        In any case, Notre Dame may be down to its last days of independence. With at least three major conferences (Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-10) embracing nine-game conference schedules, the Irish may find it harder to land non-conference dates with BCS-conference opponents. Plus, the amount of television money generated in the Big Ten’s next deal may be too staggering to pass up. Notre Dame alumni remain resolute in their desire to maintain the Irish’s independent heritage, but at some point school administrators will make the prudent business decision and join one of the budding superconferences.

        Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/08/10/new-era/2.html#ixzz0wLqc0hGa

        Think we can keep the post up ’til 2016? 🙂

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 7:37 pm Reply

        1. Think we can keep the post up ’til 2016?

           Shoot me now.

           I mean, I love all of you, but, serious, shoot me now. 🙂

           LikeLike

           August 12, 2010 at 10:11 pm Reply

           1. @Hopkins Horn

              Well, the Big East was last raided 6 years ago and every half wit writer has spent the entire time listing them as doomed once a month. The Big 12 is obviously not the Big East, but I would expect much of the same reaction.

              LikeLike

              August 12, 2010 at 10:51 pm Reply

              1. @M:

                 I know. One of the reasons I was in favor of a move to the Big Ten and, later, to the Pac 10 with that specific offer on the table, was that not doing so would only delay the inevitable. I don’t think the Big 12 will outlive the decade.

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 10:59 pm

247. Hello, I have been in India for the last month and have not been reading this blog. Good to see that the posters on the board are still advocating that the Big Ten uses its tax-exempt status and government support to collude to bring little ol’ ND to its knees. While this board is devising sinister plots, I receive emails that bring to my attention the following: http://newsinfo.nd.edu/news/16307-notre-dame-is-no-1-producer-of-ceos-at-top-financial-firms/ or that the incoming freshman class sports a 1450 combined SAT score (my employer, a Big Ten school, will report a 1190 this year). ND is doing great. You can add MD, Pitt and Missouri — how in the world do you believe that this “pressures” ND to join the Big Ten? I am stunned by your perspective.

     The posters believe that if Purdue refuses to schedule us, we will feel compelled to join the Big Ten — on your terms — to grovel lest we will not be given a place at the table. Really, no Purdue!!! I say, let’s discontinue our series with Purdue and MSU.

     Since I last read this blog, ND has announced series with Oklahoma, Miami and Texas. Why do you think we are being pushed into a corner? Yes, 2010’s schedule is lame (although our SOS will be much stronger than more posters think). But it improves every year thereafter for the next five years. Who knows how strong a schedule will be evaluated in five years?

     Next month, when I tune in again, I hope this blog has moved onto some other topic other than how to strong-arm Texas and ND into joining a conference that it does not want to join. Hell, in five years we might have joined into a loose confederation with Texas. Anyway, enjoy the CFB season and, of course, Go Irish.

     LikeLike

     August 11, 2010 at 6:10 pm Reply

     1. Rich2,

        It’s good to know India has not dampened your smugness in the least. I don’t usually follow my school’s SAT scores, but looking it up it appears that my Big Ten school has an average of 1510. Hopefully ND will be up to that quality some day. I would say you have your football success to fall back on, but my school actually has done better at that recently as well.

        I’m glad to hear ND is beefing up their schedule. They have clearly outclassed their current competition of Syracuse, UConn, Air Force and Navy.

        Next time you tune in, presumably ND will have returned to glory under their new coach Gerry… er, Bob, … er George, … er Ty, .. er Char… er, Brian Kelly. I really look forward to seeing just how high your self satisfaction could be if ND actually had a winning season.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 6:51 pm Reply

     2. Seems to me like the 9 game schedule is more to build up higher quality BTN inventory. Fewer BT vs. directional State, and BT vs. MAC traps. From that standpoint in might be that it is better for the BTN that Notre Dame is dropped and its slot at Purdue, UMich and MSU picked up by a home and home BCS team. Little chance a Purdue/ND game ever ends up on BTN, but Purdue/Oregon might. Adding a 9th game to the current 11 and 9 more with Nebraska increases the BTN inventory by 2 games a Saturday! The ideal thing from the BTN perspective would be to start the conference games earlier, and have national out of conference games interspersed on conference bye weeks. I think the SEC does this now.

        9 game schedule does not do anything to ND and UT. They have both shown they would rather play patsies than a conference season worth of equals, and they have the fanbase base to pull it off. The only thing that makes them move is the 16 team super conference model closing out their path to a NC. Unless the SEC is proactive or the PAC 10 has another rabbit, that is not going to happen unless the big ten expands, and when the big ten expands in limits its options to absorb UT and ND. The situation is not exactly stable, but I think it is more stable than not if the big ten’s sights are ultimately set on UT and ND. I think the situation is as stable as Mr Scott wants it to be.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 7:08 pm Reply

     3. LMAO!! Good to have that point of view again. I’ve believed since a few blogs back after surveying and being educated on the ND point of view that it was folly to continue to chase Delany’s white whale.

        I’d rather be pleasantly surprised if such a thing ever came to pass instead of being disappointed that it hasn’t happened (again). I’ve long moved on and am willing to admit that it does seem a little silly to continue to talk ND/UT based on the public comments made (if you take them at face value, which we have no reason not to). Don’t we realize that the major news outlets rarely, if ever, include the Big Ten as a consideration for Texas? Why do we keep doing this? It’s embarrassing, beneath us, and we don’t need either university to accomplish our goals.

        I’d find it a much more interesting exercise to consider our best options without ND/UT. They’ve made their beds; let’s wish them both the best of luck and let them lie in them.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 7:09 pm Reply

        1. Perhaps your right about Texas, but this is their doing in terms of their own inflexibility and not anything the Big ten has done. Now ND might be a whale worth waiting just a little bit for.
           In any case by the time they join the conference it will be a situation of flight from their former environment and not so much a marriage of mutual love. Step back for a moment and recall the situations in full that helped us to acquire Penn State and Nebraska. There was a need to change their environment to a stable and by coincidence a better one than before. The destabilization of The Big East and college football as we know it will be the impetus to bring ND into the Big ten. If not the ACC.
           That fellow’s smugness notwithstanding, the Big Ten will be the norm in major college football at the elite level. IF ND which has not lived up to their own hype much less anybody else’s in 15 years wants to join the (BT) elite, I would welcome them to the Bi Ten

           LikeLike

           August 11, 2010 at 8:57 pm Reply

           1. I’ll welcome them as well but only if it doesn’t sew seeds of discontent in our conference. I don’t know if you’ve been around from the beginning, but the alumni who’ve participated on this blog have spoken pretty clearly on the topic. They seem to need a period to adjust to the new world order, even as the administration and faculty is on board.

              ND’s fall from independence grace will be humbling and largely viewed as a monumental failure and loss of identity by the alumni. Our collective perceived forcing or manipulating the situation will create a backlash that will poison an otherwise potentially great union. I’ve just come to the conclusion that because of the collective mass ego/pride of the alums, they need to feel as if they’re warming to the idea instead of having it forced down their throats. Thus Delany’s recent step back (even if planning’s occurring in the background).

              Basically, I’m ok with the idea and certainly see the value, but I’m just not into either being a perpetually jilted suitor or a participant in a forced marriage.

              LikeLike

              August 11, 2010 at 9:15 pm Reply

248. Indeed. Forget ND & Texas; the next logical area is the ACC.

     LikeLike

     August 11, 2010 at 7:23 pm Reply

     1. But how, and who? Obviously, Maryland is the easiest target, due to its location and the clear benefits big Ten membership (and football) would supply. Beyond that, who? Virginia would be a nice prize, but difficult to pluck given its close cultural ties to the rest of the ACC. North Carolina would be an obvious prize, but it is to the ACC what Texas is to any conference it belongs to; Duke would have to tag along with UNC, and the Big Ten already has its Northwestern. The only other realistic candidate would be Georgia Tech, but would it deliver the south for the Big Ten?

        My advice to the Big Ten: Go for Maryland, then focus on strong Big East candidates such as Rutgers and Syracuse. Any others from the ACC would be gravy.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 11:24 pm Reply

        1. Maryland is the only logical target in the ACC at this point in time.

           Virginia’s choice of President though is quite interesting, so it would be worth putting a call in.

           GTech is worth considering, but Georgia is SEC country. I can’t really see Atlanta ever becoming anything other than the capital of the SEC.

           LikeLike

           August 12, 2010 at 1:50 am Reply

           1. Agreed. Right now, go after Rutgers and Maryland, with Syracuse as a backup. Then, Delany should wait for a while to examine whether things change concerning Notre Dame, If yes, bring in ND with another team from the east; if so, complete the eastern power grab, ultimately expanding to Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse and either Virginia or Pittsburgh (or even going westward with Missouri as an alternative). Blanketing the east with RU/UMd/SU/Uva or Pitt to complement Penn State would put the Big Ten one up on any potential ACC/Big East consolidation.

              LikeLike

              August 12, 2010 at 5:04 am Reply

        2. No Syracuse. Private, too small, too cold, no research. In 2008, Syracuse’s total research was $38M. That compares to $882M for Wis., $876M for Michigan. The lowest Big 10 school was Iowa with $294M. Several hours from NYC. Crappy, aging 50000 stadium that can’t be expanded. Syracuse would be a horrible choice.

           LikeLike

           August 12, 2010 at 11:19 am Reply

           1. How about this alternative, sort of a “southern strategy” discussed here a few months back?

              In addition to Rutgers and Maryland, bring in Georgia Tech and…Vanderbilt.

              With that, you bring in two southern schools to the Big Ten, two fine academic institutions and AAU members, two notable markets (Nashville and Atlanta) and avoid cultural isolation if only one were chosen. (That’s what doomed Boston College as an ACC member; had it been partnered with Syracuse, it would seem different, even though Chestnut Hill is technically closer to College Park than Coral Gables is to Tallahassee.)

              Tech is a quasi-football brand, better than Maryland and Rutgers, and is decent in men’s basketball. Vanderbilt isn’t much in football, to be sure, but is solid in men’s and women’s hoops and its subtraction from the SEC would remove some of the little academic luster it has. (And playing in a conference against northeast and eastern schools might help GT and Vandy recruit from those areas, as well as northern and eastern emigres who now call the South home.)

              The four pods could be

              PSU, UMd, Rut, OSU
              Mich, MSU, GT, Vandy
              Ill, Ind, Pur, N’west
              Wisc, Iowa, Minn, Nebr

              (And don’t worry, Bucks and Wolverine fans — OSU/Mich would be a protected, season-ending football rivalry game.)

              I’m not 100% sold on this, but it might be the best way for the Big Ten to have its East Coast cake and the South, too.

              LikeLike

              August 12, 2010 at 7:05 pm Reply

              1. Vincent – it may make sense on paper to take GA Tech & Vandy, but the practical effect wouldn’t be pretty. GA Tech and Vandy are distant seconds to UGA and UTn, respectively, not only their home states, but their home cities. I doubt the Big Ten would really want to go to any new area where they can’t dominate the market. Atlanta and Nashville are SEC towns and always will be.

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 8:37 pm

              2. I like adding Rutgers, Maryland, Georgia Tech and Vanderbilt, but I don’t like your pods. It think it is important to have a ranked team in each pod to keep things reasonably balanced. Something like this:

                 OSU, Michigan, MSU, Indiana
                 PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, Georgia Tech
                 Nebraska, Illinois, Northwestern, Vanderbilt
                 Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Purdue

                 Protected rivalry: Neb-Iowa, Ind-Pur, PSU-OSU, Mich-Minn, Vandy-GT, etc.

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 8:43 pm

              3. To StevenD: I also could see a pod of the four newcomers, a pod of PSU/OSU/MSU/Mich, a pod of the four Indiana and Illinois schools and a pod of Wisc/Minn/Iowa/Nebr. Not the most balanced, but with a rotating grouping, everyone gets a decent shot at making the title game.

                 To Baton Rouge: I’m certainly not saying GT and Vandy would displace UGa and UTenn, but Big Ten membership might give those schools a distinctive selling point (and identity) as compared to Athens and Knoxville. Vandy certainly doesn’t have it now; Tech has a little in the ACC, but would have more in the Big Ten.

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 9:04 pm

              4. Vincent, the problem with what you’re saying is that Alan is 100% right.

                 The Big Ten will only go into areas that it will dominate by taking such a school.

                 That’s the problem with taking Vandy or Georgia Tech.

                 Ironically, you don’t end up with that problem as much by taking Miami because Miami actually holds its own in South Florida ratings. But we’re not going that route.

                 Pure ACC/Big East/Big 12 territory is all the Big Ten is looking at.

                 The value of taking a Maryland or Rutgers and dominating their entire states speaks for itself.

                 You can’t get that with Vandy/Georgia Tech so it’s far less likely to happen.

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 10:42 pm

              5. @Zeek:

                 The Big Ten will only go into areas that it will dominate by taking such a school.

                 Would the Big Ten have dominated the state of Texas if it had managed to land UT, as we both thought/wanted?

                 I thought that there’d be numerous advantages for the Big Ten to take Texas, but with A&M/TT/etc., I wouldn’t have thought that the Big Ten would subsequently dominate the state.

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 11:09 pm

              6. I just mean in terms of being the most watched league in the state/region.

                 The Big Ten is the most watched in every state that it is in; it will try to do that in every expansion.

                 Just taking UT in my mind would do that in Texas for any league.

                 LikeLike

                 August 13, 2010 at 2:55 pm

249. A few weeks ago it dawned on me that it is possible that the ACC could give ND the same harbor that the Big East provides them for other sports and independence in football. therefore even if B10, ACC or possibly the SEC came calling for some Big East teams, that does not automatically mean that ND is out of luck as far as what they have now. Unless ND has to join a conference to have a BCS championship shot, they won’t join any conference. I took Delaney’s remarks to mean he expects ND to live a long life in Big East or whatever was left or became of the Big East (i.e. ACC bringing in Big East teams).
     As for Texas, I think they were the undisputed B10 goal if they could work in and with the B10 conference schools, but that train has left the station permanently IMO- B10 terms of member equality are not negotiable.

     LikeLike

     August 11, 2010 at 7:55 pm Reply

     1. The ACC has no reason to provide ND with a safe harbor. Only the Big East is really in a position where it needs ND to improve its bowls and provide it with a brand boost.

        I do think that ND may stay with the Catholic schools if the Big East splits into two. That may end up being ideal for them. Of course, the issue of bowls is a reason they like the Big East…

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 8:06 pm Reply

250. Anybody ever listen to the Paul Finebaum (sp?) show? God, the SEC crowd (at least the ones calling in) are out of control in their self-perception. Can we all just agree that whomever gets paired up opposite a SEC school needs to beat the shit out of them and run up the score as much as possible? Honestly, they need it.

     LikeLike

     August 11, 2010 at 8:48 pm Reply

     1. never heard of the guy but those SEC types can be rad and not in a positive way. Someone needa to remind them that it’s college football and whether their school wins a football game or not wont stop a flood or plug an oily hole in the ocean. That said yes i’m a fan of college football but hopefuly with some balance and perspective.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 9:06 pm Reply

     2. You have to keep in mind that a lot of the Finebaum regular callers are “plants”. I don’t know 100% for sure if they are paid (although if I was a betting man I’d say that the are), but they are definitely there to stir the pot. Finebaum’s schtick is to subtly (and sometimes, not so subtly) provoke a certain contingent of his listeners (which is in this case the out of state listeners since he has gone to satellite radio). And the number one way he does that is through his “plant” callers. All of the new listeners think he is a Bama fan, but before Saban came to Bama, he riped us apart over the airwaves. Like I said, that is his schtick.

        As far as SEC fans’ self-perception goes, while we aren’t as bad as Finebaum’s shows portays us, we do view the SEC as a step above all of the other conferences. But that isn’t just the SEC fans that view it that way. The national media also views (or at least portays) it that way. Unfortunately until someone from another conference wins a national championship, that will continue to be the case.

        LikeLike

        August 11, 2010 at 11:06 pm Reply

        1. Bama,

           Thanks for the heads up. I have wondered this about other broadcasters as well as some “callers” always seem to get through. I know this has gone on for ages in political debate as both side get on to attack or puff up the candidate on the radio.

           LikeLike

           August 12, 2010 at 6:12 am Reply

        2. My perception of SEC fans is that inbreeding got out of control a long time ago………..

           LikeLike

           August 12, 2010 at 11:35 am Reply

251. I saw your post about following the the political blogs. Since you seem to have absolute answers for every issue of which you could not possibly have such inside knowledge or command over the ultimate outcome, perhaps you should apply for associate commissioner or run for political office. Your own answer provides a possible reason for a union but from a different perspective than the same old box. Sweet dreams Blagojevich.

     LikeLike

     August 11, 2010 at 9:00 pm Reply

252. Just for fun, largest crowds in Rice football history (home)…

     1. 73,000 Louisiana State 9/23/61
     1. 73,000 Texas 10/27/62
     1. 73,000 Texas 10/24/64
     4. 72,000 Texas A&M 11/16/57
     4. 72,000 Texas 10/25/58
     4. 72,000 Texas 10/22/60
     7. 71,000 Texas 10/23/54
     8. 70,500 Texas 10/21/70
     9. 70,000 SMU 10/21/50
     9. 70,000 Texas 10/26/50

     LikeLike

     August 12, 2010 at 12:00 am Reply

     1. loki,

        thanks, that looks sorta like Tulane when they had big crowds as well. SMU was the big deal till they got the death penalty so I was not surprised to see them on your list.

        LikeLike

        August 12, 2010 at 6:15 am Reply

253. Morning Folks,

     At some point I may try to go back and find it on my computer, but back in March or April I was laying some groundwork on a “new” conference. I put all the 120? teams into a file then took out some legal pads and started resetting the whole thing based on the 16 team matrix. The conversation lately has made me rethink this, as the conversation has gotten back to ND in light of the current situation with UT, and politics in the state of texas.

     Basically my theory back then was the emergence of a “new” conference or 2 that would supplement the Big 3. My “4th” was one started with ND as an anchor where they were in a viable conference that offered them the most protection. I bring this up again as the conversation has gotten back to ND and what they would do if the BE got raided. I will try and go back and find my notes because at this point the idea might be worth revisiting. In the meantime, anybody feel that ND might take this path if their hand is forced?

     LikeLike

     August 12, 2010 at 6:08 am Reply

254. Why wouldn’t they if they could get away with it? I think there are better reasons for them to pursue this route, such as an easier path to the BCS and the lack of ‘institutional fit’ with the Big Ten/CIC. Small, private, Catholic, self-reverential.

     Logistically, I’d see the basketball and football schools of the Big East splitting and ND cherry picking some as an anchor, then competing with the Big Ten for some of the same far flung targets we’ve been discussing.

     It’s not hard for a rational entity to think a conference with 5 top 10 brands is too tough a bridge to cross with regularity.

     LikeLike

     August 12, 2010 at 8:09 am Reply

255. Any texas folks hear anything about an email from Dan Beebe that is floating around? Is it real or a hoax, and does anybody have a verifiable source if it is real? like the FOIA request, or something like it?

     LikeLike

     August 12, 2010 at 10:25 am Reply

     1. Haven’t heard anything about it. What does this supposed email say? (Or should that be, “what does that email supposedly say?”

        LikeLike

        August 12, 2010 at 11:10 am Reply

     2. Only one I’ve heard of was his sales pitch when it looked like the league was folding and that’s been out for a while, probably even on this board.

        LikeLike

        August 12, 2010 at 12:24 pm Reply

     3. It was dubbed the “white paper” by the media, and it is indeed real. It was obtained through a FOIA information request from the media to a Big 12 school.

        LikeLike

        August 12, 2010 at 2:25 pm Reply

        1. link to the “white paper” from the DMN

           Click to access beebe.pdf

           LikeLike

           August 12, 2010 at 2:26 pm Reply

           1. no, I have seen that

              this was a 1 page email that discussed the deal forced on the small schools to keep the conference alive.

              LikeLike

              August 12, 2010 at 5:38 pm Reply

              1. see post at link:

                 http://nebraska.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=181&mid=135619666&sid=928&tid=135619666&style=1

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 7:16 pm

              2. I don’t know if the e-mail is legitimate, but it is consistent with what he has said in interviews, so it probably is.

                 The guarantee was to UT, OU and A&M, not to OSU and TT. UT and OU have said they aren’t going to accept it.

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 9:53 pm

256. Pingback: Big Ten Divisions « Old State Glory

257. http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/08/12/divide-and-conference-of-the-future-pac-10/

     A little discussion of P10 splits and interesting map and chart showing TV contracts and expiration dates further down.

     LikeLike

     August 12, 2010 at 12:26 pm Reply

258. Ignore that link-typed a little too quick:

     http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/08/12/divide-and-conference-the-future-of-the-pac-10/

     LikeLike

     August 12, 2010 at 12:33 pm Reply

259. http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/08/12/pac-10-football-conference-revenue-and-per-school-distribution-figures/

     Covers their revenue and distributions. Have several different points of view in the comments section on distribution methods.

     One argument is that distribution balance creates balance on the field. I don’t believe that is demonstrated by the facts. P10 and B10 are probably the most balanced conferences and the P10 has the most unblanced distribution and the B10 the most balanced.

     The SEC and ACC are close behind the B10 in balance of distributions. The SEC is probably the most unbalanced while the ACC is not far behind the B10 and P10 for competitive balance.

     When you compare the B10 and B12 you can make the argument, but I believe it falls apart when you look at more than a sample of 2. Maybe as TV revenue streams grow the imbalance has more of an impact, but historically the $ difference wasn’t that big. Its the school generated $ that creates a big gap.

     LikeLike

     August 12, 2010 at 12:49 pm Reply

260. @Larry Scott – Spin baby spin! Yeah I would spin it that way too if I were the rich and wanted to keep it that way. But this is position that is tainted by cronyism and not leadership. Sure its great that USC won four national championships in 11 years. But what would be better than that is if the Pac 10 won and not just USC winning those NC’s. The Washington states of the world will NEVER get there if there is not some more balanced revenue sharing. The whole conference competition thing is more or less a sham. In the case of The Pac 10 the word “more “works and applies best.

     I refuse to sit by while people stridently present this lie as if it is the gospel. Now I make my own strident assertion. “Revenue sharing is the way to go. The more the better. “ There are built in advantage for some schools that are an uphill battle to say the least to overcome.

     Factors such as population density, weather, economy, historical advantage, media and the amount of state support of institutions are legitimate. Some do cancel out, but some will never be overcome. At least in the case of a strong revenue sharing agreement there is some remedy to offset some of the factors I have mentioned. Otherwise the rich get richer scenario has already been played out in the real world and we know the outcome.

     LikeLike

     August 12, 2010 at 5:25 pm Reply

     1. the Washington states of the world will NEVER get there

        Interesting school to pick, since WSU has been to the Rose Bowl twice since 1998. The Big 10, with its ideal revenue sharing designed to overcome the inherent disadvantages faced by schools like WSU, would have had less than half of its members (OSU, PSU, Michigan and Wisconsin for sure [Illinois lost one but gained one Rose Bowl berth because of the BCS]) match that stat but for the BCS-mandated redistribution of bowl travel.

        So what does it say about schools like Indiana and Minnesota, which have been so poor for so long despite being in a conference with a revenue sharing model ideal for them?

        Or perhaps it’s the case that all conferences will tend to have its Haves and Have-Nots despite whatever revenue sharing model is in place?

        LikeLike

        August 12, 2010 at 5:50 pm Reply

        1. Horn, without a doubt there will be some schools that will have some advantages and I spelled those out in my first post. Money is one thing that can give some balance those advantages. T-Boon is not hurting Oklahoma State any with his generosity. He is actually changing albeit for his own reasons, the trajectory of OK State football.

           Of Indiana and Minnesota? There is no apparent reason why they could not be more successful. Especially so at Minnesota where more wealth is evident. These Horn will take both a psychiatrist and a historian. Neither Iowa State or Oklahoma state have the historical advantage that Texas does. Neither has near the recruiting horizons in state as Texas does. T-Boon is an anomaly but schools in the position of Iowa State and Oklahoma State typically do not have the financial resources and alumni that Texas does.

           When you add it all up, it really does not provide a pathway to the upper division. Going 20 and 30 years without a CC is not a good indicator of the debt of the conference.

           Oh , by the way when I say historical advantage I mean when you say the words Michigan and say Northern Illinois University, even the densest recruits will have some perspective of who is most relevant between the two.

           LikeLike

           August 12, 2010 at 6:31 pm Reply

           1. HH & StvInIL,

              I made this argument along time ago about what I will call “inverse” programs in every conference. Take it for what you will, and no disrespect to any particular program, but for a conference to work each school has to play a part. Look at conferences historically.

              Big 10

              Nebraska is the inverse to Indiana

              Nebraska = Top CFB, but bottom CBB
              Indiana = Bottom CFB, but top CBB

              Since top college sports require a loser for every winner each school will find an individual sport to excel to keep fan interest / donor money coming in but probably can not excel at multiple sports. If ideal competitive spread looks something like this:

              Top teams = 25%
              Average teams = 50%
              Bottom teams = 25%

              Then half the teams in a given conference will be average while the top and bottom team will “inverse” each other across sports. If resources are limited in most schools, they will channel resources where they have the greatest capacity to excel. Sure IU is down in basketball now, but probability is on their side that they will return to Elite status. Nebraska football has had down cycles, but they will rise again at some point in time.

              Some schools like USC, UT, UF, tOSU have a competitive advantage in wealth, talent, coaching, etc as to be able to compete successfully in multiple sports, but they are exceptions and not the “average” or norm. I think the difference between the Big 10 / SEC model vs the Pac 10 / Big 12 model is that without revenue sharing you kick more “average” teams down to the bottom so the mix may look more like this:

              Top Teams = 15%
              Average teams = 45%
              Bottom teams = 40%

              I am not a fan of such thinking as a school like ISU can never rise up to at least be “average” and a team like UT or OU can strangle everybody else (I know you are a UT fan HH, but for all the good you feel, there is some ISU fan with continual futility) and the gap widens. I am not advocating total charity, as we are still in a competitive environment, but some extra revenue to ISU might let them build a competitive team (move closer to average) or find a program where they can “inverse” UT in say basketball or baseball.

              What do you guys think?

              LikeLike

              August 12, 2010 at 9:47 pm Reply

              1. For the B10, equal is probably fairer because of the BTN. As someone else pointed out, IU, NW and MN provide more content to the BTN for fb than UM, PSU and Ohio St. I think with owned networks like the BTN you must do equal on that part because of the huge, varied amount of content. But then unequal on the ABC/ESPN wouldn’t be fair to those who contribute more to BTN.

                 With the other conferences, I think both philosphies are valid-equal or incentive revenue sharing. As I said above, I don’t think there’s evidence supporting the idea that it makes the conferences less competitive to have unequal revenue sharing.

                 Now maybe if the difference gets to be 8 or 9 million instead of 2 or 3, it will make a difference. ISU, MN, UK, WSU and WF are usually better than almost all the non-BCS schools who make 8 or 9 million less from their conference.

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 10:13 pm

              2. Regarding pairs, you can make a lot of those in every conference. Often the premier in one is relatively low in the other:
                 IU/PSU
                 Duke/FSU
                 UK/Alabama
                 KU/UNL
                 AZ/USC

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 10:18 pm

              3. Bullet, that’s a pretty good point on the BTN.

                 NU/Illinois/Indiana/Minnesota/Purdue, etc. end up on BTN way more than OSU/Michigan/Penn State/Wisconsin/Iowa which have tended to take up the ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 slots.

                 Equal revenue sharing is much easier to do because everyone’s contributing to the content by playing games televised at some level.

                 LikeLike

                 August 12, 2010 at 10:36 pm

     2. A lot of being successful has to do with getting lucky with coaches. Northwestern post 1995 is a pretty good example of that.

        A couple million in extra revenue from revenue sharing isn’t going to really fix the differences; you need a lot of luck to get better, and most of the 4-5 star recruits are going to be sucked up by the schools with the giant stadiums and amazing facilities along with the highest paid coaches.

        It’s tough to really aim higher than that if you’re a “have not” in a BCS conference.

        LikeLike

        August 12, 2010 at 6:26 pm Reply

        1. I have a slightly different perspective. Luck is what they call it and what you depend on when You yourself don’t expect to win. And I don’t mean you personally Zeek. When you have good facilities, you attract better recruits. When you have good coaching, you win games the casual fans don’t expect you to win. Then to a point you get little better recruits but for the guys in the 2nd or 3rd tier this only goes so far. So now your coach is getting recognition and better/higher paying job offers. This is where that Historical Advantage works against you. You have to keep the winning up a number of years to overcome that as kids growing up watching and hearing of your team winning don’t have the stigma attached to the doormat you went to school at had with your friends.

           LikeLike

           August 12, 2010 at 6:40 pm Reply

261. Why does Nebraska continue to use the the traditional N on their football helmets? Everywhere else UNL uses a more updated block N. Is it totally about tradition? I think the block N looks much sharper. Feedback please.

     LikeLike

     August 12, 2010 at 9:47 pm Reply

     1. The N is for Nowledge!

        Oh, I kid my AAU Midwestern friends. As I recall, Nebraska did some updating to its jerseys (though not including the helmet, apparently, if my quick Wiki research is correct) back in the early part of the decade to make them more modern, in the same way many schools have done. The fans raised holy hell (as they would at Texas as well for similar tinkering with tradition), and the uniforms reverted to the old style fairly quickly.

        I would infer from that that the university has updated its identity elsewhere but has left its iconic N on its helmets alone, wisely, I would say.

        LikeLike

        August 12, 2010 at 10:06 pm Reply

        1. They looked like crap and also happened to coincide with Nebraska’s worst season in 40+ years (to that point) 2002. Thus they were quickly abandoned.

           

           LikeLike

           August 12, 2010 at 11:48 pm Reply

           1. Wow, I didn’t remember them being that craptacular. Score one for good taste with the quick restoration of the old jerseys.

              LikeLike

              August 13, 2010 at 12:13 am Reply

262. Tradition definitely. Nebraska’s uniforms are basically unchanged since 1970. Even more conservative in the 60’s, script numbers and no stripes on the jersey or pants–my all time favorite “Big Red” look

     http://sites.google.com/site/nebraskafootballhistory/uniforms/churchich.jpg?attredirects=0

     LikeLike

     August 12, 2010 at 10:09 pm Reply

     1. So is Wiki correct when it implies the helmets never changed even when the rest of the uniform briefly did? In my mind, I see the updated jersey with the updated “N” on the helmet.

        LikeLike

        August 12, 2010 at 10:17 pm Reply

        1. Yes. See photo in my reply to you above.

           LikeLike

           August 12, 2010 at 11:49 pm Reply

263. Just minor tweaks on the uniforms, played around a bit with the amount and thickness of the striping is about it.

     Also, like the Horns road all whites, works for them but never liked it with NU, gotta go with the red pants.

     How long has Texas gone with that look? methinks a while.

     LikeLike

     August 12, 2010 at 10:28 pm Reply

     1. When you look at old pictures, there were dark pants with the road whites at times in the 40s or 50s, stripes and no Bevo on the helmets during that time frame, but its been pretty consistent since Darrell Royal’s early years in the 60s. Pictures of the 63 MNC team look pretty much like the current except for the helmet numbers as HH mentioned. I’ve read DKR re-adopted burnt orange. We had shifted more towards Tennessee/Ok. St. orange during WWII when dies were in short supply.

        LikeLike

        August 13, 2010 at 8:29 am Reply

264. Pretty much forever, with some minor tweaks here and there (numbers above Bevo on the helmet, for example, at times).

     I caught a replay of the 1969 Texas-Arkansas game on ESPN Classic recently, and it was startling to see how much looked exactly alike: the cheerleaders, the band, the uniforms.

     In the beginning of the message board era on the interwebs, you could stir up a UT message board by suggesting that the team go with orange pants on the road (a sizable minority, including me at one time) in favor of the idea, but such thoughts have vanished in the wake of the good memories associated with those Stormtrooper jerseys from the Rose Bowl.

     LikeLike

     August 12, 2010 at 10:57 pm Reply

265. a grab bag of Delany comments from the Minneapolis StarTribune:

     from the Minneapolis StarTribune

     Nebraska wanted in
     Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany also was in town for a meeting that included Pacific-10 Commissioner Larry Scott, Gophers athletic director Joel Maturi — who also is chairman of the Big Ten athletic directors — and representatives of the Rose Bowl. Delany doesn’t look for any further Big Ten expansion in the near future now that Nebraska has been admitted.

     Apparently Nebraska made the first move in applying to get into the Big Ten. And once the Cornhuskers applied, Delany said it took about a month to get them in.

     “We’re working very hard to integrate Nebraska into the Big Ten,” Delany said. “We’re in the process of doing that and should have that done in the next 30 days or so.”

     Asked to how the divisions will be decided, Delany said: “Athletic directors understand competition, balance, competitive fairness [and] rivalries, so they’re going to be working closely together. We’ve had a couple meetings, and we’ll have a couple more. I expect that they’ll arrive at a very balanced and fair outcome. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it unanimous or close to unanimous. We probably have looked at 12 different divisions.

     “Our presidents will decide in December whether or not there’s another step or not. We’re in the process of bidding out the television rights to that [championship game] event, and that will probably happen this fall.”

     Delany didn’t see the Big Ten going to nine conference games in football in the near future, but one thing that might force that move is the big-money schools having to pay to attract nonconference opponents.

     The Big Ten commissioner didn’t see the 18-game conference basketball schedule being extended. But he did say that on the table is a possible Big Ten hockey championship, once another school adds hockey as a sport. Five conference schools now play the sport: Minnesota and Wisconsin in the WCHA, and Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State in the Central Collegiate Hockey Association.

     http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/100592354.html?page=2&c=y

     LikeLike

     August 13, 2010 at 7:30 am Reply

     1. This is fascinating. Just a few thoughts:

        1. What is up with the weird vascillating on a 9-game schedule? He goes from saying that it’s likely to happen in a few years, to saying it won’t happen in the “near future,” and makes it sound like if it does happen, it’ll only be because a relatively unpleasant contingency (the price of guaranty games rising) forces the league’s hand.

        2. I assume what they mean by saying the 18-game basketball schedule won’t be “extended” is that it won’t go to 20 (or beyond). But semantically it could also mean “the decision to go to 18 games will not be extended and we will revert back to 16.” I only raise this point because, if you went with divisions in basketball, a 16-game schedule is extremely natural: everybody in your division twice, everybody from the other division once. (Indeed, I’d love to see this happen and have the NCAA shave a week off the season, starting the tournament a week earlier.)

        3. I would love to see a Big Ten hockey championship! Let’s make it happen guys.

        LikeLike

        August 13, 2010 at 8:34 am Reply

        1. @Adam

           I think the vascilation on 9 conference games is a timing issue. there are several schools that have 4 nonconference games already scheduled a few years out and a delay would allow them to run those off without penalties. I’ve heard some speculation of a move to 9 being contemplated for @2015. That would allow the ‘brand name’ schools to continue to milk the 3 or 4 home non conference game bit a while longer and then make the shift just before renegotiating the tv contract. It also keeps options open prior to futrther developments in the expansion issue.

           I read the basketball issue as staying at 18. It’ll be interesting to see if they contemplate divisions in basketball as well but there has been no whiff of it on the grapevine so it would be a surprise.

           I posted this on a Michigan board and hockey got the overwhelming interest there. Six teams would probably be insufficient for a stand alone conference but the idea of an invitational format round robin, perhaps including some existing WCHA and CCHA games, draws a lot of interest. Among the schools that have hockey there seems to be a lot of interest in some sort of Big Ten hockey even if not a full conference. and it would be great additional content for the BTN.

           LikeLike

           August 13, 2010 at 9:00 am Reply

           1. There’s been speculation that if the Big Ten added hockey, Illinois would make the leap as well. That gets you to 7 teams, and that might be enough to get you over the hump.

              There’s also this: a smaller Big Ten hockey league will help smooth over some of the political ramifications. A smaller league means more opportunities for non-conference play. This lets the teams do 2 things simultaneously:
              1. Pick up some weaker non-conference opponents, since a Big Ten hockey league would have a lot of very strong programs.
              2. Keep playing some of the CCHA/WCHA teams they play now, in order to “spread the wealth” and support college hockey at the smaller schools (e.g., Bowling Green or Ferris State).

              As for the other scheduling concerns, I think a 9-game football schedule is a big mistake because some teams get more home games than others, and I think that a divisional structure in basketball would make a hell of a lot more sense than the apparently random drawing they go through now to determine who you play twice and who you play once. Some regularity there would be nice; it’s insane that none of the teams are guaranteed to play each other twice a year, even though there are so many great basketball rivalries.

              LikeLike

              August 13, 2010 at 9:12 am Reply

              1. hadn’t heard that about Illinois possibly picking up hockey. that would be awesome. I suspect if we got eight they would do it. Maybe we can convince Iowa.

                 I agree there would be plenty of non conference play opportuinities. But it would also be important to continue to support schools like Ferris State. The viablity of NCAA hockey is important as well and can’t afford losing those smaller schhols that have been long time contibutors.

                 LikeLike

                 August 13, 2010 at 9:23 am

              2. I think you could do both. Those small schools (the Western Michigans of the hockey world) would most years also be the kinds of “lighter” non-conference opponents the big boys at the top of the Big Ten would need to balance their schedule. A small, 7- or 8-team league would actually give you the best chance of making everybody happy.

                 LikeLike

                 August 13, 2010 at 9:46 am

266. Pingback: Conference Threat Levels « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT

267. I’ve finally put up a new post – enjoy!

     https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/conference-threat-levels/

     LikeLike

     August 13, 2010 at 9:34 am Reply