What have I kept saying for over a year now? The ACC is much stronger than what people give it credit for. Pete Thamel of the New York Times is reporting that the ACC is in discussions with Pitt and Syracuse. This rumor had been floating around in some circles for a couple of days and then confirmed by this story on Friday night. The latest news is on top of word that the respective Boards of Regents for both Oklahoma and Texas are meeting on Monday to authorize their presidents to negotiate and make decisions about conference membership. This was a step that Texas A&M took right before it received its SEC invite last month, so a board action is more of a signal of the end of a process as opposed to a beginning.
Now, if we want to look at Thamel’s report as a straightforward story, we can just surmise that the ACC simply wants to go up to 14 schools with two institutions that are fantastic fits athletically, academically and culturally. However, I’m going to put my tinfoil hat on for a moment (to the extent that all of you don’t already believe that I wear one 24/7/365). We already know that one monster from Austin is looking at the ACC. What are the repercussions for that other monster that lives in South Bend? Let’s go through two scenarios that deal with two separate rumors that are circulating heavily in the blogosphere/Twitterverse/message board world (I’m not claiming either are valid, but rather performing a mental exercise in seeing how various dominoes can fall):
SCENARIO 1: TEXAS GOES INDEPENDENT FOR FOOTBALL AND TO THE ACC FOR NON-FOOTBALL SPORTS (AKA BAD FOR THE BIG TEN)
The hot new rumor via Orangebloods (from a connected insider but not Chip Brown) is that Texas is looking to go independent for football and will then place all of its non-football sports in the ACC. As part of this deal, Texas would play 4 ACC schools per year while ESPN would effectively be footing the bill on all fronts by increasing the currently below-market ACC contract along with paying a gargantuan amount of cheddar to the UT to televise all of its home games on one of its networks (ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 or LHN).
My initial knee-jerk reaction to this: there’s absolutely NFW that UNC or Duke would sign up for this. The ACC is as much of an “all for one and one for all” conference as the Big Ten and it would be massively out of character. Plus, it would seem to make little sense for the ACC to take in UT without football (which is where the ACC needs the most help, especially to ensure schools like Florida State don’t leave).
After thinking about this rumor a little bit, though, I posted this comment on my previous blog post connecting Notre Dame, Texas, Pitt and Syracuse (which happened to be several hours before the New York Times broke the Pitt/Syracuse to the ACC story). Here’s an updated version of it encompassing the latest developments (follow the chain):
CONFIRMED: Pitt and Syracuse are speaking with the ACC.
RUMOR 1: Texas and Notre Dame have been keeping each other apprised of each other’s plans and each school is the biggest potential lure to the other school if there’s Conference Armageddon.
RUMOR 2: ACC is looking to offer UT membership in non-football sports and allow the Longhorns to be independent in football.
GENERAL PERCEPTION: Out of all of the Big East schools, Notre Dame is closest to Pitt and Syracuse. Not shockingly, those are the 2 Big East schools that Notre Dame has regularly scheduled on equal terms with (unlike their 1-and-done blood money games with the likes of USF and UConn). I have been told that these 3 schools were intertwined last year in conference discussions, including with the Big Ten.
FACT: Notre Dame sought non-football ACC membership in 2003 when the Big East was about to implode, which the ACC reject.
THEORY: IF the ACC is going to go down the hybrid route, then it’s no longer going to have an objection to Notre Dame joining on a non-football basis. Notre Dame would easily and happily fulfill a 4-game requirement to play ACC teams with Boston College, Maryland and Miami already on the schedule in coming years, Big East mates Pitt and Syracuse already regular opponents and historical series with Georgia Tech and Florida State. So, the Irish would have a much easier time providing the ACC 4 games per year than giving the Big East 3 games per year (which it promised back in 2003 but never fulfilled) as there are a number of ACC schools that ND would play as an independent, anyway. It could have a new annual series with Texas and essentially keep the rest of its traditional schedule with Navy, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, USC and Stanford intact. A full ACC football schedule would never make sense for ND (as I argued separately here), but a partial one certainly could.
Ultimately, the ACC would have a 14-school football conference that connects more fluidly up the East Coast and a 16-school league for all other sports with the 2 most powerful brand names in college athletics (Notre Dame and Texas) as members.
RATIONALE: Why would the ACC do this? Because the conference that the ACC is truly scared of poaching them isn’t the SEC. Instead, it’s the Big Ten expanding that mortifies them as Jim Delany can offer academic prestige (which is key for the ACC) on top of a war chest of football dollars. I’ve long stated that the Big Ten isn’t going to be expanding with Notre Dame and/or Texas (and in turn, could try to go up to 16 with schools like Maryland, Virginia and/or Virginia Tech). Therefore, if the ACC provides homes to those superpowers where they basically have no football incentive to join the Big Ten, it means that Big Ten expansion might be precluded virtually forever.
This is just me thinking off the top of my head. I don’t know if the ACC would actually go for this since they are very much an “all members are equal” league, but we can’t discount anything these days when schools like Notre Dame and Texas might be on the move and ESPN possibly offering Pac-12/Big Ten/SEC dollars to the ACC to give them incentives to make concessions.
SCENARIO 2: PURPLE BOOK CAT MOVIE COMES TO LIFE IN THE “FUCK YOU, PAY ME” CONFERENCE (AKA GREAT FOR THE BIG TEN)
Let’s flip Scenario 1 on its head. Once again, we’ll assume that the ACC takes Syracuse and Pitt. However, the ACC refuses to deal with a hybrid model (which would probably be wise). Regardless, the ACC’s move will obviously create a great amount of instability in the Big East, which is what many of us believed the Big Ten would try to do last year by targeting other members of that conference in order to lure Notre Dame. Ultimately, there are really only two scenarios where Notre Dame joins a conference: (A) there are 4 16-school superconferences with a playoff system and the Irish need to join one of them in order to structurally compete for the national championship or (B) the Big East collapses and Notre Dame has no option better than the Atlantic 10 or a league made up of the Big East leftovers to put its non-football sports in (which some alums might say would be fine in order to preserve independence, but I know others with connections there that have said otherwise).
This gets us to the famous (at least in conference realignment circles) Purple Book Cat scenario of the Big Ten having invites out to Notre Dame and Texas. As stated in Scenario 1, the theory all along is that the presence of Notre Dame would be the single biggest attraction to Texas in terms of joining a conference and vice versa. However, Notre Dame ain’t joining the Big 12 and any hypothetical new conference formed by them (which is a popular option among many Texas fans) likely would contain largely a “meh” combo of Big 12 and Big East leftovers, anyway.
With the Big 12 and Big East collapsing (and none of it done at the initiation of the Big Ten), it plays right into Jim Delany’s hands to put the Purple Book Cat scenario into motion. From a financial and national exposure standpoint, there’s no conference combination that would be more powerful than what I had affectionately called The “Fuck You Pay Me” Conference featuring the Big Ten plus Notre Dame and Texas. Maybe the Big Ten could add two more schools to get up to 16, but there might not be any point in doing so (especially if 14 becomes the new revenue maximizing conference membership number the way that 12 is today). Notre Dame and Texas would see that even equal shares of “Fuck You, Pay Me” Conference revenue would make their respective NBC and LHN contracts look like pocket change and thereby be convinced to join.
Once again – is this happening? No one knows. It’s still hard to see the Big Ten making any concessions on the LHN, but this conference realignment process has already seen a lot of leagues and schools do the unexpected.
OTHER SCENARIOS THAT ARE WAY MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD AND BEING REPORTED BY THE NATIONAL MEDIA
Boooooooooring.
Enjoy the games this weekend. (Go Illini! Go Bears!) Come Monday, we might be looking at a completely different college sports world.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from LastFM)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Go Blue
LikeLike
Go Orange
LikeLike
Go green
LikeLike
Go Caput Mortuum
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
2
LikeLike
What have I kept saying for over a year now? The ACC is much stronger than what people give it credit for.
With all respect, I’m not sure this proves your theory. The question wasn’t if the ACC was strong enough to attack the Big East (it was always assumed they would if expansion became necessary), it was whether the league was strong enough to defend itself from the SEC and the Big 10. Now, the possibility of UT was never really considered (there had been talk of ND), but all that proves is that its strong enough to provide a home for schools that can’t get what they want from other conferences.
LikeLike
that last sentence should read;
…strong enough to provide an acceptable home…
LikeLike
I’d love for option 2 to be the case…. Unfortunately I think option 1 is more likely.
Why is the hybrid conference so bad for the ACC? It ensure its survival.
LikeLike
My problem with this whole bit of news out of the NYT is that I don’t think the ACC goes to 14 with Pitt/Syracuse unless something happens.
I really don’t see ESPN upping the ACC deal unless something crazy is worked out with Texas/ND. The alternative of course is the idea of FSU or Va Tech or Maryland jumping the ship and the ACC needing replacements. That’s the much more natural course, but it certainly wouldn’t be possible to view the ACC as speaking from a position of strength if they’re moving to 14 because they expect a move back down to 12 in the near future.
Whatever else, I’ll be shocked if the ACC moves to 14 with Pitt/Syracuse and that’s all that happens. I don’t see how that’s a viable result considering it would seem to just lessen everyone’s payday (which certainly can’t help the stability front with respect to FSU/Va Tech/Maryland).
In this case, the most boring scenario seems to be the most unlikely, which I think may be a new thing as far these discussions go…
LikeLike
I don’t agree that adding Syracuse and Pitt would be a dilution for the ACC members. I have been posting for a while that the end of this just had to result in the Big East being severely weakened or destroyed, because ESPN is losing the rights to the Big East in 2013 and doesn’t want NBC to be able to get that live content for its competing sports channel.
Since the Big East has refused to resign with ESPN and was going to take their rights package to the open market, ESPN may have decided to take some of the money they offered the BE to reup and instead give it to the ACC to break the Big East up.
LikeLike
This is what I have seen saying with the A&M rumors broke. ESPN and the Big East are causing this.
The ESPN was part of CREATING the Big East. ESPN offered a massive financial raise. The Big East probably did the right thing in saying “not so fast.” But ESPN is understandably pissed. Whereas the Big 12 allowed itself to be saved by ESPN, the Big East kind of blew off ESPN, rejecting a deal at the last minute. All of this is in response to the Big East and ESPN.
If you are ESPN and your choices are to (a) pay even more than the already over market value offer to the Big East; or (b) take that same increase in money and give it to the SEC and ACC… while also providing potential schools to slide over to the Big 12…. why not do that? What is a better value… an extra $80M/year to the Big East or an extra $50M to the SEC and an extra $30M to the SEC?Throw in the maintaining viability of the Big 12 and the LHN. Throw in preventing Fox and NBC from gaining an AQ conference.
While you Big Ten folks think Rutgers (or maybe UConn) carries NYC, ESPN knows the real deal. Nobody carries NYC for football. And, basketball-wise, it’s Syracuse and St. Johns. Remember… Syracuse playing in MSG is considered a “home game.” Heck, Syracuse playing in Atlantic City last year was considered a home game. And I am sure that an FSU defection could be responded by an offer to UConn, if necessary.
LikeLike
We “Big Ten folks” don’t think that Rutgers carries NYC…but they carry NJ and it’s a well-populated state in and of itself. If it helps the Big Ten make inroads into NYC as well, that’s just gravy. And when you’re jumping up to 16 teams, adding one creampuff on the schedule isn’t horrible.
LikeLike
OK. Enjoy your market and creampuff. It’s all about the $$$ for the Big Ten, I guess.
That $$$ doesn’t make NW good at hoops or Indiana good at football. And it doesn’t help OSU keep up with the SEC in anything other than scandals.
Not sure going from $$$ to $$$$$ is going to help either.
Those who advocate adding Kings have right idea.
LikeLike
“OK. Enjoy your market and creampuff.”
—He said upon hearing upon hearing the possibility of the ACC adding Syracuse.
LikeLike
Oops, wrong login.
LikeLike
Let’s try this again –
EZCUSE – “OK. Enjoy your market and creampuff.”
–He said upon hearing the possibility of the ACC adding Syracuse.
Seriously it is mind boggling that you could post that with a straight face.
LikeLike
“Enjoy your market and creampuff. ”
Every conference has them and every conference needs them. At least Rutgers brings something to the table (academics, population, proximity to NYC) that most “creampuff’s” don’t.
LikeLike
Wow! Lose Florida State and add UCt; that’s a lose-lose. By the way, if you were reading these threads, you would know that us ‘Big Ten folks’ don’t think any combination of Scuse, Gers or UCt carry NYC. If they did, they would be in the B1G!
LikeLike
Totally agree. FSU for UConn is a gigantic loss. But if you are going to lose a King, having a logical addition is better than having nothing but poor choices–i.e. see current Big 12. Nobody would ever willingly make that trade. But it is better than deciding between East Carolina and Memphis.
I will never understand the level of infatuation with Rutgers that anyone has had on this board. Read enough threads and you will see a ton of forecasts that have Rutgers in lieu of other Big East schools. They have become something other than fodder by playing a terrible slate of OOC games during a period of Big East turmoil. They are not even a prince. If that carries NJ, then we all have another reason to feel sorry for NJ.
LikeLike
As Scarlet_Lutefisk intimated, I find it very interesting that the tone of EZCUSE’s posts have changed dramatically with the news of a Pitt/SU move to the ACC.
LikeLike
Why again would ESPN want a consolidation of the East Coast, and why would they pay the ACC an extra 16.6% to take on 2 additional members (to its current 12)? ESPN wants there to be more properties to be bid on, even if they don’t own that content.
ESPN and Fox would much prefer 6 BCS conferences to 5 (even if Big 12 holds out); and 5 (if Big East survives but Big 12 doesn’t) is certainly more favorable to 4 (both Big East and Big 12 being destroyed).
This is about content providers versus media distributors. Less BCS conferences only hurts ESPN in the long run, since they’ll have to pay bigger premiums to the remaining conferences.
The Texas -> ACC makes sense for ESPN in terms of the fact that they own the rights to both sides.
ESPN shelling out 16.6% to the ACC to take Pitt/Syracuse in a move to 14 doesn’t make as much sense. Maybe this is a really long term play by the ACC to get rid of the Big East for its own benefit (even though it will face short-term dilution that might weaken it), but I have to believe that something is up with FSU or Texas/ND with respect to the ACC that’s forcing its hand.
LikeLike
If the ACC cannot be broken, then a 4-team superconference world includes the ACC and does not include the Big East. If the Big 10 cannot penetrate the ACC and the SEC cannot penetrate the ACC, then the ACC wins.
The Big East could still survive as a basketball conference with Villanova, STJ, Georgetown, and numerous other schools. Same access to the markets. Just no need to overpay because of an AQ conference tag along.
You Big 10 folks underestimate the value of the Big East schools anyway. Pitt and Syracuse restoring rivalries with BC, Va Tech, and Maryland will juice up the ACC football. And I would not be surprised if UConn and WVU (if they are available) is the Plan B to get to 16 if all else fails. Throw in Virginia and you have a solid hold on the NE with those 8 teams in an ACC North.
But to answer your questions: WHy would ESPN want to consolidate the East Coast? Because they get it within their umbrella. Keeping it separate apparently means losing it to NBC or Fox who can overpay ESPN’s overpayment.
Why pay ACC an extra 16.6%? Isn’t that better than paying 225% to the entire Big East? And what good is it to have another AQ conference to negotiate with when that can help improve Fox and NBC. If the Big East dies…that props up the Big 12–an ESPN entity. Having that extra conference to negotiate with does not help if that conference is willing to take its stuff elsewhere.
I think Fox would prefer the Big East to survive, but ESPN only does if they are going to be part of the ESPN umbrella. Otherwise, it is better to let it die and prop up the entities you do have long-term control over. The money is the same, ESPN just harms a competitor.
LikeLike
That’s all true if you’re not talking about future contracts with the SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten, and even the future ACC.
Less stuff for Fox and NBC to bid on right now means they’re going to end up overpaying on everyone later because there’s less properties for Fox and NBC (and ESPN) to bid on; for example, if ESPN gives up the Big East contract to Fox or NBC right now, that might mean whichever one gets it is less interested in bidding for the Big Ten’s contract in 2015.
Yes, this brings those two schools under ESPN’s umbrella right now; but the future contracts are only going to be that much larger because of this kind of move. I can see why the ACC wants to do this from a future perspective.
But then, why not do this move before negotiating the contracts? It was surely a feasible move 1-2 years ago, so why not go for it then? I think there’s a lot more to this than meets the eye with respect to schools either leaving the ACC or Texas/ND getting a deal with the ACC.
LikeLike
Who knows what the future brings? By 2020, it may be that schools like OSU and USC look at the landscape and feel that they MUST create their own TV network/Internet stream.
And if they prevent NBC from ever becoming a true player, that’s one less entity to bid against in 2020.
Why would any network be happy with the Big East…. so happy as to not bid on the Big 10?
Besides… the Big East implosion could boost the Big 12. Consider if the Big 12 lands several Big East schools. Keeps Texas happy. Keeps LHN in place. And now ESPN has ACC, SEC, Big 12, and a piece of the Pac 12. That’s BC to USC and a lot in between.
If a conference has to die, doesn’t ESPN want it to be the Big East IF the Big East is willing to leave the ESPN umbrella?
LikeLike
Assume the Big 10 has its sights on the Virginia/Maryland corridor.
If you add Pitt and Syracuse, you can now break off into a N/S division scheme that makes some sense (admittedly, the 7th team for the north is dicey).
North: BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Maryland, Virginia, Va Tech, Wake Forest
South: NC, Duke, NC State, Ga Tech, Clemson, Miami, FSU
If Maryland jumps to the Big 10, they give up games against 5 regional foes to play PSU and a bunch of teams they have no history with and barely any geographic relevance to. Same with Va Tech.
And imagine being able to dangle a ND pod of BC, Pitt, and Syracuse down the road.
If you think like a network, keeping the Maryland/Virginia corridor happy keeps TV markets within your umbrella, rather than Fox/BTN.
LikeLike
It’s a good pod, but not as good as Purdue-Michigan-Michigan State. Or substitute PSU for any of those.
I see a hybrid option as being more likely than angling for a 16/4 pod arrangement down the road.
LikeLike
Possible ESPN thinking-Pay $13 million/school for 14 schools instead of:
$13/school for 12 school ACC AND
$13/school for 9 school BE ($11 million per football school was their offer)
Is there really much value in the rest of the football schools-4 former CUSA, 1 new arrival from I-AA, Rutgers and a WVU that may be on their way to SEC? They all make good filler, but alone they probably aren’t worth anywhere near the $11 million previously offered.
LikeLike
It’s no coincidence that the Big 12 was looking at the Big East, as well. ESPN never wanted to pay the Big East a fair contract– it’s much easier to push conferences to poach each other. ESPN is fine with breaking up schools in order to keep from paying fair market value to a united conference. It makes far more sense for them to pay for the schools that make money on a case by case basis (Pitt, Cuse).
Take some of the money the Big East would have gotten for their re-up, take some insurance blood money for the ACC to accept the LHN and give it to the ACC members to get them closer to fair market value. Everybody wins, but ESPN especially wins.
LikeLike
ESPN has the ACC locked up, but the Big East is determined to go to market. Why not stear the best football brands (assuming WV to the SEC) out of the Big East to make the Big East less attractive when it goes to market. That will teach the Big East to say no to ESPN.
LikeLike
….and yet we talk about the likelihood of success of a TI lawsuit against the SEC.
LikeLike
I think WVU was leading the way on SEC #14 and UT to ACC rumours were gaining steam and Pitt made their move considering that. So Pitt probably approached ACC 1st and then ACC approached ESPN. And BE contracts expire in 2 years for fb and 3 for bb. BE requires 27 month advance notice for leaving, so there’s no TI exposure. ESPN didn’t make the 1st move and there’s no contract to interfere with given 27 months notice.
LikeLike
Man, reading some of these comments you’d think ESPN was Vito Corleone.
“I’m going to make the Big East an offer they can’t refuse.”
LikeLike
“Man, reading some of these comments you’d think ESPN was Vito Corleone.”
Morgen,
Except that with Vito it was only business.
LikeLike
MORGAN
I’m OK, my fingers are dyslexic.
LikeLike
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the Pac X and debating dropping the RRS. Texas joining the ACC with Notre Dame. A&M joining the SEC to make 13 teams there.
I guess what I’m saying is that reality crossed into tinfoil hat territory a couple of months ago and hasn’t turned back.
With that in mind let us reconsider this statement:
“With the Big 12 and Big East collapsing (and none of it done at the initiation of the Big Ten)”
Jim Delany and John Swofford were jocks together at North Carolina in the 70s. Clearly they’ve been planning this all along. Also, guess how many characters are in “North Carolina”? 14, obviously indicating that both conferences will end with 14 members (Pitt and Syracuse for the ACC, Texas and ND for the Big Ten).
LikeLike
I like it…. You know, Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln and Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy and both Lincoln and Kennedy have 7 letters in their names. One letter for each team in the new divisions of the SuperACC. Texas & Notre Dame are represented by the secretaries. Then John Wilkes Booth was from Maryland, so we have to watch what the Terrapins do and Lee Harvey Oswald was originally from New Orleans so look for Tulane to become a player. Reading the tea leaves it looks like Tulane & Maryland will play in the Motor CIty Bowl in 2060.
LikeLike
“Also, guess how many characters are in “North Carolina”? 14”
I didn’t realize spaces between words counted. 😦
LikeLike
Off the internet for little over 24 hours and all this happens! Heard about Pitt and SU on ESPN radio.
I was starting to think the UT to the Pac deal made no sense. The only things that made financial sense for UT were ACC (UT + 3) and, once again, B1G, or if OU stayed, then the Big 12. Now all this means either the Pac has come up with a concession for UT (which I considered unlikely given how hard it would be to justify to USC and UCLA), Frank’s ACC hybrid model is occurring, or more remotely UT is going to the ACC as a western island, or PBC’s B1G scenario is unfolding.
Pac w/o UT concession makes no sense financially for UT. UT could replicate their revenue model in SEC or do better. B1G would likely be better. Pac would be $20 million/year + some future benefits from Pac network. Unlike LHN, Pac owns 100% and therefore must put in 100% of investment, meaning it will take time to get a payout. UT’s current contracts pay $15 million average from Tier 3 and $15 million average from Tier 1 & 2 with UT’s share probably $16-$17 million and a renegotiated contract in 4 years. That comes to $32 million/year which will likely go up to $37 or more (if Big 12 held together). That’s what’s truly different from last year in their interest in the Pac. They would be dropping to $20 million/year + a promise of future Pac network $. Now Scott could sell USC and UCLA because they were going from $7 million/year to $20 million + a promise. That’s a lot harder to sell to someone at $32 million with the promise of a little more.
UT wouldn’t have scheduled the board meeting unless the decision was near. So someone has offered a deal that makes sense if OU leaves as expected.
LikeLike
And since Notre Dame seems surprised by the BE changes, I’m thinking the Pac is most likely, but any of the scenarios are possible.
LikeLike
Also, add
LikeLike
Under option #1, would it not be plausible that the ACC sees things pretty much the same way Notre Dame does? That ND, and also, UT, as Indies would hold out aligning their football programs in a conference as long as humanly possible? If the dominoes fall, and aTm and say Mizzou SECede, the OK schools head to the PAC, the landscape would be headed towards the 16 team model, but not quite there yet. They could, theoretically wait it out, presumably, either the BEast would attempt to survive with some mishmash of Big XII leftovers and/or CUSA schools, or both conferences become the buffet table for the B1G/SEC. Under either scenario, there are schools out there that would essentially be free agents. If West Virginia gets antsy and bails to the South, the B1G invites Rutgers for a night on the town, etc etc IF it comes to the 16 team model, wouldn’t the ACC be best positioned to bring UT and ND in for football, seeing as they already have those schools non-rev/Olympic sports? The ACC, if my eyes don’t deceive me at this early hour, already have all the sports UT competes in, yes, even women’s rowing. So while it doesn’t immediately improve the football brand, the ACC would hold a lot of cards in the event of Conferencegeddon.
One question about this, though, what about the “Tech Problem”? Can Bevo extricate itself from Tech, and to a lesser extent, Baylor, so easily? I wouldn’t anticipate Ken Starr and friends getting too far suing 3 different conferences.
At some point though, some conference is going to have to bite the bullet and do something it wouldn’t normally do. Whether it’s take a lower academic institution, deal with the inequality of the LHN, accept BYU despite the LDS, and so on and so forth. If there were 4 perfect matches each for the 4 big dogs, it would probably have happened already.
LikeLike
There could be three 16-member conferences (including the ACC, going against conventional wisdom), one 12- to 14-member league, and a fifth conference for what’s left of the Big East and Big 12 so they can keep their BCS invite for the lowest-tiered of the major bowls (which the Fiesta may have to agree to in order to stay in the group, with the Cotton Bowl taking its place in the title game rotation).
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Add. GBR. Go B1G.
LikeLike
Dude thats some crazy speculation…
LikeLike
I would love to see Florida State in the Big Ten, but I just don’t see how it would work for them logistically.
FSU is a king; they typically don’t relocate to far off regions unless they have an absolutely pressing reason to (OU because Big 12 is broken and Texas to preserve the LHN/and because the Big 12 is broken), and even then would they even be interested? From what I’ve seen, they were debating SEC v. ACC down to the wire the previous go around and came up with ACC.
FSU/Ga Tech would actually be a solid expansion attempt (or FSU/Maryland), but it’s just so hard for me to see FSU wanting to be so far away from the rest of the conference.
I think FSU’s in the same kind of position as Texas A&M. They’re going to stay in the ACC or they leave for the SEC.
It’d be a great idea for Delany to at least put in a phone call and see what’s up, but I don’t see how it works for either side.
LikeLike
FSU is a king that doesn’t have the revenue-generation power (for itself) of a king. In the SEC, likely more than half that conference can leverage more money for themselves by third-tier rights than FSU can with its. Plus, they seem to care a lot more about their academic prestige than TAMU. Equal revenue sharing is quite appealing to them. In the 2 examples you stated above, both OU and Texas could have opted for the closer and more appealing (in football prestige) SEC, yet both would much rather send their women’s softball teams to conferences much farther away who they have absolutely no previous attachment to in any way/shape/form.
Academics and the snakepit that SEC recruiting is perceived to be are big factors. Maybe FSU doesn’t leave the ACC (yet), but if they do, I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that they’d choose to go to the SEC, especially if Miami comes to the B10 with them.
LikeLike
This point isn’t brought up enough. Just look at attendance: FSU would be 8th in the SEC, right between South Carolina and Arkansas. Their revenue numbers are far behind any King and behind many schools that would never be considered a King. In 2009, their revenue was 53rd, lower than 10 current SEC schools (including Vanderbilt).
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
For the love of god or satan/Nick Saban, please don’t suggest any damn pod systems!
LikeLike
The Big East is about to get paid and probably getting a Pac-type conference and regional deal. Syracuse and Pitt really need to think hard about getting into bed with ESPN/Longhorns/ACC. Disney/ESPN has been making obscene profit from unpaid labor and now are trying desperately to maintain their cartel by using Texas and, now, the ACC. Where’s the outrage that Disney essentially wrecked the Big-12 with the LHN and now going out of there way to damage the Big East?
LikeLike
Todd,
Please explain how the BEast is going to get a monster deal. I understand they turned down the ESPN offer, but the assumption they are going to get a contract akin to the PAC seems to be predicated on nothing more than a feeding freezing between various media outlets. I understand its all speculative, but is the BEast saying its MBB is equal in value to CFB? Is it media markets and access to population centers?
I just have a hard time believing that Marinatto is going to walk into a room with various media members and say ‘ladies and gentlemen, these negotiations will start at 7 billion for 10 years; now what am I bid.”
LikeLike
The Big East had negotiating power. With a rumor here of WVU going to the SEC, and a rumor there of Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC… where is that negotiating power now? The Big East can survive Rutgers to the Big 10. ESPN has the money to get those schools a raise one way or another. Do you hold out for more NBC money when you can get more money plus stability?
LikeLike
The Big East probably wouldn’t get a Pac type money deal (20 million per school) but they probably would have gotten much more on the open market (with bids between FOX/ESPN/Comcast) than what ESPN was initially offering. Rumor had it the original ESPN offer was for 1 billion or 11 million per Big East school, pretty sure on the open market they would have gotten more than that, probably close to the ACC’s 13-15 million per year (if not more because of over bidding).
The media spending on college football is no longer rational – CFB gets the second best TV ratings behind the NFL – more than NBA, more than MLB – and this in turn drives advertising dollars and leads to media companies (comcast and fox in particular to overbid).
Big East made a huge mistake – the trend was conferences expanding, yet they only expanded by 1 team (TCU) when they could have gone larger to 12 teams in all sports (assuming bball schools separated). They are paying for it now.
LikeLike
In the end, the Big East’s hybrid status did it in. As I always knew it would.
LikeLike
“Please explain how the BEast is going to get a monster deal. I understand they turned down the ESPN offer, but the assumption they are going to get a contract akin to the PAC seems to be predicated on nothing more than a feeding freezing between various media outlets.”
THAT’S THE ONLY ARGUMENT I NEED, SHAWN!
(Wow, that’s a dated reference already.)
No fewer than five media companies (throwing CBS and Turner in there) have dollar signs in their eyes wanting a piece of ESPN’s gazillions of dollars – especially Comcast who want to become a force to be reckoned with on par with ESPN itself. Having first-tier rights to ANY BCS conference is enough to make them drool.
LikeLike
I’m sure Nebraska will be thrilled to have Texas join the Big Ten
LikeLike
any word on how texas would arrange access to the BCS and bowls under this independent/ACC scenario ?
LikeLike
That’s one of the big concerns we Texas fans have about independence or quasi-independence. I’m assuming we wouldn’t even get the ND deal, at least at the onset.
LikeLike
If Texas meets the BCS eligibility criteria, it’s hard to see any BCS bowl turn down the Longhorns. Granted, they lose the safety net of being the winner of a crappy conference and getting in to a BCS bowl while unranked, but in what conferences would they be able to pull that off anyway? BE? ACC? Plus, as an independent, it really should be easy to rack up wins. Assuming a 7-4-1 setup, that’s 4 ACC teams, ND, OU, and BYU accounting for 7 games and either 3.5 away games (or a little less if BYU agrees to 2-for-1’s). That means the other 5 games are virtually all going to be against CUSA and WAC patsies who are willing to come for guarantee games (or at least agree to 2-for-1’s). Maybe 1 of the 5 is a home-and-home against an equal. If Texas can’t muster 10 wins against that lineup, do they really deserve to get in to a BCS bowl?
LikeLike
If Texas was willing to abandon LHN and share revenue equally for the betterment of the conference without throwing their weight around on some super power trip, then Nebraska would welcome them into the B1G. That’s just not a likely scenario in all of this. Texas isn’t willing to concede anything for the betterment of a conference. They’re too proud to share things equally across the board. Too many egos to deal with.
LikeLike
Speaking only for myself, I would love for Texas to join a Big Ten that puts conference needs above those of individual teams. The academic and athletic programs UT brings to the table are top notch.
Of course, Texas hasn’t shown any desire to be treated as equals, which is why I don’t think the Longhorns will join the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The fan base will whine. The World-Herald will run features about evil Texas is. Then Osborne will tell everyone how good it is NU and the Big Ten and the grumbling will be low rumble.
LikeLike
Heh, you may have been the only one saying it, Frank, but FAR from the only only thinking it, sir. Those who have been saying the BE was stronger than the ACC were simply whistling past the graveyard. And now the gravedigger comes to reap his bounty…. sadly the BE will not be able to meet Charon’s fee, and to the void it is with them.
At any rate, we approach the end game for this particular round of expansions. Should be enticing to see just which institutions are left standing to swing another round…
LikeLike
Maybe I missed something in the reading but if the ACC is talking to SU and Pitt doesn’t that mean that UT is not interested in the ACC? If UT were interested in the ACC, the ACC would be talking to schools like KU and Mizzou whether UT were joining as a full member or a non-football member. I don’t see UT sending their Olympic sports clear across the country without a travel partner or two, or three.
Maybe this is a message from the ACC that they aren’t interested in UT. If they see UT as too high maintenance or they’re concerned that FSU would bail were UT given special treatment this would be a good way to settle feathers within the conference.
LikeLike
Travel partners? Would Texas pick up the K-State track team on the way to the meet in North Carolina?
LikeLike
UT doesn’t want to be paired up with other ex-Big 12 schools in one of 4-4 team pods in a 16 team conference. Doesn’t do much to increase their visibility. That is what the PAC 12 wants to do which is a stumbling block for Texas joining. Texas wants to be in LA every year in the PAC 12 and would want multiple trips east (DC, Atlanta, Miami come to mind) to increase the national visibility.
ACC adding sPitt and ‘Cuse is a self-preservation move.
LikeLike
Texas is like a drunk weaving across both lanes, from pillar to pole. From the Pacific to the Atlantic, it doesn’t matter as long as you hang onto that hooch with both hands.
LikeLike
Uh oh …
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Option 1 is also great for the Big Ten. Having Notre Dame and Texas “more equal” than other members just to prevent the Big Ten from raiding their teams will have the direct opposite effect on the ACC. Do you think Duke and UNC will stand by while ND and Texas have sweet heart deals? There is no way. FSU is already puffing out their chest about leaving. There is one other marketable commodity that would make expansion worth it for the Big Ten: UNC vs Duke basketball. I would put that fourth on the list of the most valuable sports commodities not in the Big Ten, SEC or Pac Ten currently (1. Texas Football 2 ND Football 3 Oklahoma Football 4 UNC/Duke Basketball). According to most ACC people, UNC and Duke have just as huge an ego as Texas and wield the same power in the ACC. If they start getting pushed around by the new guys (which will no doubt happen as history proves), founding member or not (so was Nebraska once upon a time), they will be out and right into the arms of the Big Ten. UVA probably walks with them and then either Maryland or VT as the 16th member. Its not the “Fuck You, Pay Me” conference, but it expands the Big Ten into the growing mid atlantic region, adds desirable content to the BTN well into March, adds two prestigious research institutions to increase funding (where the real money is anyway) to the BIG overall, and has the conference one step closer to capturing NY City with Duke basketball and college basketball in general being very popular there. Delaney has played this perfectly. Either he gets the Big Fish to play nice with others in the Big Ten or he watches them destroy his alma mater’s conference in time and picks off the next best ting.
LikeLike
This.
I doubt the ACC lasts longer than 10 years with the “equal but not equal” UT and ND in the fold. This reasoning is VERY much in line with how the B12 formed. Much like the B12, the ACC is in a dangerous geographic position with the predator conferences (B1G and SEC) right next to it, and a few scavengers (BEast, CUSA, MAC, etc.) to pick over the carcass.
UT and ND partially to ACC might be the best scenario long-term for the B1G.
LikeLike
ACC has better, faster growing markets than the SEC, just not better football right now. Big 12 doesn’t have the markets. That makes them vulnerable to predator conferences. Even with Texas, there are a lot less people in the Big 12 than in the surrounding conferences.
LikeLike
I would be very surprised if FSU leaps. Just last week they voted to up the exit fees for bailing. 12-0 passage raising it to $20M to get out. Sure, an 11-1 vote might have been obvious, but I don’t think you’ll be seeing anyone leave anytime soon.
LikeLike
If FSU thinks that SEC is in their best interest for the long run I don’t think the extra 8 million will dissuade them.
They’d definitely make the money up playing in the SEC and that is including how much they’d have to bump up their recruiting expenditures.
LikeLike
It’s kind of stupid that pitt and syracuse aren’t already in the acc. They are a perfect fit for each other.
LikeLike
Geaux Fightin’ Tigers!
LikeLike
Pingback: Conference Realignment: Syracuse And Pittsburgh Headed To The ACC? » College Football Daily News - Get all your football news on one site
FEAR THE TURTLE!
LikeLike
Hawks -3.5 Pitt
LikeLike
If UT goes independent what guarantees their BCS access? I am thinking that a 14 team SEC and PAC may think they deserve 3 BCS slots.
Also, what sort of TV money will ND and UT receive for their non-football sports? Would they get a cut for their 4 games that are essentially non-conference games? Hard to see scenario 1 creating a financial windfall for ND and UT. Would likely see them fall significantly behind the other major conferences over the long-term.
LikeLike
They’re not going fully independent; just football independent. Their other sports will be in a conference, and they’ll be paid like that.
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy at CBSsports.com just reported that the ACC has received letters of application from Pitt and Syracuse. So, it looks like things have gone beyond the talking stage and Pitt/Syracuse have been invited to join the ACC.
LikeLike
If Pitt and Cuse have already submitted their applications, then they already have the ACC’s assurances that they are in. There is no way that they apply without those assurances, especially these days when everyone knows your business via twitter and the internet.
LikeLike
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the West Coast! West Coast yo! *flashes my west coast gang sign….that I really have no clue how to flash
LikeLike
The question now is, who goes west with them, and who gets left behind in a forced marriage with Big East remnants (including Texas Christian, which becomes a remnant before it had a chance to start)?
LikeLike
@VP19 Tech looks more and more like a lock for 15.
16 is looking like a complete mystery.
Options:
1) UT: Indy/ACC
2) Missouri: SEC
3) Kansas: ACC
4) New Mexico, ? Rice ? Houston ? TCU ? Boise St ? Hawaii ? K-state alone??
LikeLike
Redhawk:
I think the Pac likely will get to pick up KU. _Maybe_ the Jayhawks are crazy and want to be under UT’s (and ND’s) thumb in a new ACC that’s sure to be full of tension, but I doubt it. Granted, KSU may be able to force KU to go to the ACC, but it would be hard to see the ACC adding both those schools. Adding more football nonentities is a sure way to force FSU out of the league (IMHO).
LikeLike
It’s probably coincidence, but if Syracuse and Pitt go to the ACC, that would mark the 5th time in a little over 15 years that a conference with TCU has had teams leave (SWC to SEC and Big 8, WAC to MWC, CUSA to Big East, MWC to indy and Pac-12, and now Big East to ACC). That’s an impressive/scary record.
LikeLike
Tell me about it. The one immutable fact of conference realignment, it seems, is that no matter what else happens, TCU gets screwed. If it was up to us, we’d still be in the SWC. Oh, and Arky left for the SEC a couple years earlier than the rest, so it’s really six times in 20 years. Anyway, go Frogs, beat Louisiana Monroe.
This is a first for me – I’m listening to the game on the Internet radio stream and watching it on the stadium construction webcam. Not the greatest picture.
LikeLike
Bonus points for the ingenuity in following your team.
LikeLike
(1) Tuck your thumb into your palm
(2) Spread out all of your fingers, like you’re asking for ‘four’ of something (American four, not the German four).
(3) With your pinky and index fingers still outstretched, wrap your ring finger over your middle finger.
Hold straight up. Sideways may be misconstrued for ‘East’ side.
LikeLike
@Gopher86 – Ring over middle? I go with middle over ring – a little easier since it’s a bit longer.
LikeLike
As a Big Ten fan who wants to play in a conference that looks like the Big Ten, I’m hoping for option A. Let the ACC have Texas and Notre Dame. We’ll play all but two of our fellow Big Ten members every year (after we go to 9 games).
I do have to say though, I didn’t give much weight to that senario when you posted it yesterday, but it’s a lot more believable now. Sadly, I think option b is a little more likely.
LikeLike
Eric:
??? Why? As an independent, Texas will be showered with filthy lucre. ESPN and Fox are paying the Pac12 an average of $250M a year for 44 football games (+ some BBall games, but we know how much bball matters). Say only 75% of that contract is for the football games. That still comes out to over $4M per game, and they’ll be for such scintillating affairs like Arizona vs. Utah.
I have no doubt that, conservatively, Texas will be able to get paid at least $5M per home game. At 8 home games, that’s $40M just from football, plus whatever share of the ACC bball contract they get, which is a few million more each year.
I have no doubt that ND will also be able to get at least $5M per home game in their next TV contract as well. As they’ll play 6-7 home games, that’s $30M+, but don’t kid yourself, they’ll make at least double what they make now from their current $15M/year NBC TV contract.
LikeLike
Um. This pretty obvious.
UT is going to the Pac 16.
Thus ESPN is going to lose money on the “revamped” LHN.
So they shell out more $ to ACC to kill the big east and that is far cheaper than paying the big east more money than they already offered.
ESPN can they pay less for a depleted big east (when they add some scraps) for more content. But in the end ESPN…
-gets ACC at a good price
-pays less for big east
We will find out next week when UT announces, but that is my well-educated guess
LikeLike
Probably a good guess. Seems like that’ll get us back to the Pac8 in short order, though.
LikeLike
Most likely. UTx and ND are issuing their final call for bids. ACC is all setup for ND, how effectively can Delany counter offer?
Will Larry Scott make the obvious concession of switching the P12’s odd regional channels’ Noah’s Ark pairings into simply offering each subscriber the choice of which school to be the brand of their regional channel? Do that and the LHN problem is likely solved, it is far more about UTx branding than how to share the $’s.
If ND does go ACC, and taking a block from the ACC ain’t happening, can the B1G really afford to insist there’s still a “Tech problem?” Hell, at that point I could even see UTx negotiating to bring both TTech and Baylor, with maybe UHou or KS or MO to fill out the pod for travel and voting block reasons. Or Tom Osborne’s nightmare of a UTx, TTech, KS, and Neb pod.
Ultimately I think the P12 reaches an agreement with UTx.
LikeLike
“If ND does go ACC, and taking a block from the ACC ain’t happening, can the B1G really afford to insist there’s still a “Tech problem?””
Yes. The B10 doesn’t have to do anything. Not sure why you think it does. They most certainly don’t have to take Tech. FSU & Miami as equals would be more desirable in any case. Also, I can’t see how the Pac is more desirable to Texas than independence if they can park their nonfootball sports in a respectable league. Considering that the Pac is getting about $4M per game (or more) from their new contract (featuring such eyeball-drawing fare as Cal vs. ASU), I don’t think $5M/game for Texas as an independent ($40M for 8 home games) is really unreasonable, and they’d get a few million from the ACC bball contract as well.
LikeLike
I think it all boils down to television markets.
Texas is needing major markets, outside of the state, to start picking up LHN on basic cable. You can bet that the contract with ESPN has some fairly aggressive sales goals in mind particularly with the money that ESPN is paying them. Let’s look at the targets for Texas so far:
1) Big 10. Yeah I know that Chip Brown says there were no talks. But there is enough in the way of rumors and other stuff out there, that I am convinced there was some major league flirting and handholding going on. A number of top 50 television markets. But Delaney would have made it clear, the LHN would not be acceptable. So Texas went to choice 2:
2) The Pac10/12. Yeah, Texas spun it as their attempt to keep a large part of the conference together. But make no mistake about it. This was their attempt to tap into the large markets of the west Coast. But Larry Scott and his relationship with Delaney, he probably knew, even before he got the phone call from Dodds, what was going on. After having to twist some arms (especially with the LA schools) to get equal revenue sharing through, there was no way he was going to sign off on the LHN. Leaving Texas to look at choice 3:
3) The ACC. Major television markets with Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, Baltimore, D.C., Boston (?). It would give them a toehold outside the state of Texas. And those are just the major markets. Add in the 5 or 6 midlevel markets and this would be a slam dunk for them. Also consider the fact that they are only making concessions for football with regards to television rights. Does this mean that they will get a sizable portion of their basketball home games for the LHN? If so, that would be a major sell for the network in ACC country. Basketball fans would have to subscribe to view those road games.
This explains why, academics aside, the SEC is not on the Longhorn wish list. Of the major conferences, it is a distant fourth with regards to top 50 television markets in their footprint. (not sure but that they wouldn’t have been fifth if the Big 12 had stayed together). It says a lot about the excellence of their football programs that they are getting the kind of television money they are, with that kind of handicap.
The ACC in talking to Pitt and Syracuse is taking the same logic.
Adding Texas and its television markets would be good when you have to renegotiate your TV deals in the next couple of years. But with the demands that Texas and ND are including, it would introduce an instability to the ACC that its presidents and AD’s would be wary of, considering the recent example of the Big12. Pitt and Syracuse would give them new major markets without that kind of drama. In addition, you severely weaken your main competition for the title of premier college basketball conference, and you can be sure with the culture in the ACC that that is a major selling point as well. It eliminates the instability that would arise of FSU left for the SEC as it would eliminate the Big East for consideration in the inevitable 4 super conference model. And finally, it buffers the conference against the possibility of Jim Delaney raiding their conference. The schools he might target, are more likely to stay, now that they know the conference is more likely to be standing at the end of the realignment game.
Realistically, the ACC, in talking to Pitt and Syracuse, is most likely making it clear to Texas, that they do not need them. And that if Texas joins the ACC, it will be on their terms and not UT’s.
LikeLike
Adding is a sign of strength and stability. Everyone wants to do it.
Pac-12. Check.
Big 10. Check.
Big East. Small check.
SEC. Check.
ACC. Check.
Big 12. Nope. Good-bye Big 12.
And Big East, by virtue of their “small check,” also is in danger.
Look at that! Four conferences left!?!?
LikeLike
I’d personally like to see this happen. I like the ACC and it’s a good move for all involved.
LikeLike
I meant just Pitt & Cuyse joining. The tx and nd stuff seems nutty. Is tx really up to all this stuff? Seems weird.
LikeLike
What about option 1B?
ACC with pods
North
Pitt, ‘Cuse, ND, BC
Mid-Atlantic
MD, UVA, VaTech, Miami
Coastal
Duke, UNC, Wake, NCSt
South
Texas, FSU, GaTech, Clemson
Do a 7 game schedule with pods rotating and no cross-pod protected games? That would give ND and Texas maximum OOC scheduling possibilities. Give every school “third tier” rights…cut Raycom out of the deal completely.
The conference could even petition for a semi-final round for conference play. Let’s say North/Coastal and South/Mid-Atl were the pairing for the year. The top seed from the North could play the top seed from the South (and be assured that they did NOT already play once) while the top Mid/Atl would play the Coastal top seed. Then winners play in the ACC champ game for a chance to move on to the NCAA Final Four.
All I’m saying is…why has everyone ruled out Texas and ND as full-fledged members?!?!?
LikeLike
Couple things.
1) Texas loves it’s leverage and wants to keep it’s LHN no matter where it goes.
2) Texas spreads rumors to enhance their leverage.
3) Texas has a tendancy to let the cat-out-of-the-bag. See here:
http://www.cornnation.com/2011/9/8/2412627/some-signs-point-to-yes-for-notre-dame-and-texas-to-the-big-ten-some
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Any chance Florida ends up in the B1G? It has been mentioned in the past how Florida would be a great fit in the B1G. Would ND and Texas to the B1G entice Florida to be the 15th school?
LikeLike
Nathan – nobody is leaving the SEC.
LikeLike
Alan, I wouldn’t say never, but the SEC would have to implode first; a couple of schools getting the death penalty or something like that.
LikeLike
I continue to maintain that the WAC, and only the WAC, will want to take Texas as a non-football members at Texas’ terms after the dust settles.
Not the B1G, not the ESS EEE CEE, not the ACC, not the BIG EAST, and not the PAC.
Why?
1. The WAC already has 2 schools from the University of Texas system (San Antonio and Arlington). UTSA has already flexed its muscle in the WAC by pulling in Arlington as a non-football member. Don’t be surprised if UTSA is already doing the dirty work behind the scenes for Bevo.
2. The Longhorn Network needs a lot more live sports events. Having one Texas and 6 UTSA home football games each season is NOT enough to convince Time Warner Cable (which controls Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, and El Paso) to sign. But if the Longhorn Network were to have 8 Texas football games, 8 UTSA football games, 8 UT Arlington football games (when, not if, Arlington adds football), and 8 UTEP football games (after the UT system pressures UTEP to rejoin the WAC,) then Time Warner Cable will have to succumb.
3. Texas can pull a “BYU” with the WAC by demanding a) 51% share of the WAC’s basketball TV contract revenue, and b) hosting rights and TV rights for LHN to ALL WAC Conference championship events except basketball. That will put 90% of all Texas sports events on LHN. The WAC, and only the WAC, will agree to this. Not even the Mountain West, Southland, or Missouri Valley are that desperate.
LikeLike
Not an advocate of Texas independence to begin with, but if the WAC were the best-case scenario, Texas would never go football independent. Not in a million years.
LikeLike
Still lingering is the fact that Notre Dame has yet to choose their home for hockey, when they were planning to announce on August 15.
LikeLike
Before getting into the “stratego” scenarios, in and of itself this is a great move for the ACC and Pitt and ‘Cuse. These schools are consistent with the ACC academic expectation, geographically contiguous, and add lucrative markets. The only downside of this for the schools is the opportunity cost of not being able to be a complementary invite to B1G. Congratulations to Swafford, the ACC, Pitt and ‘Cuse. This is a rational move that will reinforce and extend the ACC brand, thereby creating long term value. Also, in a general sense it is good for the B1G and SEC as the entrenched leaders, as it will not upet the applecart.
The biggest loser in this move is Kansas. Kansas best shot was to be part of a western ACC pod led by UT. If this scenario is off the table, its hard to see another good landing spot for Kansas. Same logic probably holds for Baylor, although their chances of ACC inclusion were probably not as great, so they had less to lose.
Rutgers is the big winner in this scenario. ‘Cuse and Pitt were likely their competition for a B1G complementary slot, so their chances for that have increased, although their chances of a consolation spot in the ACC have diminished. Similar logic for UConn, but I’m not sure they are as attractive to B1G. Missouri likewise has become more valuable to the B1G as the potential complementary invitees has gone down, but Missouri also was mentioned as a western ACC pod member, so it is probably a push for them.
It is possible that this addition is backfill for an exit by VaTech and FSU to the SEC. This scenario would keep the western ACC pod alive and mitigate the above arguments, however it seems like this would be putting the cart before the horse, assuming that some lips are looser than others.
The addition of Pitt and ‘Cuse would be complementary to ND going to the ACC. I have said elsewhere that ACC is a better cultural fit for ND, but I think the big-shooter ND boosters would prefer B1G if forced to chose a conference.
This addition in and of itself seems to discount the probability of UT to the ACC. Without moving in with a western pod, the only reasonable scenarios are UT coming in as an unequal partner, and I’m not sure tobacco road would buy into that. I still think the most probable place for UT to land is the PAC. I think the desperate combination of ESPN and Scott will make an irresistible offer appealing to UT’s ego. PBC’s scenario of a joint ND/UT B1G entry is definitely still in play with this news, and probably even slightly more probable as it takes some alternative scenarios off the table. I say the UT probabilities are: 50% PAC, 30% BIG, 10% IND/ACC, 10% Big 12. I think the chances of ND to B1G are 80% by 2014, with the other alternative being ACC.
Frank, thanks for the commentary and the forum for this discussion. Owe you a beer at the next Illini Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
This also raises the stakes on Pac expansion. If Texas Tech joins OU/Okie State, either Missouri becomes member #16 (unlikely, though possible) or Kansas and K-State have to break up. If Scott decides he has to take the KU/KSU combo, Texas Tech is in limbo.
The losers probably end up partnering with Iowa State and what’s left of the Big East (Texas Christian, South Florida, Louisville, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Rutgers, possibly West Virginia) in a rather motley league.
Another thing — if Texas goes it alone to indy/ACC status, what are the in-state political ramifications where Baylor and Tech are concerned?
LikeLike
OU/OSU, KU & MU to the PAC. The SEC will take WVU.
LikeLike
Texas-Notre Dame connection…..constantly referenced in multiple scenarios on this board…can someone explain it, ’cause I don’t get it.
They’ve played 10 games in their entire history. Last played 15 years ago, and only three times in the last 35 years. Yes, I know they’ve scheduled a few games and their AD’s are friendly. But this doesn’t seem like the type of connection to fuel all the theories posted. So what am I missing?
LikeLike
Similar egos, although different temperment.
LikeLike
When they talked in setting up those games, I think they talked about a lot more than games and found they had similar problems and philosophies about solving those problems, and became allies.
My best guess.
LikeLike
Thinking through the Notre Dame playing 4 football games in the ACC every year this might cause problems for Big Ten teams.
Does anyone know the exact terms of their contract with NBC? I think it’s 7 home games and 1 neutral site game that appear on NBC.
If Notre Dame has 4 home and home games in the ACC and keep traditional rivals that would leave home and home games with USC, Stanford, Navy, 4 ACC schools, 3 Big Ten schools. That’s 10 games, 5 home and 5 away. Just getting to 7 home games would require both other schools to be 1 and dones which means not playing a team like Texas (I’m assuming Texas wouldn’t count in those 4 games as a non-football member). That doesn’t even get into the neutral site game which would have to be dropped.
Even if the neutral site game is dropped, Notre Dame might well want more flexibility. USC and Navy are going nowhere and the 4 ACC games would be required with the agreement. I think Notre Dame would want to continue ending every season in California which means Stanford stays too. That only leaves the Big Ten schools to adjust. I’d expect a few more breaks in those series (which might not bother them or might).
LikeLike
Eric:
After their previous hare-brained AD got canned, ND has dropped the unworkable 7-4-1 formula and now pretty much never has more than 6 home games a year (though they still try to have 1 neutral site game a year):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish_football_future_schedule
Note that’s true this year as well.
In any case, I see both Michigan and MSU playing ND only 4 times every 6 years anyway once the B10 goes to 9 conference games (in order to have HaH series against decent opponents every so often).
LikeLike
Posted this in the previous thread by mistake:
I’ve been reading these threads for over a year now, and have been caught up in the TV and revenue numbers and the drama surrounding every new rumor as much as anybody else.
But I have come to believe minimal realignment is best for the entire college football brand.
Nebraska fans have the unique experience of being part of two conference realignments in 15 years, both as a founding member of a conference and as the new guy in another. We have experienced the compromises to important rivalries, and thought about what moving to a conference that is a “better fit” actually means. From this fan’s point of view, the importance of cultural identities and rivalries cannot be overstated. Diminishing the NU/OU rivalry certainly contributed to Husker fans’ disconnect with the Big 12, but games against Baylor and Texas Tech, A&M and Texas damaged it even more.
People who live in the Southwest and Midwest perceive each other as having different mindsets, different values, different struggles. Having lived in both areas I think that perception doesn’t quite match reality, but that regional differences exist is indisputable.
The reason the Big Ten is a fit in the eyes of many Nebraska fans is Iowa. Wisconsin. Minnesota. Michigan. We share the hardships of brutal winters and destructive springs. We are largely aligned politically. There is a strong agricultural connection. Similar bonds exist for the SEC and the ACC.
Destroying those bonds as part of an intellectual game of Realignment Risk will unquestionably have an impact on the product and the fan base. Even talking about eliminating the Red River Rivalry is preposterous. The thought of breaking up Alabama/Tennessee or Georgia/Florida is absurd. For a great many people, the Big Ten vs the SEC and Pac 12 aren’t just rivalries between conferences – they are rivalries between regions.
The average football fan in Seattle or Eugene is not excited about Oklahoma joining their conference, especially if it means fewer games against USC/UCLA. I cannot believe that the average fan in Columbus or Iowa City is excited about a rotating pod system in order to accommodate the likes of Rutgers or even Texas. Destroying those regional ties is a mistake.
I’ve seen studies that show the median age of the college football fan is increasing. If TPTB are really looking 50 years into the future they need to consider that the best rivalries are those passed down from generation to generation. Sacrificing those games in search of TV dollars may lead to four 16-team superconferences in the short term, but I suspect we will shift back to six 10-12 team regional conferences within 25 years.
LikeLike
Amen. As I’ve said over and over, by chasing after profits you make the sport less interesting. It’s interesting to me to the extent that they’re willing to leave money on the table to preserve its traditional, regional character. Once they let that go, it loses interest to me.
LikeLike
I agree whole heartily that this isn’t good for college football as a whole. I think consolidating brands is good short term, but long term damaging.
Let’s imagine we get down to 3-4 big conferences and they last for 50 years. Not all the teams which have been big in their present conferences can be big in those conferences. There’s just not as much room. That’s going to lose some fans.
Also think about the odd quark of college football in conference loyalty. No one in baseball, the NFL, the NBA, etc. cares how good their division/conference/league is except in the sense that it makes their road easier/harder. The reason people care in college football (and it spills into basketball) is a) conferences matter (since bowls and national championships are effected by perception) and b) the common culture of conferences. I love the Big Ten as a Midwestern conference. Penn State is a stretch, but it still kind of fits. If we go further into the northeast or south though, I’m not going to care as much about the conference.
LikeLike
Totally agree. That’s why when it comes to bowl season we like to see how our midwest/northern teams stack up against schools from different parts of the country. If the Big Ten adds then I hope they stop with a ND/Rutgers or ND/Maryland.
LikeLike
That kind of thinking dies with the SWC.
LikeLike
As I said on the other thread, the same forces driving 16 team conferences will drive 10-12 to secede in time from the 16 team conference.
LikeLike
If the B1G doesn’t get ND and TX, I would much rather have them in the ACC (as football indies) than in the PAC, BIG12 or SEC. I think FTT’s option two is the smart move for all involved, but since ESPN is now the ‘HAL’ of college football, I’m guessing the greed scenario wins out.
I realize people will think I’m suggesting this out of spite, but if this occurs I would hope the B1G would cut all ties with ND. There is something distasteful and offensive about our conference continuing to propagate their ‘legend’ status with our -traditional- alliance when the prospect of a TRUE alliance is repugnant to them.
As for B1G expansion options, if FTT’s scenario 2 occurs, I’m afraid their nil and -one.
U of TORONTO HERE WE COME!
LikeLike
“I’m afraid they’re nil and one” – (for all my english teachers of yore.)
On a lighter note, ‘Welcome Jerome Bettis and Lloyd Carr to the U of Michigan Hall of Fame!
Hoke takes on Ron English today. -MgoBlue! -and most of all Denard!
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/17/iowa-state-baylor-reportedly-offer-themselves-to-big-east/
Title says it all. Iowa State and Baylor trying to go to the Big East.
LikeLike
Still don’t see how Baylor has a viable lawsuit against the SEC when they are doing stuff like this.
LikeLike
Wonder if the ‘Clones lost themselves a vote by winning at Connecticut Friday night. It’s a great story in Ames, as ISU — fighting for its BCS lives — has won three nailbiters.
LikeLike
The last two links in there say a lot. The Big East commish found out about this in the Maryland press box. There’s no requirement to tell the Big East you intend to apply to another conference. Wow. Really?
LikeLike
That’s almost comical.
LikeLike
John Marinatto is the Chief Wiggum of conference commissioners.
LikeLike
Marinatto, putting on his best Jon Lovitz impression, explained that he was in College Park “to talk with Maryland officials about joining the Big East — yeah, that’s the ticket.” He added that following the game, he was going on a date with Morgan Fairchild.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Pitt and Syracuse going to the ACC perhaps might open up the can of worms on the Big East, are there any worms in that can that we want?
It seems we’re in a holding pattern until we can figure out what Notre Dame and Texas are doing, but once the balls are in motion who do we want for the 15th and 16th teams?
I know most of us are assuming Missouri is always going to be in play but if they go to the SEC/PAC then I doubt that is the case. Their profile is known already, better than average sports, average academics, geographic contiguity, and the only relevant public school in a state of 6 million.
Same with Rutgers only downgrade the athletics, upgrade the academics and make the state population size nearly 9 million. Rutgers will be a great fit for a conference that can monetize the additional households, and makes sense if you’re adding two or three football brands already. However, unlike Missouri they will be in play much longer.
LikeLike
Everything is still on the table, including as many as 7 current ACC schools ultimately ending up in the B1G and SEC. And if the ACC really is willing to allow ND and UTx join while staying fb indy, who’s to say the ACC doesn’t go to 16 + ND and UTx? Baylor and TTech or TCU or UHou as #15 & 16, solving lots of potential political problems for Texas.
If UTx, ND, and all ACC schools are no longer options for the B1G, who’s to say that the P14 and/or B1G don’t water down their conferences with further expansion but instead ‘partner’ with schools for football only to fill out their sides of a 4×16 bracket that forms a new NCAA division?
If we don’t break down into a clean 4×16 alliance, does a 5th BCS mop up conference survive (on a much smaller TV contract per school) as a political relief valve with at least token access to whatever replaces the BCS? 5×16, or 5×14, or maybe 5 x (12 to 14) + independents?
LikeLike
This is it. We can do nothing, or we can do everything.
Even if we add Texas and/or Notre Dame at this point, it’s a stepping stone to 15 & 16. If we don’t hurry up, Central Michigan might just get than invite after all…
LikeLike
ESPN is saying ten teams have inquired about ACC membership, who might they be? At this point I’d assume all of the B12 teams sans Texas, Tech, and the Okies have inquired.
1. Pitt – confirmed
2. Cuse – confirmed
3. Baylor
4. KU
5. KSU
6. Iowa State
7. Missouri
Who are the others from the Big East?
LikeLike
@brindelin – Well, Texas has definitely contacted the ACC, which presumably means that Texas Tech has done so, too. Rutgers, WVU, UConn and Louisville would all certainly love ACC invites (and at least have the athletic departments strong enough to think that the ACC will at least take them seriously).
LikeLike
are you forgetting that the PAC right now has 2 empty seats? That pay more than the ACC?
Tech looks to be going west…not east. And before anyone says “UT WILL MAKE ‘EM GO Where they are TOLD”, I’ll give you exhibit A: Texas A&M to the SEC
LikeLike
Tech might choose the PAC-12 over the ACC, but with neither are guarenteed to offer, I’d be willing to bet they’d talk to both to maximize their chances of making it somewhere.
LikeLike
@Eric
I would put money on the PAC offering Texas Tech. The PAC wants Texas TV’s and a Texas presents. OU wants to play in Texas. If you can’t get UT or TA&MU your next call for the state of Texas would be Tech.
The PAC can’t stay at 14…they really need 16 schools to get the pods so teams get a quicker rotation into the LA markets.
LikeLike
@Redhawk – the Pac may be TCU’s only hope at this point. Maybe we can sell a package deal with Tech. Otherwise, things start looking pretty grim. Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC, plus the WFV fans seem pretty certain they’re headed to the SEC.
LikeLike
@jake
The PAC has given Larry Scott a no religiously affiliated schools order.
LikeLike
@frug – TCU’s religious affiliation has been greatly exaggerated. We have prayers before football games and a campus chapel. That’s about it. We’re no BYU. Or Baylor, even.
LikeLike
I know TCU isn’t as “religious” as a lot of other schools, but according to Jon Wilner (who seems to have the best connections inside the PAC for this stuff) the California schools (especially Cal and Stanford) are taking a pretty hard line the issue.
LikeLike
The irony, of course, is that the University of Southern California was founded as a Methodist institution.
LikeLike
@vp19 – That was not lost on me. But different standards apply to USC.
LikeLike
Essentially the entire Ivy League were originally religious institutions as well.
LikeLike
Besides I don’t think anyone ever thought Texas wound force Tech anywhere. The real concern was the always the opposite that Texas couldn’t go somewhere without taking Texas Tech with it. Tech going somewhere else actually makes their options simpler as it means they are probably free to choose whichever conference they want.
LikeLike
You forget that Tech is in Lubbock. They need Texas or Texas A&M. If they go to the Pac without another Texas team they become UTEP. I doubt that TCU or UH would be enough for them.
LikeLike
While Tech alone might not be a huge draw in Texas, being a member of the Pac-X is still quite a far cry than languishing in CUSA. That alone will keep them from falling anywhere close to UTEP’s level (that & the commitment to athletics they’ve made over the past decade or so).
LikeLike
@frank – Yeah I overlooked Texas but on that note I’m not so sure Tech has contacted the ACC or K-State for that matter. If Texas is driving Tech’s bus to some degree and KU is driving K-State there isn’t so much of a need for both schools to make initial contact to gauge interest.
Perhaps throw ND on the list, but I’m guessing they aren’t inquiring directly in so much as getting their otherwise.
LikeLike
They both applied for membership today apparently, but the word is that Tech was declined.
http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=162970966&mid=162970966&sid=901&style=2
Chip Brown apparently says Texas isn’t going to the ACC now. Pac-12 then?
LikeLike
All Comers Confernece -Yip-Yip-YAHOO! Rollin’ 30 deep!
LikeLike
I can only pray that TCU has talked to SOMEONE about a new home. Past experience has taught me to expect otherwise, however.
LikeLike
PBC speaks:
This is true, I think, because his posting history shows posts at particular times, but when you click on them, they are not there.
LikeLike
You know, I wish he’d just post here outright.
LikeLike
This ESPN interference makes sense. When the LHN dies, so does their ability to bend college athletics to their will. The power will reside with the conferences.
LikeLike
I definitely agree with this. If ND and/or Texas fully joins another conference, then the Big 4 (Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC, and ACC) will pretty much control all of the TV value, and they’ll probably control the valuable bowl slots entirely (not that they mostly don’t already), etc.
LikeLike
Well, The Big East now has seven (five if UConn and Rutgers leave) football members. That’s a good number for Baylor, ISU, and KSU.
I wonder if they’ll just break off and form a new conference. They might add a few C-USA/MAC schools, but with their AQ status in doubt, it’s unlikely.
LikeLike
In the end Texas will go to the PAC, it is doubtful they will be able to hold onto the LHN in either the B1G, PAC or even ACC – simply because the LHN inherently brings instability to a conference. I think UT can be placated in a PAC model (if its not really about the money) by having the regional PAC network give the educational fund 5 million per year to placate the Board of Regents, and distributing content in a manner that maxizes viewership, ie Longhorn centric porgramming throughout most of the State except near Lubbock and West Texas (where it would be 50/50). Thus the PAC-Texas network in reality is still largely the Longhorn network. ESPN is placated by getting a % ownership of the PAC regional networks.
For UT it’s the best possible outcome for them – they get to keep their most important rivalry with OU, get a voting block of 4/16 in conference issues (vs 1/16 or 1/14 in B1G and ACC), keep most of the Texas Legislature happy and get access to media markets in LA/SF/Seattle/Denver and SLC.
LikeLike
Bobo:
Long-term, the LHN breeds instability, but while the B10 and Pac are not desperate and fearful, the ACC is (about losing their football kings, who are also amongst the most recent to join and don’t have a deep emotional attachment to the ACC, to the SEC or B10). When any entity is desperate and fearful, they’d do anything to stay alive in the short-term; long-term be damned. I most certainly can see the ACC granting Texas (and ND as well) unequal privileges. We’ll see how this plays out, but Texas in the Pac is far from certain, even in the long-term.
BTW, they’d be able to play OU annually as an independent as well.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
A little light humor
does baylor have a sister?
LikeLike
Per Bohls: Larry Scott thinks the timetable is moving faster than anticipated
http://twitter.com/#!/kbohls/status/115132902186037250
LikeLike
I think most of the power brokers thought that the Big 12 had bought at least 2-3 years. To see it come to the brink in under a year along with the Big East also being brought to the verge of collapse is a shocker.
The question is whether this forces ND to finally make a choice, and whether Texas commits to a conference fully or whether this result in a quasi-independent state for both…
LikeLike
I’d assume Texas & ND are bargaining with the ACC for leverage and probably as a home for its non football sports if they go indy as it looks like the Big East got knocked down a notch with Syracuse & Pitt asking to leave. I can’t see either playing football as a member of the ACC.
LikeLike
I’m sure this has been posted already but I’m posting it again. Funny stuff from Lance Zierlein in Houston.
LikeLike
I’ve been reading this blog for over a year but never posted until now. A couple of thoughts about Pitt and the ‘Cuse:
1. Syracuse is a founding member of the Big East and has been a very loyal member. The fact they are moving now says a lot about what they think of the BE’s future and the leadership of John Marinatto. It may be harder for some whose alma mater or favorite team is in an all sports conference where everyone plays FB and BB to understand this but Syracuse has very close relationships/rivalries with Georgetown, St. John’s, Villanova and UConn so to walk away from those relationships is big move for them. Syracuse is not a school to panic or make a rash decision; if the BE was worth fighting for they would.
2. For Pitt this move actually helps them re-establish their football identity; the BE has never truly focused on developing the FB side of the conference and that has hurt Pitt, being sandwiched between Penn St to the east and the other BIG Ten schools to the west. While the ACC may not be much better than the BE in terms of on the field quality, it has a better overall FB brand, more tradition rich programs (Clemson, Georgia Tech, FSU, Miami) and conference stability. The BB program is strong already and this will not damage that brand.
3. If the ACC can keep all of it’s programs, their best move for expansion was always to become a coastal conference and expand into the Northeast. If Frank is right about his option 1 then the ACC is in a great position. He’s also onto something about ND, Pitt, and the ‘Cuse having a good working relationship because I don’t see the two leaving the BE unless they have some insight that ND may not be long for the BE. If that is the case the conference doesn’t have much of a chance to survive. For all the whining and complaining by BE media types and FB coaches, ND’s presence in the conference gave them more clout with their peer conferences.
4. If everything does go down I don’t think there will be a BE or a Big 12 to absorb the remaining teams. My prediction is that the ADs from Kansas, Louisville, TCU and perhaps any other prominent school left on the outside will work to form a brand new conference with a new Commissioner and try really hard to get BYU and Boise State to create a credible enough conference for those teams to remain somewhat competitive and exist with a large enough TV contract to allow their BB programs (e.g. KU, UL, KSU, UC) to maintain their status.
Frank I love the titles you select.
LikeLike
Like Zeke’s comment on the Big 12’s fatal decisions, I think BE has at least one-Villanova for football.
LikeLike
I’m hoping for any scenario that means in 5-10 years ESPN will have less influence.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rapid-reports/post/15595429
Sept. 17, 2011 3:14 p.m. – by Brett Friedlander – AD Baddour responds to expansion rumors
UNC AD Dick Baddour responded to reports that Pittsburgh and Syracuse are about to become the newest members of the ACC. “It’s obvious that the world is turning upside down and we want the ACC to be in a position where we are strong,” Baddour said. “It’s absolutely the right thing to do.” Heels RapidReports
Figured I’d post this. While these decisions are made at the presidential level, that kind of endorsement out of UNC’s AD speaks to a reversal in the ACC’s thought process of late possibly. Raising the buyout to $20M to leave as well as getting quick applications from Pitt/Syracuse means they’ve been very aggressive.
LikeLike
I-O-W-A!!!
LikeLike
A few thoughts of mine.
With Pitt and Cuse leaving, does this force WV to look elsewhere? (SEC?) Getting them to 14 without any “blood” on their hands?
If WV does leave the BE, I doubt it would exist anymore, at least as a viable home for major school’s sports. Does this finally force ND to the B1G? Does a ND+B1G look tantalizing enough to lure Texas?
I think I can see the end game here. B1G with ND+Texas. SEC with WV+A&M. PAC12 with OU & OSU.
LikeLike
I guess I should include ACC with Pitt & ‘Cuse. I think this a win for these conferences. Huge losses for Big 12 and BE.
LikeLike
West Virginia has no reason to hang around the Big East once Pitt leaves.
West Virginia is a better fit for the SEC than the ACC.
SEC: lousy academics + small market with rabid football fan base
ACC: snooty academics + Tobacco Road basketball culture + big TV markets with lukewarm football fan base (with the exception of Florida State)
LikeLike
Right, because the fact that the SEC gets national exposure on ESPN and CBS means nothing, right?
When was the last time anyone cared about an in-conference ACC game? Never?
LikeLike
Err, sorry. I misread your post.
LikeLike
I think everyone goes to 14 (except the Big 10) and waits for Texas/ND to decide what they are doing.
We could see 14 and then a long, long wait until the next move. And I see no reason for the Big 10 to go to 14 just for the sake of it. Everyone around here has been pretty clear on that.
The SEC is likely go to 16 first because they are least likely to add Texas/ND. But I am just not sure who they take that adds enough value to justify it. Hard enough figuring out how they get to 14. WVU? Missouri? If you assume ACC teams are off the table for a while, does anyone else move the needle at all??? If 14 and 15 are doubles, why add 15 and 16? And even if they did, that add cannot really force Texas or ND.
So Texas/ND together have the ability to hold everything together for a while by working together to stay independent (or in the Big 12, in Texas’ case). And neither have any reason to leave if there are slots available for them in two conferences. How does THAT stalemate get resolved?
Not only do the left behind teams get the anxiety of continuing to wait for this to resolve, it may not resolve for a while.
LikeLike
How long do you think Texas is going to wait around while being a member of a seven-team conference? Or how about a six-team (if Texas Tech goes to the Pac 12) or five-team conference (if Missouri goes to the SEC)? I don’t think they have the luxury of time here.
The same goes for Notre Dame and the Big East. The BE would have seven teams in football with a great possibility of going to six if the SEC needs a 14th team such as West Virginia. While ND has only minimal football ties with the BE thru the bowls and a handful of football games per year, they have to decide if the BE is where they want their non-football teams to reside pretty quickly.
Oklahoma is meeting Monday and if they opt to move out of the Big XII, there’s not much doubt the Pac 12 would take them and Oklahama State because they essentially have no other option. I’m sure they’ll offer to take Texas Tech in a hearbeat if UT goes with them to make a pac 16 Conference.
Texas is meeting on Monday to make a decision as well. Everybody is going to have to make decisions in the short term or be left behind.
LikeLike
I am assuming that the Big East leftovers will slide to the Big 12.
LikeLike
Read on ESPN that apparently Iowa State & Baylor may be next to join the ACC. Hadn’t seen or heard anything about that elsewhere.
“Reaction to ESPN ACC blogger Heather Dinich’s report that Pittsburgh and Syracuse had applied to join the Atlantic Coast conference (leaving the Big East in the dust) was fast and furious.
* In her initial report, Dinich says that Baylor and Iowa State may be the next schools to join the ACC.”
LikeLike
Dinich probably meant the Big East. With Pitt and SU in the mix, that’s 14, and I doubt Iowa State and Baylor are the ACC’s top candidates for #15-16.
LikeLike
Sublime understatement.
LikeLike
Big East founding commissioner Dave Gavitt has passed away at the age of 73, within hours after word leaked out that Syracuse and Pitt have one foot out the door.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/hall-of-famer-dave-gavitt-founder-of-big-east-conference-dies-at-73/2011/09/17/gIQAPbQRaK_story.html
LikeLike
Watch somebody with no brain and no heart accuse SU and Pitt of killing Gavitt.
LikeLike
The “new” Big East football conference after Syracuse, Pitt, and West Virginia (which no longer has a reason to stay once Pitt leaves) all leave:
Connecticut (will it also leave for the ACC?)
Rutgers (will it leave for the ACC or B1G?)
Cincinnati (nowhere else to go, lousy academics)
Louisville (ditto)
South Florida (no room at the ACC or SEC for this Florida school)
TCU
Knocking on the door:
Kansas (will the ACC or PAC take the Jayhawks instead?)
Kansas State (see Kansas above)
Missouri (would prefer B1G or SEC instead)
Iowa State
Central Florida
Houston
Doesn’t hurt for the Big East to ask again:
BYU (football only)
Probably won’t make the cut:
Baylor (no conference would want that nut job named Kenneth Starr)
Memphis (Not even FedEx boss Fred Smith can buy a seat at the big boy’s table for Memphis)
Boise State
LikeLike
Notre Dame would then have to ask a question about whether or not it’d want to stay in the Big East composed of those teams for all sports other than football or not.
The one team that Notre Dame has on its future schedule most from the present Big East is Pittsburgh with Syracuse being second. If those two teams go to the ACC, does ND have to scramble around to reschedule those teams? Speaking of scheduling, how much realistic flexibility will ND have if there are at least three 14-team super conferences? ND’s been able to schedule Big East and ACC teams in the latter two months of the season (along with USC and Navy)–what happens when teams from those conferences are no longer available to play them?
LikeLike
Big East as it once was, is dead…
No Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College (when they were good), Syracuse, Pittsburgh. We don’t even know if the SEC is going to take West Virginia or not…
Almost everyone in the conference wasn’t in a BCS conference in ’03. Among them: TCU, Connecticut, Cincy, Louisville & South Florida. Those are 5 of the 7 members after the ACC raided them twice within a decade, the long standing Big East programs are just Rutgers & West Virginia..
I can’t see them keeping automatic BCS qualifier status, it was questionable (but likely) before this recent raid. This goes a long ways to erase the questionable part, they’ll most certainly lose status as a BCS conference…
Basketball? Yes, they’ll still be pretty powerful but the ACC just pulled the Big East’s pants down, again.
LikeLike
Memphis (Not even FedEx boss Fred Smith can buy a seat at the big boys’ table for Memphis)
Not so fast. This hypothetical reconstituted conference is hardly comprised of “big boys,” and it might be willing to take those Memphis millions.
LikeLike
Boise should be added for on-field credibility.
LikeLike
This was supposed to be a reply to the post about what teams will end up in the new Big East.
LikeLike
Lots of sound and fury signifying nothing
I hate to be the wet towel, but how does Pitt and SU up the ACC football values?
If the ACC wants to survive as a serious 4th conference, they are gonna have to land UT and ND
LikeLike
I disagree, I think all the ACC has to do is kill off the Big East. Mission accomplished.
LikeLike
Even if Florida State leaves, which I think is likely, getting these two key pieces from the Big East keeps the ACC in position no. 4.
LikeLike
I don’t think FSU is going to leave. The exploratory committee formation was likely just posturing to prevent UT from joining with special status. FSU and VaTech both agreed to increase the exit penalty fee for the ACC – those aren’t the actions of a school that is leaving. This is a marginal improvement in football for the ACC, Pitt is certainly usually better than Duke/UNC/Maryland/WF, and Syracuse can be great. But I agree it will still keep ACC as #4 unless Miami/VaTech/FSU become dominant powers again.
LikeLike
The vote means nothing. 10-2 would be the same result as 12-0, but the politics would be worse. The fact that they were discussing the exit penalty in the ACC shows that the conference is reading the tea leaves and is worried about exits.
I think this is a defensive move by the ACC (and probably a smart one).
LikeLike
paul, my point was the ACC is not picking up any brands with Pitt or SU
OU is a brand, and UT is a brand, but not those 2. The more teams you add, the more they should bring in above average revenue streams.
LikeLike
Syracuse is a brand. Not a football brand like OK – but it is like Duke, UNC, Kansas (though probably behind all those), it is still a brand. Pitt – I would agree with you.
LikeLike
Duff:
True, but survival is more important than picking up brand names. We should come up with a Maslow’s Hierarchy for conferences.
LikeLike
They’ll survive, it’s just on their own terms.
There was a rumor that the Tech problem resurfaced, and the ACC said no.
LikeLike
They may “survive,” but they won’t be the 4th super conference, if that eventually comes to be. Any debate about supremacy between the ACC and Big East has been resolved in favor of the ACC.
As a Midwestern Big 10 fan, I think I’m happy about this. Would much rather see Kansas and Missouri come into the Big 10, then any ACC or Big East teams. The B1G should stay a midwestern conference.
LikeLike
If this stabilizes the ACC, then without ND/UT, why would the B10 expand? Particularly, with MO or Kansas? I don’t think the B10 has to expand. Let the other conferences go to 16 teams if they want, but there is no reason for the B10 to expand just to match them.
LikeLike
This probably doesn’t satisfy Maryland, which won’t get much of a football attendance boost from Syracuse and Pittsburgh. It may still let Delany know it’s interested, and if it could be partnered with Kansas bolsters the Big Ten in hoops at the very least as it waits for Texas and Notre Dame (and neither will be in a position to demand a “junior partner” go in under its wing).
LikeLike
I agree. I would just rather have Midwestern teams if expansion is necessary.
LikeLike
to vp19: I think this hurts the odds of the Big Ten getting Maryland considerably. They are no longer a quasi-outlier in their conference (BC didn’t help stop that because they were far away) and Cuse and Pitt give the conference a more “northeast” character which goes only with the culture of Maryland — it’s not a southeast state despite the location of the Mason-Dixon line. And it gives them more good basketball rivals, which is really what the school is centered on now.
With this news, I’d only see Maryland (or Virginia) coming along as part of a MD/UVA/UNC/Duke type block for the Big Ten — which could only happen if something like ND/Texas get admitted under special rules and Tobacco Road central gets pissed and teams leave.
LikeLike
“As a Midwestern Big 10 fan, I think I’m happy about this. Would much rather see Kansas and Missouri come into the Big 10, then any ACC or Big East teams. The B1G should stay a midwestern conference.”
As a PSU fan, taking only athletics into consideration, I wish we’d never joined a “midwestern conference”. Never liked it, never will. Since academics is the more important consideration, I have hold my nose and swallow.
LikeLike
The “we’re going to own the Big Ten” predictions never quite came true did they?
LikeLike
joe4psu,
I think your last paragraph could use some explanation.
As a PSU fan, taking only athletics into consideration, I wish we’d never joined a “midwestern conference”. Never liked it, never will. Since academics is the more important consideration, I have hold my nose and swallow.
With the same stipulation about only considering athletics, would you rather have joined the BE or ACC instead? How much of a factor is PSU’s ability to do better in FB in either of those conferences than in the B10?
And, seriously, you have to hold your nose to play B10 schools? It’s that offensive? Most of the fans seem pretty excited for OSU, MI and Iowa games, and look forward to NE. Perhaps you prefer those compelling USF, UC and UL games. Or maybe it’s WF, Clemson and UVA you want.
LikeLike
Pete Thamel at NYT has been on top of this story; some tweets:
PeteThamelNYT Pete Thamel
Big East folks/schools are STEAMED at Pitt, which led the charge (with Rutgers) to reject a lucrative long-term TV deal a few months ago.
1 hour ago
Big Ten Commish Jim Delany went golfing today. He’s that unconcerned with expansion. “We’re as comfortable as we can be,” he told me.
23 minutes ago
RT @ChiTribHamilton: #NotreDame AD Jack Swarbrick on Big East turmoil: Independence remains priority. Story: http://trib.in/oYRRSK
21 minutes ago
RT @ralphDrussoAP: FSU Prez Barron confirmed to AP that Pitt & Cuse have applied to ACC. Said he’d be surprised it’s not done by Sunday.
That first tweet is the most interesting. Pitt totally played the Big East over hard. And ESPN must be laughing as pulling Pitt and Syracuse strongly downgrades the value of the conference.
LikeLike
That’s really cutthroat.
LikeLike
That’s really potential lawsuit-y.
LikeLike
“RUMOR 2: ACC is looking to offer UT membership in non-football sports and allow the Longhorns to be independent in football.”
Unless the ACC presidents change the conference constitution, that won’t be happening. Constitution says compete in all sports or you’re out.
LikeLike
Interesting. With all the articles and rumors the last few days that’s the first I’ve heard that.
LikeLike
Does this mean Syracuse is adding wrestling?
LikeLike
No I think it means a school can’t have a sport in another league (or independence), not that each school must offer every championship sport sponsored by the league.
LikeLike
I think this will be the end game for a few years:
Pac16: +UT/OU/TTU/OSU, pod scheduling
ACC14 + SU/Pitt
SEC14 +A&M/WVU
B1G 12 (no change)
BE football splits from BE Bball, joins Big12 remnants + C-USA raided again
ND remains indy keeps non revenue sports in BE bball
(Rutgers. Louisville, Cincinnati, UConn, USF, UCF, Memphis, Mizzou) Eastern Division
(TCU, Baylor, SMU, ISU, KU, Kstate, SMU, UH) western
biggest losers – TCU, Mizzou
LikeLike
ND is going to need a conference when the superconferences emerge, only way to play with the big boys.
LikeLike
There’s no way the SEC takes WVU over Mizzou. There’s no way Missouri turns them down either, unless they know they’ve got a Big Ten invite waiting for them.
LikeLike
SEC seems to care a little about culture and fit, and Mizzou despite the geographic fit doesn’t fit the southern culture of the SEC. WVU gives you access to the Pittsburgh and Washington DC markets – just as much as Mizzou can deliver StL and KC. Could go either way, but lets face it Mizzou has been used so many times as a stalking horse in realignment they might never get a conference invite,
LikeLike
Chippy’s back… http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1266526
Main takeaway:
That Big 12 administrator said the ACC is reluctant to bring in Texas for three reasons:
1) how the Longhorn Network would be worked into its revenue sharing;
2) that the ACC sees itself as an east coast conference and wants to protect that by not reaching into the southwest (no matter how much TV money adding Texas would mean); and
3) Texas indicated to the ACC it would need to bring Texas Tech with them to the ACC, and the ACC members were not excited about that because of Texas Tech’s academic standing (No. 160 in latest U.S. News and World Report).
LikeLike
Via ESPN’s story on story:
‘Florida State President Eric Barron told The Associated Press on Saturday before the Seminoles played No. 1 Oklahoma that the ACC was excited about adding to its “northern tier.”
“Pittsburgh and Syracuse, who have applied, these are solid academic schools, and the ACC is a truly academic conference,” Barron said. “Certainly great basketball teams, a good history of football.
“I’m sure consideration will be very fast. I’ll be surprised if it’s not tomorrow (Sunday).”
He confirmed that 11 of 12 ACC presidents attended a meeting in Greensboro, N.C., on Tuesday — the other participated by phone — and unanimously approved raising the exit fee to $20 million — up from $12 million to $14 million — for any member leaving the conference.’
Certainly doesn’t sound like a president looking to skedaddle…
LikeLike
Pitt will be made to look like they stabbed the BE in the back however a majority of schools, both FB and BB have been upset with the BE administration for how they handled expansion.
When you look at the Big 12 and the BE it is a simple case of both conferences having poor leadership at the top. Marinatto and Beebe made some horrible decisions and this is what really has really created this superconference expansion.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
try yellow.. and forget about the rest..
LikeLike
So if the SEC tries to poach a team from the ACC, what team would the ACC want poached? Has to be NC State, right? That would free up the ACC to then grab UConn or Rutgers? With UConn, you do have a damn good basketball conference. Either one really locks up the east coast. I mean NC State doesn’t really offer much to the ACC but could offer something to the SEC, and may be more easily obtainable than VaTech, who may have some political issues. Just food for thought on a Saturday night. Too bad FSU couldn’t help the conference out with an upset of OK.
LikeLike
Whether your name is “NC State,” “Florida State,” or “Virginia Tech,” you don’t vote to increase the exit fee by $8 million and then immediately exit the conference. The SEC won’t be getting anyone from the ACC anytime soon.
The ACC will be going after WVU, Louisville, Missouri, or maybe even TCU or Texas Tech.
LikeLike
@Michael in Raleigh – My feeling is that 14 is the new 12 for conferences as the natural stopping point for conferences (for now). The only exception is the Pac-12 in the event that it can get both OU and UT (plus OSU and TT). No one is going to expand to 16 just because someone else has done it. The reason why conferences are willing to move right now is because a bunch of big fish (UT, OU and even A&M could be put into that category) are looking to move.
LikeLike
I meant to say “the SEC will be going after WVU, Louisville, etc.”
LikeLike
SEC & UK specifically would NEVER allow UL in the SEC
LikeLike
Longhorns are simply carrying too much baggage. The Tech problem continues- not that there is anything wrong with the institution, it being what it is, but UT is finding out that they can’t just get them into any club they want. So the LHN anchor and the Tech anchor, continue to drown out their possibilities
LikeLike
If the rumors that Tech is unacceptable to the ACC are true, then that means that the only real solution to the Tech problem is the Pac-16.
LikeLike
Yes, but it will cost them their network. If the rumor is true that the B1G has worked out an ‘everybody wins’ scenario to include the LHN, I have to believe maintaining their network carries twice the weight of sharing a conference with TT.
LikeLike
Not a problem at all.
Texas Tech will be one of the refugees scooped up by the Big East Football Conference
==
Meanwhile, Texas and ESPN, Inc. will get what they wanted all along:
1. At least 8 Texas football games on the Longhorn Network
2. At least 6 UT San Antonio football games on the Longhorn Network
3. At least 6 UT Arlington football games on the Longhorn Network when (not if) Arlington adds football
4. At least 6 UTEP football games on the Longhorn Network when (not if) UTEP leaves Conference USA
5. Permanent hosting rights and TV rights for the Longhorn Network for the conference tournaments in baseball, softball, and Olympic sports
6. 51% share of the revenue from a conference’s basketball TV rights contract (translation: Texas will earn more than the rest of the conference combined)
7. All conference basketball tournament games that won’t be on the ESPN networks will air on the Longhorn Network
One conference that is desperate enough and crazy enough to admit Texas on Texas’ terms and cede control to Texas is of course…
The Western Athletic Conference
LikeLike
UT will never let its not football sports going slumming with a mid-major. They have too much institutional pride.
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
Agreed, I think people don’t realize that although there are similarities between the Texas and Notre Dame mindsets, there are vast differences between their historical experiences and needs/views with respect to football in the scheme of their athletics departments.
For Notre Dame, football independence with a feasible route to a championship is the absolute goal.
For Texas, exposure within/and outside Texas are the goals as well as maintaining the pre-eminent budget/etc., but the means are not going to include football independence if that means harming the prestige of the rest of the department. Texas is not going to consider football independence without a BCS conference (at the least, might not even be sufficient if it’s a Big East/Big 12 remnants hybrid) to house its other sports. Texas basketball/baseball/etc. are not going to be thrown away in order to maximize football. That’s not how they’re approaching this at all.
LikeLike
I don’t really believe that. Tech is moving up and isn’t that different from several ACC institutions. I think the biggest issue would be whether they thought breaking out of their geographic niche made any sense. I would think the LHN could be worked around over time, unless they had the concern about ESPN having a direct realtionship with UT instead of through the conference. The ACC’s original 12 team plan was SU and BC. They wanted to be the biggest conference in the NE. Swofford and the ACC have been a voice of reason during all of the realignment of the last couple of years.
But we don’t know that Texas to the ACC is closed. I suspect it is still an option. But a 4 team western branch of the ACC is definitely dead.
LikeLike
Some food for thought:
Best programs in CUSA 2005
TCU
ECU
Houston
South Florida
Louisville
Cincinnati
Best programs in Big East 2012:
WVU
TCU
Connecticut
South Florida
Louisville
Cincinnati
LikeLike
PurpleBookCat’s end game would be very good for Texas and ND except that Texas values the opportunity for branding that the LHN affords too much to give the B1G control of all rights; 1st, 2nd, 3rd tier, and web, for 25 years. This flies in the face of the direction the media is going and is the exact opposite of what Texas sees as the future of elite college athletic programs. While the money is great, the branding opportunity is more important.
Look at the other option being discussed. Assuming OU and OSU to PAC, ACC takes Pitt and Syracuse along with non-football membership of Texas and ND, and the SEC takes either West Virginia or possibly Missouri along with A&M, the remaining Big East could apply to the Big XII to bring that conference back to Twelve and maintain its much more lucrative TV contracts with Fox & ESPN; big win for both the remaining members of each conference. With the remaining BIG XII teams now secure in their membership and contracts, the threat of suits against the SEC can be dropped and A&M can freely join the SEC.
Texas and ND Bball and spring sports provide additional media demand and footprint for the ACC’s media rights, thus greatly increasing their payout in addition to the 4 additional home football games their membership requires. That plus the new $20MM exit fee UNANIMOUSLY agreed to secure their future from SEC?B1G encroachment.
Both Texas and ND continue to maintain independence and control over their own networks. Revenue from the non-football sports could even be calculated and evenly distributed if this becomes a sticking point. Texas might even consider adding soccer and crew to their sports lineup as they have excellent facilities for both, and it appears that money will not be an issue.
B1G & Big XII happy at 12, PAC & SEC strong at 14, and ACC much stronger and richer at 14+2.
5 solid conferences and Armageddon averted.
LikeLike
It’s the Pac that has the most restrictive control of individual schools’ rights (including their website), not the B10.
LikeLike
ACC presser at 9:30EST tomorrow. They aren’t wasting any time.
LikeLike
Best not to leave us Big East folks suffering for too long. Get it over with and let everyone start picking up the pieces. Unlike the SEC, which just toys with us all.
And I would like to announce that the TCU fan base, for one, has passed the denial stage. Most have gotten all the way to acceptance and are trying to picture life in a Big 12-Big East ragtag hybrid, but a few are still stuck at anger, whether at Pitt’s alleged betrayal or ESPN’s string-pulling. I guess it’s easy to move on when you never even got a chance to be part of the conference.
LikeLike
I still think that TCU has improved their position. They’re at least more likely than Baylor to be in an AQ conference when this all settles.
LikeLike
@Gopher86 – ACC speed > SEC speed for expansion
LikeLike
Sure are. Kind of like the all the attention on the Big Ten last year and then the PAC-16 rumors coming almost out of nowhere. This is more extreme though. No big rumors of this till last night and it’s official tomorrow.
LikeLike
Well, the difference being that nobody who has options really wants to join the SEC, save for TAMU, and the ACC doesn’t have that many options.
LikeLike
Frank,
With a Beast required 27 month notification before leaving, the ACC will either have to do some serious financial negotiations or Pitt and “Cuse will play 2 lame duck seasons. I’m sure it gets worked out so that the latter doesn’t happen, but to say that the ACC move is w/o entanglements similar to what the SEC is facing wrt A&M is a presumptuous.
LikeLike
Note to Texas A&M/Texas/Oklahoma/SEC: this is how changing conferences is done. 72 hours between message board rumors and the press conference. Instead, we have day 57 of “As the Big 12 Turns”.
LikeLike
Eh. The lumbering giants don’t have to hurry, they’ll have a seat at the table when it’s all said and done.
Pittsburgh and Syracuse jumped and the ACC invited them because Texas is skulking around. It’s like Baylor and Colorado last year; now there’s no room for Texas’ luggage.
LikeLike
But what would I blog about if I didn’t have realignment?
LikeLike
UT quarterbacks?
LikeLike
I’ll bet Delany and the B1G never make some grand announcement about considering expansion ever again. It may have seemed like a good idea to be upfront and honest about their dealings but it didn’t work out the way they wanted. Internet message boards and 24/7 news cycles make slow deliberate public steps seem like indecision and even incompetence.
You don’t have to move quicker, you have to be ready to move quickly when word gets out.
LikeLike
On the other hand, it was that public comment that ignited the powder keg of instability in the Big 12 and led the Big Ten to add Nebraska. If his goal was to simply destabilize the Big 12 Delaney did it perfectly.
The movement we are seeing now are continued aftershocks of that announcement, based largely on the fear of conferences and schools being in left in an inequitable situation.
LikeLike
Delany’s public announcement is what directly led to Nebraska. No announcement, no Nebraska. I’m sure Delany is pretty happy with that announcement.
B1G has added PSU and Nebraska in the last 50 years, and we’ll sit fat and happy.
RUTGERS?!?!? Ha!
LikeLike
Very good point.
LikeLike
The very good point comment was directed to Husker Al.
LikeLike
How do we know it didn’t work out like they wanted?
LikeLike
We don’t and it very well may have. I don’t think the conference expected the media backlash or government interference though.
LikeLike
To be honest I don’t recall there being much of either.
LikeLike
After that Oklahoma-FSU game, I guess the Noles are only 90% back to its 90’s/late 80’s form.
Dang it. What a game, though.
LikeLike
The ACC deserves some more credit after today’s results. 2-2 today vs. ranked teams from other leagues. The losses were both really close, one of which came against the #1 team in the country. It’s got to count for something.
Hopefully the “experts” will stop trashing the league for a while for on-field performance. For once, this year, the criticism isn’t warranted.
LikeLike
The ACC is roughly comparable to the Big Ten for football this year (especially with Ohio State down). Problem with the ACC has always been a lack of marquee football programs, it was utterly dominated for a long time by Florida State and now in recent years by Virginia Tech. Don’t get me wrong, I really respect both those programs over the years, but if that’s the creme de la creme of the conference with a lack of serious challengers, you’ve got problems. Going forward, the ACC may prove a lot better on this point. It’s actually quite a tribute to the general strength of the conference in other areas that it has thrived despite its lackluster football history.
LikeLike
SWC version 2.0 = WAC version 8.0 plus friends of Texas. ACC seems to have decided that they don’t cut side deals. Alot of Chip’s stuff is pretty UT slanted but the latest gets my attention because he does not sound to be confident that the ACC is a realistic option anymore if it ever was. If this Tech problem is bedrock solid for UT, then they are completely down to Pac 12 or SWC version 2.0/WAC 8.0 as the only options if Oklahoma bolts west. I could see the fuck me pay me conference happening but not if the Tech problem has to come along.
LikeLike
By my count, in 2012 the WAC will have it’s 13th different membership arrangement in its history. It would have to be WAC 14.0.
LikeLike
If the ACC adds Pitt and Syracuse, doesn’t lose anyone and stops there, what do you guys think the divisions will/should look like? I could see them just adding them to opposite divisions and making them crossovers, but I think that would be a mistake. I’m thinking something like this might be ideal:
Atlantic:
Boston College
Pitt
Syracuse
Maryland
Virginia Tech
Virginia (permanent crossover with North Carolina)
Miami (permanent crossover with Florida State)
Coastal:
Florida State (permanent crossover with Miami)
North Carolina (permanent crossover with Virginia)
North Carolina State
Duke
Wake Forest
Georgia Tech
Clemson
This would give both divisions access to Florida, but give the more northern oriented school to the otherwise northern division. It would combine all former Big East schools and all North Carolina schools. It would also give us divisions more people could remember.
You could assign permanent crossovers for everyone or just give them to the teams listed above.
LikeLike
I think they’re waiting to get to 16, and this is how it’ll play out:
Boston College
Connecticut
Syracuse
Rutgers
Pitt
Maryland
Virginia Tech
Virginia
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Wake Forest
Duke
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami
LikeLike
UConn & Rutgers are the ACC’s #15 & #16.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2011-09-17/acc-approves-syracuse-pittsburgh-big-east/50448806/1
LikeLike
Yeah, why not.
LikeLike
Wow. They should just call it the “We don’t like you West Virginia” Conference.
LikeLike
True, but they’re at least somewhat likely to get an SEC invite at some point.
At least, more than Louisville and Cincinnati, who have to figure their way out of this mess on their own.
LikeLike
Mountaineer fans have to be standing on pins and needles until then if this is true. They are either in the SEC or with the leftovers in a Big East-Big 12 hybrid.
LikeLike
If they don’t, they’ll certainly bring a lot of clout with them wherever they go.
The WAC isn’t secure and the MWC is unknown. A new football only conference with the ashes of the Big East/XII and whatever old SWC teams are lying around could do well together.
LikeLike
Cincy & Louisville enjoyed their stay in a marginal BCS conference while it lasted; its back to C-USA for them. West Virginia at least has some hope of getting picked up by the SEC.
LikeLike
Cincy and UL will be fine in whatever combo of BE/B12/MWC/C-USA schools band together for the 5th, and possibly 6th, BCS conference. Just because the big dogs want to consolidate schools doesn’t mean they plan to squeeze others out. The myth of 4 super conferences to rule them all is that, a myth.
If you saw the post above, congress is gearing up, with no little thanks to Ken Starr I’m sure, to stick their nose in where it doesn’t belong. I’m guessing that the brain trusts that have been working on all the realignment issues are all too aware of the game about to be played. How do you get more pie for yourself without hurting others? Grow the pie. I’d expect we see 3 BCS spots per conference, 14 or 16 member conferences anyway, and additional BCS bowls before we see schools getting shut out of the BCS world.
LikeLike
I wonder if ESPN is forcing Connecticut onto the ACC, whose officials still remember the 2003 lawsuit and probably had a gentlemen’s agreement to give Boston College ACC New England exclusivity. Believe me, if the conference had its way, Temple would get the nod with Rutgers.
LikeLike
Temple?
LikeLike
Rutgers has location advantages but I could see them falling to oblivion like Iowa State, which is also an AAU, state university, that carries no athletic clout.
LikeLike
Rutgers is the primary state university for New Jersey (a larger state than Iowa), has more students, and a better academic reputation. Oblivion could happen, but I’d be less surprised if it happened Iowa State.
Of course, Buffalo is the primary state university for NY and they’re in the MAC.
LikeLike
I was thinking the same thing about Rutgers. Plus, they have a pretty good athletic talent pool. Football wise anyway.
I hadn’t thought of the state of NY and Buffalo, but Buffalo has never been part of the silver spoon group. They wouldn’t be missed.
LikeLike
Rutgers is like a second tier version of Illinois. Great school, the flagship of the entire state and a great talent pool. They just never seem to be able to put it together.
I can see the Northeast play, but adding Rutgers, Cuse and UConn is quite a bit of mediocre football to digest. Plus, Boston College would certainly try to keep UConn out.
LikeLike
The ACC seems to have their own plan in mind. It seems like they’re not concerned about expanding their football power and I get the feeling that FSU is quite happy about that. The joined the ACC as the path of least resistance and it remains that.
LikeLike
OK, here’s a random Wake Forest blogger popping up tonight with sources (no link, unfortunately) claiming that Texas will be voting on the ACC Monday.
Hmmm…
http://www.bloggersodear.com/2011/9/18/2432502/sources-texas-set-to-vote-monday-on-joining-acc
LikeLike
I wonder what the majority of Texans think of the ACC and the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Show of hands. How many people thought the ACC would be the first one to offiicially make a move? Amazing how all this goes. I just keep hoping we don’t see the Big Ten adding anyone.
LikeLike
I’d like to see the BIG add Rutgers and MO while they’re still available, but I see absolutely no indication the BIG is thinking along those lines…….
LikeLike
They will always be available.
LikeLike
Not if the SEC takes Mizzou and the ACC takes Rutgers.
LikeLike
What do you guys think of Delaney’s reaction to all this? He certainly seems to be whistling past the graveyard. I am amazed that the ACC could potentially add Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, and U CONN with NO reaction from the BIG—just a year ago Delaney said something to the effect that ‘those who would ignore the NY market do so at their peril’—wtf??
I know all about ‘we don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes…blah, blah, blah’…but it is all very odd….I haven’t seen any real ‘smoke’ even with TX and ND–no urgency at all–do you guys think the Presidents have just told Delaney that they’re not expanding whatever anyone else does, so that his only option is to abide the old Bobby Knight advice–‘when rape is inevitable, enjoy it’??
LikeLike
I don’t recall him saying anything at all.
He doesn’t have to.
LikeLike
He’s said a couple of things…
A week or two he said the BIG would have no reaction to OU and OSU going to the PAC
Yesterday or today he was out playing golf (Nero fiddling?)and said something to the effect that ‘we’re very content where we’re at’………
LikeLike
Delaney isn’t going to tip his hand. The guy has all the due dilligence done from last year. If he really wants a University, he’ll poach them from the ACC. But he’s not in the business of adding singles and doubles.
LikeLike
The ACC was always going to be a tough nut to crack and now it’s only tougher. The 12 current members didn’t decide to add Pitt and SU on a whim. Plus they just raised the exit fees by what, $8mil? Not Delany, and not Slive, are likely to get any schools from the ACC.
LikeLike
IMO getting together to raise the exit fees is a sign of weakness. If there wasn’t a fear that someone wanted to jump ship there would have been absolutely no need to do so.
LikeLike
@Scarlet_Lutefisk – I read that the SEC has a $50 yearly fee to be a member, no exit fees. Stability.
LikeLike
@Mike – I’d never heard that before. If it’s true I really like the confidence/cheekiness it displays.
To be honest what hasn’t been looked at yet is the possibility that the Pitt & Syracuse moves are a reaction to the possibility of losing two teams (FSU & Maryland perhaps?).
LikeLike
I don’t think there is support in the Big Ten for further expansion and if there is no risk of the Big Ten itself being raided, why jump at teams that will likely dilute the pot and mean less games against each other? You can’t univite someone in the future which means going too high can be risk, especially in a conference with as many interlocked rivalries as it has.
LikeLike
Makes no sense to me for the BIG to stay at 12 teams when the ACC, PAC and SEC will all have either 14 or 16………Nebraska’s addition didn’t do much to expand BTN markets or change demographics
I don’t mind Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC, because I think they’re better fits there….but I sure as heck don’t want to see MO to the SEC , U CONN and RUT to the ACC, and TX and OK to the PAC…..
LikeLike
But expanding for expansion sake is very risky. If 16 proves to be a better stopping point, we can always expand to that later. If it turns out the conferences are too big and unwieldy in changing economic conditions, we risk the conference itself if we over expand. I don’t think any of the available teams are worth that risk.
LikeLike
Quality over quantity. The B1G has markets and eye balls. Its focus is adding to its brand inventory.
LikeLike
From Thamel at NYT
Big Ten Commish Jim Delany went golfing today. He’s that unconcerned with expansion. “We’re as comfortable as we can be,” he told me.
But, honestly, what did you expect? The Big Ten has no need to kill off the Big East like the ACC had. The ACC can at least justify its place in the hierarchy of things by taking Syracuse/Pitt even if the money won’t immediately work out in such a move.
What is the Big Ten supposed to do? Expand for the sake of expanding?
Again, the Big Ten is at 12 with 4 national brands and Wisconsin/Iowa as its mid-tier brands. What exactly can the Big Ten do right now to improve.
Texas A&M is the driver to get the SEC to 14 since it delivers a substantial portion of Texas and can be a power in its own right.
OU/OSU easily justify a Pac-14.
Syracuse/Pitt + destruction of Big East + being ahead of the pack in expansion as a protective measure to keep FSU/Va Tech/etc. is the justification for ACC expansion.
So what justifies Big Ten expansion? A naked landgrab for the portion of New Jersey and Missouri that Rutgers/Missouri deliver, even though that’ll probably just hurt the payouts of the current Big Ten schools?
Big Ten expansion is dead until 2014-2015 at the earliest unless Notre Dame or Texas makes themselves available. If the Big Ten expanded now, everyone would take a haircut for the next 4 years. That will only happen for Notre Dame/Texas.
LikeLike
The problem with that thinking is taht there are options available now that won’t be present in a year or two…….
LikeLike
No one associated with the Big Ten (and I mean absolutely no one) will be that upset if Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, UConn, West Virginia or Missouri are no longer available. If the Big Ten wanted any of those schools, it would have invited them last summer.
If ND or Texas would like to join on an equal footing, the Big Ten will expand. Any of the above additions would simply dilute the conference.
LikeLike
The Big 10 can save everyone a lot of trouble by holding out for Texas and ND. At 12, that prevents the 4 x 16 and keeps a viable 5th AQ conference alive.
The only questions is whether the ACC is making a play for ND as part of all of this. If the ACC gets to 16 by adding UConn and Rutgers, that pretty much eliminates that.
Again… 14 is the stepping stone. At 14, the message to TX and ND is clear. At 16, you remove yourself from the equation (until 2020, when 20 becomes the “in” thing.”)
LikeLike
Other current Big East members also expressed surprise.
“I probably had a lot of scenarios in mind,” Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick told reporters at the Irish-Michigan State game, “and this was not one of them.”
LikeLike
Being a Purdue fan, I’m mostly worried about how this will affect things basketball-wise. The B1G’s record in the Big Ten/ACC Challenge was bad enough before, now it’s going to be a lot tougher. That’s not even taking into account that Nebraska will be an automatic loss starting this year.
LikeLike
Well, if we actually do get Notre Dame/Texas/Missouri/Kansas, it won’t be so bad.
LikeLike
I’m not seeing anything the last 2 days to suggest TX is that interested in the BIG….Seems like PAC is mostly likely, ACC is a possibility……….
LikeLike
Screw Texas and Notre Dame! We need to add Kansas, UConn, and Butler!
LikeLike
Pingback: Texas A&M Leaving Big 12 - Page 805 - CycloneFanatic
You have to be Ishing me? No one can say ISU isn’t invested. They have a 855 page thread with over 13,000 responses and 800,000 views? Since 8/11/11, that’s flat out amazing.
LikeLike
USA TODAY has (an ACC source claiming) Uconn and Rutgers will round out the 16
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2011-09-17/acc-approves-syracuse-pittsburgh-big-east/50448806/1
LikeLike
That’s not what it says. It says the ACC hasn’t closed the door on the idea of taking more BE teams, and if they did then UConn and Rutgers would be the two they’d want.
LikeLike
Found this. Thought it would be a good reference for helping to determine which candidates are most attractive:
http://thenationalchampionshipissue.blogspot.com/2010/01/bowls-television-ratings-three-ways.html
Of schools who went to bowls a majority of the years 2002-2009, the top schools who overperformed in bowl ratings (on average) were
1. ND
2. FSU
3. Michigan
4. Texas
5. tOSU
6. Miami
Of worst underperformers (using same criteria of 5 games as cutoff), OU heads the list (and it’s not close).
LikeLike
What a novel concept – ranking schools based on TV ratings for their bowl games compared to the average for those bowl games. Why didn’t I think of that? Oh, wait, I did. And I posted it here about the same time this guy posted his.
LikeLike
Uh, Brian, feel free to post again.
It’s virtually impossible to dig through the old posts to find stuff written several months ago. Maybe Frank should have a folder link for reference information/posts that we can all easily access on the side of this website.
LikeLike
Since it looks like the ACC is the first to go to 16, the PAC and SEC won’t let themselves be far behind. I can’t in good conscience think that Delany will be okay with letting the B1G sit at 12 when the other conferences are at 16. That’s a fairly substantial deficit when it comes to landing BCS invites, especially since having a championship game weakens the 2nd place B1G team in the season ending polls.
I guess I see the potential for the conference to fall behind if we’re not making things happen. I’m not totally convinced a conference with 12 teams can compete for bowl invites with those at 16, even if those 12 teams are the ones we’ve currently got in the B1G. 14 would be competitive, if the extra two teams are ND and UT.
LikeLike
So you’re worried about Syracuse, Pitt, UConn and Rutgers taking BCS spots away from the B10? Or is it TAMU, MO and WVU in the SEC (as opposed to FL, LSU, AL, etc)?
There is still a 2 team limit. That can’t change until after the 2013 season. Nobody knows what the system might be after that, or at least they aren’t mentioning it publicly. The conferences would have to vote to move the limit to 3 teams, so why would the non-AQs, ND or the B10 agree if they fear losing BCS spots?
LikeLike
It had to happen eventually.
—
Congressional Scrutiny of Conference Realignment Is Said to Be Likely – Pete Thamel, NYTimes.com – http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/sports/ncaafootball/congressional-scrutiny-of-conference-realignment-is-said-to-be-likely.html?src=mv&ref=sports
In a telephone interview early Sunday morning, a congressman from a state with a university that could be harmed by realignment said that the issue raised concerns over taxes, antitrust law and potentially Title IX.
While no one has formally approached Congress yet, the congressman, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the situation was “spinning out of control.”
“I think the situation is rising to a level where getting Congress engaged may be unavoidable,” he said.
LikeLike
I still say that when the B1G received a letter from Big Brother, (Grassley and Harkin?), last year it put a chill on any further expansion. I don’t remember what came of the situation after Nebraska was added but the government has a way of slowing things down. Like the economy (smiley face).
LikeLike
Maybe they’ll put together a stimulus plan for the Big East?
LikeLike
congress was always going to be a wet blanket over expansion. As I have stated many times on this board, if the 4 team superconference is inevitable – which I doubt – they better figure out a way to get as many states included. Otherwise Congress would take an interest, just as Orinn Hatch did on Utah’s behalf. Imagine if Boise St was shut out of BCS because of the Superconference. Idaho’s two senators would demand hearings. That is the last thing anyone wants. As you point out there are multiple angles for Congress to get involved – antitrust, tax-exemption, and I guess Title IX, but the former two are the biggest and would give the colleges/conferences the most concern.
Whether Congress should involve them in this issue is beside the point.
LikeLike
Oh no, a couple of hours of grandstanding in a hearing from some congressmen who have better things to do. This won’t change anything. Do you really think they can get the votes to remove the tax exemption because a few schools change conferences? Realignment has no impact on antitrust or Title IX issues.
LikeLike
So much for the Big Ten expanding East. JD was too busy coveting ND that he lost sight of other opportunities. East coast Big Ten fans really wanted to see another NE team added.
LikeLike
The Big Ten wasn’t interested in any of Rutgers, Pitt, Connecticut or Syracuse as a duo. Their only interest in them was as an addition along with a king like ND or Texas…
Big Ten only wanted schools who up the bar for them athletically and financially (& pass the academic test); very, very few schools do that. You need to be around or above the level of say Wisconsin (Big Ten #5 program) if you want to join the Big Ten. The most interesting Big East program was Pitt and that was already in the Big Ten’s footprint, Rutgers has a nice amount of population but a rather pathetic following…
The other most interesting addition would be Missouri, they are a solid addition (imo) but they along with say 1 of Rutgers, Pitt, Connecticut really don’t help the Big Ten command a significantly larger payday when they negotiate their 1st/2nd tier rights.
LikeLike
wolves:
I largely agree, though I think MSU is the median point of the B10 and the barely minimum any school has to be able to match athletically to warrant inclusion in the B10 (on their own, not as a partner for a king). None of Rutgers, Pitt, UConn, ‘Cuse, or Mizzou draw as many fans for football games or garner as much athletic department revenue as the Spartans. Only Rutgers and Pitt would be comfortably in the B10 range academically/research-wise.
LikeLike
Now that any NE options are gone for the Big 10, maybe they’ll rethink the Oklahoma, Kansas, MIssouri options. If they offered without the little brothers getting involved I wonder who would take it?
LikeLike
Wolverine: Exactly right (of course)
Bo: After ND/TX, Oklahoma/Maryland would be my first choice to get to 14, Oklahoma/Missouri my second. Unlikely as either scenario is.
LikeLike
Milton Hershey,
East coast fans may want to see an eastern team added, but that doesn’t mean Delany or the COP/C thought any of Syracuse, Pitt, UConn or Rutgers were good additions. Delany didn’t lose sight of anything, perhaps he just doesn’t share your opinion on the value of these teams. For all we know, Delany talked with these schools and neither side thought it was a good fit.
Western fans wanted a midwest addition and got NE. Show me an equivalent team in the east that Delany has overlooked.
These are the top 60 teams by winning percentage over the last 50 seasons:
(Columns = Rank, School, Winning Percentage, Wins, Losses, Ties, I-A Games)
B10 already
1 Nebraska 0.78454 474 128 6 608
3 Ohio State 0.76325 427 129 10 566
4 Penn State 0.74027 436 152 3 591
8 Michigan 0.72384 417 156 10 583
48 Michigan State 0.53375 295 257 11 563
57 Wisconsin 0.51842 289 268 13 570
58 Iowa 0.51140 286 273 11 570
59 Purdue 0.50894 280 270 9 559
SEC
7 Alabama 0.72892 421 155 5 581
10 Florida 0.69224 405 177 11 593
12 Tennessee 0.68687 401 179 14 594
14 Georgia 0.68112 393 180 15 588
15 Auburn 0.67728 389 183 9 581
17 Louisiana State 0.66126 381 192 13 586
18 Arkansas 0.64897 374 200 10 584
38 Mississippi 0.55194 309 250 9 568
P12
9 Southern Cal 0.72344 421 156 16 593
20 Arizona State 0.64060 362 202 5 569
25 UCLA 0.59948 336 222 15 573
28 Washington 0.58916 333 231 8 572
35 Colorado 0.55363 316 254 8 578
40 Utah 0.55009 311 254 4 569
47 Arizona 0.53812 298 255 11 564
49 Oregon 0.53246 299 262 9 570
ACC
11 Florida State 0.68793 392 174 14 580
16 Miami-Florida 0.66235 382 194 3 579
21 Virginia Tech 0.62413 356 213 7 576
23 Clemson 0.60174 341 224 10 575
31 Boston College 0.57509 324 239 3 566
39 Georgia Tech 0.55113 313 254 10 577
43 North Carolina 0.54435 310 259 6 575
45 North Carolina State 0.54261 307 258 10 575
B12
5 Oklahoma 0.73990 435 150 9 594
6 Texas 0.73305 429 154 7 590
29 Texas A&M 0.57759 332 242 6 580
34 Texas Tech 0.55903 317 249 10 576
55 Missouri 0.52452 293 265 13 571
Other AQ
13 Notre Dame 0.68229 389 179 8 576
22 West Virginia 0.61372 350 219 7 576
42 Syracuse 0.54482 307 256 6 569
52 Louisville 0.52589 291 262 7 560
53 Pittsburgh 0.52548 294 265 10 569
Non-AQ
2 Boise State 0.76821 231 69 2 302
19 Brigham Young 0.64775 386 209 4 599
24 Miami-Ohio 0.60162 327 214 15 556
26 Southern Miss 0.59325 331 226 6 563
27 Fresno State 0.59278 343 235 4 582
30 Central Michigan 0.57595 312 228 13 553
32 Bowling Green 0.57468 310 228 11 549
33 Toledo 0.57219 317 236 8 561
36 Louisiana Tech 0.55280 254 205 5 464
37 Hawaii 0.55277 315 254 9 578
41 East Carolina 0.54741 304 251 4 559
44 Air Force 0.54325 310 260 8 578
46 Nevada-Reno 0.54020 213 181 4 398
50 San Diego State 0.52881 253 225 8 486
51 Houston 0.52822 294 262 11 567
54 Western Michigan 0.52477 282 255 8 545
56 Ball State 0.52315 277 252 11 540
60 Central Florida 0.50838 91 88 0 179
Not making the list but mentioned in realignment
62 Maryland 0.50617 284 277 6 567
66 Rutgers 0.50092 270 269 6 545
67 Oklahoma State 0.50000 277 277 11 565
70 Virginia 0.48418 273 291 5 569
81 Kansas 0.44128 242 308 12 562
104 Duke 0.36000 193 347 10 550
Unlisted because they are so new – UConn
Who are reasonable candidates for B10 expansion?
Remove the B10 teams, and you’re down to 52.
Assumptions:
1. Non-AQs are unacceptable – 34
2. SEC is untouchable – 26
3. P12 is untouchable – 18
4. TAMU is going to the SEC (see #1) – 17
5. Academics matter (WV, UL, TT) – 14
6. Parts of the ACC don’t fit at all (Clemson, NCSU) – 2
Being generous, that narrows the list to:
5 Oklahoma – OkSU problem, shaky academics
6 Texas – wanted
11 Florida State – highly unlikely
13 Notre Dame – said no repeatedly
16 Miami-Florida – highly unlikely
21 Virginia Tech – highly unlikely
31 Boston College – highly unlikely
39 Georgia Tech – highly unlikely
42 Syracuse – went to ACC (better fit there)
43 North Carolina – highly unlikely
53 Pittsburgh – went to ACC (better fit there), plus in the footprint so no new TVs
55 Missouri – begged last year
Who exactly are the east coast teams you wanted the B10 to add? Ignoring the southeast, that leaves you with BC, Syracuse and Pitt as eastern teams plus Rutgers and the highly unlikely MD from the bad teams list.
Would those teams have accepted an invitation? Probably for PItt and Rutgers, BC and Syracuse are more iffy (better ACC fits) and I’m unconvinced MD would leave the ACC.
Would those schools have made the B10 more money? No.
Would they have improved the B10 in any way? Yes, in academics and/or hoops for most of them.
Should the B10 have offered them (independent of adding OU, UT or ND)? Not in my opinion.
LikeLike
Good post
LikeLike
Viable Candidates:
No one from ACC, SEC, PAC. Not possible to poach ACC anymore ($20 mill buyout), SEC/PAC stable.
Will there be a superconference for the B1G, my answer is: No. I see only 14 teams, can’t see 16 as it won’t be viable money unless Texas says it must bring Tech along, than I could see 1-4.
1: Notre Dame (1a)
2: Texas (1b)
3: Missouri (if 1 or 2 only come, fill in for 14, although Tech could be fill in as well).
4: Texas Tech (if Texas won’t come without it)
5: Rutgers (I could see Rutgers in ACC)
6: UConn (I could see UConn in ACC)
I didn’t see Pitt as a fit for the B1G as they were not a money adder to the conference. Syracuse would have been nice, but ultimately Notre Dame brings New York area tv market (#1 in NY TV Market for College) more than Syracuse does (Fact).
If Acc gets Texas/ND somehow. B1G will stay at 12…no reason to expand as no one else fits with Missouri and will Missouri really add money to conference when we are getting ~22 Mill a year.
LikeLike
bbobbo:
I think it’s all dependent on ND & Texas (isn’t it always).
If those 2 behemoths come, the B10 sits at 14 forever (or at least until Texas decides to look out for number 1 again and try independence).
If those 2 join the ACC in an unequal arrangement (and I don’t see those 2 schools joining the ACC as equal partners under any scenario), the B10 should (and will) sit pretty at 12 and wait for the ACC to implode, picking up some of FSU/Miami/maybe UNC&Duke/Texas?/ND? later.
If those 2 go independent (maybe parking their non-football psorts in a B12/BE hybrid), expansion sprobably over for now, or at least until the hybrid falls apart.
Same for if Texas joins the Pac as an equal partner.
Personally, I actually hope that the ACC is suicidal enough to take in Texas and ND as unequal partners as I’d rather try to add FSU & Miami as equal partners than Texas and ND under any arrangement that does those 2 any favors.
LikeLike
My analysis of what’s left to come on our death march to 4 sixteen team conferences…
http://nittanylionsden.com/2011-articles/september/good-bye-big-east.html
Short of stopping at 14 teams each, there actually aren’t a ton of scenarios out there.
LikeLike
If it is Rutgers and UConn to get the ACC to 16, then that kills all the Texas/ND ACC stuff, keeping them in place for the B1G.
And here would be your new Big TwelvEast:
TCU
South Florida
West Virginia
Cincy
Louisville
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Texas Tech (maybe PAC?)
Missouri (maybe SEC?)
In order to get to 12, options include Boise, Houston, SMU, Rice, Memphis, UNLV, New Mexico…
LikeLike
Yeah but at least ONE of these schools are going to the SEC. They are not going to stay at 13. My best guess is West Virginia
LikeLike
West Virginia is as good as gone from the BIG EAST now that Pitt has departed.
West Virginia is a better fit for the ESS EEE CEE than the ACC because:
1. ESS EEE CEE – small market schools with lousy academics and lots of rabid football fans
2. ACC – big market schools with snooty academics, Tobacco Road basketball culture, lukewarm football fan support, and mediocre to lousy football (with the exception of Florida State)
==
The “new” Big East football conference is not very good, but won’t be bad either:
TCU
South Florida
Cincinnati
Louisville
(Rutgers if the ACC does not take them)
(Connecticut if the ACC does not take them)
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Texas Tech
(Missouri if the SEC does not take them)
Central Florida
Houston
(BYU might be asked again to join as a football-only member)
====
Probably won’t make the cut:
Baylor (no conference will want to do business with that nutjob named Kenneth Starr)
Memphis (Fed Ex boss Fred Smith won’t be able to buy Memphis into the Big East at any price.)
LikeLike
@OT – WFV wasn’t going to turn down an invite from the SEC (or ACC) just to stay in a conference with Pitt.
LikeLike
Unnamed representative shoots the national political card across the bow of the NCAA/BCS in NYT article. There may be a need to find a home for everyone, particularly schools like KSU, ISU and Baylor that have made committments based on existing contracts, committments that could impact state governments.
LikeLike
Seems I may have read that somewhere before. Oh yeah, in this thread.
Leave it to the guvmint. On second thought, for the sake of the children keep the dang guvmint out of this!
LikeLike
Whoever earlier brought up the Iowa state senators’ inquiry last year- I think that federal involvement is the one thing that scares Delaney to death as well as the other commissioners evaluating any state school left out. Iowa State could seriously make Big 10 life a Baylor like hell and deep 6 the Big 10s plans. Kansas and K State being out in the cold without a Big East backup, Rutgers,and don’t forget about Florida’s investments in USF and UCF. The private schools can operate as they choose but the state schools are another story as they could bring a lot of real heat at the federal level.
LikeLike
Well, it looks like there will be two 2 BCS AQ’s available shortly, so just gather up the remnants into a new league and give them an “AQ” to one of the irrelevant BCS bowl games.
LikeLike
The real worry is the loss of tax-exemptions for colleges or more specifically athletic programs. With such a large deficit and with some schools making incredible sums from TV contracts, etc., there is an argument to be made that athletic programs should not continue to enjoy their tax-exempt status. This is the real worry.
LikeLike
And the presidents know this.
LikeLike
SH,
I’ve been concerned about this for two years. Given the level of tv money the conferences are receiving, I could see some of the states/federal government wanting a piece of that pie. I don’t think the schools should lose their tax exempt status, but the athletic programs are big time businesses now. And, they should be treated as such….
LikeLike
The problem is, about 90% athletic departments lose money and depend on student fees, state support and direct institutional support to stay in business. You start taxing athletic departments the people who will end up paying for it are student and tax payers.
LikeLike
Well, Kenn Starr did spend a couple of days last week lobbying in DC.
But what in the heck are the “potential Title IX violations” than unnamed source is referring to? Are they taking a note from the realignment playbook and making shit up?
LikeLike
A lot of big time BCS schools are technically in violation of Title IX, but if it’s not to egregious, the Feds look the other way because of the political influence these schools have. What this congresscritter might be saying is that maybe they won’t be looking the other way anymore.
LikeLike
Hmmm. Now that the threat of Congressional action has raised its head, does that perhaps increase chances that everything might be wrapped up by, say, tomorrow?
LikeLike
Can the auto worker in Detroit sue GM because he made house payment commitments based on income that GM provided…right up until they offshored/downsized his area?
LikeLike
http://www.theacc.com/genrel/091811aaa.html
ACC’s press release. The site says updates with video will follow.
LikeLike
Do they join in 2012 or 2013?
LikeLike
Didn’t say on the article, but that is a key question.
LikeLike
27 months notice puts their departure date in December of 2013, so ‘Cuse & Pitt either offer the Big East some type of settlement to move sooner, or wait until July 2014 to start playing in the ACC.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t you suspect that, as these things usually work out, everyone strikes a deal to accelerate everyone’s departure dates?
LikeLike
A Big East fan (WFV? USF? Can’t remember) stopped by the TCU board yesterday and said that the 27-month rule expired last year. If the conference doesn’t even require schools to NOTIFY THE @#$!@% COMMISSIONER before applying to another league, I can’t imagine it’ll be too difficult to get out, 27 month rule or no. I bet we see those two in the ACC starting next year.
LikeLike
Assuming the Pitt, ‘cuse, Rutgers, and UConn to ACC comes to pass and starts in 2012, it’ll be interesting to see what the ABC 3:30 distribution charts look like. Let’s say you have Nebraska-MSU up against VT-FSU – which one gets play in Pennsylvania and New York? More to the point, let’s say it’s Pitt-UNC against PSU-Illinois – which one gets shown in Western PA and New York (I’m guessing Pitt-UNC). IMO this really puts a big dent in the Big Ten’s value to ABC in the eastern markets.
I know, the Big Ten games will be on ESPN everywhere as a reverse mirror. Maybe I’m old-fashioned but I think conferences still need (and will continue to need) a big-time OTA game each week that is national or at least thoroughly covers the conference footprint and then some. I believe Fox will make a play for Big Ten OTA and cable rights but that’s 4 years in the future and in the meantime the ACC will be getting a nice national showcase on ABC/ESPN and good coverage in the big eastern markets (which admittedly aren’t as CFB-crazy as some but still have a lot of eyeballs).
LikeLike
What do you think Notre Dame is thinking about the Big East falling apart? Can they keep the other sports in the Catholic School side of the Big East? Would the new Big TwelvEast let ND play in everything but football? Or is this enough to force them to the B1G?
If this does force ND to the B1G, and assuming Texas goes PAC, who comes with now? Missouri?
LikeLike
@ Coldhusker: The B1G divisions are perfectly set up for Notre Dame and Missouri. Notre Dame would join the Legends and have Purdue as a permanent crossover. Missouri would join the Leaders and have Iowa as a permanent crossover. Notre Dame’s annual B1G schedule would be Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Northwestern, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota and two of Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri and Indiana.
One other byproduct of superconferences is that I believe we will see a 13 game regular season sooner rather than later. This would allow for 9 conference games and 4 OOC games.
LikeLike
If Mizzou gets put in the opposite division from Nebraska, I would prefer them to be the annual crossover game for Nebraska instead of Penn St. The Nebraska/Mizzou rivalry was getting nasty the last 10 years or so.
LikeLike
This says it all about PSU’s place in the conference. We are no ones rival and no one wants us as a rival. WE NEED AN EASTERN RIVAL!!!!!!!!!!!
Joe! Get on Delany’s case. We’ve got RU, UConn and squat after that. How I dislike being in a midwestern conference.
LikeLike
There is always Temple.
LikeLike
Iowa would much rather be PSU’s rival then Purdue. The hawkeyes love the lions.
LikeLike
😀
LikeLike
joe4psu,
MSU and OSU like you as a rival, just not as their primary rivals. You had an eastern rival and you stopped playing them once you joined a conference. You don’t get to complain about not having a rival after that.
LikeLike
Which eastern rival was that? Pitt? Last time I checked that’s OoC and besides, why should we tie up 25% of our OoC schedule to go into an area we already have in our footprint (and is picked over by OSU anyway) to play a school that demands one-and-one when they can’t fill their own stadium and have more games historically than PSU at a 3-1 advantage.
PSU (ie: Paterno) has always wanted the Big Ten to move further east to get a traditional rival into the fold just like Nebraska already has built in regional rivalries with the Iowa/Wisconsin/Minnesotta set.
LikeLike
@PSUGuy:
Penn State does not have any eastern “rivals.” Penn State has eastern punching bags. Against schools from surrounding states – Syracuse, WVU, Rutgers, Maryland – Penn State is 75-5-1 over the last 40 years. And since 1995, the recent two-game series with Syracuse are the only games Penn State has played against those opponents.
It’s difficult to feel sympathetic for Penn State here. The Georgia-Georgia Tech, Clemson-South Carolina, Iowa-Iowa State, and Florida-Florida State have all managed to continue on despite the teams being in different conferences. I don’t see why the Big Ten should make a big effort to bring into the conference teams that Penn State has made little effort to play out of conference.
LikeLike
@Jokewood
You could say the same thing about OSU/MICH for most of their collegiate football lives as far as win/loss goes…don’t see anyone looking to boot those “bottom-feeder” schools out of the B1G.
As for scheduling…joining the B1G in the early 90’s completely screwed our OoC scheduling. In an effort to maximize the impact for the new conference we spent the 90’s playing a national schedule (teams like Southern Cal, Louisville, Southern Miss, Arizona ,etc) while letting our traditional rivals (and the local exposure to recruits that entailed) rot. Next thing you know we had the early 2000’s with losing seasons. We’ve since (thankfully) started putting at least one regional rival on the OoC schedule per year (Syracuse, ND, Rutgers, Pitt, Virginia, Navy) and have been trying to find a ” middle ground” by getting some national type games in as well.
To be honest though the argument is a joke. Every other team in the B1G (including the new Nebraska, though they like to recruit nationally) can get away with playing the conference to solidify their local recruiting base. PSU is the only B1G school that has to devote substantial OoC schedule to do the exact same thing since their traditional recruiting base is from eastern PA/NJ/central NY (which is why the B1G wanted them in the first place).
LikeLike
So it’s the Big Ten’s fault that Penn State stopped scheduling cream puff NE teams & started having losing records.
Got it.
PS – Over the past 40 years Ohio State & TSUN are 19-19-2. Remember we’re talking about rivals right?
LikeLike
PSUGuy,
Yes, Pitt was you eastern rival and you dropped them as soon as you joined the B10. Other AQ schools (IA/ISU, UF/FSU, UGA/GT, Clemson/SC) have managed to keep an OOC rivalry going, so you get no sympathy here. You go on to make excuses for not playing Pitt, but that’s not compatible with complaining about not having a rival. You had one and chose to give it up. What if the B10 adds someone eastern and you get sick of playing them all the time? Do we have to kick them out and get you a new toy?
You talk about NE having built rivalries with schools near them like IA, WI and MN. Perhaps you are familiar with OSU. They are your neighboring school and an equivalent rival. Just because PSU will never be OSU’s top rival doesn’t mean PSU has no B10 rivals.
As for your eastern “rivals,” since 1993 (18 seasons) PSU has played these eastern teams more than twice:
Temple – 10
Pitt – 4
Rutgers – 3
For comparison, MI has played:
ND – 14
EMU – 4
WMU – 3
And OSU has played:
Pitt – 4
UC – 4
Ohio – 3
BGSU – 3
Do you hear OSU asking for UC, or OSU or MI asking for the local MAC schools?
Who was the B10 supposed to add that was important to PSU? Temple is a MAC school, and OSU has played Pitt as much as PSU (not to mention Pitt being in the footprint). Who is this great eastern rival you wanted?
LikeLike
Reading comprehension much?
I don’t care one bit about “rivals” (and don’t really consider any of the old “eastern independents” rivals)…it has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with making sure PSU remains the dominant mid-atlantic university (football wise) in the face of continuing progress of the rest of those mid-atlantic universities in order to ensure the Big Ten’s continued coverage in said mid-atlantic area.
Like it or not, what I said was true…every single traditional Big Ten school can rely heavily on its conference schedule for recruiting purposes while PSU is truly an island on the other side of a mountain called tOSU and UoM, forced to play heavily in an area it does not, and has never, recruited well. Now this is is part and parcel of joining the Big Ten (which has been MUCH better in all aspects than any of the other possibilities), but to ignore the problems it creates for the conference is to be very short sighted.
I said it elsewhere…if you want PSU to become another Minnesota…a school that used to have greatness and now is just a doormat…keep ignoring the fundamental scheduling problems PSU has when it comes to the possibilities of conference expansion.
LikeLike
If Notre Dame and Missouri join the B1G, then ND should go to the Leaders and Missouri to the Legends. Then move Mich+MSU+NW to the Leaders and OSU+Wisc+Illinois to the Legends. That gives you the best competitive balance (ND+Mich+PSU versus OSU+Neb+Wisc+Iowa) and divides the conference geographically (except for OSU).
LEADERS: PSU, Mich, MSU, ND, Pur, Ind, NW
LEGENDS: Neb, OSU, Wisc, Mo, Iowa, Minn, Ill
Missouri is in a division with existing rivals (Neb, Ill) and so is Notre Dame (Mich, MSU, Purdue).
LikeLike
OSU needs to play PSU annually in addition to Mich, they need to be in the same division as one of them…
Putting Illinois in the leaders in exchange for PSU solves a lot of issues while creating a few of its own.
LikeLike
StevenD,
That gives you the best competitive balance (ND+Mich+PSU versus OSU+Neb+Wisc+Iowa) and divides the conference geographically (except for OSU).
LEADERS: PSU, Mich, MSU, ND, Pur, Ind, NW
LEGENDS: Neb, OSU, Wisc, Mo, Iowa, Minn, Ill
Based on conference winning percentage (overall WP for ND), you have:
Leaders – 3, 4, 5 (0.674, 0.625, 0.610 = 0.636 average)
Legends – 1, 2, 6 (0.788, 0.707, 0.608 = 0.701)
That isn’t very equal. For balance, try:
Leaders – OSU, PSU
Legends – NE, MI
WI and ND are basically equal in performance, and there are 5 kings so I’d go (in order of locked rivals):
Leaders – OSU, PSU, ND, PU, NW, IL, IN
Legends – MI, NE, MSU, WI, IA, MO, MN
The Legends is tougher in the middle/bottom, but that was necessary to preserve rivalries. The top 6 are balanced, though, and that’s important. ND gets to keep 2 of its 3 rivalries annual, play in Chicago every other year and play the easternmost team annually. ND/MI would lose its annual status, but ND would get OSU to replace them. The western teams all stay together, too, so nobody is isolated geographically. The biggest complaints would come from MI and MSU I assume.
LikeLike
Growing up here in Western PA, when I fell in love with college football in the 80s, Pitt PSU and WVU were all good and all rivals.
Now, all 3 teams will play in different conferences and it is quite possible that none of them will play on an annual basis.
It is just weird to me that what I considered the epicenter of college football as a teenager has now become one of the areas of the country that has just imploded.
I am (obviously) happy that PSU moved to the Big Ten in the 90sbut it is a bit sad that things have worked out this way.
LikeLike
Welcome to my world of Texas, Texas A&M and OU.
LikeLike
Cue world’s tiniest violin.
LikeLike
Love you, man! 🙂
LikeLike
More like the world of SMU, TCU, Houston, and Rice after UT threw their last grenade. I pity the conference that gets stuck with the Longhorns.
LikeLike
I still love the MOB, loki.
LikeLike
Oh, and I’m sorry things change over the course of decades. Life sucks that way sometimes.
LikeLike
Hopkins Horn:
What’s your’e take on where UT goes? With Chip basically saying ACC is out yesterday, and his tendency to “occasionally” misdirect, is the ACC still in play?
LikeLike
We all love the MOB.
As totally different as UT and Rice are, I always felt like we had more in common with them than the rest of the SWC.
The death of the SWC was sad, but essential. The death of the Big 12 is understandable, but not essential.
LikeLike
Western PA, Texas, and Florida have way too much talent for one superconference to keep for itself.
They have to be balkanized in the superconference world.
Western PA – ACC, BIG TEN, SEC
Texas – BIG EAST, SEC, ? (PAC or ACC or indy), Conference USA, Sun Belt, WAC
Florida – ACC, SEC, BIG EAST, Conference USA, Sun Belt
==
The only talent-rich market that is monopolized by one superconference is California, and that’s only because none of the other superconferences want to do business west of the Rocky Mountains.
LikeLike
Western PA has less talent than Ohio & the Buckeye State is locked up by one BCS conference (no kids UC doesn’t count).
LikeLike
Yep. Western PA also has less talent than Eastern PA, NJ, & greater DC (Maryland & NoVa) each. If you want to talk about concentrations of football talent, that I-95 corridor probably has the greatest concentration of football talent in the north (NE Ohio & W. PA would be second).
LikeLike
TBH, I’ve always considered this an indication of the state of the Industrial base of the USA (for good or bad).
Chicago through Western PA used to have a massive population base of blue collar “shift” workers which permitted their kids to play sports (as opposed to working in the fields) while also instilling in them a work ethic which pushed them to succeed on the field. These people had a decent life, but wanted more for their kids and a football scholarship was possibly the only means of achieving it.
With the change in American society over the past 50 years (loss of industrial base, population movement, etc) as well as the change in college availability (more scholarship schools, easier loans, etc) I really think we’ve seen football move from a “means” to an “ends”. By that I mean football (or sports in general) used to be a method to ensure a future (via college) when the alternative was living a hard life following “in pop’s shoes”. Now-a-days there are football factories for kids as small as 10 (100’s of kids at practices throughout the year, with multiple coaches at all positions), schools churn through players chasing “the W”, and everyone chants the mantra of “I’m gonna be a NFL supa-star!” Few realizing that is like pulling a winning lottery ticket.
I’m not naive in thinking things were always rosier in the “good ole days” but I really think the size of the college sports landscape today means there are a lot of wasted lives because no one really gives a $h!t about ensuring a kid graduates (notice I didn’t say “makes the grades”)
LikeLike
Hmm. The Big TwEast looked a little better with UConn basketball, but let’s see what we’re left with:
TCU
Louisville
Cincy
USF
Mizzou/WFV – whichever one the SEC doesn’t take
Baylor
KU
KSU
ISU
Then maybe you add three more from:
Air Force
BYU
Boise
ECU
Houston
Memphis
UCF
LikeLike
Nicely played by the ACC. Take the 2 schools from the Big East that ND likes the most for football/basketball. Do so in surprising fashion, catching even ND off guard. Along with BC, the ACC now has three teams that ND schedules fairly often (albeit obviously not to USC/Navy/Mich level). Sitting at 14 and talking UConn/Rutgers now puts the ball in ND’s court. For that reason, I just don’t see the ACC adding those two schools for a while. A UConn/ND add would be pretty significant way to conclude:
North: ND, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Maryland, Virginia, Va Tech, UConn
South: Miami, FSU, Clemson, Ga Tech, NC 4
LikeLike
The B1G needs to add Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma and Mizzou all at once – sooner rather than later. It will be a victory for the four schools and the conference. The Big Ten will hold the premier programs in most of the nation’s top TV markets.
School (Primary Rival/Protected Inter-Divisional)
Indiana (Purdue/Michigan State)
Notre Dame (Penn State/Texas)
Penn State (Notre Dame/Ohio State)
Purdue (Indiana/Michigan)
Iowa (Nebraska/Minnesota)
Nebraska (Iowa/Wisconsin)
Oklahoma (Texas/Missouri)
Texas (Oklahoma/Notre Dame)
Illinois (Missouri/Northwestern)
Minnesota (Wisconsin/Iowa)
Missouri (Illinois/Oklahoma)
Wisconsin (Minnesota/Nebraska)
Michigan (Ohio State/Purdue)
Michigan State (Northwestern/Indiana)
Northwestern (Michigan State/Illinois)
Ohio State (Michigan/Penn State)
LikeLike
School (Primary Rival/Protected Inter-Divisional)
EAST
Indiana (Purdue/Michigan State)
Notre Dame (Penn State/Texas)
Penn State (Notre Dame/Ohio State)
Purdue (Indiana/Michigan)
SOUTH
Iowa (Nebraska/Minnesota)
Nebraska (Iowa/Wisconsin)
Oklahoma (Texas/Missouri)
Texas (Oklahoma/Notre Dame)
WEST
Illinois (Missouri/Northwestern)
Minnesota (Wisconsin/Iowa)
Missouri (Illinois/Oklahoma)
Wisconsin (Minnesota/Nebraska)
NORTH
Michigan (Ohio State/Purdue)
Michigan State (Northwestern/Indiana)
Northwestern (Michigan State/Illinois)
Ohio State (Michigan/Penn State)
LikeLike
OK might have an OSU problem. Otherwise, I think I agree with you, but I don’t think the BIG Presidents are up to it. IMO, they are all expansioned-out.
One thing to remember about this is that TX’ attractiveness to ND is BASED on their independence…actually being a a LEAGUE with those bastards might not be as attractive.
LikeLike
Notre Dame wants to play ‘neutral’ site games in the Texas area with Texas. I expect them to continue to continue this plan even if they join a conference.
LikeLike
You know a part me is thinking ‘Delaney you sly fox, you got the ACC to pressure ND for you by NOT expanding into the east coast” All you had to do was let the ACC rape and pillage the husk of the Big East. Now if OU and OST bolt to the Pac without texas that leaves the B1G in a better (still slim chance) of nabbing the 2 remaining kings on the board.
If Texas does not bend on the LHN for the Pac then i see the Pac expanding without texas.
I still dont see Texas to the ACC…..
A part of me just wishes we could fast forward 6 months to a year and see where everything is when the dust settles.
LikeLike
You think this will all be over in a year? We’re just getting started.
LikeLike
It is amazing how quickly things change. The talk was about carving up the ACC and now, between the higher buyout and new teams, it’s possible there isn’t a single team who would leave for either the Big Ten or SEC.
This definitely changes the northeast balance. Before, the Big Ten had 1 northeast team, the ACC had 1, and the Big East had 4 (5 if you count West Virginia, but I don’t). Now the Big Ten still has 1, the ACC has 3 and the Big East has 2. If the ACC goes for the last two, that is a big leg up for them long term. Penn State is still a bigger name than any of the rest, but long term playing in a Midwestern conference is going to dilute its influence in the northeast compared to teams that play several regional games. I hope the Big Ten doesn’t expand further, but I can understand why they’d want to be closely looking at Rutgers and UConn right now.
LikeLike
Frank and at least one other poster (now who was that?) always said the ACC was going to emerge intact….
I think this ACC move causes serious intermediate issues for the BIG.
For 10 years, PSU asked (reasonably, I feel) for an eastern partner. The BIG just blew them off.
The ACC moves makes them far more attractive for both ND and PSU. With respect to ND, BC and Pitt atre long-time rivals, Syr , Miami and several of the old ACC teams are sometimes rivals. ND’s BE ties have been dimished. ND’s overall athletic program was already too strong for the remainder of the leagu. The ACC’s olympic sports ratings are excellent (although) Pitt and Syr actually diminish them a bit in that regard). Most importantly, Pitt and Syr are institutional fits with ND—very good undergrad education, somewhat selective, relatively small (Pitt at 28000 or so is a “tweener”, but SYR is relatively small, and private).
With respect to PSU, PSU fans have to start asking why they are in the BIG and not the ACC. PSU’s alum and student connections are primarily to the east and se, as is its recruiting base, and all of its historic rivals. Only $ and institutional fit (size) tie them to the BIG. These are big considerations for sure, but I wonder about PSU and the BIG in the long-term. For these reasons, I think the BIG needs to stop dicking around and add Rutgers and MO………
Perfect is the enemy of the possible. TX is not coming to the BIG guys. Powers, their President, hates the idea of the BIG for TX, and there’s no evidence to think Dodds feels otherwise. It ain’t going to happen, just as Carolina, MD, FSU, Miami et al were never going to happen.
LikeLike
The only two schools that made sense for the Big Ten from the start to pair with Penn State were Rutgers and Maryland. Pitt didn’t make sense because the Big Ten already has Pennsylvania.
This move by the ACC changes almost nothing for Penn State or the Big Ten other than taking Maryland entirely off the table (when the odds there were previously extremely low anyways).
LikeLike
Pitt was only going to come if ND wanted them as part of a 2 or 4 team expansion. They would have worked out fine in that scenerio……..
I agree that Pitt to the ACC isn’t a loss for the BIG in and of itself, but I don’t like the way this is shaping up….
LikeLike
And our resident mycanid steps off the path of reason into the void.
If you NEED to add Rutgers and/or Missouri then your conference is in a world of hurt.
The B1G is not in a world of hurt.
PSU is not joining the ACC.
LikeLike
Texas ain’t coming to the Big Ten because the Big Ten won’t budge on the ‘Tech’ problem and they don’t see Oklahoma as much of a prize if it comes with OSU baggage (imo I agree, OU is pretty overrated in terms of ratings other than when they play Texas)…
Getting Texas & Oklahoma would be great but not at the expense of only getting one good academic school of the four. Pac 12 is going to cave in for Texas more than the Big Ten; you saw that when they reached to pickup Utah and Colorado while the Big Ten added a ‘king’ in Nebraska.
LikeLike
And the Pac’s alternatives were…….?
I think they (assuming it does happen) got what they were looking for.
LikeLike
“Only $ and institutional fit (size) tie them to the BIG.”
Um. Research? Academics?
LikeLike
The Big Ten’s goal here is still ND + Rutgers to 14. Pitt/Syracuse to the ACC doesn’t change that.
Obviously, if Rutgers goes to the ACC (in a move to 16), that will dramatically changes things since it will be obvious to everyone that we’re going to have 3 14-16 team conferences at least.
LikeLike
If you’re not going to add both MO and Rutgers, at least add Rutgers now (or let them know you’re keeping a spot open for them).
Most of the Rutgers fans would favor the BIG over the ACC at this point. Rutgers looks more like a BIG school, and they are somewhat leery of the elitism of some of the smaller ACC schools….but they don’t want to be left out and will jump at an ACC offer if one from the BIG is not coming.
Right now, I suspect the BIG presidents are weery of all this expansion stuff, and not ready to do anything that doesn’t involve ND. These guys have never thought like robber barons…..they are mostly institutional fit guys are are fat and cozy where things presently stand………
LikeLike
I see what you’re saying, and all I’m saying is that Pitt was never on the expansion list for the Big Ten unless ND wanted them as a partner in the Big Ten. Pitt has always made more sense to the ACC. Syracuse to me was the same.
Rutgers makes sense though to be Penn State’s eastern partner. The problem is that unless it ensures that ND is coming, I don’t see Delany going for it…
LikeLike
From my perspective, ND isn’t the issue there. The issue is the long-term viability of PSU in the BIG.
If Rutgers goes to the ACC, that’s going to be an issue down the road…….you can quote me on that in 5 years………
LikeLike
I don’t understand how any of this changes Penn State’s position in the Big Ten. Yes it’s an east coast school, but all media rights are owned by the Big Ten for at least the next 15-20 years, so Penn State is going nowhere unless it wants to leave its T1/T2 rights behind…
LikeLike
Agree with Zeek. PSU could, in theory, look longingly at the ACC. But how does anyone recommend a revenue cut? How do you finance all those other Olympic Sports? And if Rutgers is all it takes to keep PSU happy, they can be team number 16 in 2016. What’s the hurry?
LikeLike
The hurry is that Rutgers isn’t going to wait around to 2016, IF it has the ACC option……putting them on indefnate hold won’t work, imo.
LikeLike
zeek, what do you mean by “all media rights are controlled by the BIG for at least 15-20 years’…are you saying PSU can’t move it’s media rights? If so, I don’t think that’s correct……….
LikeLike
mushroomgod, since the 80s, the Big Ten schools have assigned most of their media rights to the conference for a period of 20-25 years. The Pac-12 just started doing it.
The Big Ten renewed its 20-25 year ownership of the T1/T2 media rights of the schools in 2007. There was an NYT article referencing this fact. So unless Penn State plans to leave those rights its assigned to the conference behind for the next 20 years, it’s going nowhere…
LikeLike
Can anyone esle confirm this…………?
LikeLike
mushroomgod:
I can’t say I’ve seen it as regards the B1G, but something along those lines did catch my eye in the link to the Pac rules posted when there was discussion regarding how many votes it took to admit a new member.
LikeLike
‘If some form of equal revenue sharing is agreed upon now, then the Big 12 will probably have to show that its dysfunctional family will not be in therapy again next year. One sure way to do that is to have members sign a grant of rights to media properties.
The Big Ten and Pac-12 members have signed grants of rights, which basically give all of the television rights from each university’s sports to the conference for a specified number of years. If a member switches conferences, the rights cannot be transferred.
The Big Ten has had this arrangement since 1988, the year before Commissioner Jim Delany arrived. The Pac-12 members did so, soon after Scott took office.
In a phone interview on Friday, Delany said the Big Ten had extended the grant of rights in 2007 for either 20 or 25 years. That he could not remember says a lot about how secure the league is. When the Big 12 situation is settled, it will make sense for the A.C.C. and the Big East to push their members to make such a commitment.
“Only two leagues have it,” Delany said. “There are more than two stable conferences. It’s a chicken-and-egg thing. You do it not to become stable, but you do it because you are stable.”’
So, until 2027 or 2032 at the earliest, the Big Ten controls all of Penn State’s television rights. Pretty sure, that’d cost hundreds of millions to undo if they tried to leave the conference… (not that they’re even remotely close to considering anything like that).
LikeLike
I agree. Pitt and SU never made B1G sense.
LikeLike
Elitism? Rutgers is an Ivy that doesn’t play in the Ivy!
LikeLike
True that. They and William & Mary are the only Colonial Colleges not in the Ivy League
LikeLike
Lol @ Rutgers. The Big 10 is becoming the monopoly player with a lot of cash from getting all 4 railroads (BTN), the utilities (the intangibles), and hotels on the oranges. Looking pretty by jumping out to the big lead. A lot of cash, but no other place to build hotels. And now the other opponents are starting to trade (i.e. expansion). They’ll start building houses and hotels too.
Rutgers will give the Big 10 one of the light blue properties. And with Syracuse and BC (“vermont ave”) in the ACC, with UConn (“connecticut ave,” to keep things simple) to possibly follow, hotels aren’t going in there anytime soon.
LikeLike
That’s a pretty damn good analogy……
Those light blue properties are pretty valuable if you get ALL of them.
LikeLike
Begs the question – what is UT? Can’t be community chest, maybe chance?
LikeLike
I don’t know, but Notre Dame is free parking. Everyone wants to land there. Nobody is sure why. Most people I know give out money for landing on free parking. That’s not in the rules though. It’s a valuable property all the same. Nobody really knows why. And it doesn’t fit with any of the other properties.
ESPN is “Go.”
Chance: “Your favorite booster announces from prison that he bought strippers for players, Pay $150.”
Community Chest: “Your favorite donor donated $3,000,000 to name the new practice facility after himself, collect $20 from each player.”
Can we create this game already???
LikeLike
yeah everyone thinks Boardwalk (NJ) is the best property to own but you can get a better ROI with Illinois Ave, New York Ave, B&O RR and the Reading (PA) RR. Pick up the utilities for cash flow…
LikeLike
Notre Dame means huge ratings, even when they play Army, Navy, Connecticut, Boston College, Purdue… Enormous ratings when they played Michigan last week…
They are a home run addition to any and every conference. They’ve got a ton of leverage and value their independence above all. They’ll be the last ones to hold out and eventually join a conference but only after the new bowl agreements essentially force them too, which is what insiders are saying are part of this four 14-16 team super conference plan.
LikeLike
Again, University of Texas and ESPN, Inc. are not sweating this one bit.
Texas will simply become a media company for the University of Texas System. The Longhorn Network will load up its live events inventory:
1. At least 8 Texas football games
2. At least 6 Texas-San Antonio football games
3. At least 6 Texas-Arlington football games when (not if) Arlington adds football
4. At least 6 Texas-El Paso football games when (not if) UTEP leaves Conference USA
5. Hosting rights and TV rights for the Longhorn Network for all conference baseball, softball, and Olympic sports tournaments
6. TV rights for the Longhorn Network for all men’s and women’s basketball tournament games that don’t air on the ESPN Networks
7. 51% share of the conference’s basketball TV revenue.
==
The new Texas-centric Western Athletic Conference
WAC West
Idaho
Seattle (non-football)
San Jose State
Utah State
Denver (non-football)
New Mexico State
WAC South
Texas (non-football)
Texas-Arlington (will eventually add football)
Texas-San Antonio
Texas-El Paso
Texas State
Louisiana Tech
Texas can fulfill its 4-game WAC football requirement by hosting Texas-San Antonio, Texas-El Paso, Texas State, and Texas-Arlington.
==
Texas will be able to play a national schedule in football, with trips every two years to Yankee Stadium (vs Army), Fed Ex Field (vs Navy), and either Los Angeles or the San Francisco Bay Area (vs USC, UCLA, Cal, or Stanford).
Texas will still be able to play Oklahoma and Texas A&M every year.
Hypothetical Texas football schedule as an independent:
Week 1: tune up vs Rice or Sun Belt conference opponent – Longhorn Network
Week 2: vs local WAC opponent (UTSA or Texas State) – Longhorn Network
Week 3: vs PAC opponent from California (USC, UCLA, Cal, or Stanford)
Week 4: Navy (alternating between Austin and Fed Ex Field) – Longhorn Network
Week 5: Oklahoma (at Fair Park in Dallas or at Cowboy Stadium)
Week 6: vs WAC Opponent – Longhorn Network
Week 7: Notre Dame (alternating between Austin, South Bend, and neutral sites such as Soldier Field in Chicago)
Week 8: vs WAC Opponent – Longhorn Network
Week 9: BYU – Longhorn Network
Week 10: Army (alternating between Austin and Yankee Stadium) – Longhorn Network
Week 11: vs WAC opponent – Longhorn Network
Week 12: BYE
Week 13: Texas A&M (Thanksgiving Thursday night)
LikeLike
Do you work in the WAC front office or something? It’s been said here and elsewhere numerous times that there is no way UT will NEVER put its non-football sports in a mid-major under any circumstances.
LikeLike
Do you work in the WAC front office or something? It’s been said here and elsewhere numerous times that there is no way UT will EVER put its non-football sports in a mid-major. Period.
LikeLike
ND is still the best bet for B1G penetration into the northeast/NYC markets, isn’t it? I don’t see how Rutgers or UConn makes much of a dent. Nonetheless, here are a few questions for everyone:
(1) Does the ACC move w/Pitt & ‘Cuse make a UT/ND pairing more or less likely?
(2) If more, will it mean they go to the ACC or B1G?
(3) Does UT still have a TTech problem?
(4) If so, does it make a move for the two less likely, or does it make a move to the PAC more likely than the ACC? (The second part is pretty easy, I think)
(5) Will Congress step in to prevent the formation of a bizarre “Who’s Left” conference drawn from:
Boise, BYU, TTech, TCU, Baylor, Iowa State, KU, KSU, UH, Rice, Louisville, Cincinnati, Missouri,
etc.?
Please keep your answers brief.
LikeLike
I think Syracuse/Pitt makes an ND/Texas pairing extremely unlikely because of the Tech problem (yes that’s still around, and the ACC/Big Ten want nothing to do with it) and the fact that the ACC probably doesn’t feel like it has to give a sweetheart deal to them anymore.
I think this makes it more likely that Texas ends up in the Pac-16 (with TTech) due to the fact that it likely has no other landing spot and more likely that ND ends up in the ACC, since it has always seen itself as an East Coast school.
Congress has no power here. The 4 power conferences will be way beyond anything else on the landscape.
LikeLike
How can you say Congress won’t be a problem? Congress pushed the addition of more BCS non-AQ teams. Congress helped push Utah to the P10. Congress will most definitely have its say if the likes of Idaho, WV, Kansas, MO, etc. get shut out of the super conferences or the BCS. Congress won’t dictate which schools end up where, but they will definitely have their hand in the process.
Regarding PSU – that would be something if PSU ended up in the ACC as the 16th school in a few years. But really hard to see that happening. We are forgetting how much more money and prestige the B10 has. It is for that reason why ND and UT will end up in the B10. To say that ND has more in common with the ACC is just not true. By far, ND has more in common with the B10 than any other conference in the things that really matter – geography and historical football hierarchy.
LikeLike
Congress did not push Utah into the Pac. They were a perfectly acceptable U in their own right, and enabled the Pac to get to 12 (CCG) when UT scuttled the move to 16 last year. If cause needs to be assigned I’d say UT pushed Utah into the Pac.
LikeLike
If anything the strongest argument is probably that the 2002 winter Olympics are what pushed Utah to the Pac-X.
LikeLike
Congress had absolutely nothing to do with Utah moving to the PAC. Utah was always Scott’s backup plan to bring along with Colorado if the Texas quintet backed out.
(And for the record there is very little Congress can do about this. There is no way 60 Senators are going to go to war with the NCAA in order to protect the Baylors and ISUs of the world)
LikeLike
Only takes one committee chairman. What if the head of the agriculture committee that gets involved in research grants is from Iowa? Think A&M will do real well there if Iowa St. is in the CUSA?
LikeLike
Do you really think he’d be willing to screw over Iowa (the school) in the process? That’s the thing to remember. The more powerful schools are the ones that going to be taken care of.
LikeLike
He doesn’t have to screw Iowa, merely schools like A&M & Oklahoma St (assuming its agriculture), or several others if it is broader based.
A politician can’t neglect one school when that school has nearly as many alumni as the name school. And he might be an alum of Iowa St. or Kansas St. or Baylor.
LikeLike
1 and 2. My guess is that the ACC wouldn’t want to take on both TX and ND w/o their football programs. I don’t see both joining to be full members. So the anwser, imo, is that it makes TX and ND to the BIG slightly more likely, but that it won’t ever happen because TX has very limited interest in the BT.
3. Yes, but it’s a different problem than TT being a clinger..,..the need is from TX’ end. They need someone else to join them in the ACC or BIG. I’ve thought NEB and MO in the BIG would be somewhat attractive to them, but apparently not.
4. I still think they’ll go to the PAC, and the LHN will somehow be converted within the PAC tv plan……and they’ll do that kicking and sctreaming……
5. No….they’ll be some blowhards and threats that might slow down or even stop the process, but it won’t be a formal thing……..
LikeLike
gas1958,
(1) I don’t think it makes the pairing more likely because I don’t see these two coexisting in the same conference (imo). I do think these two will keep each other apprised of their thoughts and intentions to an extent.
(2) Neither. I think ND believes an invitation will always be there from the BIG, so it’s something taken for granted. Usually, those things lose value over time. I don’t know what or where Texas is headed. I don’t know what their thoughts are right now, or what their end game will be.
(3) Yes and no.
(4) If Tech prevents Texas from realizing the full value of the LHN, then I believe the “Tech” problem goes away, which is where things are headed.
(5) I don’t think Congress will step in to help form a conference for the schools left out, but I do think the tax exempt status of the athletic departments will generate a huge debate. These are large sums of money being discussed received by schools and conferences. Given the current recession and the number of states facing significant budget deficits, if I’m a senator or a house member, I’m thinking about making sure my state benefits too. Athletic departments are operating like mini corporations with no tax penalty…
LikeLike
So you think that politicians would want to be seen as killing secondary sports? Taxing schools athletics departments will only lead to the athletic departments being forced to cut programs.
Actually, that may not concern a lot of politicians. They don’t seem big on envisioning unintended consequences.
LikeLike
It probably wouldn’t concern a lot of academics either…to be honest there are many who would see that as a fringe benefit.
LikeLike
1-1 less option so it makes Pac for UT or UT/ND to B1G both more likely
2-ACC less likely
3-probably still a Tech problem
4-Pac more likely
5-Congress, if it steps in, would promote the “Who’s left” conference.
LikeLike
1. slightly less
2. ND *more* likely to the ACC, Tejas less.
3. Probably
4. PAC over ACC or Big Whatever
5. No
LikeLike
Pac TV plan is set up to make money, which means the % of Content distributed will be adjusted according to the local market. In Texas that would mean basically a Longhorn dominated programming in DFW/SA/Houston and almost 100% in Austin with probably a 50/50 mix in West Texas and probably 80% TTU programming in Lubbock. The PacTV Texas while shared in name would still be a defacto Longhorn Network in the state of Texas. Let’s face it LHN would have failed as a national network anyway.
From comments from the the ACC people like coach K and the Maryland AD – looks like the ACC is looking east for expansion, they specifically want teams in the EST and that fit the cultural and academic profile and play decent football and really good basketball. So this means UConn is likely and probably Rutgers.
LikeLike
Many in the ACC are still sore at Connecticut for the lawsuit in 2003, and Boston College in particular will do all it can to ensure it retains New England ACC exclusivity. So UConn is not a lead-pipe cinch; the ACC will do all it can to make folks in Storrs twist in the wind, perhaps even deciding to admit Temple alongside Rutgers.
LikeLike
Temple actually could make sense more than either. Philly market. No real conflict there.
Query… assuming for the sake of it that ND would go to the ACC as #15 if it could pick #16, who would ND pick? UConn? Rutgers? Temple? Navy? Other?
LikeLike
If I was the ACC, I’d take ND-Rutgers in a move to 16. Navy wouldn’t join because I don’t think it makes sense for either side (or ND) to try to force Navy to compete with huge athletics departments when that’s not its business.
As for Temple, they couldn’t cut it in the Big East, so it’s hard to see them as a viable option for the ACC.
It basically comes down to ND-Rutgers or ND-UConn. I think ND-Rutgers is the obvious choice. New Jersey is a bigger market, they have a huge alumni base; proximity to NYC is a plus for bringing your teams to NYC, etc.
LikeLike
The question is who would ND want?
From the ACC perspective, the coin flip between UConn and Rutgers is one thing. Frankly, I think the ACC should want UConn more. Equal access to NYC and top-notch hoops. Football performance is a wash, as UConn’s hiring of Pasqualoni promises to drop them down to Rutgers level soon enough.
LikeLike
@ EZCUSE
Nobody. They’d love to join the conference with no one else; they’d keep all their money.
LikeLike
Temple couldn’t cut it then because the Big East treated it as an adjunct member, and it really had no legitimacy. Make Temple a full-fledged member of the ACC — with its solid basketball program joining football — and it suddenly gains recognition as the real deal in Philadelphia, likely replacing Villanova as the city’s top hoops brand.
I’m not claiming by any means that Temple is a “sleeping giant,” but the Big East has effectively isolated it into a stepchild over the past three decades. Making it an honest-to-goodness BCS school, and it no longer underperforms.
Temple plus Rutgers to the ACC weakens both Connecticut (to the advantage of Boston College) and Villanova.
LikeLike
I think the Big 10 HAS to consider at least 1 easternish school for Penn State. I thought that was going to be Syracuse but it appears that ship has sailed
LikeLike
I’ve said for a while now that if Texas has to take Tech with them, the Pac-whatever is their only option. The B1G & SEC will not consider Tech and the ACC almost certainly won’t, for the same reasons as the B1G. It’s financial dilution for all of them & academically unacceptable to the ACC & B1G.
If Texas has to take the LHN with them, that eliminates the B1G right off the bat. The B1G simply will not compromise on this and I don’t know why it’s that hard of a concept. The ACC compromising on it was always a bit odd, as FSU or UNC/Duke do not get such special treatment. The PAC has always seemed at least SOMEWHAT open to the idea, which is important in negotiations. If the other side won’t take an essential point no matter what, you can’t get started.
You can of course also triple-rule-out the SEC due to interest. Texas has never wanted to go to the SEC. That’s never even been rumored. They shot it down in flames last time they moved and nothing at all has changed as far as they are concerned.
So if you eliminate the SEC for sake of reality and eliminate the B1G & ACC for Tech/LHN reasons, a Texas that cannot shed its baggage has no choice but to go to the PAC. They’ll take academically useless Little Brothers and work with a “regional” network structure.
–
I don’t think the B1G will expand at all without Texas unless its Notre Dame with a “pair” school for an even number (Missouri or Rutgers). They don’t want anything the ACC or SEC is taking from the Big East except for a fantasy Rutgers that gets the BTN on NJ/NYC TV. Pitt was financial dilution and Syracuse was junk in football; West Virginia is unacceptable academically & financially.
LikeLike
Wasn’t President Powers the one who had to be talked out of the move to the Pac last summer? If, as suggested, the BOR gives him authority to make the move without further BOR meetings I think I know what destination I’d place a small wager on.
LikeLike
A few afternoon thoughts:
-16 team conferences are not an inevitability and they are not a requirement. At no point is some all-powerful entity going to approach the Big Ten and say “You didn’t add Rutgers when you had the chance. You must be at 16 teams, so here’s Toledo”.
-I am highly skeptical of Congress removing the non-profit tax exemption on schools. I would love to be the Senator who goes to Iowa State and has this conversation:
“Good news. We’ve starting taxing athletic departments to punish those schools that left you behind.”
“We have an athletic department that was already strapped for cash. Now we have to pay taxes as well??”
Expansion has actually happened, so the expansion board has gone down again…
LikeLike
Yep. B1G can stay at 12 forever.
And nobody can say that 16 is the end-game either. It could be 18 or 20 or 24.
I think 9 is the perfect number. 8 football conference games, 4 H, 4 A. 16 basketball conference games, true round robin with H/A.
18 may be the next perfect number. Same as 9 with football, only within the division. And then 17 games for basketball–true round robin. Plus, maybe one rivalry game with a H/A, and then 8 H and 8 A against the remaining 16.
But 14 probably is even better. Play the 6 division opponents in football, plus 2 from the other division (get to play everyone every 4 years). For hoops. play division opponents twice (12) and other division once (7) for a total of 19. A big high, but workable.
LikeLike
The weakness of going beyond 14 is that you become either a confederation in pod form or two divisions that are basically nearly conferences (i.e. Pac-8/SWC approach for Pac-16).
18 basically is just two conferences of 9, so I don’t see that as a perfect number. 20 might actually be the next perfect number beyond 16, but how are any of these conferences going to get to 20…
LikeLike
I agree about the inevitability of 16 team conferences, especially for the B1G. They’ll happily sit at 12 unless/until ND or Tx (minus the LHN) decide they want to join. I’ll still argue that 16 team conferences are inherently unstable. The B1G doesn’t want to be the guinea pig to prove that [in]correct.
As much as I’d love to see WVU (being an alum) land somewhere like the SEC I doubt that will happen either. I think they and the other football teams in the BigEast need to leave – the hybrid nature of the conference will continue to hinder the growth of the football side of things. They should probably join the Big XII, but insist that it becomes a new conference (much like the ex-SWC insisted that the Big XII not be an extension of the Big 8) and ditch the current Big XII management. The only issue there would be can the new entity secure an AQ bid.
I’d go with 10-12 teams to start, with some room for expansion once things solidify a little:
WVU
Cincinnati
Louisville
S Florida
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa St
Butler
TCU
Boise St
BYU
I guess I should add Rutgers and UConn, but since the ACC has said they’re on their expansion list force their hand. Plus, they’re too far away from the geographic center of the new conference. If the conference wants to expand at a later date there are other options.
LikeLike
Doh, that should have read *don’t* agree with the inevitability of a 16 team conference.
LikeLike
Butler? That perennial FB powerhouse?? Do you mean Baylor?
LikeLike
DOH! You are correct. Baylor.
LikeLike
With Pitt and Syracuse gone to the ACC, the Big Ten is forced to move to take Rutgers (or assure them that their application will be accepted). All of the due diligence in B1G and at Rutgers has already be completed and the (pre)application was made over a year ago. Assuming things have not changed, at least one Rutgers B1G home game per year will be at Giants stadium.
Apart from RU’s excellent cultural fit as a big state flagship and excellent academics/research (right in the middle of the current B1G profile), the NJ/NYC/Phil markets are (obviously) too important to ignore if one is playing a 50 year game. Put another way, letting the ACC grab (sans Temple?) every significant D-1 large school in the NE not named PSU is unacceptable. Thinking like a university president — if the ACC schools are off the table. Rutgers is now the sole remaining option in the entire east of the country with the research/academic pedigree wanted for membership in the CIC.
The big strategy has been hashed out in Frankthetank many times. If the Atlantic coast is off the table, what is the strategy? Go south? (Texas + Missouri +? Miami). A southern strategy seems very hard to execute now with the ACC moves.
Would you hang your entire access to the East coast on ND (+PSU) for the next two generations? For those that argue RU is irrelevant in NYC, how many seats get sold in the Meadowlands (~ 15 mi from Manhattan) for RU vs. Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio State, etc? There are a lot of B1G graduates in the Tri-state area.
I think it is highly likely RU is a B1G member in the near future. In any case, the tell will be clear enough in the next few weeks. If RU is not announcing a move to the ACC then it is only because a B1G invite is in the bag. RU fits very well with the academic elite of the ACC (UNC, Duke, UVa, UMd, and now Pitt and Syracuse). UConn — not so much. There is no argument against the ACC not making the move to lock up the NE if they can.
Things are quiet now because Texas has not made a decision. When they do (tomorrow?!), the rest of the moves will play out in short order.
LikeLike
Nebraska is a HR for the B1G, but at the end of the day will it seem that way? After announcing a plan to expand…
The SEC got A&M and someone.
The Pac-10 went to 16, with Oklahoma and Texas.
The ACC went to 14 with Pitt and Syracuse, and is set up nicely to add ND someday, but most importantly solidified their internal relationship to prevent poaching. Don’t think for a second that the adds of Pitt and Syracuse were not at least partially to keep Maryland and the Virginia schools happy. North will make more sense than Coastal.
And now the B1G is looking at Rutgers. Taking Rutgers over the Big East schools is defensible. But, when the others are gone, taking Rutgers is going to look like a marriage between two 36-year olds that “want kids and aren’t getting any older.” You can say it’s love, but it sure seems like Plan B.
LikeLike
EZCUSE,
Do you think this is only about football? B1G and CIC are much more than that.
LikeLike
B1G ain’t taking Rutgers, Michael Cole’s wishes be damned.
B1G is going to remain #1 in per-school revenues for the foreseeable future, so I don’t care if their expansion is not viewed as “the best” by the public.
LikeLike
Greg,
Do you really think the goal is to maximize athletic revenues/school? If so, over what time frame?
This game has several dimensions.
LikeLike
According to whom? Please share this set of rules the “game” is being played by.
The best I can tell, everyone is trying to maximize their financial returns while staying (somewhat) true to their guiding principles.
TV deals – money
TV households – money
larger markets – money
better ratings – money
fewer conferences leading to leverage – money
LikeLike
Brian,
“while staying true to their guiding principles”
Yes — these are rules too. For example, a near requirement for peer institutions. That should not be underestimated. Most of the readers here understand that implicitly.
CIC synergy is also part of the money equation for university presidents.
B1G is both an athletic and research/academic conference. That is a significant difference with the other conferences (the ACC is closest to B1G in this regard).
My point in the previous posts is just that if B1G wants to expand the athletic footprint with peer institutions, the available options are down to exactly one (Rutgers) in the eastern half of the country if one thinks the ACC and SEC cannot be raided. When Texas moves, the in the western half of the country there are zero schools, unless one believes the Pac16 can be raided. (or Rice is a viable option).
If B1G is willing to accept good institutions that are at/below the current bottom of the conference membership, then there are a couple of acceptable markers left on the table – Missouri, Iowa State, Kansas (maybe), and … that’s about it.
ND remains the outlier — a Hamlet.
I think there has been so much (enlightened) discussion on this board that it is hard for people to acknowledge the conference alignment end game relevant to the Big Ten is happening right now.
LikeLike
michael,
I fail to see where you’re adding any dimensions. Conferences having academic standards isn’t a dimension added to the game, it’s a restriction on the movements of certain conferences.
Besides, the only academics over money decisions the B10 could have made are saying no to OU by itself, or not accepting little brothers (TT, OKSU) to get OU or UT. I’m not sure how far they would bend on the LHN question, but we don’t know that to be the reason UT isn’t joining the B10. Nobody else that was going to make them money (i.e., not BE and ACC schools) was at all interested (ND, TAMU).
LikeLike
Brian,
If you are happier seeing these as constraints on the process of optimizing athletic revenue, I’m OK with that. Beyond that, this has become a discussion about semantics.
To summarize:
Suppose UT is gone to the PAC_N.
Assume the SEC, PAC, ACC cannot be raided.
Then:
If B1G is looking to add D1 schools with the academic/research pedigree of the existing members (and I treat Nebraska as the outlier), there is exactly _one_ school left in the country.
Of course, ND is the sole exception to the academic/research pedigree constraint. A few other options are available if the constraint on academic/research prestige is relaxed to allow significantly weaker additions (MU,KU,ISU).
LikeLike
Michael,
The point is that those other schools wouldn’t add anything anyway. The B10 isn’t harmed by not adding KU or MO unless you believe the B10 has to reach 16 no matter what.
The only schools that would add value are ND, UT, OU and TAMU, and none of them seem all that interested or wanted major concessions (little brothers, TV deals, etc).
LikeLike
EZCUSE,
Nebraska is a HR for the B1G, but at the end of the day will it seem that way?
Yes.
After announcing a plan to expand…
The SEC got A&M and someone.
Assuming facts not in evidence. TAMU hasn’t even left the B12 (yet), let alone joined the SEC. And the generic “someone” is hard to argue against since they could be anyone. How do we know “someone” provides anything other than an even number of schools to the SEC?
The Pac-10 went to 16, with Oklahoma and Texas.
Assuming facts not in evidence. Texas has talked to every AQ conference with the possible exception of the BE. How many times have we heard a deal is “imminent” for UT to move somewhere, yet they remain in the B12? Nobody gets to count UT as a member until UT signs on the dotted line. OU is still in the B12 as well. In addition, you don’t list the P12 taking OkSU and TT presumably, which dilutes the value of the growth.
Get back to me when this isn’t all hypothetical, Chicken Little.
LikeLike
Brian,
TAMU has already submitted its resignation to the Big 12. They have yet to receive an unconditional acceptance from the SEC. So in effect they have left the Big 12, they do not have a definite, but likely landing spot in the SEC.
LikeLike
aTm has not left the B12. Their letter was conditional on being accepted by another conference. That has not happened.
LikeLike
I stand corrected.
“The statement from Texas A&M University President R. Bowen Loftin after the school officially notified the Big 12 Conference on Wednesday that it will end its membership effective June 30, 2012, if it is accepted by another league:”
LikeLike
What’s wrong with staying at 12? Still plenty of money, less watered down, and an easier path to the championship game.
Some of you people have too much expansion fever.
LikeLike
Michael Cole,
With Pitt and Syracuse gone to the ACC, the Big Ten is forced to move to take Rutgers (or assure them that their application will be accepted).
No, they aren’t forced to do anything.
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s 0-2 start and their complete irrelevance in the BCS discussion for more years than I remember has to weigh on the average fan’s mind w/r/t conference. OK. so ND is out of the BCS discussion right now and will have a very tough time getting back into it.
But, if they were in the B1G or ACC, they would have a conference championship to aim for and an automatic BCS bid (not to mention a whole bunch of bowl options other than their usual feast or famine).
I know they LOVE their independence, but it seems to be costing them year-in year-out, and I wonder if the average fan wouldn’t like to play for a conference championship and a bid to Outback, Citrus, CapOne should they have a so-so season.
LikeLike
According to those average fans, no they wouldn’t like to play for those things.
LikeLike
Chip Brown’s latest:
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1266871
“DeLoss Dodds has told people who matter that Texas does not want to go independent and does not want to go to the Big Ten. Dodds has said the growth in the United States is south, and the Big Ten is not in the south.
It’s not a done deal, but it’s looking more and more like the Pac-12 with a modified version of the Longhorn Network, probably renamed as something like the Pac-12 Texas Network.”
LikeLike
The Pac-16 is basically a done deal at this point. We’re looking at a Pac-16, SEC-14 (WVU or Missouri), ACC-14, Big Ten-12, and some mix of Big East/Big 12 survivors as a 10-12 team conference.
The Big East/Big 12 hybrid is going to look like Missouri or WVU (whichever SEC doesn’t take), Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, TCU, Cincinnati, Louisville, USF, Rutgers, UConn. Maybe they invite Houston or UCF or ECU to be their 12th team.
This depends on what ND does and whether ACC stays at 14 (I think both will stay put for now).
LikeLike
Rutgers is not staying in the Big East with Pitt and Syracuse gone and UConn working hard to leave. The schism between the football and bb schools has been a basic problem in governance for a long time. The Pitt and Syracuse moves show the fault line has ruptured.
Rutgers will move now because it can. It has no reason to work to keep the Big East intact. There is no longer a peer institution in the conference. The only (football) schools that want to keep the Big East are those who have no good options. In this sense it is exactly like the Big 12 after OU, OSU, and UT are gone.
LikeLike
This is a bit of a personal pet peeve, but I get tired of people living in a growing ecological disaster (the inland Southwest) spewing this demographic Manifest Destiny crap. The region’s water supplies are very badly outmatched already and the faster it grows, the worse it gets.
LikeLike
Bingo, we have a winner.
I believe the same thing. The midwest (Great Lake states) have such an enormous amount of fresh water without touching the Great Lakes. The natural moisture out of the gulf with the air patterns that combine for enormous amount of rain/snow that fills our lakes and streams.
On the flip side, I would hope the Big Ten adds a travel partner for Penn State by adding Rutgers or Maryland (unlikely).
LikeLike
Peter,
I agree that the “everyone is fleeing to the South!!!” meme is overblown. I think everyone should be careful assuming the growth rates in the South will continue once water is on the wane and climate change likely continues to heat things up.
Even if the the growth rates continue, B1G has plenty of people and will be fine. If the ecological disaster changes things, BIG may be even better.
LikeLike
When is JD going to play the “ecological disaster” card? Does he wait for the actual disaster to strike or hype it up now….?
LikeLike
“When is JD going to play the “ecological disaster” card? Does he wait for the actual disaster to strike or hype it up now….?”
I think he missed a great opportunity with Katrina. And Irene was (literally) a gift from above in order to get in a pot shot at the ACC.
Oh well, there’ll be another disaster soon enough.
LikeLike
Most of the south has plenty of water. Tennessee alone has enormous resources. Its Arizona, Nevada and California that have issues.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Look at a current drought map. The worst category is excessively dry, and right now that includes:
Essentially all of TX (a small part is severely dry)
Most of OK (part is severely dry)
SW KS (about 22% of state, another 22% is severely dry)
SE CO (about 25%)
E NM (over 50%)
SW WY (about 15%)
S AR (about 30%)
NW LA (about 25%, another 15% is severely dry)
S GA (about 65%, another 10% is severely dry)
NW SC (about 33%, another 33% is severely dry)
S NC (about 11%, another 11% is severely dry)
Plus states that top out at severely dry:
N FL (about 50%)
SE AZ (about 67%)
Atlanta still doesn’t have a satisfactory water supply, especially with the court decisions against them. They are counting on building new reservoirs faster than demand increases as well as drastic water conservation methods (cutting over 12% of current use while growing supply about 50% in 25 years). Where the money will come from and whether they can meet their goals is questionable at best.
Water is a significant current and future issue for the south, and global warming is expected to make it worse for parts of the south. The current rate of growth is not sustainable for many of these areas in the long term.
LikeLike
Houston had something like 6 inches of rain last I checked when they average 45 inches a year. They had 30 of 31 days in August over 100 when they normally have 2 or 3 a year. That is a drought, not a water shortage.
Georgia won the appeal of the court case. Like everything else, Georgia has taken shortcuts. They will find the money if they want to build the resevoirs. Atlanta had something like 3 years with less than half of their 55 inch annual rainfall and Lake Lanier was way below norm. Then we moved here from Houston and there’s been a lot of flooding. And Houston now has a drought. Maybe Congress can pay us $20 million instead of spending on disaster relief and we can take the rain back to Houston.
Even if you firmly believe in global warming, the key factor is that weather impacts will not be predictable in the short run (50 years).
LikeLike
I actually agree with all of you that parts of the West won’t grow like they have because of water. Phoenix and Las Vegas and southern California are going to face real issues.
As for the rest, I trust the census bureau projections.
LikeLike
Every B10 state except Michigan has had real population growth from 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010. Michigan is slightly less in 2010 than 2000 but still more than 1990. MI is down 55k population out of nearly 10 million. Granted they are growing slower than many other places but the meme that people are flocking out of the midwest is more than a little overdone.
LikeLike
@Peter – It’s okay, President Perry will just open the nation’s strategic prayer reserve to bring the blessed rains to the parched lands.
LikeLike
Wow, I love that one. Perry will provide. LOL
LikeLike
Well, if you midwesterners were not a bunch of narrow-minded socialists, you still might have some growth up there.
LikeLike
Well if you southerners ever looked at the actual demographic predictions you’d realize that the ‘massive population shift’ in your region is primarily due to a large influx of immigrants. I’m sure your history of open mindedness will serve you well when your neighbors are speaking spanish.
LikeLike
… and the highest unwed teenage pregnancy rate in the nation. If southern girls ever use science instead of prayer, the pronounced demographic “shift” will lessen considerably.
LikeLike
rich2:
If you’re relying on that, then the babies will continue.
LikeLike
And you wonder why the SEC people are so united and so resent Yankees. Its not just Sherman’s march (and Sherman is still not a name to be spoken in proper company in Georgia).
LikeLike
“And you wonder why the SEC people are so united and so resent Yankees. Its not just Sherman’s march (and Sherman is still not a name to be spoken in proper company in Georgia).”
So you’re saying southerners are good at uniting and hating a large group of people based a few stereotypes? I learn something new every day.
LikeLike
growth is easy to show when you’re starting on the lower end of the scale. this looks like more or less the entire south to me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/americas-poorest-states-_n_964058.html#s362459&title=1_Mississippi
LikeLike
If the SEC adds WVU, they’ll have 8 of the “top” 9…
LikeLike
Linking the huffpo show a lack of seriousness. I read FTT to avoid discussions like this.
LikeLike
Loki,
I agree about huff, but it was the first thong that popped up on google on the issue. The numbers appear real and and relevant though. redwood was getting close to playing the hitler/Stalin card and I though some facts were in order. If I have a dollar and get another, it’s a 100 percent economic boom!
LikeLike
Just wait until the Congress comes to try and take it from us because “they need it”.
LikeLike
molon labe, baby.
LikeLike
That story read like this to me:
We had an offer to a conference with rivals OU, Tech and OSU on the table, but we decided to shop around to see if we could launch our own network. The ACC and B1G said NF(easible)W. So we ended up coming back to the table with our tail between our legs and haggled over minor concessions to save face.
But it was Tech’s fault we couldn’t get into the ACC. And we didn’t want to go to the B1G anyway– it’s the rust belt.
Sorry, try selling me another narrative, Chippy.
LikeLike
“DeLoss Dodds has told people who matter that Texas does not want to go
independent and does not want to go to the Big Ten. Dodds has said the growth in
the United States is south, and the Big Ten is not in the south.”
—Translation – “The B1G so far has not budged in regards to our demands.”
LikeLike
Reading between the lines, there is a Tech problem and a LHN issue and the B10 won’t compromise on.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6989031/uconn-huskies-aggressively-seeking-acc-move-source-says
UConn is pushing really hard for the ACC right now. We might have two 16 team conferences within a week.
LikeLike
If Pitt and Syracuse don’t dilute the TV power/football strength of the ACC, how does adding Connecticut not do the same?
LikeLike
Contrary to what most of us thought, it doesn’t seem to be that hard to financially justify 14 teams. When the BE is worth $11/million/team without bidding, it would be pretty easy for their two most valuable programs-SU and Pitt-to be worth at least as much as the ACC $13 million/team and to get ESPN to pay at least $13 million for the 2 extra.
LikeLike
Depends on the conference. It is harder for the B10 or SEC to get to 14 in a financially smart way than for the ACC.
LikeLike
Michael Cole mentions this scenario higher up, but let’s look at it more directly:
Known points
1. The ACC states that it has “philosophical objections” to 16 teams.
2. UConn really wants into the ACC.
3. Rutgers (presumably) doesn’t want to stay in the smoking crater that is the Big East.
I can think of a few explanations for these points:
A. The ACC doesn’t really want to go to 16. Possible, but unlikely based on all the statements from both Swofford and various ACC potentates.
B. Rutgers is dragging its feet, hoping for, expecting, or being told to expect a Big Ten invitation. Also possible, but would require a high value team (presumably ND or Texas) as 14 for the Big Ten.
C. The ACC hopes to go to 16, but has a different team in mind for the 16th addition, presumably either ND or Texas (or both?).
My guess is either B or C. ND seems to have been caught with its pants down on this one and is probably taking some time to consider its options.
LikeLike
Actually Swofford said this morning that the ACC is NOT philosophically opposed to a move to 16.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/
LikeLike
Yeah that’s a bad mistype…
LikeLike
If the ACC waits, what options does UConn have? ACC is probably hoping for ND at 15 like the Big 10 wants them at 13.
LikeLike
My preference for divisions in the ACC, as a fan of FSU:
South (North permanent crossover)
FSU (Miami)
Ga. Tech (Pitt)
Clemson (Va. Tech)
Wake (Syracuse)
NCSU (Maryland)
Duke (Boston College)
UNC (Virginia)
Except for Miami being in the north, it’s pretty easy to understand for any joe-schmo football fan.
Perhaps this setup would make it easy for end-of-season rivalries for everyone in the conference:
Non-conference
FSU-Florida
Ga. Tech-Georgia
Clemson-South Carolina
Pitt-West Virginia
In-Conference
Wake-Duke
UNC-NCSU
Miami-BC
Va. Tech-UVA
Maryland-Syracuse
———————————————————-
I fail to see, though, how this strengthens the ACC. Pitt and Syracuse are obviously great universities, but short of adding a “king” like Oklahoma, Texas, Notre Dame, or the ultimate long shot Penn State, there aren’t really universities that give the ACC enough leverage to renegotiate its TV contract. Heck, if the ACC’s contract language is similar to the SEC’s, adding anyone may not allow it to increase its per member payouts any more than at a pro rata basis.
This whole thing just strikes me as very bizarre and panic-driven.
LikeLike
I doubt the ACC made this move without talking to ESPN. ESPN wouldn’t have said yes, but they might not have said no. Maybe something like “look, if you add schools that add value, we’ll negotiate in good faith.”
Of course, Nobody benefits from the implosion of the Big East like the ACC and ESPN. If the Big East teams had raised the exit fee to $20M and assigned their media rights for 10 years, then they would have been sitting pretty going into the 2012 renegotiating period. Perhaps more money than the ACC. Big problem for ACC. Big East schools making more money. That could lead to schools like FSU thinking SEC or Maryland thinking Big 10.
But the Big East told ESPN “not so fast.” Big problem for ESPN. ESPN was already offering above market value. To keep the NE, they would need to outbid others. A bidding war in a seller’s market like that was not good. That would add inventory to an opponent or cause them to lose massive $$$.
Now, with the Big East weakened by the SEC talking WVU and the ACC raiding the BE, now things are looking good for ESPN. If the remaining BE goes to Fox, who cares? It is a MWC of the East. If ESPN keeps the BE, it can be hoops only and appropriately priced. If the BE dissolves, then the key components go to the Big 12. And if the Big 12 doesn’t survive this either, the amt. they agreed to pay last year suddenly goes out the window. So more $$$ for ESPN.
While ESPN could not agree in advance to offer the SEC or ACC money to do this, that does not mean that they will not at least consider some sort of re-doing of the deal to increase the shares pro rata. Someday, these schools will be up for renewal. Might as well keep them happy now.
This also hurts the Big 10 by forcing their hand with Eastern expansion… Rutgers, UConn are less of a lure for Notre Dame than Pitt or even Syracuse. And always were. ND can now sit on the fence for longer too. If the ACC is at 14, ND can use that to justify staying independent and saying no to B1G. That’s what really hurts. And if the B1G took Rutgers and UConn, that wouldn’t make a difference to ND at all, as they still have a potential home in the ACC. And if B1G took Rutgers and UConn and Missouri and said… ND… its Kansas or you… ND could STILL say no because they have an ACC out. So why would the B1G ever go beyond 12 at this point.
Instead, they are better off saying “quality over quantity” and doing nothing for now. And that seems like what is going to happen.
LikeLike
Only if Delany is willing to bet ND + PSU gets the mid-Atlantic and NE. Is it too obvious to point out ND to the B1G is not a given? The TV markets involved are #1, #4 in the country and > 20mm people. This is no small bet.
Suppose B1G says “not now” to Rutgers, but maybe if/when ND joins. You can be assured Rutgers will go to the ACC in short order. Now suppose ND eventually goes to the ACC and Texas goes to the Pac12. What is the best remaining strategy for Delany? Delany knows the university presidents will point out the the universe of CIC-worthy football/basketball schools is empty unless they are willing to admit schools at/below the bottom of the current B1G (i.e more Nebraska-level universities).
A critical aspect of cost/benefit analysis depends on the time horizon considered. One rarely has the luxury of waiting to see if the optimal outcome can be achieved.
LikeLike
ESPN just stabbed Big East in the back, but now the ACC is going to trust their “good faith”? If so, they are fools.
LikeLike
Why do you believe that Syracuse is a ‘lure’ in regards to ND? They’ve met 3 times in football since ND joined the Big East.
The only schools that ND seems to have any actual interest in are the Catholic institutions, none of which field IA/FBS football teams.
From everything I can see ND doesn’t care one whit about where Pitt ends up let alone the likes of Syracuse or Rutgers.
LikeLike
The schools are both private. Adding Syracuse to the ACC means that the ACC now has a nice chunk of private schools. The B1G only has one.
It’s not like these schools are going to carpool to the mall of be best buddies. But when you are looking at being competitive, ND is a private school and should play other private schools more often. You know, like USC, Stanford, BC, Northwestern, etc.
Also, Syracuse was willing to play ND in NYC. So I am sure they are closer now than they were before. Although today’s news shocked the ND A.D. So there’s that.
In the end, most people think that the ACC is a better fit for ND. Adding Syracuse and Pitt makes that more so. Sorry if that disappoints the B1G faithful.
LikeLike
Most of the B1G faithful want no part of ND in the B1G. Go ahead and take your private schools to the ACC.
LikeLike
OK then. Glad we settled it.
Enjoy Rutgers and Missouri.
LikeLike
“the ACC now has a nice chunk of private schools.”
—The ACC already had a nice chunk of private schools.
“ND is a private school and should play other private schools more often.”
—ND wants to maximum their national exposure. Playing small private schools with minimal national interest is not going to further that.
“Syracuse was willing to play ND in NYC.”
—Ahh that’s the appeal…Syracuse is willing to be ND’s patsy.
“Sorry if that disappoints the B1G faithful.”
—Disappointed by what? ND may well end up in the ACC…but Syracuse will have exactly jack all to do with it if they do. That’s what we were discussing.
LikeLike
There are two Kings on the table. ND and Texas.
In taking Pitt and Syracuse, and rejecting Tech, the ACC allowed Texas to walk. That leaves ND.
If the ACC does not want ND, then I guess it does not matter and you are right. The ACC just wanted worthless Syracuse and Pitt.
But if the ACC does want ND, then they would have made the moves that make the most sense to predict what ND would want to see. And that is, obviously, Pitt and Syracuse.
If it was about markets, wouldn’t Pitt and Rutgers make the most sense? If the ACC felt it already had enough of the right combination of schools, then $$$ should have been the answer, right? Or even UConn/Pitt. Or UConn/Rutgers for that matter. Great hoops school, iconic women’s hoops, recent BCS football appearance, etc.
If nobody cared about Syracuse, it wouldn’t have been Syracuse. But it was. So, yeah, if ND comes to the ACC, Syracuse will have more than “jack” to do with it.
Have a beer, you seem stressed out. You don’t want any private schools in the B1G anyway. They’re probably sour anyway…
LikeLike
“Have a beer, you seem stressed out.”
-Absolutely no reason to stress here. Your passive aggressive tirades are quite entertaining.
LikeLike
EZCUSE,
In the end, most people think that the ACC is a better fit for ND. Adding Syracuse and Pitt makes that more so.
Care to back that up with some evidence? Where do you see most people thinking the ACC is the best fit for ND? I haven’t seen it in the media or non-ACC blogs. On top of that, you need to show that adding Syracuse and Pitt make an even larger majority of people think ND fits the ACC best.
LikeLike
@Brian,
Forget the Big Ten or ACC. The best conference fit for Notre Dame is the Big 12. Just ask Big 12 commissioner Deloss Dodds… I mean Dan Beebe.
LikeLike
lol @ Micheal
Win!
LikeLike
Most people on here, is what I meant. Strictly speaking,folks in Calcutta are probably in the “undecided” category.
Anyway, I have been an active contributor to this board for over a year now and that was my general sense of the consensus… that the B1G has to overcome the fact that ND “looks like” more of the ACC schools than the B1G schools. And that was, obviously, before this latest move.
I was always surprised by the amount of rationale thought behind that feeling. My pre-Frank the Tank assumption was that ND was a natural fit for the Big 10. So I was re-educated on that issue by the blogger himself and the educating comments. If I am wrong, so be it. It was my perception.
I guess ND will make the ultimate decision if and when it has to. In the meantime, I guess all the B1G hardcore fans will straddle the line between “really really wanting ND” and “not wanting ND, so quite glad that they have gone elsewhere.” And that’s why ND is so valuable, I guess. You either love them or hate them…
LikeLike
Rational, spelling fail.
Maybe someone should take a few polls.
#1 Do B1G fans want ND or not. Yes or no. Not, yes but only if …. Just a simple answer… do you want them. Yes or no.
#2 Do you think ND will come to the B1G or ACC? Not “none of the above.” Which one.
LikeLike
EZCUSE,
Most people on here, is what I meant. Strictly speaking,folks in Calcutta are probably in the “undecided” category.
Anyway, I have been an active contributor to this board for over a year now and that was my general sense of the consensus… that the B1G has to overcome the fact that ND “looks like” more of the ACC schools than the B1G schools. And that was, obviously, before this latest move.
I don’t get that sense at all from this blog. I’ve seen a few people say ND looks like several of the ACC schools, but not many say that it fits better in the ACC. There are more private schools in the ACC, but schools like FSU, Clemson, NCSU and VT are just as unlike ND as NE, IA, WI and MN and farther away. The midwest and the southeast aren’t exactly similar, either.
I was always surprised by the amount of rationale thought behind that feeling. My pre-Frank the Tank assumption was that ND was a natural fit for the Big 10. So I was re-educated on that issue by the blogger himself and the educating comments. If I am wrong, so be it. It was my perception.
ND is assumed to be a natural B10 fit for good reasons. ND the school is similar to several ACC schools (smaller and private), but ND athletics fit the B10 better (geography, rivals, football history, FB > BB).
In the meantime, I guess all the B1G hardcore fans will straddle the line between “really really wanting ND” and “not wanting ND, so quite glad that they have gone elsewhere.”
There are clearly several groups of fans. Some want to expand, others don’t. Some want ND, others don’t. Many are indifferent to ND. I don’t think the B10 fan base is any different than the other conferences are about ND, we’ve just had longer to live with the dance. ND has been interested but not joining for a long time. Some subset of fans is bound to get upset by that. See the BE fans for another example.
LikeLike
@EZCUSE
I don’t think anyone on this board has ever had a problem with the Big 10 adding private schools. There was a lot of support for grabbing Duke if the ACC started to crumble and Syracuse was a popular choice until they were forced out of the AAU (technically they are leaving voluntarily, but that’s only because they knew they would chopped a la Nebraska if they didn’t).
Heck, I think everyone was on board with taking USC and Stanford (along with Cal and UCLA) as part of a plan to steal the state of CA from the PAC. True it was all in fun since everyone knew it would never happen, but the point is if it had been feasible, no one would have had a problem.
Big 10 fans don’t hold every school to the same standards when it comes to expansion. Any resistance to Notre Dame comes only from the idea that they may not be willing to play by the same set of rules everyone else (i.e. conference controls all TV rights, all members play the same number of conference games). It has nothing to do with the fact that Notre Dame happens to be a small private school.
LikeLike
Big 10 fans don’t hold every school to the same standards when it comes to expansion
Should read:
Big 10 fans hold every school to the same standards when it comes to expansion.
(Boy was that a big typo)
LikeLike
Big 10 fans don’t hold every school to the same standards when it comes to expansion
Should read:
Big 10 fans hold every school to the same standards when it comes to expansion.
(Boy was that a big typo)
LikeLike
Accidental double post, please disregard.
LikeLike
Exact divisions I came up with. Hopefully the conference doesn’t just keep the same ones and add a team to each current one.
LikeLike
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/longhorns/entries/2011/09/18/official_potent.html
The Pac-12 appears to be working out the final details of a deal that would bring Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to the conference, sources close to the situation told Hookem.com and the Austin American-Statesman on Sunday morning. Â Nothing has been accepted or approved, yet, but the deal would allow the Longhorns to keep the Longhorn Network
LikeLike
So the Pac-12 has caved to Texas’ demands. I wish them well, and hope that at least the Pac-8 can stay together when their conference breaks up in a decade or two.
LikeLike
it will be the PAC 12: Texas Network (as in state not University). there will be a PAC 12: LA, a PAC 12 Northern California, a PAC 12 Oregon, a PAC 12 Washington, a PAC 12 Arizona….etc
So having a PAC 12: Texas isn’t anything special…..or caving
LikeLike
Given the current agreement between schools in the Pac, UT would have to sign all of its rights over to the conference for a given period of time. It would make it almost impossible for them to change conferences or go indy down the line.
LikeLike
Seems like a good compromise if true.
LikeLike
Yeah, right. The LHN keeps them out for a year and now when they have no choice other than independent the Pac caves? Highly unlikely at best..
LikeLike
Wow, slightly confused. The statesman article makes it sound like UT will NOT have to share the LHN w/ Tech. Could that be? And if PAC 3rd tier revenues > LHN revenues the league would split things evenly to make up the difference for poor old UT?
If so, again WOW. That means that the PAC has learned nothing from the case study that is the Big XII.
LikeLike
“If the Longhorns were in Pod A, they would play the other Pod A teams (Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech) every year. They would also play two teams from Pod B, Pod C and Pod D, bringing the total to nine conference games every year.”
That doesn’t sound like a divisional round-robin to me. Either the AA-S needs to check its story, or the Pac is taking a liberal view of NCAA regulations.
LikeLike
I call BS.
ALL pac 12 teams have to give 1st 2nd and 3rd tier rights to the conference (the B1G has a similar arrangement)… So your telling me that USC, stanford, oregon, etc have signed ALL television rights to the conference, but will happily let UT keep their own AND earn unequal revenue to boot… nonsense
LikeLike
One of the Statesman responses “named” the pods:
PAC16 Pods:
Sponsored by Microsoft & Nike:
Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St
Sponsored by Disney & Apple:
USC, UCLA, Stanford, California
Sponsored by Ping & K2 Skis:
Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Utah
Sponsored by Michael Dell & T.Boone Pickens:
Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
LikeLike
As I’ve said said day one. Oklahoma was the key. Delany should have taken them in a heartbeat. That would have led to Texas, which would have led to Notre Dame. The idea that a home run like Oklahoma shouldn’t be considered because they are less than ideal academically is ludicrous. Especially when you consider that they epitomize the whole idea behind expansion. Bringing in eyeballs (and money) with brand name programs. Like it or not the Big Ten is the hardest sell for any team outside the midwest, which means a bit of give-and-take is necessary for success.
The Big Ten will (arguably) be the perennial number ‘four’ from here on out. ND is there only hope and they could just as easily go elsewhere. The B1G will always be a draw because of its alumni base, but it needed some new recruiting grounds/BTN territory. I hope Delany has a rabbit in his hat.
LikeLike
I suspect that OU would have gone west anyway because the PAC was willing to take Ok State.
LikeLike
Oklahoma was never an option for the B1G because the Oklahoma politicians mean it when they say Oklahoma & Ok.State are a package deal. Oklahoma might be extreme borderline acceptable for the B1G (I’d still lean no because the academics are atrocious and they don’t have even nominal AAU membership), but State is a dealbreaker, just like Texas Tech is w/ Texas.
The only pair the B1G would ever have taken from the Big 12 was Texas & Texas A&M.
LikeLike
Delany should have taken them in a heartbeat
It’s not up to Delany. The presidents and chancellors told him no.
Plus, OU won’t go anywhere without eat least one of OSU and UT and OSU has even more unacceptable academics than the Sooners, I there is no way Delany could guarantee UT admission because of the LHN.
LikeLike
I don’t think the B1G is #4. You can’t add Nebraska and lose ground to the ACC adding Pitt and Syracuse. And I am a (was?) Big East guy. For most years, that will still be the ACC in football. If FSU and Miami aren’t playing like Kings, the ACC is 4th. The Pac-16 is just a winner here… gaining 2 major programs to add to USC and Co. It will still have to be settled on the field to see if anyone can topple the SEC. And it would be that way with or without A&M.
For basketball, the ACC moves up to #1. But the B1G will not fall behind the SEC. And rarely the Pac-16. The demise of the Big 12 and Big East actually HELP the B1G in this regard. Perhaps adding Kansas and UConn would help get the B1G into a hoops war with the ACC though. Kansas, UConn, MSU, Ohio St., a resurrected Indiana? Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Pitt, Maryland. Game on at that point.
Funny thing is that ND would not change the analysis at all in either sport.
LikeLike
Shouldn’t the Big 10 move on Kansas & Missouri now? They should get the best of the rest.
LikeLike
Why would we want KU?
LikeLike
Agree, Kansas brings in what exactly? Missouri, Rutgers are higher on the wish list and the Big Ten aren’t exactly flirting with them.
LikeLike
If the rumors of WVU being the SEC 14th are true, then it seems unlikely that Missouri is going anywhere (unless the SEC is going past 14 now).
LikeLike
why? There’s no need for the Big Ten to expand at this point, so no point in picking up marginal adds to no end.
LikeLike
I agree, if OU was serious about coming to the Big Ten without little brother Delaney was crazy for not accepting them.
Agreed they are have a poor academic profile, from a small population state, and have relatively poor recruiting grounds but they’re a king and they fit geographically. Plus they perhaps unlock Texas as you said.
I can’t see why OU would come to the B10 without Okie State when they can get the P10 deal with State and more than likely UT comes as well though. I’m guessing the Big Ten rejected the overture as they saw OU was just lining up their options.
LikeLike
Oklahoma ONLY makes sense if they guarantee Texas, which they don’t, they just help a lot. Plus they have that bagage called OSU.
LikeLike
Number 4 in football quality? Maybe.
No way they will be no. 4 in popularity/prestige, not with marquee teams like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska–not to mention Wisconsin, Iowa, MSU, Illinois…
LikeLike
I agree. I should have clarified ‘in football’. This opinion is no doubt influenced by the embarrassing performances of MSU and OSU yesterday. As I watched I was having Apocalypse Now type flashbacks of the 2011 bowl season.
LikeLike
Actually, 2010, though most were played in 2011.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState, frankly, you are a fool. I’m tired of your “woe is the Big Ten” bitching.
OK/UT/ND, even if that miracle occurred (we’d have to have OkSU and TTU in there too, so at least 17 or 18), would have led to the conference breaking up at some point in the future.
What will the B1G be #4 in? Not per-school revenue (#1). Not academic prestige (#1). We’ll also remain #1 in conference unity: just wait until Arkansas hosts Alabama once per decade and Oregon hosts USC once per decade. B1G may not be the best in football, but we never were going to be anyways.
The other big three will likely breakup in the future. Those other conferences can have fun with that, while the B1G keeps chugging along as the best conference in the country.
LikeLike
…but, but Ohio State after an off-season of turmoil, a new head coach & without a number of starters played poorly yesterday.
THE B1G IS DOOMED!!!
LikeLike
http://twitter.com/#!/colin_dunlap
colin_dunlap Colin Dunlap
Same university source who told me Dana was getting hired–& was spot-on re: everything–says WVU sent paperwork to SEC today. We’ll see.
LikeLike
“The ACC officially pulled out a cap gun Sunday, preening and posturing its proactive shot in college football expansion for all to see.
Careful fellas, don’t shoot your eye out. The big guns are up next.”
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2011-09-18/acc-begins-seismic-shift-sec-and-big-ten-will-finish-it
LikeLike
Frank the Tank – what are your initial thoughts of this afternoon’s activity? Is Uncle Jim dropping the ball?
LikeLike
(working through thoughts I’ve had the last few days that I never had time to post)
3 simple steps that could have saved the B12:
1. B12 is an outgrowth of the B8, not a replacement
2. Continue NU-OU series
3. Even revenue sharing
IMO, the biggest problem the B12 had was the frustrations created by uneven revenue sharing. When it doesn’t make that huge a difference in the long run. The current distributions are, I believe, $14 to $20M annually. Do you think it would have made a big difference if Texas was getting $3M less in revenue and ISU was getting $3M more? No, Texas would still be the king of the NCAA revenue list.
Look at the B10. OSU is still way out in front. NW is still at the bottom. So its not like shared revenue is making everything equal for all parties. What it does is make all parties happy with the conference. OSU is still going to kill everyone in ticket sales, 3rd tier media rights, etc.
LikeLike
Ticket sales? Really?
LikeLike
Ohio State average home attendance = 105K. Average ticket price = $74. Multiply that by 7 or 8 home games. I’d say $54 to $62 million each year = yeah really.
LikeLike
I’ll give you one and two, but three is off base. Remember, the schools that are leaving (OU, TAMU, NU) are the ones that benefited from the unequal distribution system.
LikeLike
I think equal revenue sharing would made the conference even more unstable. Texas, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma were all opposed to it. If you had it, it would have benefited the smaller schools (Baylor, Kansas State, etc) at their expense and given them even more incentive to leave.
I agree on the other two points though. The Big 12 was a media alliance in a lot of ways between the brands and populations of both conferences. It set-up a situation where Nebraska felt it lost its conference though and thus had little reason to stay and where A&M felt like the 3rd wheel team in the south behind the UT-OU rivalry that dominated everything. This created friction for both schools fanbases and when scenarios emerged where they could leave, both fanbases jumped at the opportunities and their schools went with their wishes. With a lot of the name brands gone, the conference was no longer appealing to OU which made it no longer appealing to UT. I think that a 10 team conference (no Texas Tech or Baylor) would actually still be around and doing well. Nebraska fans wouldn’t have liked leaving if the OU rivalry was kept as a season ending game and even though Colorado probably still would have left, they were easily replaceable. If 12 was necessary, then it would have been better to keep OU and Nebraska in the same division (keeping UT has a permanent crossover). That may have downplayed the Red River Shootout a little compared to what happened, but OU-NU and UT-A&M would have been emphasized instead and no one would want to bail.
LikeLike
Exactly. Unequal revenue sharing wasn’t an issue in the Big XII. I’m not sure why this continues to be perpetuated. It looks like 3 of the first 4 to leave the conference were 3 of the 4 effectively blocking equal revenue sharing. The issue with revenue in the Big XII was always there was a lack of it compared to the SEC or the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Nostradamus said:
“Exactly. Unequal revenue sharing wasn’t an issue in the Big XIIThe issue with revenue in the Big XII was always there was a lack of it compared to the SEC or the Big Ten.”
It is true that NU, OU and A&M all favored uneven distribution at some level. But the LHN changed the dynamics . . . not because of the dollars UT ended up getting – no one knew the contract would be worth that much. Rather, NU’s issue was the reluctance of Texas to commit some of their LHN rights to the Big 12 Network. Without those rights, there was effectively no Big 12 Network, which would again reduce TV revenue when contracts came up for negotiation.
There is something to be said for pursuing a situation that is best for your university, but there is also to be said against poisoning the wells of your business partners. At some level, NU, OU and A&M all recognized that the business environment of the Big 12 was no longer in their best interests. Equal revenue sharing requirements certainly didn’t stop those schools from joining their new conferences.
LikeLike
Grrr. Proofreading skills failed again. That should say “there is also something to be said against poisoning the wells of your business partners.”
LikeLike
Husker AL, Nebraska and Texas are both IMG schools. Nebraska and Texas jointly had IMG looking into individual school networks right up until shortly before Nebraska left the conference. Given the unequal revenue sharing formula that Nebraska helped enforce, it made little sense to set up an “equal” conference network for either Texas or Nebraska.
And I’m a Nebraska fan…
LikeLike
Nostradamus, it seemed that the biggest problem in the B12 was the schools just didn’t get along. Did Nebraska leave the B12 because they were only the 8th highest revenue program? It sure didn’t seem to be that way. It seemed that they left due to disagreements and feelings of inequality. (NU-OU, partial qualifiers, league office being moved, CCG being moved, etc.)
I think if a few steps could have been taken at the outset, they may have been tighter from the beginning and the slights that did rise would not have taken so to heart to such a degree.
LikeLike
The unreported footnote to the 8th in revenue sharing for Nebraska was pay-per-view broadcasts. In the old Big 12 revenue sharing formula if your game didn’t get picked up, you had the option of PPV’ing it through Fox if Fox felt they could make money on this. The revenue from PPV’s didn’t fall under the Big XII revenue sharing formula.
In 2008-2009, Nebraska had 4 PPV’s. It has been reported by both major Nebraska newspapers that NU was averaging $300,000 to $500,000 for each PPV. Figure they averaged $400,000 on each PPV or $1.6 million and they are still in the top 4 then of Big 12 revenue. If that unequal formula no longer benefited them, they would’ve switched their vote plain and simple.
The real reason Nebraska left the conference is they realized the Big 12 was incredibly unstable. Missouri was flirting or at least appearing to throw themselves at the knees of the Big Ten, and the Big 12 South was trying to sell themselves to the Pac-12. Nebraska saw an opportunity to go into a stable conference that earns more revenue and they took it.
The other issues with partial qualifiers and league office location we largely irrelevant by that time.
LikeLike
“Look at the B10. OSU is still way out in front. NW is still at the bottom. So its not like shared revenue is making everything equal ”
I think you are speaking clearly out of your own perception here and not reality. Realty is that NU Northwestern is typically no further than 6 to 8 spots outside of where the Ivey league schools line up in the top 16 in the nation. Ohio State? Never close. So basically you have Harvard, Yale or Princeton being extremely competitive in a Big Boy athletic conference. The revenue will NEVER help them become #1 or #2 in the B1G. But it will help them compete at a respectable level. NW can not admit most of the top 100 Athletes to its school. And given the facts ath the level they have compete at IS outstanding!
LikeLike
@StvInIL
I am speaking clearly about athletic revenue. I am quite aware that NW is the academic leader in the B10.
LikeLike
Please remember that Ohio State has the largest athletic department in the country. It is those tickets sales (football revenue) that allows this to happen. So instead of pouring all of this money into football, they spread it out to support a total of 36 sport teams.
LikeLike
Very true, and admirable. Meanwhile a certain burnt orange school with the largest athletic dept. budget only supports 19 or 20. Never understood that.
LikeLike
Florida fields around 20 teams as well correct?
I believe the athletic departments UF & UT both funnel a large amount of money back into the school’s general fund whereas the Ohio State AD’s goal is to break even. So really just a difference in priorities I suppose.
LikeLike
Chip’s 3.35 pm posting makes Pac for UT TTECH OK OKST a mere formality for tomorrow.
LikeLike
B10 was unwilling to take on the Tech problem in addition to taking on Oklahoma’s baggage of OSU. Pac 12 was…
LikeLike
While we may shake out to be the number one conference when it comes to revenue I think the ACC, arguably already our superior, with the addition of Cuse and Pitt has a great case to be considered #1.
LikeLike
That is expansion fever talking. Pitt and Syracuse are far from kings; Just two more mediocre teams in a mediocre league.
LikeLike
Agreed. The ACC will be fortunate to get a mere pro rata increase.
LikeLike
He’s talking academics, and I’d argue the B10 would stay #1 in what they care most about (research) while the ACC would stay on top in what they most care about (undergrads).
LikeLike
Rutgers talking to ACC and B1G.
“Rutgers has been involved in talks with the ACC about possible membership over the past two days and its lines of communications with the Big Ten have remained open and “are active,” according to a highly-placed college official.”
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2011/09/rutgers_remains_in_contact_wit.html
LikeLike
I call BS. They may have been in talks with the ACC, but the only thing “active” about their communications with the B1G is the pleading coming from their end and the silence coming from Delaney in response.
LikeLike
Well, I think they would be active in the sense that the Big Ten would be willing to add them as a complimentary addition (e.g. Notre Dame along with Rutgers). Rutgers does fit the Big Ten profile well, in addition to bringing in a populated state and at least nominal access to NYC. If Notre Dame does decide to join the Big Ten in the near future — and with all the Big East chaos/uncertainty, it seems plausible — then Rutgers to me seems like best choice for #14 among the usual suspects.
LikeLike
Agree with most of that, except ND has shown no sign of changing their mind, and Rutgers will not be getting a B1G invite without them (and maybe not even with them).
LikeLike
Will we see an ACC/SEC “trade” as part of realignment? It appears that the SEC will not be poaching from a strengthened ACC. Perhaps, they can do each other some good. Why not move Vanderbilt to the ACC, where they are more congruous academically and athletically? They are no longer the Vol’s season ending rival – in fact they’ll end the season against Wake Forest. It would stretch the map some more for the conference.
In turn, the ACC can send NC State to the SEC, also expanding the conference footprint. The Tarheel State is overrepresented in the ACC with four teams. The Wolfpack could set themselves apart in the SEC, and would fit in culturally as well.
Obviously, both schools and conferences would need to approve the “trade” and perhaps they would. It seems like it would be a win all around without a loser in sight.
LikeLike
Vanderbilt was a founding member of the SEC’s predecessor and they will never leave it voluntarily. The ACC also has no desire to let the SEC into NC. All that does is hurt the ACC and help the SEC.
If you want to propose ridiculous trades, do it right. The SEC gives up UK (a BB school in a FB league) and gets FSU (the ACC is over represented in FL with 2 schools anyway, right?).
LikeLike
Plus Debbie Yow (NCSU AD) said today (paraphrased), ‘We haven’t won an ACC football title since 1979, why would we ever go to the SEC?’
LikeLike
Based upon where this is likely to be by next week [Cuse & Pitt to ACC from BE; OK, OK lite, Tex Tech, & Tex to PAC from B12; Tex AM & West Virg to SEC from B12 & BE; and several other possible moves in the making], BIG should make move to enlarge its footprint in strategic areas, east and west, with important schools in play to accomplish this now, and go to 14. Penn State wants eastern neighbor that warrants BIG consideration that further opens N.Y. market (go after either Rutgers or UConn, Maryland if this were possible, but add one of these). Two very high quality state university schools are available in the west (KU, with its K.C. market and national brand basketball program – Jayhawks; or MU, with its quality football and basketball prgams and support in both K.C. and St. Louis metro markets). Both are too good for the BIG to not consider in the current environment, particularly if it becomes apparent three of the conferences (PAC, SEC, ACC) are going to 16. Slot could be kept open for ND, even as BIG makes important, strategic choices now and goes to 14, if not 15. This could be done even if, on the margin, one or more of these additional schools don’t add net revenue per school. It’s becoming a matter of what do we want when this is all over as four conferences each move to 16, I think. Add Rutgers/UConn and MU/KU now, then save last move of ND with whoever of the first four remain.
LikeLike
Don’t forget the Baylor, ISU, KSU issues. The Pac and SEC still don’t want to make the first move.
LikeLike
Before very long if not now, KU must look out for itself (sorry K-State), Baylor has made its bed and all the other schools who “belong” will not want to be anywhere close to them – they are on their own with whatever court they can find to listen. ISU will find itself in the “leftovers” conference (sorry). The PAC and SEC are just posturing. They already know where they are going.
BIG should make strategic positioning move now, with KU and Rutgers or MU and UConn, whichever east-west twosome makes most sense, then sit at 14 and ponder ND, if that seems necessary. After a few more moves, things are likely to happen fast. Best to make strategic move now, then wait on final one as remaining options evaporate and schools become locked-in.
LikeLike
To go to 14 teams, the B10 needs a ‘king’ like ND. Its harder to pay your way to get into the B10 than it is to the ACC, which is why the ACC sees value in schools like Pitt, Syracuse and the B10 doesn’t…
When you look at what teams draw money to a conference via media rights, its largely the top 4 or 5 teams that draw in 75% of the money with the remaining 7 or 8 teams bringing in the other 25%. To bring in money to a new conference, you need to be among the top 4-5 media revenue producing schools.
LikeLike
RedSwan,
Why does having 3 conferences of 16 mean the B10 should go to 14+ if it means losing money, not playing each other as often and not gaining any FB brands? Why does the B10 care if it’s the P8, P10, P12 or P16? Why does WV to the SEC suddenly mean the B10 should add a school it rejected last year? What is the big deal about other conferences being bigger? The B10 and P10 waited a long time to get to 12, and 12 came with the added benefit of a CCG.
LikeLike
I think ultimately this is about the future organizational structure of major college athletics, with that being, at the highest level, the emergence of four conferences of 16 each, 64 schools in all, and these essentially then operating in a much different way relative to the ncaa (they may create their own governing and oversight structure outside of ncaa, with ncaa continuing to oversee all the rest not absorbed into the dominant conferences. And I think the major conferences are being driven to this by the media and marketing dollars that are involved, which is why ESPN is working so hard to weaken or difuse this overall restructuring. So, BIG can’t simply sit pat while everyone else makes their move. This realignment is only complete after four conferences reach 16 each. BIG could sit pat at 14, I think, pending the last two moves. But if it sits now while the others go to 16, it won’t leave much in play, like KU, MU, UConn, and Rutgers, maybe Maryland, for example. So I think BIG cheery-picks now and gets two of these, then sits pat, irrspective of the net revenue. It’s about positioning for the final outcome of this. Big could sit pat, but why with so much now in play?
LikeLike
The structure isn’t changing unless the schools want it to change. What are they going to do if only those 48 schools vote to create a new NCAA division, for example? Are they going to leave the NCAA behind even if ND and the B10 won’t go? Are they going to force the B10 to expand to 16 somehow? Do you think the rest of the NCAA schools would let schools start a separate football group (and presumably MBB too, since they want to make more money) but remain for all their other sports?
The B10 can very easily sit pat no matter what others do. They are a conference of universities with other priorities than athletics revenue.
LikeLike
Fewer, larger major conferences shift the balance of power with regard to media dollars (a larger number of smaller conferences keeps bargaining power with distributors – ESPN, FOX, etc.). So while distributors attempt to guide process, power ultimately resides with a small number of major conferences, and the further development of their own media, and this change has only just begun. As major schools re-align and form larger conference affiliations, BIG can sit or participate itself strategically. ND ultimately will not be able to sit it out. Nor will the BIG at 12. It’s not a simple matter of incremental gain, considering one move at a time, when so many pieces are now in play and may not be later. I expect BIG to make a couple plays soon, if the current dynamics continue. I will be surprised if it doesn”t.
LikeLike
I think if ALL three of ACC, SEC and PAC go to 16 then the Big 10 probably will need to expand as well since consolidation of the three could (and probably would) have significant ramifications for not the only college football’s post-season but college sports economics, and the Big 10 would need to be on equal footing with the other power conference. That said, if the ACC and/or SEC stop at 14, then the Big 10 should stand pat until the TV contracts expire.
LikeLike
How are they going to change the postseason? They’re going to replace the BCS with rules that require 16 team membership to be eligible? How would they get the votes for that, since the non-AQs have a say too? Or are they leaving the NCAA, even if the B10 and ND don’t? How does having 16 teams make the threat any different? They could try to do the same things now.
LikeLike
If the ACC, SEC and PAC all go to 16 it will result in the destruction of at least one of the Big XII and the BEast, and quite possibly both. This would mean a complete reworking of the BCS would be necessary. Eligibility for at large bids would need to be reworked and as would the issue of the Fiesta Bowl’s tie in (if it had its choice, the Orange Bowl would drop its bowl tie in NOW will throw a fit if the Fiesta Bowl becomes At Large vs. At Large, and it is stuck with the ACC).
More importantly, if whatever is leftover from the Big East and Big XII are not able to remain an AQ level conference (and it very well may not) and the Big Ten does not expand, the non-AQ’s will a numerical advantage (63-61 including ND as an AQ vote) by 2013 when South Alabama, Texas State, UMass and UTSA become full members at the DI-A level. At that point the non-AQ’s could impose a whole slew of changes to CFB. And it is obvious that is not something the Big 10 wants to risk.
LikeLike
I think what everyone should be focusing on now is Notre Dame. I don’t think the BIG makes amove until it knows what ND is going to do. I have seen very little lately with what ND’s next move is. Is it plausible for them to stay in the Big East without Pitt, Syracuse, maybe WV & Rutgers for their non football athletics? Does this now force them to join a conference? My predicition is until Notre Dame makes a move, Delaney does nothing, which in my opinion is what he should do. If we land ND, then grab the best team left on the board and stop at 14.
LikeLike
It all depends on what happens to the Big East. ND won’t have to make a move for another year or two at least.
LikeLike
ND & Texas’ HOPE is that they can land in the ACC for non conference sports. I don’t believe either ND or Texas want in the ACC for football.
LikeLike
Taking Rutgers and UMd ups the ante for ND. Assuming the magic 16 number, four available slots go to two. If UT goes to PAC I think this would be the correct move. Take Rutgers and UMd, solidify the eastern flank with schools that enhance the brand (all but cornfields) and leverage Penn St, and you still have a spot left for ND and one other. With all the chaos in place the B1G needs to take advantage of its unique position. W/o UT I don’t think there is any futuer to the West. UNL is as far as makes sense.
LikeLike
One thing that really worries me about Rutgers is that their athletic department seems to be very poorly run. B1G money might fix that but it isn’t guaranteed. There are some red flags there that might make them not worth the risk.
Maryland’s AD is in the red as well…but seems to have a better long term plan in place.
LikeLike
If these two were better run they would be “home runs.” This is clearly a play on potential. Not sure this is the B1G thinking, given the last two adds are Penn St and UNL, but as I said above, if UT goes to PAC on Monday, I think this is the play.
LikeLike
Even with solidly run AD’s I’m not sure I’d call either a home run but they both could be solid acquisitions for the conference (Maryland more so than Rutgers IMO).
LikeLike
Concur, the academic side of Rutgers has major issues against the athletic department and for good reason as the AD is loaning money from the general school fund. Rutgers athletic department isn’t self sufficient.
LikeLike
1) I don’t think many of the B1G schools would be self sufficient if they only got Big East TV money either.
2) the press outlets that are complaining about RU’s athletic spending now are the same ones that raised holy hell a couple of years ago when RU cut six of their 30+ sports to save money.
3)The athletic subsidy, which they are working to lower, is about 1.4% of the RU annual budget, while spending on research and instruction is about 48% of the budget. It makes a good story to write that the spending on athletics is having a major negative impact on spending in other areas, but that isn’t the case.
LikeLike
I also read that the amount of money Rutgers pulled form the academic side of the fence (via student funds) was approximately $16 million…pretty darned close to what the BTN pays out by itself…
LikeLike
The Big East payout is what it is. Somehow the rest of the schools are able to manage without issues. Schiano should have bolted for Michigan when he had the chance.
LikeLike
Your reference to “cornfields”, as being something against BIG expansion to the west. I guess you’re referencing the cornfields of Nebraska and Iowa, maybe Minnesota and Wisconsin, oh yes and Illinois and Indiana, oh and all that corn grown in Ohio and, yes, even Pennsylvania. Cornfields are pretty pervasive in the Midwest, which is the heart of the BIG.
Aside from this diversion, the very best “brand” that may be in play, aside from ND, is Kansas Jayhawk basketball, which by itself can draw a large crowd to the Garden, particularly if they were playing UConn or Indiana in the conference final someday. I know football brands count most in this but Jayhawk basketball and a very fine academic institution like KU (which would only grow in the BIG) would be a strong addition. I would guess more TVs come on to watch the Jayhawks than the Scalet Knights, irrespective of Rutger’s far-eastern location and surrounding population base.
The BIG will make a mistake if it builds its remaining strategy for expansion almost solely around ND. It will need to plan for a future with or without ND, and probably the latter. The PAC, SEC, and ACC are moving toward 16 and schools are making choices now. The BIG could decide to stay at 12, but I think it may want to move to 14 with so much on the board now that’s in play. Once the next set of choices are made, they could be firm for a long time.
Getting KU and also possibly MU or Maryland if this were possible, firmly establishes the BIG’s western and southern footprint with very good schools, and may preclude the creation of a overly competitive new conference composed of B12 and BE leftovers firmly up against the BIG’s southern and eastern flanks. Best to take two more now and then let it play out. Wait and the choices will be limited. However, there are many ways to look at this.
LikeLike
The problem with Kansas is two fold…
1. All signs imply that football rather than basketball is a much larger factor in expansion.
2. The possibility that the Jayhawks are tied to Kansas State.
LikeLike
1. The availability of football powers is limited, and with the scheduling difficulties inherent in 13, 14, or 15 teams, you have to consider other factors when considering expansion candidates. Kansas increases the basketball profile of the conference tremendously, which helps for a multitude of reasons.
2. They’re not. Everyone in the state of Kansas would love for those schools to remain together, but the Jayhawks are in panic mode. We could probably invite them for pennies on the dollar and they’d jump at the chance. But that’s cruel.
LikeLike
1. No one has really shown a way that adding a BB power that has no FB brand or population base pays for itself as addition.
2. Typing “they’re not” doesn’t make it true. The simple fact is that we don’t know categorically one way or another.
LikeLike
Why do you think MD is available? The ACC just added teams and raised the cost of leaving.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten came calling, the Under Armour guy would help pay that $20M fee. Big Ten football exposure would be a windfall for his firm.
LikeLike
The Spartans should have focused on them
LikeLike
Andy Staples
“Realignment update after getting some feedback from those who know: Pump the brakes on Tex/Pac-12. Might happen. Not imminent.”
Obviously after considering the idea for 15 months, they need to think about it a bit more.
LikeLike
It is important to note that the two affirmative reports on UT, TTU, OU & OSU to the Pac have come out of Austin. They also state that major concessions have been made in regards to the LHN.
http://www2.registerguard.com/cms/index.php/opinions-on-sports/comments/pac-16-maybe-but-its-not-done-yet/
My guess is they get stonewalled. UT is trying to puff out its chest and make it look like they’re leveraging the Pac to its will. I can only hope they blow up a Pac 16 second deal in two years.
LikeLike
Please don’t move the football again, Lucy.
LikeLike
What would be wild is if the following happens:
Big16 Conference (BigEast Remnant+Big12 Remnant+MWC+C-USA)
MW Pod – Boise, BYU, Colorado State + New Mexico (or Nevada)
Texas Pod – TCU, SMU, UH, Rice (or Baylor – but given their behavior I doubt anyone will want them as conference mates)
Plains Pod (Iowa State, KState, KU, Mizzou)
Eastern Pod (Memphis, Louisville, Cincinatti + USF)
Doubtful this will happen though bc I think Mizzou and KU will probably be off somewhere.
LikeLike
You really have to feel for Kansas & Mizzou if they end up relegated to that mess.
LikeLike
Would be funny if instead of USF the 4th school in the Eastern Pod is Notre Dame – wonder if they would do it if they could rule the conference.
LikeLike
You’ve basically recreated the WAC-16 with slightly stronger schools. The finances of that league would probably tear it apart.
LikeLike
One thing the past year and half has shown is that almost all sportswriters are very against any movement against the status quo. Consequently I pay little attention to any of their opinions. Anyone who has read the Dallas Morning News for the past 2 years realizes that they collectively know nothing and rely on Chip and the Austin Statesman for their information.
LikeLike
A bunch of people have been asking me what I think the Big Ten should do in the wake of all of the latest moves.
It’s pretty simple: assuming that Texas is going to the Pac-16, the Big Ten should do absolutely nothing unless Notre Dame wants to join. There’s no reason to expand for the sake of expanding just because some other conferences have gone up to 14 or 16. The Big Ten was perfectly fine sitting at 11 for two decades in order to wait for the right school even though there was a direct financial incentive (a conference championship game) to get to 12. We have a tight-knit conference with like-minded institutions, logical geography and 4 football kings. There are aspects that I like about Rutgers, Missouri and Kansas (and I have always thought extremely highly of Syracuse, which is now off the table), but none of them provide enough to justify expanding without Notre Dame involved. If Notre Dame never joins, so be it.
LikeLike
Absolutely agree. No move is the best move right now.
LikeLike
Agreed. Let the others push nd to us.
LikeLike
Yeah the B1G has not done too badly waiting on the Stars not the ateroids.
Hmm? who would count as a commet?
LikeLike
The Big Ten was perfectly fine sitting at 11 for two decades in order to wait for the right school even though there was a direct financial incentive (a conference championship game) to get to 12. We have a tight-knit conference with like-minded institutions, logical geography and 4 football kings. There are aspects that I like about Rutgers, Missouri and Kansas (and I have always thought extremely highly of Syracuse, which is now off the table), but none of them provide enough to justify expanding without Notre Dame involved. If Notre Dame never joins, so be it.
Frank, you can say it much more elegantly and succinctly than I can. Well said.
(although I do disagree about Syracuse. Private, sort of small, and low research makes them a poor fit. They are a very good fit in the ACC.)
LikeLike
Agreed no reason for the B10 to expand just for the sake of expansion. My take on a few other issues:
1) Ultimately, the politician angle is a bit overblown because no current BCS school has to be left out of the BCS mix going forward — the B12 and BE castoffs can form a league together. If either the B12 takes on the BE rejects or vice-versa, I can’t see the BCS stripping that league of an autobid, What would be more interesting is if both leagues try and continue as autobid leagues (taking on a bunch of East Carolinas, Houstons, etc to get there). I guess it’s possible that two autobids wouldn’t be available, particularly where the MWC would start to have an argument for an autobid under such circumstances.
2) I don’t see the “castoff” league as going to as many as 16 teams as some others have suggested. They will still be trying to maximize TV revenue per team as much as possible. I can see the league trying to add BYU straight-up, but otherwise if the B12 and BE consolidates, I don’t see the new league adding non-BCS teams unless it is trying to get to 12.
3) It’ll be interesting to see what happens with the BE basketball-only schools. Their best-case is probably to absorb Mizzou, Kansas and the rest of the B12 castoffs and maintain a hybrid league that is still afforded (kinda) major status. If the BE castoffs get absorbed by the B12, then I think the basketball-only schools will reload with some other (probably Catholic) schools like Xavier, Dayton, Saint Louis, etc. Worst case is if the football schools and basketball schools fight over the Big East name. The basketball schools would do well to keep the name because a newly created conference is going to have to fight perceptions of being a mid-major league.
LikeLike
So I was reading another article that links to an old FtT entry:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/the-real-reason-why-notre-dames-hand-might-be-forced/
It’s from 15 months ago, but it could be published tomorrow with very few changes (Opening lines “Before we get to talking about Notre Dame, the fate of the entire college sports landscape is being decided in Austin and College Station this week. Who knows if the Big Ten will ultimately be a part of this (I know that they are trying very hard), but I do believe this: Texas A&M would be insane to turn down an invitation from the SEC. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed all of my discussions with Texas fans over the last few months, but the prevailing belief among the Longhorn faithful that A&M would be making a mistake by taking that deal is complete nonsense”)
The reason that the article linked to it was this paragraph:
“A source with knowledge of the agreement that was entered into by the Big East schools following the ACC raid of 2003 states that in the event that 2 football members leave the conference, the football and non-football members can split the league without any penalty and retain their respective revenues, such as NCAA Tournament distributions. What is surprising is that the Catholic non-football members comprise the faction that is pushing the issue. If you recall, those schools met back in March to discuss “contingency plans”. Apparently, the Catholic schools have decided that they will exercise the split option if 2 Big East schools leave the conference (no matter who they might be) and have informed Big East commissioner John Marinatto as such.”
How is that source doing these days Frank? Care to give him a call from all of us?
LikeLike
That’s kind of funny in retrospect given that Pitt & Syracuse did not actually inform Marinatto (and apparently were not required to do so).
LikeLike
Here’s where we seem to be. Correct me if I’m way off:
(1) Texas and Oklahoma are going to the Pac-16. This is the long-awaited seismic shift.
(2) Notre Dame will then choose between the ACC and the Big Ten.
If Notre Dame chooses the Big Ten, then Rutgers becomes no. 14 in the B1G. Right?
[Does the Big Ten then go to 16 with Kansas, Missouri, etc.?]
If Notre Dame chooses the ACC, then U-Conn becomes no. 16 in the ACC. Right?
[Does the Big Ten then go to 14 with Missouri and Rutgers, or will it just stay at 12? I think it will stay at 12.]
The big question is: WHICH WAY IS NOTRE DAME LEANING? Something tells me they will decdide to go East Coast and take the ACC in order to avoid being labelled “just another midwest team.”
(3) West Virginia will take the SEC to 14. (Weak move, in my opinion.)
(4) Big-12 will replace its departed members with the leftovers from the Big East and elsewhere.
(5) The Big East will drop football or fold entirely.
The moving will pause at this point:
Pac-16 (adding Tex, TT, OK, OK St)
ACC-16 (adding Pitt, Syr, Notre Dame, and U-Conn)
B1G (standing pat at 12)
SEC-14 (adding TAMU and West Va.)
Big 12 (replacing Tex, TT, OK, OK St, & TAMU with Rutgers, Cincinnati, Louisville, TCU, and Houston and adding two of BYU/Boise State/UCF to get back to 12).
A lot of people would complain about the B1G staying at 12 and failing to get ND or Tex, but I think it would be fine. The B1G would remain a tight-nit Midwestern conference with an easier path the the BCS title game and less scheduling headaches. The SEC and The ACC would both be watered down, to some degree (though ND would be a huge gain for the ACC). The Pac-16 would be a monster!
LikeLike
I left South Florida and Baylor out. My mistake. The Big 12 will look something like this:
WEST
Iowa St
Missouri
Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
BYU/Boise State
EAST
Rutgers
Cincinnati
Louisville
South Florida
Houston/UCF/Memphis
TCU
LikeLike
ND could well stay in the Big East for non-football sports. Remember, it would still have Georgetown, Villanova, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Providence, De Paul and Marquette, regardless of what the Big East football members do or where they go.
LikeLike
That might not seem to bad at first, but long term they’ll become more like the A10 than the ACC and probably be a less than ideal place for Notre Dame to park other sports. Those are a lot of smaller schools with more limited followings and in areas where pro sports competition is steep.
Regarding Notre Dame, the question simply is “are they willing to give up football independence now”? I’m not sure such a big decision (for them) is going to be decided quickly, but I do think more instability in the Big East (e.g. WVU to the SEC, the basketball/football schools splitting so the football schools can join with Big 12 remnants) is going to likely force their hand.
It doesn’t hurt that Notre Dame ice hockey is at a crossroads at this very moment, trying to decide where to go when the perfect home in the Big Ten is just sitting there.
LikeLike
Yes, bit where are they going to put ND hockey?
LikeLike
Hockey East or the NCHC. =)
LikeLike
The only all sports conference that offers Hockey is the Big Ten, and that doesn’t begin until 2013. Hockey only conferences are the norm, FYI.
LikeLike
royaloaker,
Here’s where we seem to be. Correct me if I’m way off:
(1) Texas and Oklahoma are going to the Pac-16. This is the long-awaited seismic shift.
Don’t believe any rumor involving UT until the ink is dry. They’ve had “imminent deals” with multiple conferences in the past year according to reports.
(2) Notre Dame will then choose between the ACC and the Big Ten.
This is complete non sequitor. The P16 would have no impact on ND’s decision. Until the postseason rules change in a way that limits ND’s NCG access, I think they will choose independence.
If Notre Dame chooses the Big Ten, then Rutgers becomes no. 14 in the B1G. Right?
Maybe, maybe not. Rutgers would be one reasonable choice.
[Does the Big Ten then go to 16 with Kansas, Missouri, etc.?]
No. What would they gain from that? 16 isn’t a magic number.
If Notre Dame chooses the ACC, then U-Conn becomes no. 16 in the ACC. Right?
Why do you assume UConn won’t get there first? The ACC may hit 16 before ND does anything.
[Does the Big Ten then go to 14 with Missouri and Rutgers, or will it just stay at 12? I think it will stay at 12.]
If ND and UT are off the board, the B10 won’t expand.
The big question is: WHICH WAY IS NOTRE DAME LEANING? Something tells me they will decdide to go East Coast and take the ACC in order to avoid being labelled “just another midwest team.”
They aren’t leaning anywhere. They want to stay right where they are. At most they are thinking about how their other teams will deal with the new, smaller BE.
(5) The Big East will drop football or fold entirely.
Why fold when they can still be a great hoops league?
LikeLike
The FSU fans sure don’t seem to be pleased with the Pitt & SU additions: http://floridastate.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=1079&tid=147521504&mid=147521504&sid=1061&style=2
LikeLike
While I understand the sentiments of the fans, this was clearly the best move the ACC had to get to 14 (no school in the SEC or Big Ten was coming), so they had to take the heart of the Big East’s basketball brands as well as Pitt’s decent football brand.
This move should help the earnings power of the ACC all things considered since they are by far the premiere basketball league with Kansas out in the wild of the Big 12.
Also, as bullet pointed out, a lot of us underestimated the ability of the ACC to expand. With the ACC’s payout only a bit above the $11M offered to the Big East; it’s easily imaginable that Syracuse and Pitt as two of the premier brands in the Big East would be able to hold their own in terms of earning power for the ACC’s contract.
The academics running these institutions don’t really care what the fans think.
LikeLike
I understand why Pitt and SU moved. I’m just wondering why the ACC pulled the trigger now. Did their talks with Texas give them info that the Big 12 was toast and they needed to move? Or were they concerned about their own stability if they stayed at 12? Taking Pitt, according to one OU source, ended the last chance for saving the Big 12 and the ACC has been wanting stability for everyone. The Pitt/SU poked another whole in the dam holding back the realignment flood.
LikeLike
The Pitt/SU addition poked another hole in the dam holding back the realignment flood.
Makes a little more sense if you complete the sentence and use the right words.
LikeLike
So ACC lacrosse just got a hell of a lot stronger, no?
LikeLike
You bet. Ironically, still not enough for an auto bid (Syracuse only brings them to 5 teams, Pitt doesn’t sponsor the sport). Lacrosse is the only sport the ACC can lord over the Big Ten in terms of drawing Notre Dame. I don’t know how big that would be for them. Depending on who else comes into the Big Ten, that might not be an issue — Rutgers, for example, has lacrosse for both genders.
Right now, the Big Ten has 4 teams in women’s lacrosse (OSU, UM, Northwestern, and PSU) so adding ND and Rutgers would bring that school into the fold. They only have 3 in men’s lacrosse (not Northwestern) so they’d need someone else to start it up to sponsor the sport and get an auto-bid.
LikeLike
Not just lacrosse, but woman’s soccer and basketball. I think ND fans are very realistic about Men’s Basketball: we don’t recruit the public hs leagues in major cities and we don’t recruit players with AAU runners who are “one and done.” As a result, every year we are the “whitest and most suburban” top 20 team in American and that won’t change for a long time. It also means that we won’t be a top 4 team unless we change and we won’t. Let Memphis, Louisville and UK occupy that space — I don’t think it has helped their “brand” at all.
LikeLike
yee haw.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why the demise of the BE football conference means that ND must act now. Why does it? It appears to be the opposite. If Texas and OU do go to the Pac 16, then is our position stronger as an independent — not weaker? Do you believe that if football value trumps basketball value by 3x – 4x that ND needs to act immediately lest Connecticut bumps us out of the ACC?
One side note: you don’t have a school that graduates 1800 students a year and reaches a top 12 in endowment in the US in a 30 year span (from not even ranked) without cultivating a close tie with the alums. ND’s alumni giving rate is 95+% per year vs. 55% for the Big Ten. In my opinion, it will take a year or two of dialogue to prepare the alums for any tie-in to a conference that will affect our football independent. I don’t know how that this will effect all of the strategizing on this board, but I would be shocked if one day it is announced that we join a conference without a lengthy, prior discussion as a community.
LikeLike
Well Big Ten isn’t looking to expand.
So there’s no threat of a 4×16 conference scenario right now. In fact, I don’t think ND has to even consider acting until 2014 as long as their negotiations with Comcast/NBC are safe, they’ll be fine as an independent.
I don’t think this changes ND’s future.
LikeLike
I don’t think Notre Dame’s football future is at stake; the issue is the other sports. The Big East just took a huge blow to their reputation and future by losing two of their biggest names. If other are out the door — like WVU to the SEC and UConn/Rutgers to the ACC — or if there is a split where the remaining football schools merge with Big 12 programs, then Notre Dame will have to make big decisions about their other sports. Would they be okay in a Catholic school only basketball Big East? Maybe, but those are a lot of small athletic departments and smaller schools with smaller followings. I would expect the Catholic Big East to decrease in importance and stature in ensuing years and I’m not sure it’s who Notre Dame would want to be associated with in the long run.
And there’s also the hockey thing, but I think it’s a small deal.
I fully expect, though, that any decision that Notre Dame makes to be something that is down the road We’re not going to see a Notre Dame to any conference (unless they retain football independence) in the next week or two.
LikeLike
The Villanova people made the same argument in talking about upgrading their football. They didn’t want to get left behind. They haven’t made a wasted investment, but they would have been in a lot better position to find a seat at the table if they had said yes right away instead of taking months.
LikeLike
The question is whether ND regards the Big East as an acceptable conference for its non-football sports. The basketball would be okay, but all the other sports would be pretty bad. Football is definitely king at ND, but are they willing to dump their other sports in a mid-major? I don’t know.
LikeLike
Thamel: this isn’t done yet.
First, the Texas regents must approve of the deal when they meet Monday. (Oklahoma’s regents have made their interest known. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech are a package deal with Oklahoma and Texas.)
The second factor is completing the details of the new 16-team league, including the alignment of the divisions and how Texas’ Longhorn Network would fold into the Pac-12’s television contract structure. This will require intensive work for Scott, ESPN and Texas to see how things can be settled financially and in terms of branding, and still meet the approval of the Pac-12 presidents.
Once those issues are settled to a point where Scott can take the expansion possibility to his presidents, the third hurdle will be whether they approve the additions. (Scott has not addressed the issue with them yet, according to the Pac-12 official.)
This is not a given, because a majority of the presidents were not in favor of expanding as of last week. Arizona and Arizona State are concerned about losing a toehold in Los Angeles by potentially playing fewer games against U.C.L.A. and U.S.C. The newest members, Colorado and Utah, are worried that they made a move west and could now be placed in a division that would limit their exposure on the West Coast
LikeLike
Just saw that as well. Nothing in there strikes me as particularly difficult to overcome.
LikeLike
Agreed; we’re talking formalities at this point. Pac-16 will emerge fairly soon. Applications to the Pac-16 will be done this week probably…
LikeLike
Don’t underestimate the vote issue. Utah, Colorado, Arizona & Arizona State won’t like this for the reasons mentioned in the article. Stanford is going to hate Texas Tech & Oklahoma State. USC and UCLA won’t like the Longhorn Network at all because they just signed over their Los Angeles rights – and you can include USC’s national brand in that – to the Pac-12 pool. Oregon probably won’t want to be podded away from SoCal because that school is dependent on out-of-state recruiting to build a power program.
Even under the “expedited” rules the Pac-12 put in place for expansion, you still need a 75% supermajority from people who are obligated by law to vote in the own interests of their home institution.
LikeLike
Gotta agree with you Peter. I wrote a few days ago two things have to occur to bring Armageddon. OU has to want to go and Pac-12 has to be willing to take them. Looks like we have the OU side nailed down, but what of the other. I believe none of the four schools you mentioned have any desire to expand further. I know Colorado has no interest. All they need to do is pull one from northern schools to block. If that happens then we have a very interesting outcome next.
LikeLike
Hangtime79:
You really think Scott, an employee of the Pac CEO’s, is being allowed to persue stratagies that have not already been cleared? Is he a door to door salesman that will show up and try to cold sell this?
LikeLike
ccrider55:
I think he has been cleared to make a deal with certain constraints. I think if there were no impediments then this thing would have been wrapped up. However negotiations are ongoing. I don’t see an issue with OU and oSu getting an immediate invite, but I could see the Pac 12 letting UT twist in wind along with TTU. The question though comes back to do we believe that the Pac 12 and Scott when they say they don’t want to grow. I think we can all say that is bunk at this point when we sit at the ledge of realignment Armageddon. What happens after that is anybody’s guess.
LikeLike
Dont think the oregon argument needing to be in socal every year is valid. Seems oregon and oregon state has beeen drawing alot of talent from Texas lately – see Rodgers bros at Oregon State and Lache Seasstrunk/Lamichael James at Oregon. Like you said the Northwest schools are dependent on out of state recruits – I doubt they care weather they are from Tex or Socal – so long as they can ball.
LikeLike
I got curious so I looked. Oregon does recruit far and wide, from North Pole, Alaska to Ewa Beach, Hawaii to Miami, Florida, but they are very dependent on California. I counted 48 Californians on their roster, 21 from Oregon, 5 from Arizona, 3 from Washington, 8 from Texas and 25 from other states all over the country (with HI and FL leading).
LikeLike
Let’s not forget that particular pipeline is being investigated by the NCAA as we speak.
LikeLike
No intensive work needed by Scott. Either the LHN becomes wholly owned by the PAC or just goes away, or there is no deal. Heck, I can do that much work.
LikeLike
@Mike – As expected, the real sticking point is the LHN. While some Pac-12 presidents might be hesitant about expansion (just like a number of SEC presidents weren’t in a rush to expand), if Texas and Larry Scott work out a palatable solution to the LHN issue, then no one is going to stand in the way of the Pac-16.
LikeLike
Agreed . . . and I actually like the possible down-the-road synergy of the LHN + Larry Scott once that inevitable compromise is reached.
LikeLike
I like Scott’s strategy of using revenue targets to get Texas to make concessions. However, we’ll find out if Texas has an ESPN problem.
LikeLike
So have we done a vote count yet for Pac 12? Does it take majority, 2/3, 3/4 to accept new members? Would the Pac 12 vote for each individually or would they vote for the entire package together?
Place your bets and which way they vote:
WU
WSU
Oregon
Oregon State
Cal
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Arizona
ASU
Utah
Colorado
I think Colorado can pull Arizona, ASU, and Utah with them to the nay column. I think the Cali schools hold their noses, vote as block for the expansion that leaves the northern schools. I’m not sure if WU and WSU are interested in playing in Lubbock and Stillwater instead of in Oregon and Colorado. I don’t think Scott brings it to vote unless he has the horses and that’s what’s being worked out right now. How do you get 12 schools playing in SoCal, 2x a year.
LikeLike
Well, the question is whether Arizona/ASU/Colorado/Utah would all band together to oppose it.
I think the Pac-8 schools will all favor it since it seems to be a Pac-8 division and a new “SWC”. If all 4 of those oppose it, they’ll probably have to make some concessions to get it through…
LikeLike
Do Utah & Colorado have full voting rights or not? I’ve seen it both ways & it makes a big difference in the vote count.
LikeLike
They should have full voting rights; Utah just doesn’t have full monetary rights yet.
I think it requires 9 of 12 to pass. But if Texas and OU want to join, I have to believe its a done deal regardless of what those 4 schools want.
LikeLike
It depends what the issue is. I’ve learned never to take it for granted when the other side does have the legal ability to say no. If its mostly about money, that’s one thing.
If you have Stanford take the position of, say, “No Texas Tech in my conference, ever” then you have a problem. Stanford has a $14 billion endowment and could care less about eight-figure annual TV cash. No one has any leverage on Stanford. They can just sit there and vote no.
Similarly, if USC says that they want whatever unequal revenue deal Texas is getting that’s better than the conference baseline, you can’t appease that. WSU & Oregon State (and Utah and Colorado at least) would freak the hell out and vote no out of fiduciary obligation & self-preservation.
LikeLike
While I agree, I think the commissioners are in such control of this process, that the schools approval might become something of a formality at this point.
This isn’t the 80s or 90s. The commissioners are way more empowered.
LikeLike
So why have we been wasting our time thinking like Presidents? 🙂
LikeLike
Well, I think it’s better stated: “Think like a president from the perspective of the school; think like a commissioner from the perspective of a conference.”
I really think at some level the schools recognize that the commissioners understand what’s important to the brand of the conference (how much emphasis on academics, fit, football/basketball, media/tv contracts).
We’re in the age of the commissioners right now.
LikeLike
@Peter
18 months ago you would have been correct, but two important things have changed since then.
1. The PAC abolished the unanimous consent requirement for expansion
2. All the schools were required to sign over ALL their TV rights to the conference for 10 years
In the past, in the past Stanford used the unanimous approval requirement and USC used the threat of leaving the conference to control the expansion process. Those options no longer exist. If Stanford or USC wants to hold a deal up they will need help from at least 3 other schools (2 if they are together on the issue).
LikeLike
@Zeek
The Presidents have been very much in control in the Big 12. Scott has been in control in the Pac 12. I would say the Presidents seem to be in control of the SEC process as well, from their comments about A&M’s academics to the legal concerns. But I do think its clear Scott, Slive and Delany have very significant influence.
LikeLike
That’s fair with respect to the Big East and Big 12 (to say the presidents are in charge, especially with how Pitt/Rutgers threw away that ESPN offer).
I guess you could say that the more stable conferences have given their commissioners much more control over the process since they’re comfortable with where they are…
LikeLike
Old Pac8 Schools would all vote yes – this fixes the unbalanced scheduling the Pac12 had to do to satisfy the California schools. Since you need 9/12 I think CU is definitely a NO, ASU is probably a NO. Zona probably votes yes simply because Mark Stoops is Bob’s brother and knows how to recruit Texas, Utah is probably a yes because they know how to recruit everywhere and are willing to play anyone. Regardless if Scott is negotiating this he knows he can get the votes he needs and the ACC14 has probably made everyone think 16 team super conferences are the future.
LikeLike
So here is a question. If UT gets to keep the LHN without giving too much what the hell is the reason for OU to go to the Pac 12 in the first place? Academics? Yes, I know Boren has been all about that but it he just put 4 of the original Big 8 schools in a real tough spot. Does he need the Pac 12 to hold UT down because everything we are hearing doesn’t sound like it (of course that could be Longhorn spin). So what do we have the end? We have OU leaving the Big 12 because they don’t like what UT is doing which they are going to get anyway going to another conference plus you now put all your athletes on planes across the country instead on a puddle jumper.
Also, I don’t understand UT. If you are moving just because somebody wants to put you in a bigger vice – why go in the first place. I can guarantee that UT will not have latitude it has had before.
This just sets up like big old power play that isn’t going to work. UT plays by its own rules because it can. Its the bad boy that every girl is trying to turn into a good man – until he cheats on you with 3 of your friends.
What a big CF this has turned out to be. Half the schools in the country because UT continued to overstep and OU and TAMU were jealous of it. Wake me when this nightmare is over…and somebody put Beebe out of his misery. I believe a no confidence vote is in order for him.
LikeLike
OU is tired of the instability in the Big XII. That’s why they are leaving.
LikeLike
Yep. They haven’t even really signaled that the LHN has bothered them much. A&M leaving on top of Nebraska and Colorado convinced them the Big 12 is done though.
LikeLike
But here is the question frug, instability because of what? The instability in the conference is brought about by UT and more importantly UT’s powerful position/swinging it around and the jealousy of what UT has. I can at least get behind TAMU leaving for the SEC…means you’re trying to get away from it. OU is inviting it with them to Pac-12. The actors change but not the equation.
The instability doesn’t come from anyone else but UT, OU, and TAMU. Of course you have seven other schools caught in the middle of it.
LikeLike
The PAC-1X requires that all schools sign over their TV rights to the conference. Sure there could be some drama, but ultimately no one can leave since they can’t take their broadcast rights with them.
LikeLike
Point taken, but will the Pac 1x actually get that out of Texas? They just got 300MM for one football game a year and all the rest of their sports. Nothing shocks me anymore during this thing and it would not shock me if UT kept there rights. Agreed, the options are running out pretty quick, but while the Big 10 is still out there and the ACC isn’t at 16 why do they have to negotiate that away? Wait a year or two and maybe the climate changes a little more. Perhaps the SEC or Big 10 raids the ACC. At that point is UT at better negotiating state? UT has the luxury of time. The Pac-12 will be out there, the Big 10 will be out there, the ACC will be out there. Just like their is room for ND in the Big 10 always; there is always room for UT. The kinda of deal their being given now is the same deal that will be on the table 2 years from now.
Finally, why I completely believe Dodd doesn’t want to go independent if a frankenstein BE-B12 exists where he could place his non-rev teams and the same options of giving up media rights and hampering the LHN are still out there I think he has to consider independence pretty closely. Of course, he would have to actively working to keep both the BE and B12 from imploding or at least one of them and that doesn’t seem to be happening so it probably takes Pac 12 and calls it a day.
“I wish I could quit you”…realignment talk
LikeLike
@hangtime79
UT can’t afford to wait a year or two – they already lost their two main rivals A&M and OU. If they don’t go to the Pac12 their spot will eventually be filled, Pac12 already posturing by saying if LHN cant be folded then Mizzou would be team#16. Also if they stay in a refilled Big12/BigEast conference – for sure that conference will have much more equitable distribution and might not allow LHN to exist anyway.
UT overplayed its hand in realignment – the LHN was simply too much money, too much media exposure and too much of an advantage for other schools to stomach (A&M in particular).
UT will lose something in this realignment regardless of where it ends up, in Big12, in Pac16 or indy. It’s going to have to sacrifice rivals, influence in the conference, tradition or the LHN. It can’t have everything like it did in the old Big12.
LikeLike
Disagree completely. Nebraska was the first big loss and that was for their own reasons and because the conference as a whole were examining all option (Texas, Oklahoma, A&M, Missouri, etc).
Texas A&M fans can argue about all the injustices of the Longhorn Network and they might be right in some of those, but they were furious they didn’t leave for the SEC last year when the Longhorn Network was still a ways off. They were hoping for any excuse to leave and were pushing their administration. The absence of the Longhorn Network wouldn’t have kept things together for long under those conditions if the SEC was willing to expand.
LikeLike
This is a think like a college president moment. Boren has been spending massive amounts of time on an issue he shouldn’t have to spend more than a few hours a year on. He’s got things that are more important to him he wants to spend time on.
As for UT, there’s not enough left if OU leaves. That was true regardless of what A&M did. There has to be some draw outside of Texas.
LikeLike
Agree that there’s not enough left of the Big XII if OU leaves.
In response to Hangtime, OU committing to stay wouldn’t create stability at this point. Rumors/saber-rattling about UT going indy sometime in the future mean that everyone else has to look for someplace else. The Pac scenario both makes that more difficult for a while and lessens the impact on remaining schools if it eventually happens.
LikeLike
Ponies…OU is committing to stay wouldn’t stop this mess from happening again but everybody pledging their media rights would. Media rights + 100MM buyout I think ought to do the trick then we can all be one big dysfunctional family again.
LikeLike
Question regarding the new ACC teams. How would exit fees work if Cuse or Pitt decide they don’t want to go to the ACC? Let’s say they are set to officially join the ACC on July 1, 2013. What if 6 months from now, Notre Dame says we’ll join the Big Ten, but we want Pitt invited as well; Pitt decides they prefer this to being in the ACC. Would Pitt have to pay an exit fee from the ACC if they never get to the point of formally joining? Or would it just be the exit fees for the Big East?
My point being, if they are acting in the short term, are Syracuse or Pitt officially off the table right now for the Big Ten? They are probably long shots, but I think it might be possible to get them if the Big Ten really wanted them, as long as it goes down in the near future.
LikeLike
Depends on what the agreements say. For all we know, the language is 1.5 times the annual revenue or $20M, whichever is greater. Right now, that is $20M.
It does get weird though with such a long tail.
LikeLike
They aren’t a member until it becomes official. They don’t have voting rights, get part of the money, etc, so they wouldn’t owe anything unless the ACC application states there are change of mind fees.
LikeLike
That’s what I would think, as well, which would mean that Pitt and Syracuse really aren’t off the table for the Big Ten right now. Now, we could debate whether either would be a team the Big Ten would pursue, but if there continues to be seismic changes, who knows what can happen? If Notre Dame feels they have to move and goes to the Big Ten, it wouldn’t exactly surprise me if the Big Ten opens talks with Pitt and/or Syracuse as part of that movement.
LikeLike
I have to think that there is some sort of agreement in place already. I really cannot imagine that the “application” is about addresses and personal references. It probably involves some nice legalese about the ramifications of going down this road and not following through. Why wouldn’t it say: “If applicant is approved and refuses to join the conference, applicant shall owe the league the same exit fee as a current member, which is presently $20,000,000.”
LikeLike
Because said applicant isn’t getting any money from the conference. There may well be a minor fee, but it won’t be $20M.
LikeLike
So? A large liquidated damages clause may not survive a lawsuit, but why not make it the same? Imagine the PR bust it would be if the B1G suddenly took Pitt and Syracuse. In some ways, it would be worse than losing FSU today. In fact, it could cause other schools in the conference to begin to question leadership and consider their options. If FSU fans are mad at the addition, an aborted addition would cause a mutiny.
LikeLike
I would think Syracuse would choose the ACC over the B1G. They just voluntarily left the AAU. They wouldn’t want to compete with the big state universities and are just a better fit in the ACC. And the B1G would only be interested in Pitt as filler. They don’t add any new markets. I would think ND would be fine subsituting Penn St. on their schedule to replace Pitt, so I don’t think they add allure to ND. UConn works almost as well as filler (except for the research end) and there’s always Kansas.
LikeLike
What’s with the Irish desire for independence in football anyway? With three or four non-conference games to schedule, they can be as “national” as they want in the ACC or B1G. It seems to me that they miss out on a lot. What’s not to like about winning a conference championship? It makes so many more games interesting to watch due to the implications to the conference standings. It seems to me that being independent is among the worst possible circumstances.
LikeLike
It’s part of their identity. They like independence for independence sake in the same sense that many of us like our conferences.
Independence also makes them more relevant. Everyone has an an opinion about the Irish (love them or hate them) and it keeps them relevant even when they suck for long periods of time. I think their value greatly diminishes if they join a conference and hope they are never forced to.
LikeLike
In the Brave New World of the Superconferences, 9 conference games will be standard, and ten is a distinct possibility. Notre Dame will very little control over the schedule, since 2 of the hopefully still three OOC games will be Navy and USC.
Plus, at ND, conference titles seems like barely a step up from participation trophies ;p
LikeLike
“Plus, at ND, conference titles seems like barely a step up from participation trophies ;p”
NLP_NDRox,
I don’t know if it is just a familiarity issue, having been in the B1G for so long now, or a acceptance of mediocrity issue, but PSU fans seem to have fallen for the conference championship as end game illusion. I have to admit, myself included. Before joining the B1G, our goal every year was an undefeated season and a NC. Now we’re happy to win the B1G and I’m sure in the future we’ll be happy to win our division.
I’m not saying this is bad. For the players it is probably a very good thing. More levels or goals and less of a let down if the top goals (undefeated season, NC) become unattainable. Just an observation.
LikeLike
Think of it like marriage.
NC is the bachelor’s picking up a supermodel at a bar.
CC is the married guy’s in-laws taking the kids for the weekend when the wife is feeling feisty.
All a matter of perception.
LikeLike
Anyone think that an A&M and UT deal is possible at this late stage? It just seems to me that out of all of the Big 12, that that is the only possible combo deal other than ND that might pull in UT.
I admit it’s a long long long shot at this point but I find it hard to believe that Delaney hasn’t even thought about it.
LikeLike
Probably rejected fairly early on; Tech isn’t going to be left twisting out in the wind; A&M only has eyes for the SEC.
Texas to the Big Ten has been dead for quite a while at this point.
LikeLike
Go check out the TexAgs.com board. There would be h**l to pay in the alumni ranks if they are not in the SEC. They’re too far down the road at this point to do anything different.
LikeLike
For whatever reason, I believe once this round is over; there will be none behind it. I don’t think any university presidents are going to want a repeat of the past two years in the foreseeable future therefore I think the exit fees are going to go up dramatically. The money is way too big now to have another Mizzou flirting session that started this entire business. I’m think the next set of exits is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $75 – $100 MM for whatever frankenstein monster comes out of the BE-Big12.
If the Big 10 thinks it can wait two or three years and then expand I think they are being extremely foolish. It won’t be because schools don’t want to join the Big 10 but it will be the conferences will own the media rights to the respective schools and the exit fees will so incredibly high that no one will be able to leave.
LikeLike
Which is why BIG could and probably should make move now and go to 14, IF it believes this re-alignment is ultimately moving to at least three major conferences (and maybe a 4th made up of B12 and BE leftovers) to 16-school conferences. After this re-alignment, is the BIG better off at 12 or at 14, if it were to add, say, two of the four (KU and its national brand Basketball, MU and its BIG profile, UConn and its BB brand and proximity to NY, or perhaps Rutgers, although I see it offering less than the other three)? I think it may be better off at 14, and still have room to move to 16, if the opportunity is there. KU, MU, UConn, and maybe even Rutgers may be off the board almost permanently, for all intent and purposes, soon. 12 was probably fine for a long while, until things started moving so fast.
LikeLike
There is also no convincing argument out there that says that B1G won’t go after any current ACC schools. Even at $20 million, the exit fee is a nominal investment for Delany and co. B1G is in a position to get whatever schools it wants. It’s just apparent that, right now, the only school they want is ND. Texas, I’m fairly convinced, was just being negotiated with as an avenue to landing the Irish.
LikeLike
Considering that A&M’s exit fee is basically going to be somewhat near $20M, I don’t really think exit fees are going to stop anything at this point.
The only way to really bind schools is an assignment of rights. I pointed out earlier that the Big Ten has the assignment of all of the Big Ten universities’ TV rights until 2027 or 2032 (according to an NYT article I posted earlier). That’s basically a real exit fee in the hundreds of millions of dollars for a school like Penn State.
LikeLike
Zeek, you mentioned this article from the NY Times that you posted earlier with regards to media rights being assigned to the BIG Ten until 2027 or 2032. I couldn’t find where you posted this link. I also have a NY Times online subscription. I couldn’t find it there either. There were several articles but none mentioned that the schools assigned their rights to the conference for such a long period of time.
I’m from Missouri, could you please repost the link so that I can see the source. Otherwise, I just don’t believe what I can’t see at the source.
Also, if this is true, are we sure there isn’t an escape clause in case members leave the league. First, I want to establish that what you are saying is factual by looking at the source article in the New York Times.
LikeLike
Zeek,
Nevermind, I found the posting. In case anyway else is looking for it, I’ve re-posted it here. Please read page 1 and 2 as it says the schools cannot reverse the grant of rights.
Very interesting that only the PAC-12 and the B1G have this in place. My hopes are now dashed for getting Penn State into the conference. I still have hope for Notre Dame, especially since they don’t really care about money.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s about the money per se, but that the new ACC will be pretty comfortable for all the schools. The Big Ten would have to offer some pretty massive financial advantage to overcome drawing the schools away from natural geographical/cultural ties. Even academics isn’t going to be a draw compared to the ACC.
LikeLike
The B1G can easily pay $20 million but there’s nothing in the ACC that’s worth it that would actually leave.
LikeLike
I know I’ve said this before, but I think the only thing that would change the equation for Notre Dame is if Comcast doesn’t want to renew their TV contract. That’s the only thing that I could see changing the equation.
ND would be fine remaining with the basketball schools in the Big East or if Missouri or WVU (whichever isn’t taken by the SEC), Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF, UConn, and Rutgers make a new “Big 12” and they can join that in non-football sports.
Hard to see what this move changes for ND other than making the ACC a better fit for them if they want to join someday…
LikeLike
ND would be fine remaining with the basketball schools in the Big East or if Missouri or WVU (whichever isn’t taken by the SEC), Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF, UConn, and Rutgers make a new “Big 12″ and they can join that in non-football sports.
So Zeek, you’re saying ND to Big 12 after all?
LikeLike
Hah, I guess you could say that.
LikeLike
The Western Athletic Conference would like to welcome the University of Texas at Austin as a non-football member.
LikeLike
I’m in suspense as to how this next week will all pan out.
Jim Delany is his usual, taciturn self. Notre Dame hasn’t said a word, not even to deny any of the Big Ten rumors. Texas is throwing every rumor out there, but why? To negotiate a better deal? I’m not holding my breath, but when people negotiate in public it’s to put on a show.
Chip Brown was force feed all these ACC rumors until it flew in his face, but why? The ACC didn’t want them apparently, and the appearance of Texas Tech could’ve been a poison pill. The incoming reports that the Pac-12 deal is slowing down only reinforce the idea that this is all posturing and leverage.
Or, the University of Texas could just really be awful at negotiations and enjoy the humiliation of being turned down repeatedly. Either way, I’m starting to turn away from the idea of Texas (again), and I hope Jim Delany never flinches in his negotiations. Remember: we don’t come to them, they come to us.
LikeLike
At this point, I’m pretty sure Texas is solely focused on negotiating with the Pac-12 to get the best possible deal.
OU looks like a near 100% lock. Texas is most focused on working out things with the Pac-12.
The ACC was a smokescreen for Texas to try to find leverage for the LHN. The Big Ten rumors have mostly been nonsense.
LikeLike
Probably. Dodds is supposedly for the Pac-12, but Powers wanted the ACC. Still, I heard there were major donors for the Big Ten.
It seems, at least according to the leaks and rumors, that they’ve won great concessions from Larry Scott over their payments regarding the LHN, and scheduling. The scheduling thing is likely more important, since it would mollify most objections to Texas’ entry.
But, like I said, it’s all in public. Things are only leaked if the players want them to be known. Nobody knew Pitt or Syracuse were going to jump to the ACC, despite reports of negotiations for the better part of a month (and apparently whispers throughout the Big East existed, but went unreported in the press).
Personally, I’m tired of this. I don’t care where Texas ends up anymore, I don’t like the way they conduct themselves in public, and I don’t like that they just went through a very messy divorce with A&M, and a big fight with Oklahoma. If they come, fine, but I want their very souls as collateral.
LikeLike
Staples is saying that Mizzou is the SEC #14 if the Big 12 implodes.
LikeLike
Like Mizzou would turn down an SEC invite if it didn’t? They’d be insane not to take what could be the last lifeboat out of that shipwreck.
LikeLike
It’s more along the lines of ‘the SEC will extend an offer, if the Big 12 implodes’. Mizzou isn’t in the driver’s seat.
LikeLike
My initial speculation on the PAC16 was that an eastern division of AZ, AZ State, Utah, Colorado, OK, OK St, Texas and Texas Tech would make sense. However the politics of the situation may make it expedient to split the California schools into separate divisions (and the more I think about it, the Big Ten’s goofy split into Legends and Leaders with Michigan/Ohio State and Minnesota/Wisconsin going separate directions may have been pursuing some similar purpose). We may end up seeing something like Utah and Colorado switched from the current South division to the North. with OK, OK St, Texas and Texas Tech simply plugged into what’s left of the current PAC-South. Think of conference commissioner Scott as a school teacher setting up a seating chart that deliberately breaks up cliques of friends that might misbehave if you allow too many of them to sit together. Splitting the PAC16 conference in lines that recreate the original PAC8 along with a “New Southwest Conference” probably isn’t the best strategy for long term conference unity. I’m increasing convinced if the PAC16 conference comes into existence they’ll deliberately split the divisions in some un-natural way.
LikeLike
No way they can put USC, OU, and Texas into one division.
LikeLike
The problem is that population/recruiting/brand wise, you really don’t want to put Texas, Arizona, and South California in the same division. Having USC, OU, and Texas in the same division would basically be putting the 3 most high profile programs (by far) in the same division. I just don’t think that can happen for the divisions to make sense.
You don’t want to create the Big 12 North/South all over again with an uneven split (even more uneven in this case).
LikeLike
Everything I’m reading is indicating pods, not divisions.
LikeLike
IIRC the NCAA requires a “true round robin” in order for a conference to have a title game. Something would have to give there if they decide to go that direction. Incidentally, I really like the pods idea and would look forward to seeing it play out.
LikeLike
It is likely to be pods with rotating divisions. i.e. connect two pods each year to create a division. There was some suggestion about playing 2 teams in each pod but I don’t think that will fly.
It’s likely to be pods that create 2 rotating divisions (i.e. NorthEast, SouthWest one year, NorthSouth, EastWest the next, and NorthWest, SouthEast, the third year, etc.).
LikeLike
Yeah, I think that’s the only way it’ll work given the current rules. It does seem a bit more cumbersome that way though, at least to me. Maybe they’ll be able to get some kind of waiver so they can do the “2 teams in each pod” way instead.
LikeLike
It’s not necessary to rotate through three different divisional arrangements. Two will suffice. This will be quicker and less confusing.
Put the California pod permanently in the West Division and the Texas pod permanently in the East Division. They do two crossovers yearly, completing a full set of home-aways in four years.
Meanwhile, the Northwest pod joins the West Division for two years and then the East Division for two years. The Mountain pod does likewise with the opposite division. In four years the Northwest and Mountain pods will complete a full set of home-aways with the Texas and California pods and do a full set of crossovers with each other.
LikeLike
StevenD,
I agree that’s the best way to do it with pods here. It allows everyone to play everyone twice every 4 years (and pods teams all 4 times) and leaves you with the 2 traditionally strongest pods (with the best recruiting possibilities) in opposite divisions.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn have to say I’m of two minds on that. There’s a school of thought that says the average fan will find a pod setup so hard to follow that they’ll cease to care about divisional rivalries. Then again there’s the very real example of the ACC Coastal and Atlantic divisions, which I’m not convinced that one out of a hundred people who consider themselves as college football fans can even remember now (I personally find the Conference USA and MAC division members easier to recite, which is sort of sad). Arguably a pod system cannot possibly be any worse for the PAC16 than what the ACC already has established. If you divide the pods logically and give them names that are either meaningful or colorful or both, maybe it’ll capture the popular imagination…
John Wayne Pod: USC, UCLA, AZ, AZ St
Cattle Prod Pod: OK, OK St, TX, TX Tech
Gold Rush Pod: Colo, Ut, Stan, Cal
Northwest Pod: OR, OR St, WA, WA St
LikeLike
So with the additions to the ACC, that did not include Texas, can we say Chip Brown is a fraud?
LikeLike
So reporting on something which was being discussed which ultimately did not come to fruition makes a reporter a “fraud”?
LikeLike
Not a fraud. Just a UT negotiating platform.
LikeLike
No, he’s not a fraud, but it is once again worth remembering that his sources often have a motive for giving him information. In this instance, they were talking up the ACC to him in an attempt to get the PAC-1X to blink and concede on the LHN.
LikeLike
Exactly this.
LikeLike
Maybe, but I think Texas was legitimately considering the ACC too. It might not have been their preference, but I think it was a possibility.
LikeLike
Hopkins Horn is Chip. I am finding the ACC’s add of Syracuse quite hard to understand. Terrible football program (which is the driver) & solid bball program. So this is going to bring the NY market in fb to the ACC & move the needle for the conference? Negative… Pitt is a good but nowhere near a great addition either…
LikeLike
Well we somewhat underestimated the difference in valuations between basketball/football in the Big East and ACC.
The ACC schools are only taking in a few million more per school than the Big East’s $11M per year offer from ESPN.
It’s not hard to imagine that Syracuse and Pitt brought more than their $11M per year share to that offer, so ESPN might be willing to just pay the ACC a pro-rata increase for saving it the billion dollars it would have had to bid on the Big East’s rights as the Big East went to market.
One other thing: there is a lot of value to the ACC in destroying the Big East and becoming the de facto East Coast Conference (like the Pac-12 but on the East Coast). Also, there’s a lot of basketball value to the Big East (whose most valuable property outside of FSU/Miami is UNC/Duke basketball). Now they add Syracuse and Pitt to those two schools and are going to be by far the best basketball conference. There’s a lot of synergy between those two schools and the ACC. Enough to pay for their additions it seems.
LikeLike
Plus Syracuse lets them play ACC tournament in Madison Square Garden – huge media coverage.
LikeLike
This. Taking away the MSG tourney is the biggest coup in my opinion. The only thing more valuable is the NCAA tourney. Plenty of ACC alums in the NYC / NJ area.
LikeLike
ESPN also has more inventory than it can handle currently for football. It wants to control everything to avoid competitiors, so the Big East being unimportant for football plays in their hand.
LikeLike
If TX does head west it will be fascinating to watch them try to hold back their hatred for all things California.
LikeLike
From what I understand, you’re thinking more of Texas A&M’s “Texas” mentality than UT’s itself. UT is probably really similar to places like Michigan/Virginia/Cal/UCLA/etc.
LikeLike
As a reader of this and other expansion blogs for the past year I have become pretty acquainted with most of the legitimate expansion possibilities, and reasons for their legitimacy. I was as excited and caught up as anyone at the idea of having ND, UTX, TAMU, and Nebraska in the BIG. The more I think about it the more against adding kings I become.
Reasons
1. Kings need peasants. You need Indiana’s and Minnesota’s so that OSU and UM can continue to roll up wins, pad stats, and put more focus on the games that we want to matter.
2. Family matters. The BIG more than any other conference acts as a cohesive unit looking out for everyone best interest, even at their short term expense. Will ND or Texas every truly understand that philosophy? Independence is ingrained in the very fabric of ND….100 years from now they will be bitter at whatever conference they join, even if that conference bent over backward for them, as for TX enough has been said.
3. Greed isn’t always good. As much as I love Gordon Gecco, greed can kill. We have the best revenue model available, we are gonna get a huge a$$ payday when we renegotiate our tier 1 and 2 rates. The BTN will only add more money to the pot.
4. Chunkers try harder. You don’t always want the most attractive person at the dance. less attractive people outperform their more attractive counterparts in bed(where it matters) because they know they are not as attractive. They will likely be more loyal.
5. Everyone loves a savior.
I think we should invite Rutgers and MO. I doubt adding 2 flagship universities in large states, one with access to NYC, and the other being the perfect Midwestern fit will hurt our revenue. It will add a great research university in Rutger, stop all of State College’s bitching, give access to New York City for marquee match-ups, and we will be what they want. Same for MO, they know they need a life line, they know that the MWC is a legit possibility at this point. They will never forgot or complain about their knight in shinning Armour coming to their rescue.
I don’t want ND, no one should, because they have what they currently want, Texas doesn’t belong in the BIG because they don’t want to be. No matter how perfect someone is for you, and you for them it always takes two to tango….you can’t dance with an unwilling partner, and Texas will never have rhythm because they have guilty feet.
So I say take Rutgers and MO, put in the time money and effort to make MO a legit BIG school, add some peasants for the kings to dominate, add 10 million plus tv sets, 4 new senators, over 600 million in current graduate research, recruiting rich Jersey, and do it all with partners that will thank you for coming
Or wait for ND, try to entice TX and end up with anger, hatred, and eventually apathy. Jim it’s ok to hit two doubles and score one run when you already won the game.
LikeLike
Completely agree.
LikeLike
Completely agree too! Enough already of this TX/ND BS.
LikeLike
#5 Actually they tend to eventually resent a savior.
LikeLike
Well I’ve gone to bed a dozen times in the last 18 months expecting that a major conference move would happen the next day. Once or twice an action has resulted. Tomorrow could be most widely influential day since the day Jim Delaney decided to think out of the box and invite Penn State into the conference.
Or we could be treated to a series of bland statements from ADs and Commissioners: “We’re simply trying to be in the best position as we monitor the landscape.” “We don’t have any plans to do anything unless circumstances change” “We’re in contact with a number of possibilities should the need arrive” “Big Jimmy D needs a 5 iron. Could you hand it to me?”
LikeLike
M,
Delany didn’t invite PSU into the B10.
LikeLike
For my fellow Illini fans, we are #24 in the AP. Still not in the Coach’s Poll, but we are second in the “others receiving votes) category”
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings
LikeLike
I find it really funny how many people/places seem to think that the ACC picking up Syracuse and Pitt relegates the B1G to being the fourth best conference in a superconference world.
I’m sorry, but, what?
If Syracuse and Pitt football were the gap between the B1G and ACC before the ACC expanded, then the B1G had serious football issues anyway. Syracuse is not a football brand, at all, and Pitt, while one of the strongest Big East brands in football, is hardly a king, a prince, or a lord (or whatever term people are using now). This literally does not change the football hierarchy at all save for effectively killing the Big East unless it can merge with the Big 12 leftovers.
I don’t see why people think the B1G would now feel cornered or like it has to expand. As Frank pointed out, the Big Ten has never felt the pressure to expand. They were at 10 teams for a long time before adding PSU, and they waited many years to expand again with Nebraska, despite the allure of a CCG. 14-team conferences might be stable, but as conferences grow they are going to lose some of their identity and cohesion (unless they significantly increase their conference schedules). That may not ultimately matter, but it could also lead to conference instability. Why be the guinea pig for superconferences when you can let other conferences take that risk? Shoot, Delaney is probably giddy right now that the ACC is taking such a risk. The conference that we have often said is both an appealing target for the B1G and SEC, but also too stable to poach, is now possibly risking said stability in the face of a changing college landscape. If the right options are not on the table, JD is not going to move, and the B1G presidents sure as hell won’t approve the wrong options either (people easily forget Michigan voted against Penn State at first, and we think they won’t lobby against a lesser school like Rutgers, Kansas, or Missouri?).
LikeLike
you’re right B1G will never be forced to expand – but they will have to continue dealing with
A. declining population base
B. declining quality of recruits (relative to large pop, warm weather states, caused by A)
C. declining quality of play against non conference foes, esp SEC/PAC (caused by B)
D. declining national interest/perception of conference quality (caused by C)
E. eventually declining TV money relative to other conferences (caused by A, B, C and D)
LikeLike
Yeah, but other than Texas, there’s never really been a strong play that could reverse those trends, so the goal has been to go for schools that could overcome that in their own right and have a profile large enough to overcome that (i.e. Nebraska which has always dealt with having having to recruit far away).
And these trends have been in place for at least 20 years, even though they’ve become more important in the past decade.
LikeLike
BIG is creating an “exposure gap” if the PAC goes to 16 and the SEC and ACC go to 14.
Just with #s alone, we’re going to hear relatively more about the ACC and SEC, as they’re going to be plastered all over ESPN and its suppoerting channels. And ACC will be the defacto eastern conference, so the eastern media will be cover them more to fill the BIG E vacuum………
BIG is silly not to add MO and Rutgers….unfortunate decision.
LikeLike
If only A was true, then maybe B, C, D, E would be true, since they all depend on A.
However, A isn’t true.
Population in Big Ten states:
1990: 62,821,622
2000: 66,993,157
2010: 69,300,564
LikeLike
Now show me the population growth of the South and the West in the same time period? Well known Florida/Texas/California are the big growth states – just look at number of congressional seats added versus congressional seats taken away
Big Ten states tend to lose or stay stable in House of Representative seats while Texas alone gained 4 and Florida 2 in last 2010 census. Ohio – lost 2, Michigan 1, Illinois 1, Iowa 1, Pennsylvania lost 1.
Let me clarify – when I said declining population number – I wasn’t referring to total population in those states, the US population in general is increasingly slowly – so no big surprise BigTen also having slow growth. But between aging population base and loss of jobs in the “rust belt” South and Western US is expected to be where there will be more young people (ie college football recruits) but like a poster said “it’s a death – but it’s a slow death.”
LikeLike
“loss of jobs in the “rust belt” South and Western US is expected to be where there will be more young people”
Which two of the following states have the highest unemployment rates in the United States?
California
Indiana
Illinois
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Nebraska
Nevada
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Hint: Look west…
LikeLike
States with unemployment rate worse than national average (9.1).
South and west states in bold. Big Ten states italicized.
1 Nevada (13.4)
2 California (12.1)
3 Michigan (11.2)
4 South Carolina (11.1)
5 Florida (10.7)
6 Rhode Island (10.6)
7 North Carolina (10.4)
8 Mississippi (10.3)
9 Georgia (10.2)
10 Alabama (9.9)
11 Illinois (9.9)
12 Tennessee (9.7)
13 Oregon (9.6)
14 Kentucky (9.5)
15 New Jersey (9.4)
16 Arizona (9.3)
17 Washington (9.3)
18 Idaho (9.2)
Quite striking, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Its a real estate recession. When you’ve hardly had anything new built in decades, its hard to lose many construction jobs. When you go nuts like in Nevada and Georgia and Florida (look at the number of new skyscrapers built in Miami in the last decade), there’s a long way to fall.
LikeLike
And actually in many states parts of the population have been declining. Those total figures don’t show the aging of the population. I saw an article a few months ago saying Ohio had 25% fewer high school students than it did 30 years ago. With the declining industrial base, Ohio is losing a lot of its younger people to other states. The same is true for Indiana outside Indianapolis and Illinois outside the Chicago metro area. Michigan actually lost people in the last census, the only state to do so. Pittsburg metro lost people.
LikeLike
Just wait until there’s a water shortage in the South.
LikeLike
Wholeheartedly agree. Great Lake water tastes great. All this population shift talk is nonsense. Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania & Michigan will remain bell-weathers for the rest of the nation despite current economic conditions, they’ll correct themselves eventually when they run out of other people’s money.
All this expansion stuff is running counter-intuitively. The perfect number for a conference is 10 teams. You play nine football games and 18 home & home basketball games. You want conference championship games; well they’re called bowl games. Ours is called the Rose Bowl and we play the Pac-10, now ridiculously 12 and soon 16.
LikeLike
Great Lakes water tastes great????? Didn’t it catch on fire at Cleveland?
There may be a water shortage in the West, but there’s plenty in the South.
And I’ve never lived anywhere with water that tasted as bad as Indiana well water.
LikeLike
Plenty of water in the south? lol Tell that to Georgia & Florida.
LikeLike
Georgia has plenty of water. They just haven’t built any resevoirs in 50 years, thinking the 55 inches of rain a year in Atlanta was all they needed.
LikeLike
Bullet,
If GA has plenty of water, why did they lose a major court fight (vs AL and FL) to take more water out of the river for Atlanta? Why are they planning for conservation efforts to reduce per capita usage by over 12% over the current rate? Why did the lakes that feed Atlanta water almost run dry in the recent drought?
If the south has so much water, why is much of it in excessive or severe drought right now?
LikeLike
And I agree somewhat on your 2nd paragraph. Although I like 12 and championship games. But 10 is the next best number.
LikeLike
I agree with you. But I think it was just one person that posted that. Who else is saying the ACC suddenly leapfrogged the B1G?
LikeLike
If you read a lot of the B1G message boards, as well as the boards of the potential targets (Rutgers in particular), you’ll see a lot of that stuff.
LikeLike
Random thoughts… some of this is not new, but rather I’m in agreement with other posters.
I find it rather amusing that the ACC, not tBT, destabilized the BE. Pitt & SU are good fits in the ACC… but, why did they add them now? Is it… (a) to solidify their place as one of the Big 4, (b) to prevent ND/UTx from dictating who would come with them (like the Pac did w/ CU), (c) to backfill possible losses to tBT &/ the SEC, (d) because ESPN said so, or (e) none of the above? I may be in the minority, but I (still) believe that tBT could poach from the ACC. The ACC is strong, but tBT is stronger. If we must grow beyond 12, then I’d like to see Pitt, UMd & two of: ND, UConn, ISU, UK, MU, RU, UVA, BC &/ SU added (and yes, I understand that some of those are non-starters). I do NOT want UTx or anyone not listed above, for a variety of reasons.
I don’t like the fact that ESPN (or any corporation) wields so much influence on decisions that ought to be made by university presidents/BoR. Conferences should be like-minded institutions working together to better their athletics (and academics). I prefer All-Sports conferences to the Hybrid models. I’d have preferred that we didn’t end up with conferences larger than 12 members, for a number of reasons (most already mentioned). Rivalries, Tradition, Geography & Culture should matter. If CFB becomes too commercialized, then fans may turn away.
I don’t think it’s likely that the Big 4 split off from the NCAA for CFB. It would appear that we will end up with the Big 4… plus one (Big 4.5). The Big 4 has to have at least 51% of the votes, in order to maintain control the CFB post-season (BCS). There are currently 122 FBS (D-IA) schools (w/ more moving up). That means the Big 4 (with 64 members, max) will need to have another conference included in the BCS. I believe that within this round of realignment, the Big 4 conferences will look like: Big Ten (12; adds UNL), ACC (16; adds Pitt, SU, UConn & ND/RU), SEC (14; adds TAMU & WVU) & Pac-14 (14; adds CU, UUt, OU & oSu). The .5th conference will be the Continental Conference (likely under the B12 banner). It will include the leftovers from the B12 & the BE. The new Big 12 would look like… East: Cin, ISU, UL, MU, RU/ND & USF; West: BU, KU, KSU, TCU, TTU & UTx. They could then add 2-4 more schools, selecting from C-USA, the MWC, the WAC &/ BYU. This would ensure that the Big 4.5 have the majority vote on all things BCS, all current AQ schools remain as such, and could open up the possibility for more schools to win a mNC.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
I just can’t buy the whole Texas-to-the-Pac-12 argument. Why would they do that? UT moved heaven and earth only a year ago to custom design a Big 12 to its own specs. Now it has it.
Granted, there have been high-profile defections, but the major advantages remain. The Big 12 will remain a viable and probably AQ qualifier conference as long as UT sticks around. It also gives the LHN free rein and provides UT with both a disproportionate revenue stream and the status of lord of the manor, which seems to be an institutional prerequisite. As a bonus, the loss of major competitors like OU, NU and A&M only make UT’s road to a BCS game each year easier. Why not just cobble together a resuscitated Big 12 with the likes of BYU, TCU, Cinci, Louisville, etc., and continue on (one effect of those additions, BTW, is a stronger BB conference).
A move to the Pac-12 means several significant disadvantages. One of course is a compromised LHN at the least, but I think a potentially bigger obstacle is that UT simply has trouble playing nicely with others unless it can be the alpha dog. And the Pac 12 has a whole slew of entrenched alpha dogs that won’t put up with its sh-t (USC, UCLA, Stanford, etc.). Can UT be happy in a group where it is at best an equal and at worst one of the newcomers?
There is also the factor of having a proportion of UT’s games relegated to the PST ghetto, the one that has its games carried as “late scores” on Eastern morning news shows. I think this factor–being on after prime time in the East–plays a big role in why the Pac-12 gets undervalued by the (East Coast based) national media. UT’s inclusion will help the Pac-12 mitigate that, but for UT it will mean taking on the problem needlessly.
As for why the Pac-12 would want UT, I have some questions as well. Yes, they are a major brand and they, along with the other Big 12 refugees, will extend the Pac 12 brand out from the West Coast. But at what cost? Even if the LHN problem is resolved with some compromise, that is still a blow to the conference’s traditional unity. Plus, assuming Texas Tech, OU and OSU also join with UT, they’ll suddenly have an alien (and culturally separate) voting bloc constituting a quarter of the conference (more if they are joined by other newcomers like Colorado). And OU, OSU and TT aren’t exactly raising the conference’s academic profile. Does that matter to schools like Stanford, USC and Cal-Berkeley? It used to…
Maybe the money and the expanded footprint are worth the problems, but i’m just sayin…
LikeLike
Texas sees itself as big time. After losing Colorado, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State, the “Big” 12 would no longer be a big time conference. Having its two biggest rivals playing in the real big time conferences would not be a good result for Texas.
Texas A&M hosting Alabama and Florida would be a lot more exciting than Texas hosting Louisville and Cincinnati.
LikeLike
Does that trump having the LHN running at full blast and having an easier road to a BCS game? Plus, no one says they can’t schedule those rivals in OOC games.
LikeLike
Rivals may be disinclined to help UT prop up its schedule. Especially if it means they can tell recruits they can play on the big stage in the SEC and Pac vs. a very weak Big 12.
LikeLike
I don’t know. Rivalry games are big money generators for both teams. Even if you play in the PAC, a game versus UT would still be a huge deal if you had a traditional rivalry with them, especially one fueled by geography.
LikeLike
Yes, Mike, we’re not as evil and irrational as you seem to think we are.
LikeLike
Where did you get that I thought you (I assume you mean UT) were either evil or irrational. I think UT does have a certain institutional arrogance that was demonstrated by how it forced through a self-serving structure for the Big 12 last year, alienating other conference members in the process. But that is some ways from being “evil.” And it is hardly irrational.
LikeLike
@mikebuz
UT didn’t change anything last year except it gave up some of the unequal revenue sharing. Now about 75% is shared equally and 25% is earned by TV appearances. Previously it was about 50/50.
You are misinformed. There was NO change except towards more equal revenue sharing. Texas always had the right to form The Longhorn Network. Texas promoted a Big 12 network, but early on noone was interested except Nebraska.
LikeLike
So NU, A&M, OU and OSU are overreacting to a perfectly reasonable move orchestrated by UT?
LikeLike
NU was before-read the article from Omaha posted on here for their thinking. OU and OSU are reacting as much to A&M as to LHN. They were staying in 10 team league even if they weren’t thrilled about some of the things TLN was doing. And A&M always over-reacts to anything UT does. A&M leaving is really about A&M, not about Texas.
You can make a much more convincing argument that TCU is a conference killer-SWC, MWC seceding from WAC, they left bedraggled WAC, Best of CUSA left them, they moved to MWC, Utah and BYU left them and they left MWC. Now BE appears to be leaving before they can arrive.
@Jake-those Killer Frogs really earn their reputation.
LikeLike
That’s the point – the money and expanded footprint are worth the problems. Pac teams always have a problem with the “East Coast bias” – you cant expect 45-65 year old EST sports writers in NYC/Boston/DC to stay past their midnight bedtimes to watch Pac games that go till 2 AM in the morning. Since they don’t watch the games – Pac teams have historically been under valued as football powers. Expanding into central time zone means more exposure for Pac teams, more journalists paying attention to Pac games. Plus as currently constructed Pac12 only has one “king” in colllege football USC – with the addition of UT and OU they get 3 total – more than the ACC and closer to the B1G,SEC.
LikeLike
That may explain why the Pac 12 would put up with UT and its LHN obsession (though I’ll believe that when I see it) but doesn’t explain why UT would want to relegate a portion of its schedule (in all sports) to the PST netherworld. Right now, all its games (except a few West Coast non-conference ones) are in Central Time, which meshes with the East Coast biorhythms of sports media movers and shakers. Why mess with that?
LikeLike
PSU to the ACC?
PSU fan who would love this. Joe has constantly lobbied for Eastern partners for PSU in the Big Ten. PSU gets almost nothing out of midwestern recruiting, still recruits better along the eastern seaboard.
http://www.foxsportssouth.com/09/18/11/ACC-additions-could-be-only-the-start/landing_acc.html?blockID=565497&feedID=3796
But why would Penn State leave the Big Ten and its mega TV deal and network so its games will air in Mayberry and like towns in the South? ACC teams would then reside in the third-most populated state (New York), fourth-most (Florida), sixth (Pennsylvania), ninth (Georgia), 10th (North Carolina), 12th (Virginia), 14th (Massachusetts), 16th (Indiana), and 19th (Maryland). Cash registers at the ACC offices in Greensboro would break. Let’s advance that Penn State would make as much if not more money in a revamped ACC, travel wouldn’t be as difficult, and it would align itself with schools with similar missions. Penn State and Nebraska have very little in common, and if the Big Ten adds Kansas, Missouri, et al, Penn State would be on even more of an island. In the ACC, nine road trips from State College are 490 miles or less, only three are fewer than 547 miles in the Big Ten. Penn State is an eastern school, and the ACC is set to be an eastern conference, not a southern one anymore. For PSU, it simply makes sense.
LikeLike
Somebody just talking. I would guess Penn St. is happier than any other football program that has switched conferences in the last 25 years. Short of Northwestern moving to the University Athletic Association with Chicago, noone is leaving the Big 10. Unless, of course, the Big 10 expands to 16 and many of the original members eventually feel the need to leave to get rid of the newcomers and maybe a couple of the old-timers.
LikeLike
i’ve thought that as well. but i really doubt it happens.
LikeLike
Penn State can’t go anywhere until 2027 or 2032 at the very earliest; not really sure why anyone’s even discussing this.
Besides, there’s a difference between what Penn State wanted in the 1980s and what makes sense now.
Pitt and Syracuse and Boston College were far more high profile in the 80s in football than they are now. Maybe there’s some nostalgia for JoePa’s old dream of an Eastern conference, but it makes no sense now.
LikeLike
That is the dumbest article I have ever read. The writer obviously doesn’t know that Penn State has given the Big Ten its TV rights for the next twenty or so years. Also, the ACC may have good Undergraduate stats, but the B1G and the CIC blow them away as far as research, which is more important to a school like PSU, or the rest of the Big Ten. PSU leaving the B1G is dreamland.
He may have a point with Notre Dame, but a Notre Dame move to the ACC means that ND will not be able to play USC, Stanford, Navy, Michigan, MSU, and Purdue in the same year. ND has no long standing rivalries with any of the ACC teams, with the exception of Pitt. But even the the 65 games in that series doesn’t compare to the 80 plus of the USC, Navy, and Purdue series, or the 79 of the MSU series. If the rivalries are what is most important to ND, then the B1G is the better fit. If being in a conference with more private schools is most important, than the ACC is a better fit. I think they will just chose to ride this out however, and remain independent.
LikeLike
Yeah, right, Penn State would give up BTN profits, CIC windfall, and conference that’s made it a legit national power in just about everything other than men’s basketball (a lost cause) in order to play a few more football games with eastern rivals? Hey, if it’s that important to PSU, have them call the folks in College Park about a conference switch.
LikeLike
@VP19 – The equation is simple:
B1G membership = 3 titles in twenty years
ACC = beat up eastern patsies…err ‘rivals’…again
LikeLike
To be fair, Penn State was a national power before the Big Ten.
But why would they suddenly warm up to a Tobacco Road run conference, that adds members who denied Penn State membership in the Big East?
LikeLike
Polls are kind of interesting this week.
Big 12 5/10 ranked-50%
SEC 5/12 ranked-41%
BE 3/9 (counting TCU) ranked-33%
B1G 4/12 (includes Nebraska-big 12 last year) ranked-33%
ACC 4/12 ranked-33%
Pac 3/12 ranked-33%
Other 1/53 ranked-2%
Ranked teams include USF, Baylor and TCU, all of which are at big threat of being left behind. Missouri also has some votes. Big 12 and Big East are doing fine in the polls but are being poached.
Big East has been close to ACC in average strength since 2005 and the Big 12 has probably been the 2nd strongest football conference in that time frame.
In basketball the BE and Big 12 have arguably been the top 2 conferences over that time frame. In the final regular season poll last year the number of teams was:
Big East 7
Big 12 4
Big 10 3
SEC 3
Pac 2
ACC 2
Others 4
11 of the 16 Big East schools and 6 of the 12 Big 12 schools received some votes in that poll compared to only 3 for the 4 pedator conferences.
Its interesting that competitive strength shows no realtionship to the stability of the conference.
LikeLike
It would be more accurate to say that polls show no relationship to competitive strength.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/19/pac-12-expansion-the-latest-on-texas-revenue-sharing-and-16-team-division-alignment/
From Jon Wilner. Seems that UT is trying to negotiate with a brick wall. Which is something I’ve been saying all along. The PAC shares TV and takes ownership of a schools media. They have 12 schools to agree to it and now OU and OSU
BUT Texas wants a SPECIAL deal…..and it’s not happening.
Couple of Quotes:
For one thing, the Longhorn Network would have to be folded into the Pac-12 regional model — it wouldn’t exist as a separate entity.
What’s more, there is no chance that any school will have more than 1/16th of the revenue that comes from the conference’s first, second or third-tier rights. NO CHANCE.
We’re more likely to see USC give up football and join the Big West.
AND:
*** Yes, yes, 100 times yes: The Pac-12 would add the Oklahoma schools and become a 14-team conference even if Texas follows a different path.
LikeLike
What Texas might want in its ideal world and what Texas will settle for at the end of the day are two different items. I sense very little appetite from anyone affiliated with UT (from the administration to the fans) to stay in a super-diminished Big 12.
And even if we’re right and visionary and all that with the LHN (please indulge me on that), if no one else is there with you, you’ve gotta follow the immortal words of Kenny Rogers and know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em.
I have to think the Pac 16 gets done, since there aren’t any other plausible options out there.
LikeLike
You forgot Independence Hopkins Horns. Yeah….I know….but the more I see of UT’s “negotiations” the more I think they want the LHN as it is over anything else.
UT could have their PAC invitation tonight if they wanted it. Just accept the PAC set up which all 14 schools have agreed to, and what is on the table. But UT can’t think that way. It’s not in their mind set to not get a special deal better, and more unique then everyone. And that thinking is leading to one conclusion.
Also, for some reason, UT never would commit to the Big 12 passed 2014. Do they see something changing that they would want to be available for that’s not available today?
LikeLike
In UT’s case, fold ’em means calling up Mike Slive when UT could do exactly what its doing in the Big 12 regarding TLN.
If that happened, I wonder if A&M would proclaim victory by forcing UT to do what they didn’t want to do or would they head off to the Pac 16?
LikeLike
Actually, I’ve always thought the Texas-would-never-go-to-the-SEC-because-of-academics argument was kinda suspect. After all, is the SEC really that inferior academically to the Big 12 even before the recent defections? I think the real objection to the SEC is the same as it is to the Big Ten and to a somewhat lesser extent the ACC and Pac 12, which is that those traditional conferences have a group of entrenched institutions that will not roll over for UT or let it call the tune as it has in the Big 12. I’m not sure UT can institutionally live with the status of newcomer low guy on the totem pole in a conference of alpha dogs like the SEC or Big Ten, or even the Pac 12 or ACC.
LikeLike
It really is the academics coupled with the rouge boosters and recruiting excesses. The Presidents would much rather hang out with Stanford’s President than LSU’s. To the extent there is a group of entrenched institutions, it would be UT’s concern about a failure to reign in recruiting excesses and a willingness to accept athletes that have no chance of being a real student. UNL’s partial qualifiers was a real deal killer in the Big 12 formation. Pairing with the B1G where the institutions have similar views on that sort of thing would not be a problem.
The SEC would be only if no other deal made financial sense (and I suspect B1G or Pac do) or if TLN limitations were just considered too big a deal (which I doubt).
LikeLike
Maybe you’re right about aversion to some of the more sordid aspects of SEC lore but I still think the big obstacle is the heft of the entrenched members in a conference like the SEC or Big Ten and how UT would deal with institutions that not only push back but push back hard. I think UT wouldn’t have a problem hanging out with Stanford’s president as long as Stanford’s president understood who was the alpha dog in the relationship…
LikeLike
The SEC would require dismantlement of the LHN as a condition of admittance me suspects.
LikeLike
Why? Florida has a network, although they aren’t exclusive. I suspect all of the SEC schools except Vandy eventually have their own network.
LikeLike
Actually, the deal discussed makes some sense if you look at it from a cash flow standpoint. TLN is providing a cash flow while Pac network is an investment that may pay off big. UT would continue to get their cash if it exceeded what the Pac network was getting. If the Pac network started exceeding, UT would get an even share, possibly after making up the excess cash they got in earlier years.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that USC and UCLA got SPECIAL deals, moreso than anyone in the Big 12 ever did. They had guaranteed income significantly higher than their prior income. That guarantee went away only when it exceeded a certain limit. Nebraska in the B1G got a SPECIAL deal with guaranteed income equal to their Big 12 income even if their joining didn’t produce that much.
Wilner is only as good as his sources. And he’s had some really anti-Texas sources that made no sense the last few weeks. So I’m wondering if Scott does have the votes for a Pac 14-it seems likely, but who knows?
LikeLike
It’s the same as Chip Brown. Basically both sides are hearing from sources that want the other side to stand down and are spreading such information (or misinformation) as they see fit.
LikeLike
I kind of want Texas & Texas Tech to go into the scrap conference with the Big XII and Big East leftovers. That would give that conference a marquee team and some legitimacy. Then Texas can keep their network and we can see what happens with that. I think this Pac30 conference will get too unwieldy and set off more fireworks later. Plus, I don’t want to ever see Oklahoma State vs. Rutgers in the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
I think you’re safe that you will never see Rutgers win the Big 10.
LikeLike
Rutgers v Arizona St. has been the matchup in 33% of the Rutgers bowls:
Date Bowl Opponent Result Score
December 16, 1978 Garden State Bowl Arizona State Loss 34 – 18
December 27, 2005 Insight Bowl Arizona State Loss 45 – 40
December 28, 2006 Texas Bowl Kansas State Win 37 – 10
January 5, 2008 International Bowl Ball State Win 52 – 30
December 29, 2008 PapaJohns.com Bowl North Carolina State Win 29 – 23
December 19, 2009 St. Petersburg Bowl University of Central Florida Win 45 – 24
LikeLike
From Jon Wilner (who seems to have a good beat on this from the West Coast perspective):
“For one thing, the Longhorn Network would have to be folded into the Pac-12 regional model — it wouldn’t exist as a separate entity.
What’s more, there is no chance that any school will have more than 1/16th of the revenue that comes from the conference’s first, second or third-tier rights. NO CHANCE.
We’re more likely to see USC give up football and join the Big West.”
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/19/pac-12-expansion-the-latest-on-texas-revenue-sharing-and-16-team-division-alignment/
LikeLike
Thank God this article was written. I’ve been thinking this all weekend. The media has gotten WAY WAY ahead of itself. This is all UT propoganda. There is no way the PAC is going to accept anything less than UT as a completely equal member with the LHN turned into a fully-owned PAC 12 regional network with equally shared revenue… Moreover, I doubt the PAC lets UT bring Tech along. ACC bulked at that, B1G bulked at that… you think Stanford will say OK???
LikeLike
“Penn State can’t go anywhere until 2027 or 2032 at the very earliest; not really sure why anyone’s even discussing this.”
Why is that?
“Besides, there’s a difference between what Penn State wanted in the 1980s and what makes sense now.”
Joe has repeatedly lobbied for the Big Ten to add some eastern schools. Obviously, PSU thinks it is important. When you look at recruiting and population trends, for PSU, imo, the ACC is a much, much better fit. Obviously, when you are looking at a large change like this, the status quo is the safer bet for what will likely happen.
LikeLike
Penn State (and all of the other Big Ten universities) re-assigned their TV rights for all sports to the Big Ten for 20-25 years in 2007.
So, for Penn State (or anyone else to leave), they’d have to buy back those TV rights. The effective fee to leave the conference would run in the hundreds of millions… unless they just don’t want to appear on TV for the next two decades.
Regardless, Penn State is a large state university of similar size to Big Ten universities and stature (in terms of being a research university). Why anyone is entertaining an idea from the 80s is beyond me.
Notre Dame to the ACC is a believable storyline as a result of this ACC expansion. Penn State makes no sense unless Pegula is really willing to fork out a couple hundred million to get Penn State into the ACC… after spending all that money to get them into hockey and get a BTHC up and running.
Penn State would leave the Big Ten for the ACC if Michigan and Ohio State decided to de-emphasize athletics.
LikeLike
The B1G and the new incarnation of the PAC have pooled media rights. The conference doesn’t have to give those back at all, let alone for less than market value, let ALONE when its a competitor poking around.
Neither the ACC nor PSU has twenty years worth of what PSU is worth in media to sign over to the B1G. Nevermind that the finances of that don’t work for something that is supposed to make money. You’re going to pay, say, a half-billion dollars to the B1G up-front and…??? Not to mention that PSU would be leaving the CIC, which is an additional hundreds-of-millions penalty that hits the academic side.
Schools leaving the B1G is dumber than schools leaving the SEC. At least the latter destination conference doesn’t have a research consortium & an outright pool structure.
LikeLike
Hopkins, I agree with you on all of your points, except if UT really will give up the LHN, why did it not do it last year? When the deal was all but done.
LikeLike
ESPN gave Texas that deal on the LHN to keep them away from the Pac-12 and lock up their TV rights if they went independent. That was just a leverage play on the Pac-12 in the future. They basically gave Texas some leverage. Now Texas is negotiating an entrance from a stronger position.
LikeLike
@zeek
What you call “leverage” and “stronger position” I’ll call a liability and a mill stone. It’s a curse, and it’s the antitheses to conferences that share equally (ACC, BigTen, and PAC)
the very fact and idea, that it’s something to be “negotiated” is what is wrong with UT right now. The concept of being one of and equal in a conference is just foreign to them.
LikeLike
While I may agree with that sentiment, I’m just commenting on why ESPN created the LHN.
LikeLike
You’re right, Red. Texas should just roll over and play dead instead of trying to negotiate the best deal it can.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn
See that’s where UT’s issue lies. What 14 other schools view as good equal sharing and cooperation, UT views as “rolling over”. UT doesn’t want the same deal as everyone else….they want the best deal….because their Texas.
sigh…….UT is going independent (or SEC). Even their smartest and most level headed fans can comprehend the concept of equality
LikeLike
I think Red’s point is that Texas negotiating the “best” deal will ultimately cause problems for Texas and whatever conference gets stuck with them. Having a better deal than conference mates is not sustainable, long term.
It may be that Texas and Notre Dame (especially) won’t work in a conference setting because they believe they are entitled to special privileges and the most successful conferences don’t grant many special privileges.
I can see Texas realizing this point and joining the Pac-16 on an fairly even basis, but I have a hard time imagining Notre Dame ever fitting into the Big Ten, where share and share alike is the touchstone. That is the opposite of how ND sees itself.
That’s why Notre Dame will pick the ACC if they have to pick a conference. While they will still be stuck sharing revenue, at least they can stick out their chests as part of an east-coast conference, which is more fancy than being stuck in the Midwest. More power to them.
LikeLike
@Paul Smith
Thanks, that’s close but my point was UT wanting and expecting a special and unique deal that is the best deal of Texas is why they don’t work well within a conference and a conference mind-set.
It’s not the “deal” that is the killer, but the the expectations of a special deal from what all the other members in a conference have signed up for and agreed to; that is the issue.
over on some UT boards you see the terms: Negotiating, Leverage, Best Deal, etc. But you don’t see: “we’ll take the same deal that Indiana has, or North Carolina State has, or Arizona has” (all in conferences with equal revenue sharing of TV deals and equal conference deals)
LikeLike
@diddle, last year, “do nothing” was a completely acceptable option, as Texas was left in a viable top-tier conference, so Texas could have its cake of attempting to launch the LHN and eat it too in a good conference. But now that A&M has also left, which seems to have triggered a probably Sooner/Cowboy departure, “do nothing” means slumming with Baylor and Houston.
LikeLike
I guess we can add condescension to arrogance.
LikeLike
Where the hell do you get that out of what I wrote, loki? He asked why circumstances were different last year, and I answered.
LikeLike
“slumming with Baylor and Houston”?
LikeLike
The SWC died years ago, loki, You can let go. Things don’t remain static for decades on end.
LikeLike
Playing schools who draw 30k when they aren’t playing you is the college football equivalent of slumming (unless they have a good band).
LikeLike
http://www.dailymail.com/ap/Aptopstories/201109191073
Discussion of WVU’s possibilities. One source expects something to happen in next couple of days. Oliver Luck, WVU AD is not commenting. Since he ALWAYS has something to say, I suspect WVU will head to ACC or SEC in next couple of days. Article says its between MU and WVU for SEC #14.
LikeLike
I think it’ll be WVU personally. All the previous indications from the early 90s were that WVU was the Eastern backup to South Carolina. I think they want to do one West, one East again.
Although the Auburn president did comment that he was willing to consider moving East if necessary, so I guess it’s still up in the air at this point in time.
I have a really hard time seeing WVU in the ACC simply due to the fact that the ACC schools tend to view undergraduate rankings (i.e. US News) as being so much more important than any other conference.
LikeLike
The Western Athletic Conference would like to welcome the University of Texas at Austin as a non-football member.
===
WAC West
Seattle (non-football)
Idaho
San Jose State
Utah State
Denver (non-football)
New Mexico State
WAC South
Texas (non-football)
Texas-Arlington (will add FBS football by 2020)
Texas-El Paso
Texas-San Antonio
Texas State
Louisiana Tech
====
University of Texas annual football schedule
Week 1: Rice or Sun Belt Conference opponent at Austin – Longhorn Network
Week 2: WAC opponent at Austin – Longhorn Network
Week 3: Pac 12 opponent from California (USC, UCLA, Cal, or Stanford) – ESPN Networks
Week 4: Navy (at Austin or Fed Ex Field) – ESPN Networks
Week 5: Oklahoma at Fair Park in Dallas – ABC
Week 6: WAC opponent at Austin – Longhorn Network
Week 7: Notre Dame (at Austin or South Bend) – ABC (at Austin), NBC (at South Bend)
Week 8: WAC opponent at Austin – Longhorn Network
Week 9 : BYU (at Austin or Provo) – ESPN Networks
Week 10: Army (at Austin or Yankee Stadium) – ESPN Networks
Week 11: WAC opponent at Austin – Longhorn Network
Week 12: BYE
Week 13: Texas A&M – ESPN
WAC opponents: Texas-San Antonio, Texas-El Paso, Texas State, and Texas-Arlington or alternate opponent
LikeLike
If there is one commissioner who is more maligned than Dan Beebe…..
LikeLike
Texas as a mid-major. Neat.
I think they would go independent 99 times before doing this.
Regardless, the Lost Toys conference would allow Texas and ND to park their other sports there indefinitely. USF, Cincy, Kansas St., etc., trumps the WAC
LikeLike
Did the ACC just save the Big 12 for Texas?
What if Texas and Beebe tell OU and everyone “slow down”, we can pluck Louisville, West Virginia and TCU from the destabilized Big East, get back to 12 and live happily ever after.
What am I missing? Why wouldn’t Texas be pushing this scenario if it seeks to save the Big 12? The Big East leftover schools would have no alternative but to accept. Texas gets to keep its LHN, and rule the new Big 12.
LikeLike
Because Oklahoma seems to have no interest being in a Big XII Conference under the leadership of DeLoss Dodds and Dan Beebe along with the Longhorn Network in its current form.
If anything, the ACC’s move reinforces the idea that conferences are getting bigger and it’s time to head for the most stable situation–for OU, that’s the Pac 16 with Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.
LikeLike
I wish Oklahoma would reconsider. I’d like to see this conference survive. I don’t want the super conference feeder into the NFL style playoffs. I like college football.
LikeLike
If WV had a choice, it would probably be ACC then SEC then Big 12. My guess would be that one of the first two choices is WAY above the 3rd. Louiville/Cincy would take a Big 12 invite. What about Rutgers? They seem to be in the same boat as WV. Would take B1G or ACC over Big 12, unless left at the alter by the other two.
Big 12 would need BYU, TCU, WV, Louiville, CIncy, Rutgers to generate any TV dollars to survive. NO Houston, SMU in the mix, IMHO.
LikeLike
Would not surprise me at all to see UT and ND come together to create a conference out of the castoffs from the Big 12 and Big East.
Assume OU and OSU head to the Pac 14 and Missouri heads to SEC.
UT and UND could put together a group with WV, Cinci, Louisville, USF and TCU along with TTech, KU, KSU, Baylor, and ISU and put a credible conference together for both football and basketball.
UT and ND could bring their TV deals to the table and offer a much better package than they currently offer their TV partners now. It would probably be enough to make sure each of those schools get enough TV $$ to be on par with the top of the other conferences.
Further, they would be the obvious big draw getting all of the prime TV time slots along with schedule flexibility to go out and land the non-confernce games each will want.
LikeLike
Justin, I agree that one option still on the table would be for Texas to either stay a full-time member of a Big12 that adds BE castoffs, or even going independent in football and keeping its other sports in such a league. A basketball league with Texas, Kansas and Louisville is still a respectable conference.
I’m not sure I buy Wilner’s take that the P12 has “all” the leverage. Not only can Texas seek to keep the B12 together, but it can also continue to talk with the B10 and ACC. At some point, its possible that not every conference is going to completely stonewall on the LHN.
LikeLike
TX, with its prsent leadership, has NO interest in the BIG…..people need to get over that
LikeLike
What is the Beast’s reaction to this? The football side of life is gutted for them. I suppose they need to call the dwarves and see what’s up. ISU might come out okay after all. I think they have a tough road ahead for AQ status though. The BCS never would have taken it before, but now it looks a lot different. If Rutgers leaves, you can probably put a fork in it.
LikeLike
Guys, it gets boring being right all the time…..
Yesterday, I said the ACC raid of the BIG would create a divisive situation with PSU and their fans, because PSU’s alums and students mostly come from the east and ne, their old rivals are from those regions, and they recruit in those regions.
Today there’s at least one columnist and 5-6 threads on the PSU forum asking why they are in the BIG rather than the ACC. This is not an issue that is going to go away….
I know Zeke says PSU is legally bound to the BIG for the forseeable future because they’ve assigned their media rights. Not saying he’s wrong, but would like to see the language…….even if this is so, it can’t be a good thing going forward if 50% of the PSU fans think they’re better served in another conference.
PSU’s been asking for an eastern travel partner for 15 yrs. For this and other reasons it’s time, imo, to get Rutgers in the BIG. As to JD’s arroagance/blindness on the matter, he should remember that “pride goeth before the fall”.
LikeLike
The schools voted to turn over their TV rights to the conference for that period (also note it lines up with the BTN contract period).
You can’t undo an assignment like that without consideration. It would literally cost several hundred million dollars to get out of the Big Ten with TV rights intact. It just isn’t happening.
A couple of Penn State fans grumbling about wanting the 80s back isn’t an existential crisis. The only thing that’s wrong with Penn State is that their coaching staff is dragging down the program.
LikeLike
Also note that this is what Nebraska told Texas to do in order to stay in the Big 12. Obviously, we know how that discussion ended.
Assignment of TV rights is the only absolute way to prevent schools from leaving a conference because it raises the exit fees into the stratosphere.
LikeLike
zeke–
Nebraska was contracturally bound to pay $15M to get out of the 12…..paid 1/2 of that
There’s a 2year notice requirement for Pitt and Sya—that will be waived or negotiated down….
These contractural obligations are routinely negotiated…..IF PSU desires to go to the ACC, do you think the BIG will sue them for hundreds of millions of $? Won’t happen. Never has in the history of college football.
Go look at the PSU Rivals board if you think this is about 1 or 2 or a few PSU fans. I’m telling you this is already a big issue and it will get bigger in the future, unless ND decides to come with the BIG.
All the Staters want is Rutgers or U CONN or any eatern team in the BIG. The BIG is courting \dissension if they don’t throw them this bone, in my very well-informed and wise opinion…….
LikeLike
Not feeling sorry for Penn State. They made their bed. If UConn or Rutgers makes them happy because they are close, then they aren’t thinking logically at all. You add schools to add value, not to add a buddy. If UConn or Rutgers was Penn State’s biggest OOC game… would the fans be happy? Heck, no. So why want them in your conference JUST to have them.
If the #’s add up or the B1G decides to further hoops with UConn, those are good decisions then. But not just to please someone.
LikeLike
The B1G doesn’t have to sue PSU for anything. They can just refuse to let them out of their contract unless PSU makes them whole. Good luck for PSU suing them to get out of that under American law. You are severely underestimating what twenty years of a school’s TV rights are worth and how that works if you are using Nebraska’s exit fee from the Big 12 as an example.
And again, the TV rights is by far the smaller of the two financial hits PSU would be taking.
LikeLike
Just thinking out loud here but what if the Big Ten extended an invitation tomorrow to Pitt? Would they ditch the ACC for the B10? I’ve long thought that Pitt, a first rate research university with a strong football tradition, would meet the B10’s criteria for adding value to the whole enterprise even though it lies in PSU’s footprint. And it would solve the problem of PSU’s “travel partner” if that is indeed a problem.
LikeLike
With all due respect CUZE, you’re full of it…
You add schools all the time to please your buddy. Ask Iowa and Wisconsin about Nebraska. One reason they were all for Nebraska is pure geographic. Of course thaty’s not the ONLY reason. And that wouldn’t be the ONLY reason to add Rutgers, but it IS an important reason………
LikeLike
Gotta kinda of agree with mushroom here. If the turd in the punch bowl that is the Big 12 has taught us anything; contracts don’t mean anything. No judge is going to force a university to stay in a conference but they will make them pay to leave. IANAL and perhaps someone one here who is can give better treatment to it, but even if a university assigns its rights to the conference would a judge still allow the conference to keep the rights of the university if they were paying their exit fee as requested? Not saying that any number of entities couldn’t sue the predator conference for TI, but I would think a university could get their media rights back.
The train wreck watcher in me from my vantage point overseeing the crash that is the Big 12 and my school’s impending relegation to the BE-Big12 Frankenstein would actually like to see a jump by PSU to the ACC. The hunter would now have become the hunted. It would definitely spin a few more scenarios through here. Also, PSU would be a much better fit now in the ACC then Big 10 at this point. For all the reasons EZCUSE said CIC, money, etc. It probably isn’t going to happen, but hell TAMU is leaving the Big 12 for the SEC so anything can happen.
LikeLike
If Penn State left the Big Ten for the ACC, that would eclipse South Carolina leaving the ACC for independence in 1971 as the dumbest conference change ever. At least the Gamecocks lucked out two decades later.
LikeLike
Nothing lasts forever though–even a long-term contract. Not saying PSU would or should consider not renewing, but the future comes quickly.
LikeLike
Agreed but we’re talking about the late 2020s at the earliest.
By then the world will have changed for Penn State; we have no idea what happens to their football program after JoePa. Do they go through Nebraska’s search out in the wilderness or do they become like Ohio State of the past decade (which they have all the resources to do with the right coaching)?
LikeLike
If PSU is highly successful in football, this stuff probably won’t be an issue…..
If they struggle big time for the next 10 years, which is a distict possibility, it becomes a very big issue.
LikeLike
Zombie JoePa will still be coaching PSU in 2025.
LikeLike
PSU fans can separate our play on the field with wanting to be in the ACC instead of the Big Ten. Alumni presence is much greater in the MD, DC, VA, NC area than anyplace in the midwest. We recruit better in that region than the midwest. And there are many PSU fans that have had issues with the way PSU has been treated by the Big Ten in many different areas. We know, “Get over it.”
LikeLike
How is this any different from FSU fans wanting to go to the SEC?
I just don’t see any reason for the academics or power brokers or big donors of Penn State to favor a move to the ACC.
Pegula is spending near a hundred million to build Penn State a hockey program from scratch to put into a Big Ten Hockey Conference.
The exit fee to buy back their TV rights would literally run into the $100-200M range even with a negotiated settlement (we’re talking about rights worth probably near a half billion).
I don’t buy the recruiting argument at all. Nothing has changed in Penn State’s recruiting other than that the coaching staff hasn’t been able to recruit as well. Ohio State is in exactly the same state as Penn State with having to go elsewhere for their recruits. Look at Nebraska having to recruit nationally.
If Penn State gets a new up-and-coming coach to run the program after JoePa, all of these issues will go away.
LikeLike
Question: Buy back TV rights fees (Zeek or anyone)
Are the rights “assigned” referring to games already played? They couldn’t be referring to future games in another conference, could they?
Another issue: PSU has an ownership stake in the Big 10 network? Unlikely any school wants to walk away from that.
Is one related to the other?
LikeLike
In the 80s, the Big Ten schools assigned all of their TV rights for their sports programs over to the Big Ten for a 20-25 year period.
In 2007, that assignment was renewed (also corresponded with the length of the BTN contract I believe, maybe as inducement to show that all of the TV rights of the schools sports programs would be owned by the conference).
So, until 2027 or 2032 (NYT didn’t specify whether it was 20 or 25 years, Delany said he was unsure of the actual length), the Big Ten owns all of the TV rights of Penn State’s sports programs.
That means that for every home game for every sport at Penn State until 2027 or 2032, the Big Ten owns the TV rights to that product.
LikeLike
Re: TV rights (Zeek)
Thanks. Yet what happens then to PSU’s owner share of Big 10 network? Do they balance out?
By the way: in my view, PSU is perfectly situated as Big 10 team.
Just curious about the concept of assigning future TV rights for 20 years; surely it is tied to their owner share of Big 10 network?
LikeLike
Not really, the Big Ten conference owns the 49% stake in the BTN. The schools themselves participate in the ownership of the stake while they are members of the conference.
That’s my guess on how this all works. It’s not really tied to anything in a sense. It might have been a partial inducement for the BTN contract.
But remember that the Big Ten schools had already assigned their TV rights to the conference in the 80s (until 2007 when it was renewed for 20-25 years). So they had already been doing this for 20-25 years even without the BTN.
Essentially, if a school leaves the conference, they probably don’t get anything back for their share of the BTN stake, but they have to buy back their TV rights (if the Big Ten is even willing to sell them back).
Either way, we’re seriously talking something like a half billion dollars in TV rights for a school like Penn State.
LikeLike
Sorry zeek, but you are flat out wrong on the recruiting comments regarding PSU.
I mentioned elsewhere (above), but no other school in the B1G has the same recruiting problem that PSU has. Every school in the B1G has its own (relatively populous) state to recruit from plus the B1G states on a yearly basis. They cover all of their traditional recruiting grounds doing nothing but playing the conference schedule and can thus schedule OoC games to target recruiting areas, play high profile games, focus on ticket sales (ie: nothing but MAC-rifice games) or any combination of all.
PSU historically pulls its recruits from eastern PA (Phile), NJ, MD/northern VA, and central NY. We’ve had the same success in the western PA / eastern Ohio area we’ve always had, but have steadily lost influence in the mid-atlantic due to trying to integrate into the B1G (playing more MAC games OoC). At the same time, schools that used to get beat by PSU on a regular basis (Rutgers, MD, Temple, etc) have all made concerted efforts at improving their football programs and are doing a much better job of keeping local kids at home. Without PSU regularly coming to town and beating the local teams, the best prospects of those areas are much more likely to stay at home. No other school in the B1G has to focus as much of its OoC schedule toward “non-productive” games and still make up for it via the other two (soon to be one) remaining OoC game.
Combine this with scholarship limits and the willingness of the NFL to pull from smaller and smaller schools (Flacco and Delaware for example) and you have a recipe for PSU steadily becoming the next Minnesotta…once a perennial power, now the punching bag (alright, bit of an exageration there).
Listen, I’m not saying the B1G should do something just because PSU says so…or even because its good for PSU. I’m just saying to ignore the real issues with PSU’s power base (in relationship to how the B1G is situated geographically and historicaly) is to completely undermine the athletic reasons for why PSU was invited to the B1G in the first place.
LikeLike
Why does Penn State have to play MAC games to “fit into” the Big Ten? If they are that concerned about games out east, then why don’t they schedule Syracuse, Rutgers, Buffalo, etc much more often.
LikeLike
I’m talking about how Ohio State has had to go outside of the state to find the top of the line recruits because the Midwest just isn’t producing as many.
And of all the kings, Nebraska has by far the hardest time in recruiting due to its distance from every major recruiting ground.
Penn State would have to have to do a lot of losing to lose its luster and just be a decent football school with a giant stadium like Tennessee. I don’t think that’s anywhere near close to where it is right now.
For what it’s worth, I expect Rutgers to enter the conference sometime. If we could get Maryland/Rutgers, that’d be the right move to make right now. (But like others I think the odds of it happening are nil).
Otherwise, we’re waiting for ND + Rutgers or something like that.
LikeLike
Re: TV rights (Zeek)
Amazing if true.
——————
“Essentially, if a school leaves the conference, they probably don’t get anything back for their share of the BTN stake, but they have to buy back their TV rights (if the Big Ten is even willing to sell them back).
Either way, we’re seriously talking something like a half billion dollars in TV rights for a school like Penn State”
LikeLike
It’s hard to be sympathetic to Penn State’s recruiting challenges. PSU has good in-state talent, as well as talent to its west (NW Ohio), east (NJ/NYC), and south (Maryland/N.Va). Schools like Michigan, Nebraska, and Wisconsin face bigger geographic challenges.
Penn State’s OOC should be:
— Temple (long term annual contract with a game in Philly every few years)
— body bag
— one of Rutgers / Pitt / Syracuse / Maryland / BC / Virginia
— national opponent
LikeLike
PSUGuy,
I mentioned elsewhere (above), but no other school in the B1G has the same recruiting problem that PSU has. Every school in the B1G has its own (relatively populous) state to recruit from plus the B1G states on a yearly basis. They cover all of their traditional recruiting grounds doing nothing but playing the conference schedule and can thus schedule OoC games to target recruiting areas, play high profile games, focus on ticket sales (ie: nothing but MAC-rifice games) or any combination of all.
Bull.
PA, with 12.7M people, is almost as big as IL and bigger than the other B10 states (OH has 11.5M, MI 9.9M). NE has 1.8M, IA 3.0M, MN 5.3M and WI 5.7M. All those states are less than half the size of PA and surrounded by other small states. Even IN comes in at 6.5M, and that’s supporting 2 B10 teams.
PSU has plenty of access to recruits, too. They are the dominant team in a big state, and much better than any other eastern team. NE gets more players from TX than NE, and an equal number from CA as NE. KS provides half as many players as NE, and the next states are FL and AZ. I doubt they feel bad for PSU being surrounded by local talent.
Maybe NE isn’t sufficient for you since they were B12. How about IA? They get most players in state, as many as from OH and IL combined. After that comes TX, FL and NJ. If IA can recruit NJ, I’m guessing PSU can too.
We’ve had the same success in the western PA / eastern Ohio area we’ve always had, but have steadily lost influence in the mid-atlantic due to trying to integrate into the B1G (playing more MAC games OoC).
What do MAC games have to do with anything? PSU plays Temple (MAC) all the time because they are in Philly. Nobody makes PSU schedule patsies.
No other school in the B1G has to focus as much of its OoC schedule toward “non-productive” games and still make up for it via the other two (soon to be one) remaining OoC game.
Nobody makes PSU not play more eastern teams. They choose to play MAC teams instead. Plus, PSU gets 3 times more recruits from PA than any other state (over 33% are from PA). OH and MI combine to produce as many as any eastern state for PSU. PSU also has chosen to not recruit the SE or TX. I think FL could replace any eastern state for PSU if they bothered to recruit there. The DC to NYC corridor will always provide PSU players as the dominant team in the area.
LikeLike
I never knew that PSU still had a problem with the Big Ten. I think there was a lot of stupid anti PSU stuff in the early part of the merger, but I have always viewed it as a great one for both PSU and the B1G. From the articles I read last year where they talked to the Powers that be at PSU regarding the merger, everyone seemed to think it was great. I understand the fans want a local rival, and I think the B1G should give them one, but even if they don’t I could never envision PSU leaving the B1G. They came even though the fanbase did want to, and they will stay even though a (seemingly) smaller portion of the fanbase wants to go to the ACC.
LikeLike
Every PSU fan I know loves the Big Ten and I don’t know any that would really want to leave. The Big Ten has been great for the school…athletically, but more importantly, academically too (which is awesome for my degree).
LikeLike
jake gittes,
And there are many PSU fans that have had issues with the way PSU has been treated by the Big Ten in many different areas.
What kind of issues? What areas?
LikeLike
When the B1G first announced its intention to expand, it cited opening new recruiting territories as one of the primary reasons. New Jersey produces an awful lot of Div 1 athletes and it is one of the top States in the Union in terms of High School academic performance.
I expect Rutgers to end up in the B1G.
LikeLike
It’s a billion-dollar proposition for any school to leave the B1G between the value of the pooled rights and the loss of access to the CIC. If that was even proposed, you’d watch PSU’s researchers sue their Board for breach of fiduciary duty – and win.
Some fans being pissy about not having a real good rival in the B1G is literally flies on an elephant.
LikeLike
“Some fans being pissy about not having a real good rival in the B1G is literally flies on an elephant.”
Straw man. No PSU fans care about that. That is a sentiment that is assigned to us by fans of other programs.
LikeLike
jake gittes,
If PSU fans don’t care about having a B1G rival, why do so many supposedly want to leave the B1G?
LikeLike
As I posted above:
1) MD, DC, VA, NC and the entire mid Atlantic region is a much more highly concentrated area for PSU graduates. Much more so than Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, etc. It isn’t close. And except for fairly recent success in Michigan, we haven’t recruited well in the midwest at all. Our fault, whatever. It hasn’t helped us.
2) To this day, we still don’t feel respected in the conference. Just last year Joe said in a press conference that PSU has the most senior (or one of) AD in the conference, and we still have very little say in what goes on.
3) The officiating problems that we had weren’t “sour grapes”. A Big Ten review brought about by our admin was the cause for the start of instant replay. The most egregious screw jobs stopped occurring around 2008, but it won’t soon be forgotten by our fan base. As just one example, PSU had a great deal of trouble with one crew made up of mostly Michigan residents. After major problems with that crew, the Big Ten assigned that same crew the very following year to work our major OOC game with Miami.
Many PSU fans just don’t feel like we are a Midwestern school, aren’t interested in the road trips to Big Ten destinations, for the most part.
But unless that media agreement isn’t iron clad, doesn’t much matter what we think.
LikeLike
So Joe feels that PSU should have a greater than 1/12th say in what the conference does simply due to an experienced AD? Iowa has the most experienced SID in the conference, maybe we should have more pull due to that.
The refereeing stuff is bullshit. Instant replay came about after an Iowa-PSU game in which Iowa was shafted more times than PSU but Joe ran his skinny little ass after a ref so all the PSU fans are convinced that the world is out to cheat PSU.
I guess its just more proof that people believe whatever they want to believe.
LikeLike
I can understand why you feel that way, but there are definitely things that the other schools have done as big favors to Penn State more recently.
I mean think about Pegula’s donation to the hockey program.
The Big Ten schools basically blew up the hockey landscape in order to make a Big Ten Hockey Conference to accomodate Penn State (i.e. bring the marquee names to Penn State instead of having them in another conference). Minnesota especially and Wisconsin also gave up their exclusive hockey TV deals that were substantial (and Minnesota/Wisconsin hockey fans have been upset about the BTHC move from what I understand; mainly pissed at their ADs for prioritizing football/BTN revenue over everything else).
No one really feels respected by the conference other than Michigan and Ohio State which throw their weight around disproportionately. It’s just one of the things about being in a conference with those two…
LikeLike
But at the same time, those two schools and Penn State have also spoken of the importance of revenue sharing and gate sharing and all of that which is incredibly substantial to the rest of the conference given their 100k+ seating stadiums. Even moving to 9 games is another concession.
LikeLike
@zeek
The Big Ten blew up the college hockey landscape as a “favor” to PSU!?
The B1G wanted to get college hockey on the BTN and the tv contracts signed with the established conferences wouldn’t permit it. PSU starting hockey was more a favor to the B1G than the other way around because it allowed the formation of a B1G hockey conference (and the game inventory it created).
LikeLike
Go read the responses of Minnesota and Wisconsin fans to the formation of the BTHC. Yes, Delany wanted inventory for the BTN, but those two schools’ fanbases were deadset against it, since they’re basically the “national brands” of hockey along with Michigan/Michigan State and a few others.
But there was no chance that Penn State was going to put together a $80M hockey program and leave it in some lesser conference without those schools visiting home-home.
Minnesota in fact got a really raw deal since it had its own TV arrangement and it along with Wisconsin had a lot of relationships with local schools that got burned.
LikeLike
@zeek
And there are a lot of idiot PSU posters on the internet saying it’d be better to move to the ACC…point being just because there’s an angry mob somewhere doesn’t make them right.
As for Minne et al…I have to believe the BTN payout increase because of hockey is going to be more than what they can get locally.
LikeLike
zeek,
I can understand why you feel that way, but there are definitely things that the other schools have done as big favors to Penn State more recently.
Things like greatly boosting their academic standing and making every alumni’s diploma worth more?
No one really feels respected by the conference other than Michigan and Ohio State which throw their weight around disproportionately. It’s just one of the things about being in a conference with those two…
Bull. Nobody feels respected by the conference, period, just like any power structure. OSU and MI could have acted like UT all along, but they never have. They’ve sacrificed a ton of money to keep everything equal, and continue to do so happily. Both supported a ninth conference game that costs them more money because it was good for schools like IN, MN and NW. People seem to confuse the B10 conference valuing the OSU/MI game as their most valuable single game asset (which it is) for OSU and MI having extra power.
Every school has an equal vote, so how do OSU and MI throw around their weight exactly? What decisions or concessions have they forced upon the conference? The fans forced The Game to stay at the end of the year, but what have the schools forced?
LikeLike
So your prescience told you something that’s been going on for 20 years? Many Penn State fans have been whining about B1G membership since day 1. It’s absolutely nothing new.
Adding Rutgers will do nothing to stop PSU grumbling. The source is not about the B1G being mean to poor ‘ole PSU rather it’s because the dominance they believed they were about to unleash on midwestern clodhoppers never happened.
PSU is not leaving the B1G.
LikeLike
I know two things to be true:
1) Nothing has changed in the B1G.
2) As far as the rest of them: “They’ll accept the money”
One thing I am not amused by is how many of these universities seem to driven by monetary considerations to the detriment of their academic missions (not creating synergy, but to the detriment of the academic brand). This has not changed in the B1G. Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, etc. will never happen in the B1G. Period. I’m surprised, disappointed and almost disgusted by the academic compromises being made by the Pac?? and the ACC.
Really, it just makes me admire the University of Chicago and the B1G that much more.
I love college sports; in fact, I played at Northwestern. Looking at this expansion fever, some would have you believe the Northwesterns, Dukes, Vanderbuilts and the collected Ivies are ‘lesser than’ because a relative lack of football prowess compared to the Alabamas, Oklahomas and LSUs, instead of the other way around.
I’m proud that NU has turned around its football program in the last 16 years. The ’95 Rose Bowl was a blast; as much fun as I’ve had (almost). It still doesn’t compare to the pride I get when we successfully outperform the Ivy League in research or win Nobel Prizes.
Sports are past-times or passions. I bet the B1G won’t expand except within a much smaller range of schools than is typically thrown around on these blogs. You need to be an academic kings (or in the neighborhood) as well as on the field of play. In the B1G picture, we’re competing with the Ivy League more so than the SEC and will do so best at 12 for now. What other conference can say that? No matter what, we’ll still have 4 Kings able to compare for championships every year and two teams in the BCS games most years, and with the BTN, we will outpace everyone into the foreseeable future. What more do we need? We’re set for life! Guys, everyone else is playing catch up. P.S.: Where’s the perspective: before someone talks about $20+ million/year through sports, remember, through the CIC, we get Billions per year. Hell, I’d be more thrilled with an announcement that Johns Hopkins is joining the CIC than Oklahoma is joining the athletic conference. No special deals for Texas or ND. If you’re not smart enough to realize what we’re offering, we don’t need you.
Sorry guys, you’re viewing the B1G through the wrong prism. We’re playing an entirely different game; that’s what I see when I “Think Like a President”.
LikeLike
It’s that the conferences are all different.
The SEC emphasizes football way ahead of anything else.
The Big Ten is focused on graduate research programs as well as big football brands.
The ACC is focused on highly ranked undergraduate programs as well as basketball and markets.
The Pac-12 is focused on expanding East and its pairing method of a weaker state school alongside the flagship.
I don’t really think the Pac-12 is compromising on anything. There’s no difference between Washington State, Oregon State, Arizona State, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State. They’re all little brothers, but that’s how the Pac’s model has always been.
LikeLike
I agree with that. It’s just so often that I hear the PAC described as being so academically proficient, largely based on Cal and Stanford. I think you’re as strong as your weakest link, and they have plenty of them. With respect to the various foci, be reminded that these are all institutions of higher learning, not a minor league football consortium.
The B1G does a damn good job at being above average on everything it does from sports, academia and research. I wouldn’t shortchange its undergraduate academic prowess (particularly among public, land grant universities) just because we’re absolutely the best in graduate education (save the Ivy League). Yes, without being snobby, all conferences have plenty to be proud of (based on their priorities). Among the various missions you’ve listed, I’m glad to be affiliated with the more meaningful priorities.
LikeLike
I understand where you’re coming from, but I tend to think of the Pac-12 as just an athletics conference anyways.
LikeLike
Jeff–Agree with what you’ve said, but I think Rutgers and MO are two good schools that fit the BIG model. Rutgers ia about 38000 students or so, MO about 33000…..Rutgers is 68 in US News, MO 90….Both are flagship state universities. Missouri probably fits better culturally, but there’s no doubt both the academic and athletic programs at both schools would love to be in the BIG
I want to see the BIG as THE dominant northern conference, athletically AND academically…..if we stay at 12 when the PAC is at 16 and the SEC and ACC are at 14, we’re dimiinishing ourselfs in terms of opportunities and exposure…..we will be the Smaller 10….
LikeLike
You bring up another point that hasn’t gotten much play around here. Another reason I’m skeptical about Texas and Notre Dame (to a lesser degree, without a paradigm shift) is it is all too imaginable to see a scenario in 20 years (if TV rights weren’t assigned) where either of could become the first universities to withdraw from the B1G/CIC. Why expand without a mutual appreciation of all the benefits and cultural fit we offer? I’m not necessarily advocating on their behalf, but Rutgers, MO (as well as MD or KS) both get that and would fit along those lines. Texas values the LHN more than it does the opportunity that is the B1G. Notre Dame values its independence more than the opportunity that is the B1G. They’re focusing on the obstacles preventing things from happening instead of the opportunity to make things happen.
We would stand to lose so much more by having teams leave because of a lack of cohesion. I wouldn’t even want to start that process with that possibility, and I don’t think the B1G does either. I really wish Texas wanted to come, but the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
LikeLike
That’s right, Jeff — we in College Park get it.
Could PSU’s complaints be greasing the wheels for eastern expansion? It’s interesting that the ACC only expanded to 14, and didn’t take Rutgers and Connecticut in one fell swoop to 16. It could be that Rutgers has petitioned Delany about membership, and if the presidents said yes, the Big Ten would probably pursue Maryland (the ACC school most similar to the Big Ten model) for #14 ($20M exit fee be damned). If Maryland goes in, Connecticut becomes ACC #14, if the Big Ten turns down Rutgers, it’s RU and UConn ACC-bound.
For Maryland officials, being in an enlarged ACC is like winning $10,000. This scenario would be like winning Powerball/MegaMillions.
LikeLike
vp19, I agree; something along those lines is entirely consistent with why the ACC has moved so aggressively so fast. It needs at all cost to avoid being picked apart by the B1G.
LikeLike
Right on Jeff. Penn St. is very happy in the B1G. Their out-of state enrollment is up, and research dollars are up. Being part of the B1G has greatly enhanced their national stature as a research school, and I expect Nebraska to see a similar bump, although they have a longer way to go. Compared to this effect, to a college president assignment of TV rights and conference exit fees are chump change.
LikeLike
Absolutely. Penn State isn’t going anywhere. It’s a wonderful fit, despite what fanboys have to say. Notre Dame is the only King (historically anyway) that has to be prohibitively responsive to their fan base. Hell, I loved everyone on the South Side of Chicago growing up but moved to Hyde Park first chance I got.
LikeLike
Absolutely. Penn State isn’t going anywhere. It’s a wonderful fit, despite what fanboys have to say. Notre Dame is the only King (historically anyway) that has to be prohibitively responsive to their fan base. Hell, I loved everyone on the far South Side of Chicago growing up but moved to Hyde Park first chance I got (Chicagoans will understand the reference). Academia will remain the last place on earth where being elite is still a beautiful thing.
LikeLike
BTJ,
Where did you grow up on the south side? I understand exactly what you mean…. I’m glad a new theater is being constructed on 53rd street.
LikeLike
Started off on 54th & King Drive, then 101st & Normal, 119th near Halsted. Actually lived on 52nd and Harper, next to Harper Court and the old Hyde Park Theatre. Now I split my time between Dallas/Fort Worth and Hyde Park.
LikeLike
I think we’re about to see the long con revealed. UT and the Pac will negotiate, but ultimately that will fizzle when their demands are rejected. UT can then claim independence and chart its own course with its own network.
ESPN isn’t going to give up its LHN investment this easily. It will give UT a nice fall back position, which will only increase UT’s negotiating position (moreso than last year). TTU would be wise to ramp up the political pressure to make sure UT signs on the dotted line before this inevitably evolves into brinksmanship.
LikeLike
I can’t see the benefits of going independent as opposed to staying in even a watered down Big 12 for UT. Independence means having to provide for your non-football sports, and who’s going to take them without UT football? I know there have been rumors about the ACC but that seems unlikely even with a guarantee of four football games a year as has been suggested. Another problem is BCS qualification. No conference, no AQ status unless they finagle a Notre Dame type deal. But why bother if staying in the Big 12 already covers all these bases…
LikeLike
Texas isn’t going to cut off their nose to spite their face. There is no independent alternative anymore with the Big East and Big 12 both heavily weakened.
And with the ACC likely to move to 9 games, I assume the SEC will at some point move to 9 games to play each other more.
Being an independent won’t be feasible other than Notre Dame having their schedule already mostly set.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t put it past Texas and their ego’s to go independent rather than have to deal with a conference as an equal
However, the Big Left-Over Conference might be an option for UT over actual “independence”. UT could pretty much demand how they want the conference to be set up, and what schools to take in including some Texas schools from C-USA.
If they keep the Big 12 or Big East names, they actually get to keep an AQ BCS bid for 2 years until the BCS reevaluates, or gets replaced by what ever is next.
LikeLike
I think even ND’s schedule will be tough to set in a 9 conference game world. They already have problems scheduling good teams in late October and November now, imagine what it will be like when more than just the Pac has a 9 game conference schedule. While I think ND will remain independent, I think this is the biggest reason they may be forced to join a conference.
LikeLike
Texas Tech will be taken care of by the new Big East football conference:
Cincinnati
Louisville
South Florida
TCU
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Texas Tech
Central Florida
Houston
===
BYU will be invited as a football-only member, but will probably reject the invitation.
Memphis and Baylor probably won’t be invited because the Big East 1) doesn’t want to do business with Kenneth Starr, and 2) doesn’t want to do business with Fed Ex boss Fred Smith.
====
Meanwhile, the Western Athletic Conference will welcome the University of Texas at Austin as a non-football member The WAC will agree to the following conditions:
1. Texas will host WAC conference championship events in all sports except basketball and football. Furthermore, the Longhorn Network will have exclusive video rights to all WAC conference championship events except 4 men’s basketball games and the women’s basketball final.
2. Texas will take 51% of the right fee from the WAC’s men’s basketball TV contract. The other schools in the WAC will share the remaining 49%.
3. Texas will host 4 WAC opponents in football each season at Texas Memorial Stadium, with all 4 games to air exclusively on the Longhorn Network. The 4 opponents will be Texas-San Antonio, Texas State, Texas-El Paso (which will rejoin the WAC), and Texas-Arlington (which will add FBS football.)
==
Texas football will play a national schedule, with games vs Army (at Yankee Stadium every two years), Navy (at Fed Ex Field every two years), Notre Dame, BYU, a PAC opponent from California, Oklahoma at Fair Park in Dallas, and Texas A&M in addition to the 4 WAC opponents and a tune-up season opener vs Rice or a Sun Belt school.
LikeLike
Ugh as a UT alum I would personally kill Powers and Dodds on internet message boards a MILLION times if UT goes indy. Seriously though LHN is not that popular among most UT alums, nobody can get the thing and nobody is willing to pay extra for it considering the paucity of programming currently on it. However there is a hardcore segment of the Fan/Alumni base that says the LHN must be protected at all costs…AT ALL COSTS. Which is incredibly stupid. Most people need to realize that a Pac Regional Network model even split equally would make more money than LHN ever would, and as far as exposure goes – what gives you more exposure than having UT games being televised in Los Angeles. Even the argument that it’s about influence is invalid because I guarantee you Longhorn programming would still dominate on a Pac12-Texas network because that’s what a majority of the people in Texas want to see, they don’t wanna see Tech.
LikeLike
The Athletics Department at University of Texas at Austin is now a media company.
The #1 priority for this new media company is to force Time Warner Cable to sign on to carry The Longhorn Network.
Time Warner Cable controls cable TV in Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and El Paso.
The way to force Time Warner Cable to sign on to carry The Longhorn Network is to make sure that:
1. At least 6 Texas football home games will air live exclusively on the Longhorn Network.
2. At least 6 Texas-San Antonio football home games will air live exclusively on the Longhorn Network.
3. At least 6 Texas-El Paso football home games will air live exclusively on the Longhorn Network
The Western Athletic Conference is the perfect fit for this new media company. Whatever guarantee money Texas will have to offer for the 4 WAC opponents to play at Texas Memorial Stadium will stay with the public schools in the state of Texas.
LikeLike
Karl,
1. UT will not put its non-revs in the WAC. That would be worse then just hanging with the Big Leftovers. While UT is all about football there is literally zero chance that the alumni base will sign-off having teams playing in the WAC.
2. Texas can schedule UTSA, UTA, TSU, and UTEP anytime it wants – why would they commit 4 games a season to those programs.
3. I will guarantee you right now that Baylor will have a seat at the Big Leftovers table. If we go to 16 team conferences, no they will not be there but if there is a 5th AQ conference – Baylor will be in it. While not the strongest program its about the Top 3rd of basketball (men’s and women’s) and football in that list.
4. UT has a Tech problem and there is no chance they will leave them twisting. While the legislature is out now they will be in session come next year and PUF would be on the table for both TAMU and UT.
LikeLike
Interesting tweet by Frank. Perhaps the 7 bb schools, Pitt and SU are going to bug out on the Big East and take their bb $ with them. When you look at how they would think about the 7 football schools:
USF-don’t want
TCU-don’t want
Rutgers-don’t care-no value for bb
Cincinnati-probably don’t want
WVU-probably on way out the door
UConn-will head out one way or the other
Louisville-ok
LikeLike
It makes sense…..would also give the left-overs in football clearance to join the Big Left-Over Conference with the Big 12 refugees.
LikeLike
Big 12’s survival looks a lot more likely than a couple days ago-but not in the form BU/KU/KSU/MU/ISU had hoped.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t they want the exit money first? $5M times at least 5 = $25M. $3M each. Plus, the get to keep the Automatic Bid for the indefinite future. That is always nice.
If anything, I suspect that they are going to decide what other bball members to add if the football side erodes.
LikeLike
@EZCUSE
If the Big-Left over Conference formed under the Big East or the Big 12 Conference’s umbrella.shell they would have 1 AQ BCS bid, but I doubt if they get both conference’s AQ BCS bids. And while they have a lot of names available, I doubt they take all of them.
LikeLike
I thought were were talking hoops and auto-bids, not BCS bids.
LikeLike
There’s a general belief that in 2005 the BE reached an agreement that either side (bb or fb) could withdraw without any penalties. A single school can’t, but a group could and take their basketball credits with them. The bb schools would not want TCU and USF to stay (and probably several others).
LikeLike
The basketball schools will want to keep the Big East name to avoid being classed as a mid-major new conference. I can see them holding fast in the Big East & absorbing the good half of the A10.
Louisville and Cincy are probably in a lot more trouble than the pure basketball programs are. Those guys have to find homes for undesirable football programs and are squeezed between three major conferences that will not take them for academic and/or overlap and/or financial reasons.
LikeLike
So, if you were in charge of Texas Tech right now, what would you be willing to do to make this move to the Pac-12 happen? Assume, for the sake of argument, that UT has to go for Tech to get an invite, and if they don’t, UT goes independent and leaves Tech with KU, KSU, MU, Baylor and ISU in the Big 12.
Personally, I would be willing to sign over my 1/16 of the revenue from the regional networks to UT. I’d even let them call it the Pac-16: Longhorn Network if they wanted. Pretty much anything to make UT happy and keep the current Pac members from feeling like they were giving something up.
LikeLike
I don’t really think Tech has that much say in all of this. This is a staredown between Scott and Dodds. No one else really has much say at all in any of this.
Tech will get a slightly less equal “representation” in the Pac-16 Texas Network, but that probably would have been the case anyways given how strong UT’s presence is.
LikeLike
If its s staredown between Dodds and Scott I would bet my money on Scott. Younger, leaner, hungrier, understand how to promote a product for the future. His work promoting Pac into China is forward thinking. Put it this way Scott graduated from Harvard and has been swimming with media Sharks in NYC promoting women’s tennis – and he actually made it more popular among casual fans than men’s tennis, Dodds graduated from Kansas State and worked as a track coach….
LikeLike
American women (Williams sisters, mostly) winning grand slam titles made women’s tennis more popular. American men falling off a cliff lately helped (nobody big since Agassi and Sampras). Scott doesn’t deserve all the credit.
LikeLike
That’s for sure! Nothing like good timing and being in the right place at the right time! That said, Scott made a huge difference in getting the Pac leaders to make changes that many were surely uncomfortable with and he got USC and UCLA to buy into equal revenue sharing. Taking the “all rights in” mantra all the way to school websites. Right place, right time, right guy.
Didn’t someone say of Jefferson Davis something like “the man and the (his?) moment were met”? I guess the same could be said for Scott.
LikeLike
Even if Tech was to sign over their 1/16 of the TV revenue from the regional cable network – it’s quite doubtful the rest of the Pac would agree to let UT have double what everyone else is taking in. That choice isn’t one for Tech to make.
Most Tech can probably agree to is content with an emphasis on UT programming over Tech programming, could argue that they are simply tailoring the network to appeal to the local market. Lots more Texas fans than Tech fans.
At this point I think holding onto the LHN is more of a pride thing for UT than anything else, contract and legal complications between the Pac+Fox and UT and ESPN aside, it seems a hardcore portion of the Longhorn faithful want to keep the network because it’s what separates UT from the other schools. Its obvious that a combined Pac network will probably make more money for UT than a single LHN, will be able to get on cable easier, will provide UT more exposure than LHN esp on West Coast. At this point I think UT is adopting Notre Dame’s mindset and simply saying we want this network because we already put so much effort into it, it’s OURS! and no one elses.
LikeLike
It’s not Tech’s choice. But they may get an invite on their owm to trigger 4 million cable subscriber in the Pac 16 footprint.
LikeLike
@Jake
If I were Tech I’d let it out that they wanted to stick with either Texas OR Texas A&M (which they did through a Chris Lusk Tweet this morning)
Then, I start letting it out that Tech was going east with the SEC or looking into it, etc.
LikeLike
sorry….Chris Level
LikeLike
That might work. It could also backfire on them in a big way. UT: “Oh, you have options? Okay, we’ll find someone else to accompany us to the Pac. I’m sure Baylor/Houston/TCU would be amenable.” You tug on Bevo’s tail, you might end up standing in a pile of cow plop.
LikeLike
I’m not convinced anymore that TTech is tethered to UT, except for the sheer logic of the four schools (OU, OSU, UT, TT) going into the Pac as a block. (I just mean that I think UT would leave Tech for dead if they thought it was in their own interest and that they could get away with it.) Overall, I agree that this comes down to what UT does. Does anyone see a scenario where the Pac announces the invitation of the two OK schools (only) to put the heat on UT?
LikeLike
@gas – I agree that UT could probably get away from Tech if they really wanted to, but I’m saying that Tech very likely doesn’t get into the Pac without Papa Dodds. I’m not sure about automatically getting all of those cable fees just for adding Tech – OU has more fans in Texas (at least DFW) than Tech. I don’t know those details of the Pac contract, so I couldn’t say exactly how that would work. It’d be pretty stupid if they signed a deal that made Tech more valuable than OU, though, and Larry Scott doesn’t seem stupid.
Personally, I’m still trying to figure any way in which this could work out well for TCU. Doesn’t look good. Here are the scenarios I cooked up:
–Stanford and Cal pitch a fit about Tech’s academics, and the rest of the conference figures out what a “Lubbock” is. Tech is rejected, TCU accompanies UT instead. OU and OSU are happy since they don’t have to go to Lubbock. The Texas legislature tries to intervene on Tech’s behalf, but they get shut down when UT informs them that they bought up the mortgage on the state capitol during the S&L crisis and threatens to foreclose on them.
–UT decides preserving the LHN as it is trumps all else, goes independent. TCU and Tech go to the Pac
–SEC raids ACC for two or three members, ACC decides that maybe they can stray from the East Coast a bit and add TCU, another one or two.
–SEC figures having two schools in Texas isn’t a bad idea
But it would be generous to call any of these a longshot. Here are some more likely scenarios for my Frogs:
–Big Tweast leftovers merger. Probably retains an AQ bid?
–Worst case scenario: Pac stops expansion at 14, UT stays in Big 12 and reloads with some BEast leftovers (just Louisville, probably), maybe BYU. Blocks TCU from conference because they’re dicks like that. TCU calls up the MWC and C-USA to see if they’ve gotten over those somewhat amicable break-ups.
LikeLike
Which school is separate? RT @EricFisherSBJ CBSSports.com strikes deal with BTN to create digital portal for conference, TV net, 11 schools 46 minutes ago
Rumor seems to be Nebraska’s is separate I think.
LikeLike
I hear Penn State. They are keeping options option for ACC.
Just kidding. No idea.
LikeLike
“During the first year of the arrangement, the Big Ten Digital Network will encompass the official athletics websites for BTN, the Big Ten Conference and the University of Illinois, Indiana University, University of Iowa, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of Minnesota, Northwestern University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, and the University of Wisconsin.”
http://www.cbssports.com/info/aboutus/press/2011/btnccn
LikeLike
Hm, I wonder why Nebraska opted out, didn’t even know they could.
LikeLike
CBSSports.com runs Texas’ site, so I can see why Nebraska withheld.
In all seriousness, I would wager that they have an existing contract with another digital company and will eventually be part of the fold.
LikeLike
Agreed, I think the wording of the statement “During the first year of the arrangement” seems to tip that off that Nebraska is waiting for an agreement to expire.
LikeLike
Is there someone who might not be a team player? (couldn’t resist Husker fans!)
LikeLike
Nebraska has a deal in place for some time with NeuLion. Once that expires they will join the other B10 in this deal.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college_sports/story/_/id/6989288/pac-12-working-deal-texas-oklahoma-oklahoma-state-texas-tech-according-source
Not much new here, but there is a lot put together in one article and some interesting quotes. Mack Brown appeals for regional conferences. Rutgers AD has interesting choice of words as he talks about change in the “industry.” T. Boone sounds off again.
LikeLike
For your amusement, B!G fans.
http://www.onthebanks.com/2011/9/18/2434055/should-rutgers-join-the-big-ten-or-the-acc
LikeLike
I guess every fan base sees this all through their own tinted glasses, but that was a bit much. I think it is telling that Rutgers wasn’t one of the two first added to the ACC, and that they didn’t make the cut to the B1G last year. They are a nice option, one I wouldn’t oppose, but they aren’t in a position of power. There is a real possibility that no one offers them. Personally, I am just really glad that my school has been in the same conference for over a hundred years, and that they are in the B1G. There are going to be a lot of good schools twisting in the wind the next few weeks.
LikeLike
I know Rutgers only plays schools like Illinois and North Carolina in football… but anyone with a blog on SBNation should be disbarred for this statement:
“The ACC . . . Better than the Big Ten in every sport besides wrestling. Better football, far better basketball, infinitely better lacrosse, baseball, soccer, etc…”
Oh.
LikeLike
With apologies to the fans, lax is basically a poor man’s hockey that has functionally zero draw. Old people don’t rven know what it is.
LikeLike
The ACC has better lacrosse in the same way that the Big Ten has better ice hockey. As in, one of the conferences doesn’t sponsor either of the sports.
Also, if you are going to talk about arbitrary unimportant sports, the Big Ten has far better women’s volleyball.
LikeLike
I’ve said it before and I will repeat it: Reality Rutgers is not all that desirable. Sport programs are lousy, facilities are lousy, brings relatively few TV sets, etc. Has good academics, but that’s it.
Then there is Fantasy Rutgers, which bring the NJ & NYC TV markets and which will upgrade its facilities & athletic drive at the drop of an invitation to the B1G or ACC.
Fantasy Rutgers isn’t an expansion candidate.
LikeLike
It’s kind of fun that people imagine the B1G wants a school that almost won the Big East once and that’s their best athletic achievement. Michigan, OSU, Wisky and Illinois are totally onboard with bringing that kind of image in house.
LikeLike
You might be interested in this analysis from the New York Times of college football followings. I’m not convinced of their methodology but it is quite interesting in what it says about Rutgers in NYC/NJ and overall, as well as all the other schools in the college football world…
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/
LikeLike
Very good, and shows why Fantasy Rutgers is exactly that. The B1G is not interested unless they need filler going to 14 (with Notre Dame) or if they learn that Rutgers will result in BTN being imposed on NYC cable subscribers whether they want it or not.
I suspect that if the latter had any chance of being true, Rutgers would have been taken by the B1G a long time ago.
LikeLike
But Rutgers fans believe this NYT blog is a good thing…
http://rutgers.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=642&tid=147572567&mid=147572567&sid=988&style=2
…even though the blog states…
“There’s also long been talk of the Big Ten expanding into the Notheast. But Rutgers (0.9 million fans) and Connecticut (0.6 million) are only middling targets on their own merits because of the relatively low enthusiasm for college football in the region (the same would have gone for Syracuse or Pittsburgh, which just decided to join the A.C.C.).”
LikeLike
Unless they are team #14 and come with a ND or Texas.
LikeLike
Interesting estimate of how many fans each school really has.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?src=twrhp
Shows in a different way who the haves and have nots are.
LikeLike
Fantastic find!
LikeLike
The Western Athletic Conference is proud to announce its two newest members: Dallas Baptist and Cal-State Bakersfield have joined as baseball-only schools.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/college/2011/09/wac-welcomes-cal-state-bakersfield-dallas-baptist/
Hard to believe that Longhorn fans wouldn’t be excited about Augie Garrido’s team facing off against those two teams.
LikeLike
Hey, Dallas Baptist apparently wasn’t that far from the CWS this spring. It could be the baseball Horns’ new Baylor.
LikeLike
They were in the CWS.
LikeLike
My bad. I thought they made it, but they only made the super regionals.
LikeLike
I don’t have the greatest memory, but I believe they gave up a several run lead in the bottom of the 9th in the super regional championship final game.
LikeLike
Thanks for reminding me.
LikeLike
They made it to the Super Regionals when TCU inexplicably laid an egg in the Regional. They got destroyed by a Cal team whose program had been saved from elimination just a few weeks earlier and was lucky to get out of their region themselves when Rice collapsed. (Bad year for former SWC schools)
Dallas Baptist is an up-and-comer in the baseball world (as is CSU Bakersfield, to be honest) bit their trip to the Super Regional was a fluke. They have a ways to go to be the next Coastal Carolina.
LikeLike
@Josh – For those of us who were at darned near every TCU baseball game this past season, it wasn’t that inexplicable. Incredibly frustrating year. Also, our starting pitcher hurt his elbow in the first inning of the final game in that regional. Cost us the regional, cost him eight or nine rounds in the draft.
LikeLike
How about this idea? A Big East-Big XII merger.
For football, play under the Big XII umbrella:
West: Kansas, Kansas St., Missouri, Iowa St., TCU, Baylor (replacement for Missouri = Houston)
East: Lville, Cincy, Rutgers, WVU, UConn, USF (replacement for WVU = UCF)
For basketball, play under the Big East umbrella:
The above schools, plus the other 8 schools:
West: Kansas, Kansas St., Missouri, Iowa St., Cincy
Midwest: TCU, Marquette, ND, DePaul, Baylor
Mideast: Lville, Rutgers, WVU, UConn, USF
East: Georgetown, Villanova, SH, St. Johns, Providence
Notice the nice public/private divisions. H& A against division = 8 games. Plus 1 game against nearest division (i.e. West v Midwest; East v Mideast)= 5 more games. Then play 1/2 the remaining 10. Or 1 game against the cross-division… private v private, public v public and 1/2 the remaining 10. 18 games.
Winner of each division advances to MSG. Of the other 16 teams, MidWest/West play a mini-tourney in KC or Chicago to narrow down from 8 to 2. The MidEast and East play a mini-tourney in Philly or DC to narrow from 8 to 2. These tourneys are the M and T of championship week. The remaining 8 teams pare down at the MSG portion on Friday, Saturday, Sunday.
Anyone can win 2 games and get to MSG. Privates compete against privates. Always going to be 4 public and 4 private in MSG. Pretty well balanced for all. Midwest is the weakest for hoops.
LikeLike
Ezcuse:
Best plan I have heard so far for the Big Leftovers.
LikeLike
After reading this article which frank tweeted: http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?src=twrhp
I am amazed at how week the support for the Pac 12 schools is. They only have 5 schools with more fans than Purdue, and only 4 with more fans than IU according to that article. I find that very hard to believe. I am also surprised that Wisconsin and Iowa have more fans than Nebraska and Oklahoma.
I do find it interesting that NY, LA, and Chicago all seem to be relatively uninterested in College Football. I think this is why a conference network is so important. It helps you monetize populations who might not care about football, but because there is enough support for schools in their area, all the cable/satellite subscribers in the area end up paying that conference money anyway.
LikeLike
That article is fantastic and does a great job of showing why the B1G & SEC are picky. All the real juicy targets except for the most recent additions (Nebraska, A&M) and the top targets in this round of expansion already belong to one or the other of them.
Wisconsin & Iowa having more fans than Nebraska & Oklahoma doesn’t surprise me. Wisconsin the state has more people than Oklahoma & Nebraska combined, and Iowa is almost twice the population of Nebraska as well.
LikeLike
That article does a good job of estimating the fanbases of the various schools, but the one thing that sort of changes the equation is that the most successful schools (i.e. national brands) are able to get more eyeballs from “other” college football fans as well as pack more of their fans into their stadiums (i.e. Nebraska or Oklahoma versus others).
That’s what separates the SEC from the rest right now. They were already pulling in strong numbers in Texas that are only going to get stronger, and viewership wise, fans of SEC teams are the closest to NFL fans in terms of trying to watch all the SEC football they can get. The Big Ten is probably second in that respect, with the Big 12 schools being similar to the Big Ten schools.
Fans of teams in other conferences tend to only watch their team’s games as well as those involving national brands.
I do like the approach he took though; it helps to shape a picture that needed shaping.
LikeLike
That article is based on an internet poll with 30k respondents and the disclaimer “This map is highly inaccurate”. I don’t know why anyone is taking it as accurate.
LikeLike
It’s not really that bad of a guesstimate though. The numbers look relatively plausible in fact when you think about the sizes of the various schools/fanbases, etc. I think the Big 12 and SEC are probably actually a little underrepresented in there, but on the whole, I wouldn’t say that it’s a useless exercise.
It gives what looks like to be a decent picture of the landscape compared to what we actually know.
LikeLike
I think its an interesting article and a general idea, but is definitely not accurate. It shows A&M double UT in Houston and Houston behind OU, Texas Tech and LSU in Houston. Houston may not have the feverance, but is definitely #3 in Houston. And LSU is well ahead of OU and Tech. And UT is ahead of A&M in Houston, but it is probably close. There was a TT board post showing the highest rated games in Houston in recent years. TT was in 3 of them, but that was because they played Texas, Houston and played OU in that game when they were #2 and OU was also top 5 (and about every UT fan was watching that game). An Alabama/LSU game also made the list. Texas was in 6 of the games. A&M/Nebraska was one of the games.
It also shows Georgia Tech dominating Georgia, which is pretty absurd.
Given that an engineering school like Tech is so high, maybe it shows which fan bases spend a lot of time on the internet.
It is a good article, but shouldn’t be taken other than in broadest terms.
LikeLike
As someone or other once said, if the Internet meant anything, Serenity would be the most popular movie of all time and Ron Paul would be a viable presidential candidate. But it’s still a very neat map.
LikeLike
I think there is some misunderstanding about the article. The numbers are reflecting a school’s native market, more or less. Strong national brand teams draw interest from anyone who watches CFB & some who normally don’t. Because college football is so heavily, HEAVILY driven by state and alumni identity, there are some hard limits on hardcore fan interest for some “name” schools.
Alabama & Auburn have off-the-charts intensity but Alabama still is only so big. Same with LSU & Oklahoma and especially Nebraska. Florida State shares a state with a bunch of other programs. Michigan, Ohio State & Penn State all have huge living alumni bases and very large states, in addition to being national brand names. It says something for the religious-like devotion of SEC fans that they have 7 of the Top 25 despite only having one really big state (Florida) & one decent-sized state (Georgia).
Plus, keep in mind that no school really has THAT many hardcore fans. Ticket prices would be far higher than they already are if you seriously had a quarter-million people begging to attend every game in a Top 20 program. Most CFB fans are casual and/or fans of the sport. The problem for expansion is that if the team doesn’t pack the house win or lose, they can become a drag. That’s one of the main problems people have with Rutgers (nevermind Cincy & Louisville & Co.)
LikeLike
You gotta remember the data for the article is based on internet searches – not exactly scientific or accurate – it’s a very rough estimate of avidity but a convenient and readily available method.
Makes sense that NY and Chicago have relatively low enthusiasm for college football – the teams in those markets Northwestern, Rutgers traditionally have not been winners and most importantly they have PRO teams like the Bears and Giants who have been winners. As for LA it’s possible that between the SoCal weather, numerous other activities and recreational events available in the area there simply isn’t ANY enthusiasm for football in area. Just look at how long LA – the second largest media market in the USA has gone without an NFL team.
LikeLike
IMO this article supports Rutgers and MO to the BIG.
We all know neither is PSU or OSU in terms of support, but #s 23 and 32 is not shabby.
And Rutgers is the top choice in the NYM by over 2 to 1.
An absolute no brainer, imo.
LikeLike
That article really makes Georgia Tech attractive. If Texas falls through, a Georgia Tech/Notre Dame addition might make a lot of sense for the B1G.
Georgia Tech´s case:
1) Moves one of ND rivals from the ACC to the Big 10, increasing the odds of landing the Irish
2) Gives the B1G its much needed foothold in the South.
3) According to this article, the 11th most fans in the country at 1.65 million.
4) A good research university with solid athletics.
3)
LikeLike
The charts claim that Georgia Tech has more total fans than Georgia. Here in the Atlanta area (and Georgia in general) Georgia is much more popular than GT. IMO the charts overstate GT and understate Georgia.
If the Big Ten really wanted to make a splash in the Southeast, why not go after Georgia (not an AAU member but acknowledged as a “public Ivy”) and Florida (AAU) with the promise of better monetary compensation thru BTN and better academics (CIC)?
LikeLike
There is nothing the Big 1o (or anyone else) can offer UF and UGa to leave the SEC. They have way too much history there.
LikeLike
Anyone that makes the claim that auburn has more fans than Bama, UF, LSU, UGA, or Tenn is smoking crack. That is all that I’m saying about their numbers.
LikeLike
The survey probably didn’t take in to account recency effects. War Eagle going on a national title run last year probably boosted their internet search numbers. Get survey data over a decade-long span, however, and it would probably be fairly accurate.
LikeLike
I think the article is mostly right; only the numbers for FSU and GTech look wrong.
I’m not surprised that Wisconsin has more fans than Nebraska. The only reason they’re not a king is because they haven’t won national titles, but they draw as many fans to games as Nebraska and actually generate quite a bit more athletic department revenue than Nebraska. In every metric except winning, they’re a king. In that respect, they’re quite similar to TAMU.
LikeLike
Big East bball schools making a run for it:
After all those discussions about how the Big East should kick them out, now they’re leaving the Big East.
LikeLike
richardjustice Richard Justice
Big East football ADs reached out to Big 12 on Sunday to begin merger talks in case OU-Texas departure becomes official.
33 minutes ago
Add this from the Houston Chronicle, and we basically have the result we expected. Now the question is what Notre Dame chooses to do.
LikeLike
ND won’t do anything till they are forced to; e.g. when the four super conferences decide to not allow ND special access to BCS bowls and they are treating just like any other non BCS school…
Currently I believe ND makes money every year off the BCS bowls even when they go 7-5, 7-6, 3-9, 8-5 or whatever.
LikeLike
The ‘scraps’ conference:
Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor from Big 12…
TCU, West Virginia, Rutgers, Connecticut, Louisville, Cincy & USF from the Big East…
Certainly a major step-up from C-USA and not a whole lot different than the present Big East football schools. Ideally sized, 12 members..
LikeLike
Almost certain either Mizzou or WVU will be lost to the SEC as #14. Possibly Rutgers & UConn to the ACC as well.
LikeLike
It doesn’t look terrible, but after losing WVU or Mizzou to the SEC, it’s not all that great in football. Closer to the recent MWC than a BCS conference really. It would probably retain a BCS bid (if for no other reason, to keep those teams in line voting with the other BCS conferences and to limit government interfering in college athletics).
That said, it’s a solid basketball conference and would be credible enough in other sports. And the geography isn’t as absurd at it might initially seem.
LikeLike
BTW Frank, why don’t you monetize this blog and your twitter – interest in College Football realignment won’t ever be higher than this year – potentially could make lots of money easily.
LikeLike
I’ve wondered the same thing. He could at least make some extra money off of ads.
LikeLike
finebaum Finebaum Network
Tusc News’ Cecil Hurt,’The SEC would like to have Missouri, but will wait & see on Big 12. WVa is 4th or 5th on the list for the SEC.’
1 hour ago
Possible SEC intent here.
LikeLike
Zeek,
WVa is so far own the list because the SEC has North Carolina (+/- Duke?) at the top of their list, then Maryland and perhaps NC State. Hey, they can dream big down here.
LikeLike
I hope the Big Ten does not offer Rutgers an invite. They stink.
LikeLike
Coach K had some interesting comments on expansion:
“It’s actually pretty exciting,” Krzyzewski said. “I think it’s great for our conference football-wise, even better basketball-wise. Wherever this is going to end up, four big-time conferences or five, whatever it is, you want to be perceived as No. 1 in football and basketball.
“It’s about the time zone,” Krzyzewski said. “If we’re going to do this at 14, I would love to keep all the members we now have. I’m not sure that will happen. But we’re being proactive and that’s good. We’re giving the 12 we have the knowledge that we’ve been proactive and the leader in this. It will become tougher to leave. Our conference is getting stronger. It’s easy to leave a conference when it’s weaker.”
First, unless Coach K is part of an elaborate ruse here, he is dumping cold water on the idea of adding ND and UT to the ACC for non-football sports. That is unless Swarbrick and Dodds are so powerful they can also redraw the time zones.
Second, it is possible that this is being taken out of context but it looks to me like he is hinting at possible departures from the ACC. Minimally, Coach K seems to be suggesting that the ACC made this move now, in part, for defensive reasons.
Third, the last time the ACC expanded it added Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College which looked like a move to improve the conference’s performance on the football field. It largely failed. Now, Coach K makes no bones about the fact that this move was really, really good for basketball. If Football is a secondary consideration, how does that play at places that see themselves as football first schools? How does it play in ADs with substantial financial pressure on them?
Fourth, why at this moment? Did Pitt and SU come to the ACC and tell ’em now or never?
Add it all up and I think it suggests something big is about to happen outside Austin, TX and Norman, OK this week.
LikeLike
Well, I think he knows that there’s been hints of an SEC or Big Ten raid on certain schools in the ACC (especially Va Tech, FSU, and Maryland, which have received a lot of mentions in newspaper articles everywhere); he’s not oblivious to that.
This was definitely a defensive and offensive move at the same time. In a sense they became the de facto Eastern Conference and will get the value that accrues to basically being the ACC and Big East, since they took the most valuable Big East properties and created a conference covering the East Coast.
Now, that sends a message to schools like FSU and Va Tech and Maryland that they’re being proactive and enhancing the future earning power of the ACC as well as renegotiating their contract (as Swofford mentioned that some form of renegotiation would be in the cards).
This move was clearly on offense but also became a defensive play as well considering the possible pay increase as well as removing a key rival (becoming the best basketball conference by far), and the whole raising exit fees up to $20M.
Maybe this all won’t be enough to prevent departures (but I actually think it will).
LikeLike
VaTech is now glued to UVA – they are now in the conference the school has always dreamed of being in (esp academically) they are not at risk of jumping ship.
Maryland doesn’t bring enough to the table for B1G Expansion – if they wanted Maryland they would have gotten Maryland last year.
FSU is somewhat of a danger to jump to the SEC – they already formed an expansion/realignment committee and a large part of their fans aren’t happy to be in a BBall conference like the ACC. But in the end I don’t think they will leave either. Easier path to MNC, their president likes being associated with Duke/UNC/Wake.
I think WVU may be taken by the ACC to placate FSU and the other football schools if the tobacco road schools can accept WVU’s less than great academics. Then they take UConn for the ESPN exposure and because its a rising power in football and great in bball. Rutgers may get left out – not sure how high the B1G’s interest in them is, also Syracuse gives the ACC access to NYC already, why double dip with Rutgers.
LikeLike
I say the ACC holds out until ND makes a decision. Otherwise, I like your thinking regarding UConn and WVU.
I’d say this:
N: UConn, WVU, Pitt, Syr., BC, Maryland, Va Tech, Miami
S: Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake, GTech, Clemson, Virginia, FSU
Do what you need to do to keep the protected rivalries, well, protected.
If it is ND, then drop Miami down with FSU and move Virginia up. Va Tech and ND can anchor the top just fine.
LikeLike
FSU could potentially join a football conference with good academics as well, if they overlook the distance issue (and the B10 is willing).
BTW, about the distance, it really wouldn’t be about the student-athletes or travel costs, and I say that not just because OU and possibly Texas are now going to start flying their softball team across 2 time zones regularly. In the UAA, both the U of C and Wash U in St. Louis fly their Div III non-scholarship student-athletes to NY, New England, Georgia, and points in between.
LaTech flies their teams all over the WAC and their football may not even breakeven.
SLU in St. Louis flies its teams all over the East Coast (and I’m not even sure its bball makes money). No, schools choose a conference that is closer only if the fans demand it. If the stakeholders care more about academic prestige or the perceived dirtiness/cleaness of recruiting, they may choose a conference that is farther away.
LikeLike
But with #12 being about starting (and establishing) a football championship game, Nebraska was the obvious choice at the time — an available king (then) with AAU status. #13-14 will be more about new markets and BTN subscriptions; Maryland, Missouri and/or Rutgers make sense for those spots, leaving #15-16 open for Notre Dame, Texas or both.
LikeLike
Anybody posted this yet? Not sure how accurate it is, but some fun info from Nate Silver on the size of every FBS school’s fan base that might be relevant to this discussion. Of note: check the chart of fans in the New York TV market.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/
LikeLike
I think you’re the 4th to post it!
LikeLike
This is why I should refresh before posting. Move along, nothing to see here.
LikeLike
Jake, very good find. Thank you for the link.
LikeLike
Wonder if TTU is sweating bullets right now – their seat in the Pac is dependent on Texas checking its ego at the door – and we have no clue if the Longhorns can do that.
But I will say that it’s likely UT does end up in the Pac – there’s a huge relationship between Cal and UT – esp on the administrators.
Cal President Yudof – previously was a Texas chancellor
AAU President Berdahl – Previously Chancellor at Cal, prior to that was President at UT
UT President Powers – Cal grad once was on the faculty at Washington
LikeLike
http://missouri.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1267255
“Sources have told PowerMizzou.com that Missouri has been involved in discussions with every major conference over the course of the past few months. The Board of Curators, according to sources, has been told a meeting could be called at any time on short notice, though nothing is imminent at this point.”
I’m guessing they’ve got a standing offer as the Big Ten’s #14-15, otherwise they’d have jumped at the SEC already.
LikeLike
If the SEC offers Mizzou, I think they accept without even blinking. This is like musical chairs. If you get an offer, you take it.
You can’t hold out on some notion that ND will someday give up its independence and pick a conference.
If you’re Mizzou or Rutgers or WVU or whoever, and you have a spot available at the SEC. You jump.
LikeLike
I’m not even sure Notre Dame will ever come.
Are we the Cumaean Sibyl? If we wait for them, we run the risk of adding Iowa State as their partner in a frustrating, fourteen team conference.
LikeLike
I don’t think SEC has made an offer to Mizzou yet. They want the B12 to dissolve first before offering Mizzou (if they decide on MU as the 14th), and I’m not even sure if the SEC is still debating whether to try to get FSU or settle for Mizzou/WVU.
What I’m fairly confident in is that the B10 won’t add Mizzou. If the B10 isn’t willing to add OU due to academics, there’s just no way they’d reject OU and add Mizzou.
LikeLike
If I’m the SEC all three are on my shopping list. Virginia Tech could replace WVU, but it’s unlikely they’d jump.
LikeLike
Well, actually, Oklahoma and Texas are on that list too, as unlikely as it seems.
This whole talk of “just fourteen” is nonsense, and it seems to be that everyone’s waiting to see what Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma do.
LikeLike
Why not add another AAU institution with good football
and basketball?
I thought the Big 10 prefers AAU schools like MIzzou.
I understand that not all Big 10 schools have AAU
credentials now–but why not try to add another one–instead
of a second school like OU that lacks that esteemed designation?
Notre Dame is a good school without those credentials.
OU–not so much.
LikeLike
Missouri is a better academic institution using most metrics. For example…
Missouri: US News = 90, R&D Expenditures Columbia campus (1999-2006) = 77, AAU.
Oklahoma: US News = tied 101, R&D Expenditures all campuses (1999-2006) = 95, non-AAU.
For what it’s worth…
Nebraska: US News = tied 101, R&D Expenditures all campuses (1999-2006) = 47, formerly AAU
LikeLike
AWRU World (National) Rankings:
Nebraska 151-200 (69-89)
Missouri 201-300 (90-110)
OU 301-400 (111-137)
LikeLike
Mizzou won’t jump to SEC or anyplace else until the threat of litigation is eliminated or severely mitigated by all-but-imminent circumstances. They probably will jump to SEC for several reasons,
not the least of which are demographic trends. Missouri once again stuck in the middle of a North & South issue. Looking backward, the Big 10 is a no-brainer. Mizzou would have been a great fit for the Big 10 over the last several decades. Some hesitation now within University ranks. Most still love Big 10, but some of that love is in rear-view mirror. Forward projections telling a slightly different future…
LikeLike
You’ll hear a lot more about and from Missouri AFTER Oklahoma leaves. Big XII is dead then and the B10/SEC each get a chance to nab them.
LikeLike
The SEC could kill the Big XII now by taking Mizzou.
They’re waiting to see if Texas and Oklahoma truly pass on them.
LikeLike
Not unless they plan to go to 16. If you take Mizzou, WVU with BE and company roll into the Big 12 to form the Big Leftovers. This is actually good for the SEC, Pac, ACC, and B10G. A weak Big Leftovers gives them political cover, but allows them to retain 85% of the value. A wounded and depleted Big Leftovers is better for the Big 4 then two dead conferences on their hands.
LikeLike
The Big Left-Over Conference also allows the Conferences time to pick and choose who they want to add in the future if they go to say 14 now…and want to go to 16 later…or even 18 at some point.
LikeLike
Redhawk:
You’re talking as if the idiots Marinatto and Beebe are going to have jobs after this. Maybe will give them a cushy consulting gig, but if I am any of these school presidents I sure as heck aren’t going to allow them to do any talking.
My Commissioner of the Big Leftovers Short List of Things to Do to Start
1. The guy who had the foresight to pitch the Big 12 on a TV network then went to the Big 10 did it for them then went to the Pac 12 and did it for them. I’m giving that guy a $1MM a year to come work for me.
2. Consolidate under the Big 12 umbrella, you’ll see why in a minute
3. I gather my new presidents and tell them If anybody has any inklings about hoping for that Big 10, SEC, ACC bid in a few years – there is the door. If you want to wait – the C-USA, MWC, WAC are all out there for you. BTW, they don’t have an AQ so you’re going to wait at least 2 years if ever for it. BTW, I still have an AQ and can probably keep it in the next go round.
4. Everybody in the Big 12 who is leaving, get out. You are released but in return you have no say on future conference decisions.
5. Leftovers – you are pledging your Tier 1, 2, and maybe 3 media rights for the next 25 years. It worked for the Big 10 its going to work here.
6. Equal revenue sharing. We are all outcasts, no one is special.
7. I go to Fox and ESPN. Alright you have two options. One – you can keep the payouts for the Big 12 you negotiated last year in place, btw we’re going back to 12 teams and CCG if that helps. Two – you walk away from your contract. At that point, I am rebidding my rights and including a Big Leftovers network with it that will have schools across the country. Comcast is interested, are you? Your call.
I think that’s a good start.
LikeLike
dude’s name is Kevin weiberg, he used to be a big12 commish (before beebe) left because the power schools refused to cooperate with the smaller schools and then helped Scott raid the Big12 last year using his connections and influence.
I think your plan is good reform under the banner of the Big12, keep the media contracts and the new one to be negotiated in 4 years, pool all the rights, make a network.
Only problem is BCS status evaluation is also going to be redone ins 2-3 years so it’s very possible this Big Leftover 12 would likely lose AQ status
LikeLike
Bobo:
Thanks for the name. Am I the only one laughing/crying that the one guy who understood this all left the conference and all the a** schools that voted against it are the ones leaving for the same thing he built in other parts of the country? Just makes me want to vomit. Let this be a lesson kids, if UNL, UT, TAMU, OU, ask you for a little extra consideration you don’t walk, run, or drive you fly the heck in the other direction.
LikeLike
I’m guessing that the Big Ten doesn’t issue “standing offers.” I’m sure they’ve talked to the B1G and were told “Thank you for your interest. We will consider you if and when we decide to expand.” I bet that’s the extent of the “discussions” they’ve had with the Big Ten.
Mizzou doesn’t have an offer from the SEC, which is why they haven’t joined. The SEC wants the Big 12 to survive, so they won’t make an offer as long as they’re breathing. If the Big 12 dies, then the SEC will make an offer to Mizzou.
Missouri would be a good addition to the B1G if they were to go to 16 teams, but I can’t see any expansion in the conference unless it includes Notre Dame or Texas. The Big Ten figures it has its pick of the litter to join the conference should ND decide to join. Missouri will still be around, even in the SEC.
LikeLike
Please change my name to MikeF
Thanks!
LikeLike
You got it dude.
LikeLike
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-conferencerealignment
“Emmert also said talk of having four or five superconferences is nothing more than conjecture.”
Um, isn’t that where we almost are already?
Outside of the ACC, Big Ten, Pac-16 (assuming), and SEC (with A&M and Missouri or WVU), who else is left?
The Big 12-Big East hybrid of Missouri or WVU plus Kansas/Kansas State/Iowa State/Baylor/Rutgers/UConn/Louisville/Cincinnati/USF/TCU is going to be your 5th conference behind those.
That conference is going to be a very distant 5th (marginally above the Mountain West), so the primary four conferences will already be superconferences controlling all of the wealth and bowls, BCS, and playoff system.
LikeLike
@zeek
at the moment I think you can add Texas and Texas Tech to your mix knowing that you could subtract 2 for the PAC of either Texas/Tech, Kansas/Missouri, Kansas/K-state, Kansas/Tech, Tech/TCUorRice
Right now it doesn’t look like UT is going to give up the LHN nor is the PAC going to allow for any special concessions to UT.
LikeLike
http://www2.kusports.com/weblogs/tale-tait/2011/sep/19/realignment-today-947-am-pac-12-obstacle/
Updated: “UT regents meeting has wrapped but not so much as a peep coming out of it. According to Kirk Bohls, of the Austin American-Statesman, UT president Bill Powers did not answer questions and ducked reporters by hustling to the elevator.
Bohls’ most recent Tweet says: No small point. UT prez Bill Powers has authority to stay in Big 12, but cannot take action on own to change conferences; regents keep that.”
There seems to be a boardroom revolt in Austin. This is better than television.
LikeLike
There are so many options for Texas that they need time to decide and negotiate on the best option. They can go wherever they choose.
LikeLike
They’ve had plenty of time; all this signals is that the Board of Regents and Bill Powers are on completely different wavelengths about where and how to go.
LikeLike
…or they’re quasi-politicians who don’t like the perception that they’ve given up authority.
LikeLike
Is that your take? Or did they just give Powers a very public rebuke?
LikeLike
doesn’t make any sense – regents are appointed by the Governor. If they’re trying to hold onto authority, they would be doing so just to hold onto authority which probably isn’t congruent with whats best for UT. Likely I think there is some division on the board about what to do next, or they think that they need more time to evaluate options. Unlike OU’s BoR – who agreed to let Boren act for them to make a deal, since Powers only has the right to maintain the status quo – something is probably up.
Interesting to note – Paul L Foster is a UT regent – Texas Tech recently named their El Paso Medical school after him.
Powers is probably pro Pac12 (given his history) as is some of the Texas BoR – Foster especially (since it helps Tech).
Some regents probably still want to hold onto the LHN at all costs.
LikeLike
the Texas regent Stillwell interestingly has ties to T. Boone Pickens – wonder how he is leaning?
LikeLike
Red McCombs has joined some other prominent Texans (mostly Baylor alums) in advertising to keep the Big 12 together. That’s Red McCombs of the San Antonio Spurs and the University of Texas McCombs School of Business.
Clearly the Board of Regents doesn’t want to write a blank check for Powers to do what he wants. And maybe there’s a little more of the game of chicken between A&M, SEC, Pac and Baylor.
LikeLike
Some A&M folks bought billboard space on I-35 in Waco:
Take that,, Baptists!
LikeLike
“And maybe there’s a little more of the game of chicken between A&M, SEC, Pac and Baylor.”
Bullet,
Currently that game of chicken would seem to be between UT and everyone else. A&M is going to the SEC, Baylor doesn’t matter and the Pac can live with or without UT. According to reports, the Pac may choose to live without UT even if they want to join. There is concern that CU and three others (can’t remember who off the top of my head) will not vote to admit UT.
UT should stop playing around and just reconstitute the B12 with others that are willing to live with the LHN situation. The Pac won’t, the B1G won’t and apparently the ACC won’t. Surely there are schools willing to though in exchange for a ticket to the BCS.
LikeLike
The SEC still is concerned about BU/ISU/KSU suing. They haven’t cleared A&M yet. The Pac really wants the SEC to move first. That game of chicken is still going on. UT regents may want to sit back and let that play out rather than being out front.
UT has been pretty clear this time. They want the Big 12 to continue. But if OU leaves, its pretty clear they go somewhere as well.
LikeLike
@ joe
This absolutely a game of chicken. Consider:
Oklahoma wants to join the PAC.
(But…)
The PAC won’t take Oklahoma until the SEC takes A&M.
(But…)
The SEC won’t take A&M unless Baylor et al. agree not to sue.
(But…)
Baylor and friends won’t agree not to sue unless Oklahoma pledges to not to the Big XII
(But…)
Oklahoma won’t pledge to stay in the Big XII since they want to join the PAC
(Repeat)
LikeLike
—————————————————————
bullet says:
September 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm
The SEC still is concerned about BU/ISU/KSU suing. They haven’t cleared A&M yet. The Pac really wants the SEC to move first. That game of chicken is still going on. UT regents may want to sit back and let that play out rather than being out front.
UT has been pretty clear this time. They want the Big 12 to continue. But if OU leaves, its pretty clear they go somewhere as well.
frug says:
September 19, 2011 at 8:54 pm
@ joe
This absolutely a game of chicken. Consider:
Oklahoma wants to join the PAC.
(But…)
The PAC won’t take Oklahoma until the SEC takes A&M.
(But…)
The SEC won’t take A&M unless Baylor et al. agree not to sue.
(But…)
Baylor and friends won’t agree not to sue unless Oklahoma pledges to not to the Big XII
(But…)
Oklahoma won’t pledge to stay in the Big XII since they want to join the PAC
(Repeat)
————————————————————
Guys,
A game of chicken would imply that either side could be influenced to swerve out of the way. That’s not what is going on here. A&M is going to the SEC, OU and OSU will choose whether they want to join the Pac and Baylor is just in the way. There is not going to be a change of heart by A&M or the SEC, there is very little chance that OU and OSU stay in the B12–I can’t imagine what will have to occur for that to happen. Baylor can delay things but they cannot change things. At this point, in regard to these two decisions, UT is a bystander. It is just a matter of time. I half expect the SEC and A&M to schedule a press conference for the same time as a conference is scheduled by the Pac and the OK schools so that they in effect make their moves at the same time.
LikeLike
I should have been more clear. I was talking about the fact that everyone keeps waiting for someone else to make the first move. I agree that eventually someone is going to blink, but it will interesting to see who.
(For the record I’m guessing the SEC. I can’t imagine they would force aTm to accept a virtual death penalty for their non-football sports by making them go completely indy for a year)
LikeLike
Remember that Texas regent who said keeping the LHN had become a primary goal? If most of the regents think that, this could get very interesting.
LikeLike
What does that even mean? He has the authority to do nothing?
LikeLike
Means the regents want Dodds and Powers to come in on any deal they make and get it voted. Makes sense in you think that Powers did a deal with the Big 10 or a bad Pac 12 on his own they may have some ticked off alums and don’t want that to happen. Personally, if I am Scott I’m not happy because I’m not dealing with the decision maker at this point.
LikeLike
Time to give Kansas and Missouri a call?
LikeLike
Why add those two? Do they increase the overall value of the conference proportional to what they bring to the table? Nobody has wanted Kansas up to this point and Mizzou has been the bridesmaid each time…call them the safety school. I would stick at 14 in that case.
LikeLike
Here’s a small business tip. If you can, give you and your partners the title ‘Managing Director’. In cases where clout or authority is required, your title implies that. In cases where you want some breathing room, you can always claim you need to talk to the other Directors.
Texas can do the ol’ negotiating tactic where they have to ‘check with the BOR’ on concessions that seem unfavorable. It’s a tactic that eventually wears your counterpart down with red tape.
LikeLike
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/longhorns/entries/2011/09/19/regents_give_po.html
“That means Powers has the authority to negotiate on Texas’ path —- and take any action along those lines.
Powers will work in consultation with a group of six people, including Regents chairman Gene Powell.
Any change in conference membership has to be submitted to the board to approve. Powers, however, wouldn’t need regents’ approval if he decides Texas should remain in the Big 12.”
LikeLike
I think the regents want to be sure that their goals are protected in all of this; particularly with respect to statements already made about the LHN’s importance. If they give it up, they want some special kind of deal out of the Pac-16. That’s what this is all about.
LikeLike
Could be, but I doubt they’re going to squeeze blood from the Pac-12 stone.
LikeLike
B1G is gonna get UT… they will have no choice, we can offer a better deal on the LHN.
LikeLike
Sure, but I think their goal is to keep it, not merely find the best fit for it.
Their hearts are in the west, they just want the best of both worlds.
LikeLike
The strange thing is, how come TTU hasn’t called a BoR meeting?
LikeLike
because their travel partner isn’t set to move yet. Oklahoma State’s is.
LikeLike
I’ve thought this too, but really, what is there for them to discuss? If UT is negotiating to go to the PAC with OU and OSU, Tech has to be, even if implicitly, included. TT “nation” is doing what the rest of us are doing: waiting for UT to defecate or get off the ….. well, you know what I mean.
LikeLike
There is nothing to discuss.
Texas will join the WAC as a non-football member because the WAC will be the only conference that will offer the right deal for Texas.
LikeLike
FWIW I saw one Tech poster claim on a Longhorn board that their President already had that authority and didn’t need to go to the board of regents. One the other hand, they did have that meeting scheduled last year.
LikeLike
There is nothing for Tech to discuss.
Tech will be part of the new Big East:
Cincinnati
Louisville
South Florida
TCU
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Texas Tech
Central Florida
Houston
=====
(Missouri and West Virginia will be in the ESS EEE CEE; Rutgers and UConn will be in the ACC)
Memphis, Baylor, and Boise State will not make the cut, while BYU will decline the invitation and will remain independent in football.
LikeLike
They have been replaced. Rice now has a Board of Trustees meeting scheduled for Thursday.
LikeLike
ACC?
LikeLike
Loki
I would gladly take Rice as a travelling partner for Texas.
LikeLike
Per Chris Dufresne from the LA Times on Twitter:
“To reiterate, ZERO chance Texas to P-16 without equal revenue sharing. OU may stay in B12 ONLY if equal sharing. Your move, Bevo”
LikeLike
Bevo is chillin’ in his corral, knowing that the Western Athletic Conference will offer Texas 51% of basketball TV revenue, permanent hosting and TV rights to all WAC conference championship events except basketball, plus 4 football opponents to come to Texas Memorial Stadium each year
Texas football will play Notre Dame, BYU, Army (at Yankee Stadium every other year), Navy (at Fed Ex Field every other year), Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and a PAC California school each year.
Texas and ESPN, Inc. will get what they always wanted: a ton of live events on the Longhorn Network.
LikeLike
And, who is going to be watching these live events?
LikeLike
Time Warner Cable, which controls Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and El Paso, will be forced to pay up for the Longhorn Network when the University of Texas system takes control of the WAC.
The Longhorn Network already has:
At least 6 Texas-San Antonio football games
The Longhorn Network will end up with:
At least 6 Texas-El Paso football games (when, not if, UTEP rejoins the WAC)
At least 6 Texas-Arlington football games (when, not if, UTA adds football)
At least 5 Texas football games (the tune-up game plus the games vs 4 WAC opponents)
At least 18 Texas, Texas-San Antonio, Texas-Arlington, and Texas-El Paso basketball games each.
ALL WAC conference championship events, including baseball, softball, and olympic sports, with the exception of 4 men’s basketball games and the women’s basketball final.
LikeLike
Okay, but is that really what ESPN wants? Viewers essentially in just one state?
LikeLike
TWC is already a partner in the P12N’s….
LikeLike
I’d love to see their subscription rate if UT goes back to being a 0.500 team in a backwater conference or as an indy.
LikeLike
Cancel my Time Warner subscription.
LikeLike
I would hate to see those UT Regents play chess.
LikeLike
“Clearly we’ve brought more to the table. I don’t see why we should get the same number of pieces.”
LikeLike
Lol
LikeLike
Priceless.
LikeLike
In all seriousness, I agree. It’s never as effective to bargain with such an uncertain power structure, especially when you’re telegraphing that to the people across the table. Who’s actually going to be calling the shots if there’s a group of Regents breathing down Powers’ neck, and if there are competing agendas in there (as I assume there are), it won’t be nearly as effective. Unlike Scott or Boren who are negotiating with a much more direct authority.
LikeLike
WEEK 3 summary – Top 25 and conference alignment – teams with loss in bold
SEC 7/25 = 28% : Alabama, LSU, South Carolina, Arkansas, MSU, Florida, Auburn
7 wins vs 5 losses = 58% : losses to SEC schools = 3 : OOC losses = 2
B1G 5/25 = 20% : Wisconsin, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State
9 wins vs 3 losses = 75% : losses to B1G schools = 0 : OOC losses = 3
B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, TAMU, Missouri, Texas
9 wins vs 1 losses = 90% : losses to B12 schools = 0 : OOC losses = 1
PAC 3/25 = 12% : Stanford, Oregon, Arizona State
6 wins vs 5 losses = 55% : losses to PAC schools = 1 : OOC losses = 4
ACC 2/25 = 8% : Florida State, Virginia Tech
8 wins vs 4 losses = 67% : losses to ACC schools = 2 : OOC losses = 2
MWC 2/25 = 8% : Boise State, TCU
5 wins vs 2 losses = 71% : losses to MWC schools = 0 : OOC losses = 2
BE 1/25 = 4% : West Virginia
4 wins vs 3 losses = 57% : losses to BE schools = 0 : OOC losses = 3
.
.
.
.
WEEK 4 beginning – Top 25 and conference alignment – Conference games in bold
SEC 5/25 = 20% : Alabama, LSU, South Carolina, Arkansas, Florida
11 teams : 4 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 1 BE : 0 IND : 2 OTR
B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, TAMU, Texas, Baylor
7 teams : 0 SEC : 2 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 1 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 2 OTR
ACC 5/25 = 20% : Virginia Tech, *Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, UNC
11 teams : 0 SEC : 1 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 2 ACC : 0 MWC : 1 BE : 0 IND : 5 OTR
B1G 4/25 = 16% : Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, *Michigan State
10 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 1 PAC : 0 ACC : 2 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 7 OTR
PAC 2/25 = 8% : Stanford, Oregon
9 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 1 B1G : 4 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 0 OTR
MWC 2/25 = 8% : Boise State, TCU
8 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 2 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 6 OTR
BE 2/25 = 8% : West Virginia, USF
7 teams : 1 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 1 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 1 IND : 4 OTR
moved in : Clemson, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Michigan
dropped out : Auburn, Mississippi State, Ohio State, Arizona State
* teams losing in previous week in bold
Notes:
+ Oklahoma wins on the road, Ohio State does not
+ 3 ACC teams move into the Top 25, 2 SEC fall out
Undefeated teams left:
B12 = Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TAMU, Texas, Baylor, ISU, KSU, TT
SEC = LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
B1G = Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois
ACC = Virginia Tech, Clemson, Georgia Tech, North Carolina
PAC = Stanford, Cal, USC
MWC = SDSU, Wyoming, Boise State
BE = USF, West Virginia
CUSA = Houston
MAC = Ohio
SB = Florida International
So what are your 3 must see games for WEEK 4?
LikeLike
This could get interesting if Big 12 politicos get involved.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j-_b7L4rInq6mjMcdLZRdZHd4tlQ?docId=539b678b29154f74ac91c5d48159a614
LikeLike
That horse left the barn when A&M SECeded in August and then Branch cancelled the education meeting.
In another shocker –
PeteThamelNYT Pete Thamel
Just filed a Big East story. One news nugget: Big East will hold Pitt and Syracuse to their exit contract, meaning a June 2014 exit.
Welp thats gonna be an awkward 27 months and seriously thats just pretty. I think if anything th ACC might finish raiding whatever two BigEast schools it wants right now so that they can get that waiting period done with and move as a 16 team conference sooner.
LikeLike
It’s a hail mary. They’ll negotiate some exit fees and be done with it.
LikeLike
We’re getting a lot of spin out of everyone. That’s BE 1st negotiating position. If the BB schools want out or they do a B12 merger in the BE, they’re going to want them out immediately.
NYT has had some seriously one-sided articles about various issues. Depends on their source at the time. Wilner, who is an excellent writer, has had some total nonsense-but its what his sources feed him and his sources are mostly west coast.
LikeLike
Kind of annoyed with Boren’s hypocrisy. At first it was liking Pac 10 because of academics and he was tired of the instability (even though he was primary cause), but that was fair enough.
Now he’s talking about how important it is that noone take more of a leadership role in the conference as he leads OSU and T. Boone around like a calf with a ring through their nose and how the other 8 schools are waiting on him as he effectively shut down all expansion activity. And how important it is to have equal revenue sharing (OU was biggest beneficiary last year-but surprise-he wants a share of Texas revenue now that they are getting LHN $) when he has always been on the other side of the issue. But then he is a former Senator so he has experience puffing out his chest and sounding important when everything he says is meaningless BS. If I wanted to hear this type of nonsense I could watch Nightline or a bunch of similar shows, but I choose not to. If noone took a lead on issues in the conference, we would have the NCAA in miniature.
Is this more of BS blaming his leaving on someone as if he had no choice? Cognitive dissonance? Is it a bargaining position to stay in the Big 12?
I’ll go with blame shifting. I think he’s decided to leave. Favorite hobby in the White House and Capitol Hill. Like the FAA shutdown. WH took no leadership, Dems blamed Republicans, Republicans blamed Dems and a bunch of people got furloughed and the country lost tax $.
ESPN has a couple of interesting discussions on realignment-a Tranghese interview and then with 5 others.
LikeLike
So then why are Neb, Colo, aTm, gone, soon to be followed by OU, OSU, MO, and possibly KU? Do they all suffer the same cognitive dissonance?
I choose not to follow anything ESPN does or says regarding realignment, other than observe actions they take to influence the outcome.
LikeLike
Colorado said exactly why they left. They didn’t make any excuses or try to blame others for their decisions. They did what they believed was in their best interest and said that was what they were doing. Their alums are in California (30k in CA, 16k other Pac states, 11k Big 12 states)
After the lawsuit issue was settled, UNL said exactly why they left. Read the Omaha article. They were scared of being left behind and the B1G was too good to refuse.
A&M is A&M. Their alums hate Texas. But that is about A&M, not Texas.
OU first talked about stability and academic allure. The same academic allure that has often gotten Texas infatuated with the B1G and Pac. And that flirtation triggered some of UNL’s insecurities.
T. Boone is talking up the Big 12, although he says he doesn’t speak for Ok. St. (but I guarantee they listen). OK ST staying with OU whereever they go is in their best interest.
As for ESPN, the interviews involved a number of non-ESPN people. One blamed Fox, ESPN and CBS for some of the issues.
And in case you don’t understand the term, to use Wiki’s definition, “cognitive dissonance is the discomfort caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously.” If Boren is experiencing it, maybe he doesn’t want to hurt the other Big 12 schools but also really wants to go to the Pac 12, so he convinces himself of some BS that someone else is forcing him to do what he really wants to do, so its not his fault others get hurt. Honesty would be saying, “this is what’s in my school’s best interest and its unfortunate its not in others, but its what I need to do for reasons X,Y,Z.”
LikeLike
If the ACC adds two more Big East teams in addition to SU and Pitt, and the SEC grabs WVU, then they might be able to simply vote to dissolve the conference. Admittedly, I don’t know if 5 votes would be enough (especially given the hybrid structure), but if it is, it might be worth considering.
LikeLike
Politicians.
They always know what’s best for us.
LikeLike
The same guy that scheduled Ed Committee meeting prior to aTm leaving, and then canceling?
LikeLike
Correct me if I am wrong PSU fans. Did PSU not block Pitt from getting in over the years? The reason why I ask is because I see that PSU is complaining that there isn’t an “eastern rival”.
LikeLike
Block Pitt?
That would require someone wanting them first.
LikeLike
No one blocked anyone. The Big Ten offered Penn State (in that awkwardly long kabuki dance that has a lot of Penn State fans up in arms right now apparently), and then focused on Notre Dame for 15 years.
Then, the Big Ten ran the numbers on Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, and UConn and decided that the numbers didn’t add up because you really need Notre Dame to deliver the football markets to the Northeast of Pennsylvania.
So they invited Nebraska.
LikeLike
They may have or may not have if discussions ever made it that far, but Pitt just doesn’t offer much for TV when the conference already has Penn State, so I don’t think the other 10 members were putting Pitt in a position where Penn State would have to cross that bridge.
LikeLike
Yes, JoePa blocked the Pitt bid. He just destroyed the BE and eats babies. Ask any delusional, angry Pitt fan. Note I said ask the delusional, angry Pitt fans. Most don’t fall into that category.
I have to bookmark this because it is going to become part of Pitt/PSU lure. The exact opposite is actually true. PSU has been in favor of adding eastern schools. Even Pitt.
LikeLike
Agreed. In fact, the past few years, every time JoePa is asked about adding schools, he always mentions Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers (almost always at least 2 or all 3) as additions worth checking out.
JoePa’s always been a proponent of an Eastern conference or pulling the Big Ten east.
LikeLike
Yikes. I meant lore. This incident will end up part of Pitt/PSU lore. The only lure, or allure, this will have is to keep haters sniping. There are plenty of haters on both sides of this mess for many, and many stupid, reasons.
LikeLike
Ok I’m about 500 comments out of the loop can anyone summarize today?
LikeLike
Nothing new has happened. Pitt/Syracuse ramifications re: ND’s eventual conference decision.
OU and Texas empowered their presidents to act. But Texas’ president is only empowered to choose the Big 12. If he doesn’t want to rejoin the Big 12, then the regents will decide what to do. (At least that’s my take on it.)
Boren at OU is saying that his two options are to save the Big 12 or go to the Pac-12. He’s probably wanting to neuter the LHN in some ways if Texas really wants to maintain the Big 12.
LikeLike
Any indication on the rumor mill where the Big Ten is leaning, still along the line of without ND or Texas no expansion?
Based on our past two additions, Nebraska and Penn State it seems to be the MO, but The Times They Are A-Changin’. Outside of UT and ND who are our other targets Rutgers, Missouri, Florida State, Miami…that it?
If the Big East and B12 come tumbling down Missouri is going to the PAC or SEC, Rutgers to the ACC are we fine with letting them walk (I assume at this point we’re just stringing them along but if they give us the 12th hour call that they have invites from the other leagues and this is our last chance what do you say)? If you say no what’s the long game?
LikeLike
There is no reason to believe the B1G has any targets other than Texas and ND. They turned down Missouri last time and could have taken Rutgers at any point up until this post and at any point after it. They don’t want any of these schools, fans & media blabbering about 16 team conferences or not. The B1G makes too much money & has too tightly knit a structure to just grab anything. They don’t need to.
Florida State would fit the rent bracket that the B1G is playing in but there is no evidence that FSU ever had any genuine interest in leaving the ACC. Miami managed to party-boat its way out of EVER being considered by the SEC, let alone the B1G. Bad timing.
LikeLike
There are no expansion targets.
At this point, the Big Ten is just going to wait and see if ND wants to join.
Texas is wholly focused on the Pac-12 and Big 12 and is likely just going to use the Big Ten or ACC as leverage.
Florida State and Miami aren’t going to leave the ACC at this point in time. They just voted to up the buyout to $20M and the presidents were beaming about adding Syracuse/Pitt.
The Big Ten is likely to stay at 12 barring some kind of shift that brings additions that increase value. In a sense, there is no play here. The Big Ten crunched the numbers on Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, and UConn (and Missouri/Kansas) last year. If the numbers had worked out in a move to 14 with some combination of those schools, it already would have happened.
LikeLike
at last report there was a story from a Jersey newspaper saying Rutgers has been talking to ACC and B1G about membership.
delaney was said to be still golfing – at this point the only thing that will move the needle with them is ND.
there was a opinion piece by dan wetzel from yahoo saying that ND must choose soon and choose the ACC instead of being locked into the “dying midwest”
LikeLike
Nothing Wetzel says means anything to anyone.
ND is still focused on independence. There is no 4×16 on the horizon because the Big Ten will stay at 12 if ND stays independent.
LikeLike
For Zeek: How about three 16-team conferenes? Because it will only take nine teams to make the move and it’ll happen in the ACC, SEC and Pac 12 (16). I suspect that’d get ND’s attention.
LikeLike
It would get ND’s attention but to what end?
I just don’t see ND moving unless they actively are about to get cut out of the BCS NC picture. Even 3×16 doesn’t automatically bring that to bear.
LikeLike
Basically, there are only really three things that can force ND’s hand.
1) Situation for non-football sports. Even right now they can still go with the Catholic schools for non-football sports. I really don’t think this is that big a consideration. There’s a big difference between how ND views non-football sports and how Texas views non-football sports. Texas won’t go football independent if it relegates the rest of its sports to mid-major status. ND would be much more willing to do that in order to protect football independence.
2) Situation with Comcast/NBC. This is more relevant on ND’s performance and how much the new tightwads running Comcast (instead of Ebersol, ND’s strongest proponent) want to change the terms (or not continue) the current contract.
3) Situation with football NC/BCS or whatever replaces it. If ND’s championship access is at stake, they’ll consider joining a conference. We’re not anywhere near that though right now.
Some combination of those would be required for ND to really consider giving up independence, particularly the last two. As of now, Pitt/Syracuse to the ACC don’t force ND’s hand in these respects.
LikeLike
Yahoo! had an interesting blog post on the secondary impact of realignment (assuming there is primary impact beyond Pitt/SU).
http://m.yahoo.com/w/sports/home/blogs/article?offset=0&urn=urn%3Anewsml%3Asports.yahoo%2Cyhoo%3A20050301%3Ancaaf%2Carticle%2Cyhoo-ept_sports_ncaaf_experts-wp6582%3A1&.ts=1316482354&.ysid=l4Uo4WQgqpeuVF0iiZAtFOBy&.intl=US&.lang=en
Watson pits TCU as the big cheese of the 2nd tier, should they decided to go back to the MWC or go to a merged B12/BE conference could swing the BCS status of either conference. The big cheese of the second tier is like Velveeta compared to a strong cheddar (ND & TX). Velveeta is great for a grilled cheese, but will never replace a strong cheddar.
LikeLike
only schools left in big east after the acc/sec finish devouring them will be Louisville and Cincinnati for sure, WVU possibly (but could end up in SEC), Uconn (could end up in ACC), Rutgers (could end up in ACC). with the Bball only schools thinking of leaving the Big East that kinda forces a merger with the Big12 remnants (ISU, Baylor, Kstate for sure with Mizzou, KU could be gone). they would have to pull teams from MWC and C-USA to make it work. Probably going all the way to 16.
A 5th conference composed of BYU, Boise State, TCU, ISU, KState and UH might be attractive enough to earn a BCS bid. but at this point who knows?
LikeLike
Funny, I’ve always thought of TCU more as a Havarti.
And the only way we go back to the MWC is if UT stays in the Big 12 to protect the LHN, reloads with some Big East leftovers (UL, likely) to kill it off, plus maybe BYU, and then tells TCU to get lost. Other than that, we’ll at least be in the Big Tweast. Unless the SEC takes Mizzou, FSU, and VT, then the ACC takes KU and Louisville, along with Rutgers and UConn to get to 16. Then ISU, KSU, Baylor, TCU, Cincinnati, and USF just sit around and stare at each other for a bit before shuffling off into the outer dark. There’s always that.
LikeLike
Remember, the most fundamental rule of conference realignment is that any talk of a merger ends up with a raid. This will get messy.
LikeLike
I think both sides are waiting to see what happens. Assuming OU, UT, Tech and OSU go to the PAC (still not a done deal), both sides have to see who else the SEC takes. That could determine which conference is in a stronger position to do the raiding. And the ACC could still take another Big East team or two, or KU for that matter, particularly if they get raided by the SEC, which I wouldn’t rule out yet. And while it isn’t likely, the B1G could still take someone. It’s a terrible place to be, but this is where TCU has lived for the last 15 years, so I’m coping.*
*coping = drinking
LikeLike
CBSSports has a couple of columns on the realignment:
Dennis Dodd on a CSU-MWC mega conference:
http://www.cbssports.com/#!/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/32117287
and Gary Parrish on what the Big East should do:
http://www.cbssports.com/#!/collegebasketball/story/15606543/pillaged-big-east-can-survive-if-it-follows-this-plan
It seems like they are opting for the quantity over quality plan.
LikeLike
I really am surprised, when you consider their proximity, that the U of Toronto rarely gets mentioned in B1G expansion talks. Yes, I know, they don’t play football. But what a gold mine the entirety of Canada (35 million people) would be for the BTN/ B1G hockey. Besides, they are an out-of-the-park home-run academically. They rank as the 28th best University in the World, one under Cal Berkeley, with a 100% academic peer review score. An international B1G would one again set the B1G apart. And yes, I know they don’t play football…..well…….yet.
LikeLike
It’s just people in michigan that think that, like me and apparently you. It’s a pipe dream hoser.
LikeLike
It really doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t move the dial in the US. This is about BTN penetration in US markets/recruiting/alumni presence, etc.
LikeLike
It doesn’t make sense because only US eyeballs count? I have to admit, you’ve stunned me with these two doozies:
‘This is only about BTN penetration in the US.’
“It really doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t move the dial in the US.’
Wow. If what you say is true than Larry Scott truly does have Delany’s number.
This is from a recent interview with Scott:
Scott plans to have the Pac-12 Network available internationally, making it a crucial tool for creating interest in the Pac-12 worldwide. Scott also hopes the Pac-12 will be able to host competitions in the United States and abroad between Pac-12 teams and international competitors, including national teams from other countries.
“We want to promote the conference and generate interest overseas and this goal will be supported by the TV network,” Scott said
LikeLike
Scott wants to use the network as a way to create international appeal, but he’s not going to add a school in Japan in order to make that happen. Scott is also in a unique position where there are many Asian-Americans and Asian expatriates right in his conference footprint. The Big Ten doesn’t have quite the same situation with Canada.
It still is ultimately about penetration in the United States, as zeek says. You have to fill your stadiums/arenas with *American* fans, and are they really going to show up for Toronto, a school that doesn’t even play? Are networks going to give the B1G enough money to prevent a dilution of the conference’s per school revenue when Toronto literally will not move the dial for football at all (and that’s where the advertising money is). We can speculate that Toronto may be incredibly valuable for Hockey, but that’s only in Canada and some B1G states. In addition, will all of Canada care to watch Toronto play, especially when many recruits will still choose other routes to the NHL? Probably not.
LikeLike
This plus what I said below is pretty much why that’s not being considered.
LikeLike
Well what I meant to say is that this is about moving the dial in the US (i.e. T1 rights), and BTN penetration on basic tier in bigger markets as well as increasing the value of that BTN inventory by pushing bigger value games towards it.
Obviously, Nebraska did a lot towards the first and third goals but not as much towards the second
All indications are that the Big Ten is focused on the New York market (maybe even the D.C. market) but that some combination of Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, UConn, and/or BC didn’t manage to accomplish that.
All that extra stuff Scott mentioned is just icing on the cake like the BTN being available in Canada. Almost all of the value comes from what’s happening in the US with respect to the three goals I stated.
LikeLike
I’ve actually mentioned (jokingly) both Toronto and McGill as possible B1G expansion candidates under previous posts. They’re in the AAU, after all. But is college hockey that big in Canada? I thought all of the good players went to junior hockey, and the college game was about on par with college baseball in the US.
I also mentioned Monterrey Tech as an expansion candidate for the WAC once. Apparently they’re the most popular college (American) football team in Mexico. That was before I learned that they lost to a NCAA Div. II team playing its very first game.
LikeLike
Toronto would certainly be an interesting addition given what you mention. In addition, you cannot understate the value they would bring to the Big Ten Hockey Conference. Adding Toronto would make the B1G’s hockey conference effectively the place to go for amateur hockey recruits and would be a big selling point for getting the BTN on cable in Canada.
If we’re thinking about what makes brands valuable, football is not the answer for Canada; hockey is, and the Big Ten + Toronto is a pretty valuable combination. That being said, Toronto has absolutely no football following or prestige, making it essentially worthless in the U.S. for television ratings and national interest. Then there’s the basketball side, and I can’t imagine Toronto stands in a great place there (plus, how does Canada work with college basketball, eligibility is a serious issue for foreign basketball recruits because they essentially get paid to play on pro teams at a very young age because there is no collegiate path to the pros).
All that being said, Toronto is a really interesting addition for the Big Ten. I don’t know how they fit culturally, but they do bring a lot to the table in terms of academics, hockey, geography, and population base.
LikeLike
Actually, although they do have a football team, they don’t have a stadium -per say. They play in the TORONTO CFL stadium. Bringing Toronto in (monetarily speaking) has nothing to do with football. And everything to do with Academics and Hockey. Toronto has 2.5 million people (5 million in the metropolitan area) and is the fifth largest city in North America. I have no doubt the B1G have considered it on some rudimentary level, but I’m the first to admit it is unlikely.
The are an AAU member with an extremely wealthy alumni base and academically are on par with Stanford. They would be a home-run addition to the BOR’s I assure you of that.
LikeLike
The Big Ten hired a firm to research candidates and they probably asked them to research out of the box candidates.
I’d imagine the firm came back and told them that only Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Texas (perhaps they included Oklahoma or the UNC/Duke option) can really justify Big Ten expansion.
LikeLike
Didn’t they find that Syracuse, Missouri, Pitt, and maybe like two other schools definitely financially justified expansion? I’m pretty sure I remember hearing that from the firm they hired.
Of course, just because those schools would have be acceptable additions as #12 doesn’t mean they were ever going to happen. The B1G has clearly been going for home additions.
LikeLike
Well back then, that strategy of trying to spook Notre Dame out of independence by raiding the Big East was all the rage, so I’d take any public leaks of that report with a grain of salt.
LikeLike
The report was certainly as Great Lakes described it….
IMO, it’s more likely that a bigger expansion didn’t happen because Big 10 presidents are conservative, they didn’t want to see expansion wars, and they wanted to keep a place for ND>
LikeLike
“IMO, it’s more likely that a bigger expansion didn’t happen because Big 10 presidents are conservative, they didn’t want to see expansion wars, and they wanted to keep a place for ND>”
What mushroomgod says. I think there were multiple reasons for not jumping at every school that the report found would be profitable. I keep coming back to mounting bad pr and the initial signs that politicians were about to stick their noses into the matter as reasons that the matter was suddenly settled so quickly.
LikeLike
People on this board have mentioned Toronto before. They do play football there, but they play with Canadian rules.
I don’t think Toronto would make enough money to pay for itself. Their football and basketball would be a joke and I’m not sure Canadians would rally around them. Hockey would be nice, but hockey doesn’t pay the bills in the B1G. Canadians might like it, but they’ve got a lot of hockey options in the winter and I can’t see them skipping the NHL and junior leagues so they can watch Big Ten hockey.
LikeLike
Those are all definite concerns. I do think the Toronto case is really interesting though, just because it comes with several new dynamics and considerations. I’d be interested to see how those firms that the Big Ten hired when it first announced expansion would evaluate Toronto and what their criteria would be.
LikeLike
It’s simply my desire to see the B1G get creative that I bring it up at all.
One of Michigan’s first football games was against University of Toronto.
LikeLike
It’s good that you’re bringing up these scenarios, but the Big Ten has been researching a #12 and possibly 13-16 for almost 20 years. I’m sure all sorts of weird out of the box scenarios have been brought up by many.
LikeLike
Why is it when the landscape tremors that most of the bloggers on here are way slow to consider the future? Yes, the Pac16 fizzled last year at the last minute but there is real shit going down and I am reading how the Big 12 is going to pull it out again. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. C’mon man, two times and it is over.
LikeLike
http://blog.newsok.com/ou/2011/09/19/boren-transcript-part-deux/
Last question asked at David Boren’s press conference was whether he had any regrets about not being more proactive last year. His response:
I have tremendous regret that that’s happened. I would simply say it is not a strong vote of confidence in the conference office that this has happened in such a short period of time.
Ouch.
I think that is closest anyone of significance has come to publicly faulting Dan Beebe for what has happened over the past 18 months. Makes me hope someone from SU or Pitt will take a final shots at Marinatto.
LikeLike
Sorry for the double post, but Boren also makes one very interesting statement
Well, if we came up with our own network, we think it would be financially successful. Let me say that we’re in the process, at this moment in time – because we’re still a member of the Big 12 – for months, for more than a year, of planning our (network). I would say the level of interest of those who would like to be partners, media partners in our network, has gone up considerably – even over the past few weeks. There are a number of financial opportunities for the University of Oklahoma, too. The important thing is, if we have a network of our own, we want to run that network in a way that doesn’t seek to advantage us over other members, particularly in recruiting and other areas like that.
Significant for two reasons:
1. Boren has no philosophical objections the LHN
2. Multiple media companies have suddenly taken an increased interest in creating a Sooner network on OU’s terms. Sounds like someone is trying to make OU an offer it can’t refuse to stay in the Big XII.
Also, here is part one of the transcript. Good stuff about how bonded OU and OSU are.
http://blog.newsok.com/ou/2011/09/19/david-boren-realignment-transcript-first-portion/
LikeLike
Hilter finds out A&M is leaving the Big 12
It’s doubly funny because it’s made by an Aggie, so half the words are wrong (either that or A&M actually is getting a “suite” deal from the SEC). I guess we’re lucky it wasn’t written in crayon.
LikeLike
South Carolina just got in trouble for athletes getting suite deals.
LikeLike
Next time I am in Columbia I am gonna ask for the USC rate! 😉
LikeLike
Pingback: Conference Realignment Chaos: It’s On Like Donkey Kong « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT
may have already been posted, but the TAMU folks must have been influenced by the B1G
http://www.theeagle.com/am/Billboard-shalt-send-a-message
Is Michigan vs TAMU in a football game on the horizon?
LikeLike