As most of you all know by now, THE BIG 12 WON’T DIE. Let’s get right to it:
(1) Pac-12 grants a stay of execution to Big 12 – Last year, I wrote the following about the Big 12: “While the Big 12 isn’t safe in a warm and fuzzy family way, it looks like it’s safe in a maximum security prison way. No one’s getting out of there even if they want to very badly.”
Texas A&M looks like it’s pulled off an Andy Dufresne escape (although they’re not quite out of the sewer yet as a result of Ken Starr), but Oklahoma is still stuck in Shawshank. I’m not surprised that the Pac-12 ultimately didn’t agree to taking on the Longhorn Network with Texas, but for Oklahoma to not end up moving west is a shocker and an instructive note on how there’s still a fair bit of inertia in college sports (despite all of us here going through scenarios of how everything is supposed to blow up).
Back in January, I noted that the Longhorn Network was actually going to save the Big 12. That looked like that was going to be a very wrong prediction for the last month (and A&M is obviously out the door), but what we’ve seen is that Texas now has golden handcuffs to the Big 12 as a result of the LHN, thereby giving it prison-like stability. No other conference that could conceivably be attractive to Texas (Pac-12, ACC and Big Ten) was willing to budge on the LHN and equal revenue sharing issues, which meant that saving the Big 12 was always the end goal for the Longhorns.
One Oklahoma source claims that the school was simply using the Pac-12 to obtain more leverage in the Big 12. If that’s the case, it failed spectacularly. The latest developments have effectively provided Texas even more of a hammer than it did previously. The Oklahoma demand to fire Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe looks like it will be fulfilled, but that was probably going to happen no matter what considering the breakdown of the league over the past year. (All that I ask is that the @DanBeebe Twitter account continue to live on. It’s my favorite fake Twitter feed outside of the now-dormant @MayorEmanuel.) Other schools such as BYU, Louisville, West Virginia, Air Force and/or even TCU (which was the school that the Big 12 seemed to avoid as if it were though Patient Zero for the past 20 years) may be added to provide some more stability.
(2) My Partial Revenue Sharing Plan for the Big 12 – Now, let’s say that Texas actually decides that it wants to work in good faith to keep the rest of the Big 12 relatively happy (as it certainly has a large self-interest in keeping the league alive). Equal revenue sharing for the national first and second tier TV rights is certainly a nice start to get some goodwill in the league, but that’s obviously ignoring the real source of contention of the LHN. That being said, it has to acknowledged that the thought of Texas sharing all of its LHN revenue with the rest of the Big 12 is completely unrealistic.
So, what I’d propose is a local TV revenue sharing system based upon what Major League Baseball does today. In MLB, all teams pay 31% of their local revenue into a pot that is then split up equally among all franchises. As a result, the Yankees keep the lion’s share of their YES Network revenue (which is really where the team gets its financial power over the rest of baseball), but the Devil Rays get at least a little bit of benefit from the YES cash. Just as the Yankees will always have an advantage in TV revenue in MLB due to its location in the New York City market, Texas has the same advantage within the Big 12. No one can fault either the Yankees or Longhorns for maximizing that advantage, yet they also have to acknowledge that the fact that no one else can do the same (even successful programs like Oklahoma) is going to engender a ton of acrimony. That might be fine for a school like Texas to say, “So what?!” in a pure free market business setting, but in a sports league (whether pro or college), the wealthy teams still need the plebeians to be competitive or else such wealthy teams aren’t going to be able to offer a very compelling product (interesting games) in the long run, which ultimately hurts revenue down the line.
Once again, it’s unrealistic to think that Texas is going to submit to equal revenue sharing for the LHN and third tier TV rights in the Big 12. However, a partial revenue sharing plan for those third tier rights where all Big 12 members put in 31% (or some other agreed upon figure) of their local TV revenue which would then be split equally could go a long way in creating stability in the league and may actually make the league attractive to expansion candidates (outside of those that would take an AQ invite anywhere at anytime). Regardless, the Big 12 lives, whether it deserves to or not. BYU could logically be plugged in and the league could move along merrily, except…
(3) Remember the SEC: Realignment chaos isn’t over – Much of the media would have you believe that conference realignment has halted as result of the Pac-12 announcement, but there are the small matters of the SEC standing at an uneven 13 schools along with a possible collapse of the Big East that could put Notre Dame into play (which I’ll get to later on).
With respect to the SEC, Missouri was reportedly given an invite on Tuesday that was conditional upon the breakup of the Big 12. What’s unclear is whether the SEC will still try to get Missouri into the league now that the Big 12 has survived or if the Baylor lawsuit brigade has given Mike Slive a reason to keep it on the down-low for awhile. My impression over the past year is that the Missouri fan base had the most vitriolic collective anger toward the Big 12 besides Texas A&M, so if Mizzou effectively turned down an invite to the stable and wealthy SEC in favor of staying in the Big 12 prison (which I would personally characterize as the dumbest business decision in the history of college sports if that’s the case), I’d expect a whole lot of pitchforks in Columbia. Missouri alums may very well push the school over the coming months to approach the SEC again just like the Aggies just did and we’ll go through realignment chaos all over again.
As long as the SEC is at 13 schools, there’s inherent instability in the same manner that the Big Ten having 11 schools always had other conferences on edge. I thought the ACC was safe long before it added Syracuse and Pitt, but I’ve stated previously that Florida State is the one school from that league that I could see taking an SEC invite. (Forget about Virginia Tech and NC State for political reasons.) West Virginia from the Big East may also end up being a target again after being supposedly rejected by both the SEC and ACC (which happened before the Big 12 got its reprieve, meaning that Mizzou might not move). Speaking of the Big East…
(4) Service academies in the Big East? – A list of targets for the Big East to replace Syracuse and Pitt is reportedly topped by Navy and Air Force as football-only members with the hope that Army could be convinced to join, as well.
With football-only members being the primary targets, this means that the Big East football members (at least for now) want to maintain the hybrid format with non-football playing Catholic schools. The Big East would be looking for all-sports members if the schools really wanted to split. In turn, this makes Notre Dame extremely happy as it looks like the Big East will continue to be a viable home for its basketball and other non-football programs and allow the Irish to maintain football independence.
I’ve seen a number of comments on Twitter and elsewhere openly wondering whether the Big East ought to keep its BCS AQ status if it ends up adding some combo of Navy, Air Force and/or Army. What those commenters need to do is look at the big picture (AKA the entire BCS system). The Big East is going to have its AQ status through 2013 as long as it still exists. The published “AQ criteria” for ranking conferences does NOT apply to the 6 AQ leagues, who all have their status due to a combination of bowl and TV contracts. Thus, that criteria is SOLELY a mechanism to see if there could be a 7th AQ conference and NOT to kick out any current AQ league. This means the Big East can’t be yanked of its AQ status prior to 2013 unless it actually dissolves.
What’s important is what happens to that AQ status after 2013. Let’s assume that the Big East has added all 3 service academies as football-only members. Considering all of the constant political scrutiny with respect to the BCS, if you were a BCS commissioner, would you feel very comfortable going into a Congressional hearing and trying to explain why you just screwed over a league that has Navy, Air Force and Army? I certainly wouldn’t want to be in that position. See where I’m going here? Adding all of the service academies would provide a ton of political protection for the Big East when its AQ status is reviewed in 2013. That’s worth more than any other expansion candidates the Big East could possibly consider. The other BCS leagues are likely going to end up continuing granting the Big East an AQ auto-bid as the cost of doing business to keep massive political heat of them. It’s chump change compared to putting the entire tiered BCS system at risk.
So, don’t worry if you’re hooked on realignment crack. There’s still plenty to come over the next few weeks.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Alexander Palace)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Geaux Fightin’ Tigers!
Beat the couch burners.
LikeLike
BAM
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Big Zombie Conference. I won’t compromise.
LikeLike
hey….it beats the “F’ U, We’re Texas Conference” all to hell.
LikeLike
Well, that’s implied.
LikeLike
So as a practical matter, how quickly could a wanna-be expansionist conference like we think the Big Zombie could be (in terms of poaching one or more Big East schools) if, in between the time I write this comment at 1 am Central and by the time most of you wake up and read this, Beebe is fired and a new commissioner is installed. How quickly could a conference go poaching with that sort of administrative turnover? Doesn’t that slow the process down just a little bit?
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – I’m sure your AD would be happy to provide some expansion input!
Now, from what I’ve seen, Chuck Neinas, who was commissioner of the Big 8, would serve on an interim basis until a permanent replacement came in. You’re right that it might slow down the process a little bit, although the Big 12 also wouldn’t want to have a lame duck out there running point on expansion.
LikeLike
I guess my question/point (hell, it’s late) is whether the inherent delays the administrative issues the BZC has to go through might provide the Big East enough of a window to get its ducks in order first before the BZC can act.
Except, of course, if Dodds really has been in charge all along, in which case nothing has changed. 🙂
LikeLike
Not really sure that would matter in all honesty.
A conference with Texas and Oklahoma will never be denied AQ in any form of the BCS.
The Big East is too much of a risk for losing its AQ the next time around, even if they get all the service academies.
I think if you’re WVU or Louisville or whoever, you have to jump to the Big 12. It’s a do-or-die situation.
I’d like to see the Big 12 back to at least 12 by the end of all of this…
LikeLike
The other thing is money, the Big 12 will pay out at least 75% higher than the Big East in all honesty. And with equal sharing of T1, T2; who’s going to turn that down?
Could be looking at 17-20M per year in the Big 12 versus 11-13M per year for the Big East. That and the certainty of AQ for the Big 12 with Texas/OU; it’s a no brainer…
LikeLike
Sounds like the BE may invite all the service academies this week, but the service academies may want to let things settle down. So Marinatto thinks he can keep AQ with the service academies and Villanova. Navy apparently is convinced they need a conference from what I have been reading.
LikeLike
Frank – if the Big East is interested in football only schools, how about Boise St.? Sure, they’d have to quit the MWC and join the WCC or some other non-football conference for other sports, but it would be worth joining an AQ football conference. We could also stop the annual “Is Boise worthy/” debate if they joined an AQ conference. Also, the Big East needs some football cred and Boise brings it.
LikeLike
@Alan – It’s kind of what I had proposed with the “Big Country Conference” as football-only league:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/a-modest-proposal-for-the-big-east-tcu-boise-state-and-others-the-big-country-conference/
Essentially, just cherry-pick the best of the non-AQ ranks no matter where they’re located for just football. The Big East could then continue to survive for all other sports.
LikeLike
Would BSU need a travel partner (BYU if not picked off by the BZC?) to make it work better or could they be a stand-alone thousands of miles away from the next-nearest member?
I’m not seeing why this couldn’t work.
LikeLike
I’m always confused by the details of what a “travel partner” actually means for college sports. But in any case, if Boise joins the BE for football only, then there’s only 4 conference road games a year to handle. Seems easy enough. I’d have to think Boise would at least consider such a move, if only for revenue purposes (I’m not sure the AQ part of the equation matters to Boise seeing as they get to BCS bowls easily enough as it is).
LikeLike
multiply
LikeLike
Go BLUE!
LikeLike
Go Orange
LikeLike
GBR
LikeLike
Here’s the view from Michigan: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/conference-realignment-timeline
LikeLike
I have to say that I’ve been completely fascinated by all of the conference realignment discussions. Before I start my rant, I have to provide full disclosure. I grew up about an hour west of South Bend and have always been a Notre Dame fan as it was the “home” team growing up. Even as a Purdue alum, I’ve found that childhood loyalties die hard. It is with this Midwestern bias that I have followed all of the discussions on FranktheTank, MrSec, & Purple Book Cat as well as the usual SI & ESPN. To add to that, there is a second disclosure: I’ve been living in Dallas for over five years and and have also grown partial to the Longhorns over time; however, I will always favor the blue & gold.
With that said, my primary interest in all of this realignment has always been seeing the domers join the Big Ten and trying to think of the different scenarios in which Notre Dame might join the B1G. I realize that this scenario would really be the option of last resort for ND, especially now that the PAC-16 appears to be dead in the water…for now, anyway. The PAC-16 is really the primary avenue in which I see a hammer being taken to the conference realignment scenarios and forcing ND to choose a conference. It wasn’t even two days ago that I was thinking about how Delaney must be squirming in his pants having to watch the ACC attempt to creep up and steal ND from under his feet. I agree with most sentiments in that ND will never join the Big Ten or any other conference for reasons solely related to football. They would only join a conference (as a football participant) in the event they didn’t have any other choice in finding a suitable home for their other sports. Anyway, that’s neither nor there.
What I found myself thinking about today is I that still have no idea WTF is going through the minds of those folks down in Austin. The Big 12 was put on life support last summer after the Colorado and Nebraska defections. ESPN dropped a godfather offer into Beebe’s lap and, voila, the Big 12 suddenly pulled through. At that time, all of the member institutions agreed to the method of revenue sharing while also allowing UT to keep the option of the LHN on the table. What they didn’t realize at the time was the kind of Franken-monster that the LHN would become.
Fast forward to this year and the firestorm started by UT’s plans to showcase prep talent on their network to go along with the extra $15 million annually in undivided revenue. A&M finally decides to step away from the table and give UT the finger. After A&M speaks up, OU decides to man-up and second that motion. Crisis in full effect. All sorts of options were then discussed…first Arkansas (or ND or BYU or Pittsburgh or whatever flavor of the day it was) to the Big 12…then UT, TT, OU, OkSt to the PAC-12…then UT to the ACC…oops, UT to ACC no longer on the table…double oops, PAC-16 no longer on the table. Evidently, the PAC-12 would take OU and OkSt, but only if UT came along for the ride; however, PAC-12 didn’t want any part of the LHN with its UT-only content or without any revenue sharing of the LHN proceeds. UT didn’t want any part of divesting the LHN or having to split the associated proceeds. The PAC-12 basically tells UT to piss up a rope, thereby eliminating any chance for OU and OkSt to receive PAC-12 invites on their own accord. At what point will UT realize that the LHN has been the main source of consternation during this latest round realignment talk? It was the primary catalyst in the latest episode of Big 12 instability and it was likely the primary factor in the PAC-12 deciding to not expand. I mean, who wouldn’t want the prestige of the University of Texas in their conference? The PAC-12 appeared to be willing to deal with the extra baggage of UT (Texas Tech) in the trunk, but when UT stated that they weren’t going to pitch in for gas money, the PAC-12 said (in Rick Perry fashion) “adios mofo” and left them on the side of the road. When it comes down to it, you can’t really fault UT for wanting to create the LHN. They’re simply trying to maximize their brand and do what’s best for the students, athletes, faculty, & university as a whole. But just because you can do something doesn’t necessarily mean you should. At this point, it seems like it’s more of a headache than it’s worth. Yet, according to the latest scuttlebutt pertaining to the hopes of saving the Big 12, they still insist on not sharing any of the LHN proceeds with other universities. Unbelievable. The Iowa States and Kansas States of the world might be fine with UT being the 800 pound gorilla because they don’t have any other choice, but OU and A&M are a different story. Seriously…UT is fine academic institution. Surely, there must be *somebody* with some brains down there. Big picture guys…big picture. Money can’t be everything in this case.
I would find it downright hilarious if OU was to suddenly turn their attention to the SEC. Up until now, they’ve turned their nose up at those folks down south. However, with the PAC-16 no longer a viable option, what else are they going to do? Stick with the Big 12? Ha! With UT still wanting to throw its weight around? Who would want that deal? The Big Ten or ACC aren’t an option for OU, so the SEC is the only viable alternative left. Anything has got to be better than the Big 12 (or Big Least), right? A&M is basically in the SEC already. So, suppose that OU decides that the SEC doesn’t look so bad after all. The SEC would love a brand like OU and would be willing to let OkSt tag along to get a piece of that action. That puts the SEC at 15 schools. From there, it’s either Missouri or WV with Mizzou being the better option. Think about it…the SEC gains access to the fertile recruiting grounds and TV markets in the state of Texas (not to mention the solid academics of A&M), a national football brand with OU, and additional TV markets in St. Louis & KC (the SEC needs all of the markets it can get). A&M and OU are solid and Mizzou, while not quite stout enough to justify a conference expansion on their own, isn’t exactly chopped liver. So yea…they have to swallow OkSt…big deal…the good still dramatically outweighs the bad in this scenario.
What does UT do in that scenario? They would find themselves on an island having only bad options or worse options. One option is that they would become a football independent and stick all other sports in a conference like the Mountain West. Yeah right…UT in the Mountain West? Then, of course, there is the Big Least (if they continue to exist). But first, maybe we should ask the Big Least how having ND as a non-football member has worked out for them. I’m willing to bet that if ND had joined as a football member back in ’95 when they joined for all other sports, the conference would likely still count Miami, VaTech, and BC among its members and schools wouldn’t be jumping ship today like they were on the Titanic. In fact, they’d probably have to be beating schools off with a stick just to keep them out. Imagine that…major universities that are actually in the eastern timezone wanting to join the Big East.
The alternative option for UT would be that they would have to check their ego at the door, divest the LHN as we know it, and crawl on their knees to the PAC-12, Big Ten, or ACC. Of course, if they had done that to begin with, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. This show isn’t over until the fat lady sings.
LikeLike
There seems to be some strong belief by the administration that TLN (NOT the current money from TLN) is somehow going to become more valuable, directly or indirectly, to the university.
There are a number on the UT boards asking the same question as you.
I don’t think any of it has to do with sharing the money. If you read Chip Brown’s leak regarding Pac 16, basically the money would be shared once Pac networks generated the same $. If UT joined the B1G, $ would be no issue as BTN is starting to generate a lot of money. The problem with the Big 12 is that UT would be giving assets away in sharing TLN revenues because the other schools don’t bring as much to the table as the B1G and Pac schools. They have a fiduciary duty to protect the school’s assets. Personally, I think its kind of offensive that Big 12 schools, who refused to start a conference network, refused to spend money studying it (UT and UNL did it on their own), refused to spend time, effort and money setting it up, would now want to share in the results.
Again, I think its unknown and unknowable future revenues or branding that they value. Its not clear what they wanted from the Pac. From Scott’s comments you can’t tell if he was asking for UT to take a cut in revenue on the promise that the Pac networks would generate more money. The Pac could be that arrogant to refuse a temporary deal when they just did the same thing for USC and UCLA, but I doubt it. I suspect the hangup was that UT valued control over the regional network and that didn’t fit in the Pac model. It might fit into a future B1G model and the ACC model isn’t well defined. But obviously, it fits just fine into the Big 12 model (and would in the SEC as well).
I think the HS stuff is all driven by ESPN to get better carriage for the network. That seems to be a real source of friction.
LikeLike
Um, the B12 schools who refused to start a conference network were Texas and Nebraska.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
My goodness…Oklahoma has been spectacularly emasculated in all of this…major egg on their face.
LikeLike
With the Pac 12 -> 14/16 blowing up, the Big East is where the action likely happens next…
I think the Big East would like to keep it somewhat of an eastern league, doubt you’ll see many mountain/pacific time zone programs added (Nevada, Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico, etc) unless its Air Force. Boise State might be needed to bring the Big East’s ‘football’ brand back up enough to keep BCS status, especially if the SEC starts flirting with the Mountaineers…
From there I think they’d look at the usual suspects: Navy, UCF, ECU, Houston, Memphis, Villanova, etc. Ten teams is probably ideal for TV inventory purposes. Even with Boise as a football only member, I have a tough time seeing the Big East keep BCS automatic qualifier status.
LikeLike
Read yesterday that BE is looking at 3 service academies, Villanova/Temple and UCF. ECU, Memphis and UH were ruled out in the Presidents’ meeting the other day. http://www.nj.com/rutgers/football/index.ssf/2011/09/big_east_will_look_to_add_navy.html
LikeLike
Note to everyone-my link is the same as Frank’s above.
LikeLike
Just wondering what those fans of Baylor, Kansas, KSU, Iowa State, Missouri, etc feel about four of there fellow members preferring to be in a competing conference? Two off-seasons in a row, they’ve endured lengthy negotiations of potential and at one time likely doom for the Big XII…
This isn’t a healthy conference and I can’t see it working much longer.
LikeLike
I don’t know about the other schools, but based on forum posts (for what that’s worth), I think many Missouri fans are angry and fed up with the conference. They just want out.
LikeLike
A fair and growing number of OU posters seem to think likewise. I doubt Boren or the regents post often so I don’t think what the fans post matters much.
LikeLike
I’ve never thought of “pro-active” moves by the new Big 12…but I suppose they need to do SOMETHING instead of just waiting for riga mortis (sp?) to set in. Some kind of an equitable sharing system needs to be established if they are to survive. No one will join them if they don’t create a stable and fair system for the “serf” schools they want to keep on board.
If Texas actually WANTS to keep the league together, i expect to hear news of this sort soon. If we hear NOTHING, I think Texas still has eyes for another conference (Big Ten, ACC). Texas has got to move with this thing.
My personal opinion? The Pac-12 wants to avoid litigation from the Big 12 remnants. All the legal shotgun blast will be aimed at the SEC right now. Once that all passes (weeks, months, years), then the Big 12 borders will be open for poaching again.
LikeLike
PBC strikes again:
http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=163241898&mid=163241898&sid=901&style=2
LikeLike
Not sure his scenario can work, Both the Big Ten and Texas don’t want to see the lawyers from the Big XII members. Yet the Big XII programs are holding Texas tight and won’t let go. There is little threat for most of the Big XII programs leaving other than maybe Oklahoma to Pac 12 and Missouri to the SEC…
The once common scenario here of Oklahoma in the SEC has no basis when Oklahoma desires to be an ‘academic’ conference to improve its academic reputation.
LikeLike
If academics is the deciding factor then maybe they should consider the SEC. The SEC is adding A&M, a very good university and a very good research institution while the B12 has lost Colorado, UNL and A&M. If OU would wait and let Mizzou take an SEC bid the B12 would be down to UT, ISU and Kansas as AAU members while the SEC would then have AAU members UF, A&M and Mizzou. Even now the SEC’s average rank in the USN/WR rankings is 50 and the B12’s is 51.
LikeLike
And with A&M in the SEC, Oklahoma would still have ties to Texas for recruiting purposes.
Of course, the fly in the ointment is that South Carolina, Vanderbilt and Florida have little desire to send their athletic teams to Stillwater, Okla., a Starkville on the plains. As long as Okie State is attached to OU, there’s the problem, and the probable reason the Bedlam series will never be held under SEC auspices.
LikeLike
I agree 100%. This has me thinking that OU may finally consider joining another conference without OSU. They have tried working things out as a tandem but how far will they be willing to be pushed by UT? The politicians have made grumbling noises when the idea of the schools splitting has come up but do they have the political will to mess with OU when the majority of their voters are OU fans?
LikeLike
@joe4psu
This has me thinking that OU may finally consider joining another conference without OSU.
Do we know whether they’d been denied by the B1G, or had they only ever inquired about joining with others? I realize we’re only working with hearsay, but has there been talk regarding the B1G CoP/C vetoing Oklahoma period, or just if they were to join with others?
LikeLike
Other Mike,
This is the problem. I’ve read different things about OU inquiries but have no reason to believe any of them. This is all mental masturbation and anyone that says they KNOW what will happen is probably full of crap.
What I read first was that OU inquired about membership with 2 or 3 others and were told no. Later I read that they were turned down again and that may have been after a request to come aboard alone. That is hard to believe since they have continued, up to this point, to make it clear that they and OSU will stay together. There are people who post here that are convinced, without any proof that I know of, that OU has no chance regardless. When I see the proof I’ll believe them.
For now I’ll need some cold hard proof to convince me that OU cannot become one piece of the B1G puzzle if that is what it is necessary for Delany to get UT. My rambling in the other post was just a thought that OU may come to realize they cannot stay in the B12 with UT as it is and will have to make a hard decision about OSU. Any chance at joining the B1G would almost definitely require that. And as much as they may want out of the B12 situation as it stands, they may feel that they can live with UT in the B1G as apparently they did about the Pac.
LikeLike
I find this PBC post harder to believe than all the rest. I don’t think I am a believer in him anymore. Texas has to approve any B1G expansion even though they aren’t a member? Eh…
LikeLike
I don’t find that hard to believe, the B10 likely has already had enough talks with Texas to say its only priorities for expansion are Texas and Notre Dame.
LikeLike
“Texas, we really want to invite Rutgers since the BE just imploded…do you mind?”
“Actually, we do.”
Two weeks later they could bolt for the PAC. Makes no sense.
LikeLike
But you’re assuming that the Big Ten would do something that would NOT make them (and therefore Texas) a boatload of money. It’s a basic thing for Texas to ask…hey, we’d like to know what decisions you guys make to cover our bases.
Let me rephrase your question more realistically…
“Texas, we really want to invite Rutgers along with Notre Dame to corner the NYC market and add 9 million New Jersey viewers. We’ll probably make another 5 million dollars per school every single year going forward. Do you mind?”
“Actually, we don’t.”
LikeLike
I think it was a matter of offering them a chance to get out of the terms of the LOI if they didn’t like the pick.
LikeLike
Sigh. I really just want Texas to go away.
First Powers talking about Texas and Notre Dame being in the same coference someday, and now this.
LikeLike
If ND ever does join a conference, I bet Texas will be there with them, because only a new conference with UT/ND would be special enough for ND/UT. (In other words, getting ND into the B1G would give Texas more rea$on to jump ship and getting Texas into the ACC would give ND more reason to join up.)
LikeLike
I enjoy his posts because not only do they have enough “insider credibility” in them to be somewhat believable, but they also stir the pot enough to have a conversation around.
At this point, I’m hard pressed to imagine any scenario in the near future that includes Texas as a member of the Big Ten. UT has been consistent in its insistence on keeping the Longhorn Network in its present form, although that’s also the basis you want to start with in any negotiation (which will be happening starting today with the Big XII leadership and members). But if Larry Scott and the Pac 12 twice couldn’t get DeLoss Dodds to step awya from the LHN, I’m thinking it probably won’t work with Jim Delany and the Big Ten either.
Missouri is certainly in the catbird’s seat. They would definitely be a prime candidate for the SEC and the Big XII would want to have them in any ten- or twelve-team conference they can reconstitute once Texas A&M leaves. They’d also be a candidate if the Big Ten does opt to expand in the future, irregardless of their conference affiliation at the time.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens when the Big XII does meet today. The revenue sharing plan for the Longhorn Network Frank puts out certainly makes sense, but will Texas make concessions to the other teams in the conference on it or will they just say “nyet”. They’d also have to accept restrictions on the conference’s content regarding high school football, the number of football/basketball games televised, etc. I don’t really see Dodds making those sorts of concessions on the matter.
LikeLike
In response to Purple Book Cat’s newest post…
Mere mortals like you and I look at today and can’t fathom the landscape three years from now…but what if…
The long-rumored BTN2 channels are actually school specific. Certain schools may end up sharing, but most will have their own content. Thus, PSU, the only Big Ten school in Pennsylvania, will have one offering of BTN2 that features 80% Penn State content. Nebraksa…same deal. Michigan/Michigan State will choose to partner up or fly solo. Same with Indiana/Purdue and Northwestern/Illinois and Wiscy/Minny/Iowa. Guess what? In 2014, TEXAS WALKS IN and GETS THE SAME DEAL! It will be called LHN from 2011-2014; then, it will change to BTN2. Each school keeps any revenue off of their “third tier” rights, while the Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights belong to the league. Ultimately, the revenue stream from BTN and contracts with ABC/ESPN will be 90-95% of what the Big Ten schools makes. However, there will be some discrepancy between what, let’s say, Texas or Nebraska or Penn State makes and what Indiana makes.
Of course, there is no reason that the Pac-12, which is also looking at regional networks, couldn’t engineer the same proposal. But their geography is a little different. The USC/UCLA channel would make tens of millions of dollars more than the Utah/Colorado channel…or the UW/WSU channel. When you do the math, USC/UCLA might make 80% off of Pac-12 conference income and 20% off of the PACLoco channel…whereas OU/OrSt might be a 95/5 split b/c their cable channel would be so, so much smaller. Even Stanford/Cal would trump Arizona/ASU.
But the Big Ten population balance is better. Again, here’s the rough population breakdowns.
PA 12mil.
OH 12mil.
MI 10mil (two schools…)
Indiana 6 mil. (two schools)
Illinois 13 mil (two schools)
WI/MN/IA 13 mil. (three schools)
Nebraska 2 mil. (not proportionate but those fans are rabid)
Texas 25mil. (but a smaller number would be interested in a “Big Ten Texas”)
LikeLike
Another scenario…
The channels aren’t only school specific, but they cover larger population bases (thus asking for a higher fee). (Numbers in millions of people)
Rutgers/PSU channel…(PA 12+NJ 9)
OSU/UM/MSU channel…(OH 12+ MI 10)
ND channel…(available everywhere)
Indiana/Purdue/Illinois/Northwestern…(IN 6+ IL 13)
Wiscy/MN/Iowa/Neb channel…(WI 5+MN 5+ IA 3+NE 2)
Texas channel… (TX 25)
LikeLike
I think you are on to something here. This sort of arrangement rewards the geographic outliers a bit more, which is only fair since they incur more direct travel costs and indirectly because they have fewer natural rivals nearby.
I’ll see your regional BTN2 concept and raise you another expansion candidate that makes a ton of sense in this scenario: Florida.
B1G would go to B16 with UT, UF, and two of ND/Rutgers/Maryland
LikeLike
First “Florida to the Big Ten” sighting!
LikeLike
I think B1G will continue to equally share Tier 3 rights $. But they may have school specific sub-channels. I think everyone is going to at least try to do some variation of the Pac model.
LikeLike
This would make the B10 TV arrangement somewhat like the SEC (where third-tier rights are controlled by each school).
What I find interesting is this section: “the requirement that any final arrangement be designed to increased revenues among all Big Ten conference schools, with no discrepancies in distributions unrelated to television network distributions among conference institutions”.
Does this include internet distributions? We know that the B10 schools have decided to pool all their web rights together to create the “Big Ten Digital Network” (currently without UNL, but presumably with the Huskers joining after whatever current deal they have runs out). Delany and company may be betting that distribution over the internet would eventually be more important than TV, making the whole LTN kertuffle little more than a historic curiosity.
I certainly hope that’s the case.
LikeLike
What exactly did they pool? I remember CBS was managing their portals, but don’t remember if the article specified what assets were shared.
LikeLike
And I think that is part of what UT’s issue with the Pac model was. I suspect they see TLN as the first part of a change in how revenues are generated.
LikeLike
Speaking as someone who has the BTDN I can say the Big Ten treats it as a red headed step child.
Replay of football and men’s bball is ONLY available via BTN streaming. NOT BTDN.
Not all sports are televised on the internet. This is completely mind boggling since if they have the tv infrastructure to put one men’s soccer game on, why not all? And why not women’s soccer to boot?
The BTDN is trumped by the BTN…I could not watch the PSU v Nebraska women’s volleyball match on the BTDN (like I paid to be able to do) last night because it was on the BTN.
I already canceled by subscription for next year in the hope my nasty email and cancellation will get them to change prior to next year so I can re-up. In the end though they need to just start charging a flat fee for people to access the BTN online in areas where its not on expanded basic cable, if for no other reason than for leverage to use against the local cable companies.
LikeLike
PSUGuy:
I think that the problem is that the BTN and BTDN are owned by separated entities. Fox owns 51% of the BTN (with the B10 schools owning the rest). Don’t know what the ownership structure of the BTDN is like, but as their partnered with CBSSports, I don’t think Fox owns any of it.
Figuring out how the BTDN profits are divided by be useful.
LikeLike
After what’s happened every time the subject has come up, I can’t see Texas agreeing to the pooled media rights and pooled revenue that are the cornerstone of the B1G. Granted the B1G has nowhere near as much dead weight as the Big 12, but still, Indiana is Indiana.
The other non-negotiable from the B1G’s perspective is Texas Tech. The answer is no and will always be no unless Texas Tech turns itself into Texas A&M.
LikeLike
Just in case the post gets pulled down at Rivals, here is the PBC post. I found the last para the most interesting. I think the ACC’s move to add Syracuse and Pitt really spooked the Big Ten, fearing that Texas and ND could be next (“a similar unexpected move following the Texas BOR meeting”):
“Tonight, the University of Texas president Bill Powers co-authored a letter of intent with the Big Ten conference.
The key terms include:
– the University of Texas will in good faith conduct discussions with the Big Ten conference and no other conference related to its post-2012 conference affiliation
– the Big Ten will not invite any other institution to join the conference without the prior approval of Texas
– before joining the Big Ten, Texas will have assurances that it can schedule four non-Big Ten conference football games per season
– the requirement that any final arrangement be designed to increased revenues among all Big Ten conference schools, with no discrepancies in distributions unrelated to television network distributions among conference institutions
– Texas will become a full CIC member
– Texas and the Big Ten will jointly approve any third party media arrangements related to Texas athletics moving forward
– the goal that Texas participates as a full member of the conference beginning in the fall of 2014
Texas’ intentions with regard to the Big Ten will remain without official announcements until a specific group of universities, including the current Texas’ Big XII schools, solidify their own conference affiliation status. Neither the Big Ten nor Texas wishes to be seen as the primary driving force in conference realignment.
The decision of Syracuse and Pittsburg to join the ACC came unexpectedly to the Big Ten. Certain leaders of the conference remained uncertain that a similar unexpected action could take place on the heels of the meeting of the Texas Board of Regents, particularly given the lack of uniform communications between Texas stakeholders and the conference. These individuals no longer have such uncertainties.”
LikeLike
In a related story USC, Florida and Notre Dame will also be joining the Big Ten while Harvard Stanford and Oxford all become members of the CIC. The Big Ten will then use it’s extra revenue to purchase a medical school for Notre Dame so they can become AAU members.
Oh and, PBC will be awarded a Pulitzer for his investigative reporting on the matter.
LikeLike
Interesting Big East strategy — “If you try to take our BCS bid that just means you hate America”
LikeLike
@Frank – FYI the Devil Rays changed their name to the Rays eight years ago. “Devil” sounded too negative they said.
LikeLike
I meant 3 years ago…changed in 2008 (not eight years ago). Haven’t had my coffee yet.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Go Hawks.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Late in the previous entry, I considered a possible expanded Big 12 with Cincinnati and Louisville joining Brigham Young. Soon after posting it (but after going to bed), it became obvious to me that West Virginia would bump Cincy in that scenario; not only is it a bigger, more established “brand,” but it’s one that’s desperate for a home and as such would probably be amenable from any proposals from its new Texas overlords.
While obviously football rules the roost, several members such as Kansas, Missouri, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor, which have had relatively better success in basketball since the Big 12 began, would get a boost from adding Louisville, WVU and BYU; UL’s hoops profitablility gives it value far beyond its middling football program. (If Missouri and the SEC finally summoned the courage to consummate their relationship, I suppose Cincinnati would be as good a replacement candidate for #12 as any, assuming Dodds has ruled Texas Christian verboten.)
Here’s the conference as it could be + BYU/UL/WVU:
East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Missouri, West Virginia
West: Baylor, Brigham Young, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
Finally, while the scrambling Big East may be able to get Navy as a football-only member (and possibly Army down the line), I have my doubts about Air Force. Its philosophy, unlike West Point and Annapolis, is to participate in an all-sports conference — something I doubt the Big East would agree to — and that, plus geography and little need to become a BCS member (which also applies to the other service academies), likely takes it out of the picture.
LikeLike
They’re only at 15 basketball schools? You take Navy/Army football only and Air Force in all sports and you get back to 16.
LikeLike
It would look rather absurd to have the two eastern service academies as football-only members and one in Colorado Springs as an all-sports member, though I suppose it would give Texas Christian a travel partner…
LikeLike
Well it is the Big East. You never know what they’re going to do next.
LikeLike
@vp19 – I think it’s reasonable. To name them East/West is silly, why not Legends and Leaders or vice versa.
LikeLike
Or, a la the ACC, “Big” and “12”?
LikeLike
I’m not quite sure about the the BTN2 concept. Is the B10 watering down their product and is there really this much demand for 2 channels dedicated to the B10 teams? If the BTN2 is designed to be more team specific, then being a Ohio State fan, that’s pretty much the only channel I’m going to watch. There is a misconception about B10 member schools. Just because we give the appearance of “one for all, all for one” doesn’t mean we really care enough about all the schools to watch them. When I look at the BTN schedule now, if Ohio State isn’t on, I don’t watch. I just don’t care about Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, etc.
LikeLike
I’m agree. I rarely watch anything that doesn’t involve PSU.
LikeLike
i’m surprised. i like watching the other schools’ stuff. I wish there was more non-sports programming about what the schools are up to. I think a one-school channel would be boring as hell.
LikeLike
Agree JJ. The BTN documentary on Purdue astronauts is one of teh best shows I have ever seen on TV.
BTW: does your last name start with “D”
LikeLike
oddly enough it does. and its not delany. have i given myself away?
LikeLike
Totally agree. I know what I want to know about Michigan (my team), but I love learning about the other schools.
LikeLike
I also don’t watch much non-Iowa stuff on BTN. I probably watched more general B10 stuff in the past, since it was harder to get. Now that there are a bunch of BTN studio shows, I DVR them and fast forward through looking for Iowa stuff. Lame, I know.
LikeLike
I think the point is to cover a lot of the events that don’t get covered by the BTN because you don’t care about watching such a localized event. The BTN will still cover the events of importance to the entire footprint (or presumably would be watched by people outside the schools’ footprints themselves).
i.e. like the Pac-12 Networks. National network + 6 regional networks for pairs of schools (i.e. North Cali, South Cali, Utah/Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Arizona).
It will cover a lot of the events that aren’t covered by the national network; i.e. olympic sports or whatever. Obviously, we’re not talking about activities that are worth a ton, but you might as well monetize them for the schools and show them on some form of TV.
For the Big Ten, could just have 3 networks for 4 schools each. (BTN2-West of Wisc/Minn/Neb/Iowa, BTN2-Central of Michigan/Illinois/MSU/Northwestern, BTN2-East of OSU/PSU/Indiana).
I think the point is to fit with what you’re saying about certain things only having regional interest.
LikeLike
I could see the BTN1/BTN2 channel concept working. I assume both would share the same “conference wide” content the BTN currently produces, but would include more broadcasts specific to the schools belonging to one of those two channels.
For me right now, the BTN is where I go to watch live Michigan sports coverage when it’s on the network–like last week’s football game against Eastern Michigan and next Saturday’s game with San Diego State. But outside that, it really doesn’t have a lot of much see programming for me at this point.
While I like the football shows with Revsine, Dinardo, etc., I usually find myself going away from the program until the coverage about Michigan comes up. I should put those programs on the DVR, but frankly, I haven’t done it yet.
LikeLike
I wonder about quantity of content.
Right now, the programming is high quality, but there is not enough of it. The same programs/games et al are repeated many times.
If that issue can be mangaed I’d watch more BTN in totla than at present….but obviously if I’m watching the second and not the first it hurts ratings for the first….
LikeLike
Dodds has said that tier 3 are off the table, but sharing some of the LHN especially if it is a limited window (say until 2014) might be cheaper than trying to entice conference teams with $5million per game. Once the LHN is has had 2-3 years to mature it may be a completely different scenario.
P.S. if you haven’t seen it check out YouTube Texas Football Practice 9.20.2011 – the production is great and probably most hornfans could spend hours watching the content they have now.
LikeLike
Those few who do have the Longhorn Network say ESPN has done a great job on it.
LikeLike
Personally, I’d watch BTN2 that had PSU as its only focus or one of maybe two or three teams. If I knew I could flip there and watch my “home school” or could root against (or scout :)) our closest conference rivals, I’d find myself gravitating there more frequently than I would with the BTN1. BTN1, as it gains more and more viewers, will become like an ESPN2 type channel that frequently carries intriguing events.
And if BTN2 and tier 3 stuff goes digital, well then it can become even more specialized.
To answer an earlier question, no, PA people would not get Michigan’s BTN2. They wouldn’t give a crap about it. (Nor would Michigan care to receive BTN2 for PSU!) Each region would carry BTN1 and BTN2 for that region only. Maybe the mondo-sports carriers would have all of them available (doesn’t DirectTV already carry “empty” channels for the spill-over BTN games on busy weekends? Those might turn into BTN2 Nebraska or BTN2 Illinois if people want to pay for them…). But I could see BTN2 sneaking into basic cable in home markets.
LikeLike
My problem with the BTN now is its heavy preference for taped football games over live (or much more recently taped) non-football/men’s bball sports. I mean a women’s volleyball or wrestling match has to be a big draw for it to make the BTN. If the BTN2 channel(s) would alleviate that problem I’d be all in favor.
LikeLike
That’s a production issue, not a channel issue. There’s no limiting reason why they couldn’t put more non-revenue sports on other than the cost of production.
LikeLike
Again, the current BTN is not suffering from a surplus of content. I would like to see BTN actually have stuff other than “Greatest Running Backs of the ’90s” rather than spread out the same content even further.
LikeLike
If there actually are documents between the Big Ten and the University of Texas, they would be subject to a FOI request no?
LikeLike
Not on the conference side; it’s an independent organization.
LikeLike
Sure, but UT isn’t. This is how we learned of the Tech problem last year, so I’m guessing they’ve learned to circumvent this.
LikeLike
Circumventing public records requirements is a tad bit illegal.
LikeLike
Public records requests only apply to stuff paid for with public money. If Powers uses his personal phone or checks his gmail account from outside the Texas network, it doesn’t apply.
LikeLike
It isn’t against the law if you don’t get caught.
LikeLike
there aren’t; he’s making 95% of that crap up. It’s the 5% that have the naive hooked…….
LikeLike
I am thinking this is all just bs right now, but I am keeping my mind open. Everything so far has fit within PBC’s posts, so they aren’t disproved yet. They are fun to speculate about however.
LikeLike
Yes. Regardless of PBC’s accuracy, he sure knows how to stir up some fun hypotheticals.
LikeLike
If PBC didn’t exist, we’d have to invent him.
LikeLike
@Frank
You said: “the thought of Texas sharing all of its LHN revenue with the rest of the Big 12 is completely unrealistic.”
A question on this statement: Would the PAC or more to you, the BI6 be willing to invite Texas with some sort of your MLB rev sharing plan? Seems to me that from everything we heard the PAC’s answer would be NO. If no other conference would accept the thought of Texas NOT sharing 100% of LHN rev, then this is the rub as to why the Big XII has no chance to survive.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s the “golden handcuffs” that Frank has referred to in the past month or two.
The ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 view revenue sharing as sacrosanct.
In the Big Ten, the big schools accepted revenue sharing as a principle even before Penn State was admitted. With partial gate sharing (and the fact that the Big Ten goes beyond everyone else in that fact), I’d say the Big Ten is maybe more unlikely to cut an unequal deal for anyone else.
The ACC has already said that they won’t cut special deals for anyone and that equality is a rule for them.
The Pac-12 made that clear in this round of alignment that they view equal revenue sharing in a similar way to the Big Ten and ACC.
Only choice is really the Big 12 since Texas doesn’t want anything to do with the SEC. In a sense, Texas’ “greed” (not sure that’s the right word, maybe self-interest) is the reason the Big 12 could survive for a long time.
LikeLike
I think this is much more realistic than the PBC post of Texas putting out a LOI to the B1G after the Pac-12 blew the idea of expansion out of the water. The Pac-12 was always the biggest question mark as to how far they would go to accommodate new members. Now it seems that the answer is “we won’t.”
The B1G was always the longest-of-long shots to get to actually break from its principles because they are both the first and by far the most serious. They also can afford to be. They have a huge research incentive that no other conference has, and they have previously integrated two football kings with no issues.
LikeLike
This is about to be a test of the “special friendship” between Texas and Notre Dame.
The Daily Oklahoman today has an article identifying eight possible expansion candidates: Brigham Young, Texas Christian, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati, Air Force, Boise State and Houston. Note that four of those possibilities are in the Big East.
http://newsok.com/big-12-expansion-targets-byu-tcu-west-virginia-likely-at-top-of-list/article/3606336?custom_click=headlines_widget
If Texas is watching Notre Dame’s back, then Dodds will advocate adding one team behind closed doors (BYU?) and publicly extolling the virtues of a ten-team conference to everyone who will listen. If the conference were to go to 12 (and UT is directing the shots), I wouldn’t be shocked to see it be something like BYU, AFA and Houston with no BE programs being poached. Whatever happens, Texas’ main goal is to keep the Big XII together in some form and to make as few concessions as possible to see it happen.
If the Big XII were to one or two of those Big East teams listed above, then the BE would be going thru another freefall episode with the individual schools scrambling for the lifeboats. It’s pretty clear that Rutgers, Connecticut and West Virginia would probably jump at the chance to join the ACC (RU, UConn) and the SEC (WVU).
Additonally, of course, if the Big XII does reconsititute itself, it takes the option of a Big East/Big XII merger off the table. Without that possibility, the Big East’s options going forward are rather limited. We’re reading about the BE inviting the service academies and there might be C-USA programs who would be willing to go to what is currently an AQ conference. Conversely, the reamining members of the BE (which would be USF and perhaps Lousville/Cincinnati) might opt to just go back to C-USA unless a major conference (like the SEC for Louisville) were to add them as a 15th or 16th team.
This board has discussed Notre Dame’s possibilities ad infitum if the Big East no longer provided ND a conference setting to put its non-football sports–we’ll see if that possibility does emerge in the coming weeks.
LikeLike
Of course, there’s also the possibility that picking off a few Big East members might spur Notre Dame to join the Big 12 for non-football competition. The 12-member Big 12 I previously envisioned, with Brigham Young, Louisville and West Virginia added, could certainly benefit from ND as basketball #13.
LikeLike
Why would all the members (and not just Texas) of the Big XII agree to that sort of set-up? Texas and Oklahoma already have football games scheduled with Notre Dame, so it’s not a necessity on the football side. With twelve teams and eight or nine conference games, the Big XII wouldn’t need ND for football scheduling. Notre Dame hasn’t helped the Big East in its non-BCS bowl lineup, so I don’t think there’d be much benefit for the Big XII in that department either.
Would the Big XII need to add Notre Dame for its non-football sports? That’s a mixed bag–perhaps ND’s men’s and women’s basketball teams (WBB was in Final Four last season), but are there any others? If you add Louisville and West Virginia in MBB, that would be two quality adds right there.
You could make the case this would be a strategic move–get ND into the Big XII as an associate member in anticipation of further expansion to 14 or 16 teams. Notre Dame talks about not being regionalized, but most any conference they join full time would regionalize them in some manner. Would it make sense for ND to join the Big XII based largely in the Plains states, the ACC that spans from Boston to Miami or the Big Ten that currently goes from eastern Pennsylvania to Nebraska? It’s pick your poison at that point, but I doubt it’d matter much if ND went in as an associate/non-football member with any of those three.
One other thing to mention is Missouri. Even if the Big XII might get onto a path of getting everything together, it’s also been on the brink of death two years in a row. If the SEC wants Missouri, I think the Tigers make the leap–and that’s yet another team that the Big XII would have to replace as well. Maybe that’s a good thing then–the other team comes from the Big East and Notre Dame would be in a “less regional” conference.
We’ll see what happens. First off, the Big XII figures out if it’s going forward and what it’s final form will be. In the meantime, the SEC works out its 14th team and the ACC looks at its options as well. Finally, of course, is what happens to the Big East.
LikeLike
@cutter
It could also be a strategic move to keep Notre Dame from joining the B1G which would require the B1G to take someone else. Even if it wasn’t a Big 12 school, it would likely trigger the SEC and Pac to start looking at expansion again.
LikeLike
I doubt the B12 would turn down a Notre Dame non-football application; after all of the instability, adding ND would be a PR coup.
One of the major subplots emerging from the latest round of expansion is the strain put on Notre Dame — if the BE goes away, there’s not an obvious place to park the non-football sports.
LikeLike
There was also an article somewhere saying Oklahoma had wanted 1 or all 3 of Air Force, TCU, and/or BYU. I’m beginning to think that’s more likely.
LikeLike
I suspect $ are really a non-issue with the Pac and B1G. The BTN and, eventually, the Pac networks will make more than TLN. Texas has no problem sharing if its a win-win. I suspect the issue with the Pac was school control over the regional network. The B1G doesn’t have regional networks yet and so hasn’t decided how that would work, or even if, they will do it.
LikeLike
That’s a fair point re: school networks in the Big Ten.
With the Noah’s Ark in place in the Pac-12, I’d tend to agree that it’s going to be a total non-starter in the future.
Most of us have seen it as unlikely that Texas would be willing to put its content up equally with Texas Tech.
LikeLike
Good points. If they’d make more equal revenue sharing than not, I’m sure they’d be willing to shift to that model. They liked the exposure the LHN gives to the school in a lot of ways though and didn’t want to lose that which seems like a necessity if it was integrated into a PAC-16 Network.
LikeLike
My impression is that the Texas administration is interested in the LHN for its value to the University (content) more than it does the revenue it generates. It seems that if a conference opportunity presented itself that involved an equitable revenue sharing of tier 3 Texas would be interested. Asking conference mates with little national appeal to join in a cooperative network, have them decline and let you do all the work and then want a piece of the pie is NOT equitable.
LikeLike
This is correct. Texas wants the LHN for its ability to show Every Last Bit of Tier 3 material… women’s soccer, golf, track, swimming… They don’t want to share that.
They like the money, too, for sure. But they want the outlet.
LikeLike
Disagree. If the Big 12 goes to first and second tier equal sharing and 3rd tier staying with the schools (LHN, etc), that’s exactly the model the SEC has that no one has ever voiced any problems with to my knowledge.
Long term, I’m willing to bet completely equal revenue sharing will create instability even in some of the conferences that appear stable now (maybe even the Big Ten). Economic times will get tougher than they are now and schools will look for ways to make whatever money they can. For the big schools, that’s going to mean either a) pairing together with other big schools or b) less equal money sharing arrangements. I’m not saying any particular conference is going to fall apart or be stable, but the logic that unequal revenue sharing of some rights creates more instability than equal revenue sharing of those same rights is very very questionable long term in my opinion.
LikeLike
Again, I don’t think the issue is revenue sharing. The issue is giving away revenue. With the B1G, it would be a win-win. The B1G has a valuable network and UT could add additional value to that network. Everyone gets more money. With the Big 12, Texas would be giving away school assets. Noone else has much right now as far as networks.
It isn’t clear what happened with the Pac, but from Chip Brown’s post, revenue sharing seemed to simply be an issue of transition. I suspect the issue was control over the portal. That was what I believe was the sticking point with the Pac. UT control over the portal didn’t mesh with the Pac model.
LikeLike
Well, as one poster said a month ago:
“No way in hell is Texas going to split a network (content/control) with Texas Tech.”
LikeLike
Does anyone else think about that scene from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail when they think about the Big East or the Big 12?
Lose Pitt and Syracuse… “Oh, come on and fight!”
Lose Nebraska, Colorado, and Texas A&M… “Tis but a flesh wound!”
Those leagues just won’t die!
LikeLike
Posted that same thing a few days ago on the Donkey Kong board.
LikeLike
Really? Not being a copycat… I guess that’s just the impression the leagues are giving people.
LikeLike
What about the B1G? Are they going to stand pat for awhile?
Still have a hard time believing that the Irish would choose the ACC over B1G if they give up their independence.
LikeLike
B1G is not predatory, not threatened, and already has a lucrative TV setup and very high per-institution value and so will not expand without either Texas or ND.
Everyone else doesn’t add enough value and/or is academically unacceptable and/or involves raiding a conference. Put another way – if they wanted Missouri & Rutgers to go to 14, it would have happened last year.
In terms of who is angling for the B1G & might realistically get in – Maryland all but stated they wanted to be able to do it at some point. That’s the only reason why they would join FSU in resisting implementing an exit fee that would actually stop someone.
LikeLike
Many have commented along the lines of “if BIG wanted X and Y they would have done it last year.” This reasoning is fallacious, of course. The game has progressed. If one believes the big goal is to get TX and/or ND, then why move on smaller but desirable pieces unless they play a role in achieving the main goal. MU, RU, MD (if gettable) are still strong possibilities and the noise about RU to the ACC or MU to the SEC is a new dynamic.
Any game is played from the current situation.
LikeLike
What you are saying is more “they don’t want these but would take them to round out Texas/ND at an even number of schools.” That’s exactly where everyone thinks the B1G is at. The B1G doesn’t expand for the sake of expanding or because other conferences are doing so, for a bunch of reasons:
— They’re a destination brand with an ironclad traditional core & the oldest bloodlines of any now living conference in the NCAA baring the Ivy.
— They don’t have to do it financially (BTN was making trucks of money at 11 schools)
— They are unpoachable due to the CIC & pooled media rights.
— Their CEO’s strongly object to football-only moves and outright reject/will not even consider poor academic schools.
— Any new addition needs to be above-average for the B1G in revenue to not be dilution and there are very few schools that meet that and the above academic mark .
— They don’t seem to believe in poaching. You come to them.
The BIG isn’t going to be forced to go to 16 by any other conference’s move. They’ll sit at 12 if there isn’t anyone who makes sense for them. Look at how long they sat at 11 despite the obvious incentive to get a CCG. It’s a whole other dynamic from conferences that are playing defense (ACC, Big East) or who have lousy media deals (Big XII, old Pac).
LikeLike
All that’s well and good, but the common perception, that I see on ALL of the fan forums from at least some % of the crowd, is that the BIG is a rust belt conference that plays boring football and is becoming less relevant…..I don’t see how being stubborn and staying at 12 addresses the demographic issue that JD talked about….and how staying at 12 in the face of everyone else getting bigger doesn’t make us the Smaller 10…
If everyone will recall, Delaney said changing demographics did not necessartily mean that the BIG had to take soutern or western schools…..but rather that larger schools within the current footprint or cintiguous thereto could be taken……BIG should add Rutgers and Missouri , and ND in the olympic sports and CIC only, with no interest in the BTN, no Rose Bowl etc….and be done with expansion.
LikeLike
mushroomgod, the Big Ten’s unwillingness to do the things you’re recommending are precisely what makes it a destination brand.
LikeLike
Nothing says non-boring football like Rutgers and Missouri.
Of course, at least Missouri has played a football king in the past 10 years. When is the last time Rutgers played a football King? Miami as a Big East game? Meanwhile.. Pitt has played Notre Dame, WVU plays SEC schools, UConn played Michigan, Syracuse played Penn State and USC, South Florida has played the Florida kings, Louisville has played Miami, CIncy played Oklahoma, and so on. Rutgers is the only one that lacks the stones to play anyone. And despite the cupcakes they STILL aren’t exciting.
LikeLike
“the BIG is a rust belt conference that plays boring football and is becoming less relevant”
Sorry, but the conference that sports more viewing alumni than any other cannot become less relevant. Those fans aren’t going to stop watching.
LikeLike
Look on the bright side. This past 15 months has given us all a very clear picture of the character of Deloss, Inc. They couldnt get an invite to quite literally any conference at this point. B1G said “nein”. ACC said “nyet”. Pac-12 said ‘hells no’. SEC said don’t even bother calling.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s exactly what the SEC said to Texas. Excellent insight.
LikeLike
Actually the SEC is the really odd one in the bunch. It’s probably the only other major conference that wouldn’t have had a problem with the LHN (those rights are already controlled by the schools in the SEC), but UT wasn’t interested. Heck, ESPN may have even liked that as it would have made creating an SEC Network down the line more difficult.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big 12 had a problem with the LHN…as long as it stayed within the limits that had been suggested from the start, or the limits that the SEC has. The problem is ESPN has an investiment in it requiring considerably more. Will ESPN be happy with 6 BB games and UT/Rice as the max? Doesn’t seem like that is worth the half to one billion estimated cost to them over the life of the contract.
LikeLike
Texas never looked at the SEC.
The SEC though is the most lenient towards treatment of 3rd tier rights. Florida has its own huge deal for 3rd tier rights, etc.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
“That might be fine for a school like Texas to say, “So what?!” in a pure free market business setting, but in a sports league (whether pro or college), the wealthy teams still need the plebeians to be competitive or else such wealthy teams aren’t going to be able to offer a very compelling product (interesting games) in the long run, which ultimately hurts revenue down the line.”
You’re not thinking like a Texan. DeLoss would probably respond “Sure the games might be less competitive, but they would be less competitive in our favor. I don’t see what you’re point is.”
LikeLike
Obviously, DeLoss doesn’t even know what the word “your” means.
LikeLike
Unless it’s “your” money.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t the Big XII’s best play be to go to 14 or 16 teams? If you are Iowa St. and you know that have the conference members have eyes on another conference… wouldn’t you want the confidence that you could lose a few teams and still be viable.
Kansas, KSU, Iowa St., and Baylor should all be advocating for 5-7 more teams. Picture this:
South: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
West: Oklahoma, OSU, BYU, Boise St.
North: Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St.
East: WVU, Lville, Cincy, and USF
The South and West would alternate joinder with the North and East.
The Pac -16 potentials get the cover if they ever decide they have to leave. They leave behind a Big XII that can keep its seat at the table for quite a while. If Boise St. and TCU have staying power, they can be perennial ranked teams to cushion the blow.
I am not sure that this conference wouldn’t match up favorably with all other conferences anyway.
Texas, Oklahoma as anchors. WVU, TCU, Oklahoma St, and Boise St. in the next tier. A Baylor, USF, Missouri, BYU or Kansas always able to make a run.
Compare:
Texas (#19 AP) – Ohio St (unranked) – Florida (#15 AP)
Oklahoma (#1 AP) – Nebraska (#9 AP) – LSU (#2 AP)
Okie St (#7 AP) – Penn St (unranked) – Alabama (#3 AP)
WVU (#16 AP) – Michigan (#22) – A&M (#8 AP)
Boise St. (#4 AP) – Wisconsin (#6) – Auburn (unranked)
TCU (#20 AP) – Iowa (unranked) – Georgia (unranked)
Baylor (#17 AP) – Illinois (#22 AP) – South Carolina (#12 AP)
USF (#18 AP) – MSU (unranked) – Arkansas (#14 AP)
Obviously, most years will have Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee (in theory), Iowa, MSU, PSU, Ohio State somewhere between “ranked” and “top 5.” But if you can put 8 ranked teams together ANY year, that’s a pretty good start.
LikeLike
At the very least, this BVI would have to leapfrog the Pac-12 and ACC in football.
LikeLike
I don’t think they will go beyond 12 because they want to maximize revenue. Personally, I think 14 might be a more stable number and worthwhile because of that. 16 is too many mouths to feed as well as too hard to treat as 1 conference.
LikeLike
Agreed, I’d throw out 16 on face value.
12 or 14 is where this is going to go.
10 is too small right now in a world with multiple 14 team conferences (assuming the SEC ever figures out A&M…). It just doesn’t feel safe.
12 is probably the closest to revenue maximizing with safety in numbers. 12 might make slightly less per team than 10, but the appearance of safety and the CCG are important.
14 might be more stable than 12 but the question is whether that stability is worth enough to give up a bit of money.
LikeLike
Coincidentally, IIRC at the formation of the Big XII they copyrighted both Big 12 and Big 14 in case of future expansion. I do not know if Big 16 is held by any conference.
LikeLike
Hmmm… sounds like an investment opportunity.
LikeLike
So let me break down the logical of the typical national college football writer:
(1) Realigning towards mega-conferences is bad.
(2) It’s best for all involved to slow the process down. Don’t let it spin out of control.
(3) Texas stays in its smaller, geographically-concise conference.
(4) Ergo, Texas is evil.
LikeLike
You’ve got it backwards, HH. Start with the fact that Texas is evil and the rest falls out logically. 😉
LikeLike
Actually its;
1) I’m lazy so I constantly put out false information without realizing it;
2) I like to generate controversy so I take extreme positions;
3) Texas is big and successful so they make a good target;
4) Texas is evil is my theme;
5) Superconferences are bad since it makes it harder for me to be lazy-I have to learn new things; and
6) I don’t care that its inconsistent to say Texas greed is causing superconferences to form when Texas doesn’t want superconferences, since I’m too lazy to be logical.
LikeLike
As I posted on the last thread, its just amazing how often I read flat out false info related to Texas by sportswriters. Its easy to understand why Texas is viewed as evil on bulletin boards everywhere. Several falsehoods that I constantly see:
1) Texas demanded and got the leftover 5 exit fees. In fact, Texas and OU (but not brave, self-less A&M) refused guarantees offered by the others and inequitable distribution of exit fees.
2) Texas demanded guarantees and concessions last year to stay in Big 12. In fact, the only things that changed are that Tier 2 rights were split equally instead of 50% equal, 50% earned and in a Texas proposal, ADs approved a proposal to equally share Tier 1 rights as well (which hasn’t been approved by the Presidents-and its not Texas, TT, OSU, ISU, KSU or Baylor holding it up). There have never been guarantees in the Big 12. It was based half on what you “earned” by TV appearances. While that favors the “brands” and big market teams, UNL learned last year that’s no guarantee as they were slightly below the average for the conference for probably the 1st time. Oklahoma led in $ last year.
3) UNL left because Texas would not equitably shared revenue. Reality is that UNL and Texas were the most tightly tied on revenue proposals.
4) Everyone but the Big 12 shares revenue equally. In fact, the Big 12 used to be somewhat in the middle. The Pac 10 (which has changed their model) was the most unequal and the Big East was next. The SEC doesn’t share Tier 3 rights and Florida made $8 million on that last year while MS St. made about $300k. And while the ACC says they are equal, UNC led the nation last year with $11 million in Tier 3 rights per Dosh’s article. The Big 10 was the only conference that was essentially equal (but they have been joined by Pac 12).
LikeLike
1. Full disclosure: I am both a Northwestern (undergrad) and Texas (grad) alum. My objectivity should therefore be taken with an appropriate grain of salt.
2. Despite the amazing recent ups and downs of the conference realignment carousel, I still believe that a compelling case can be made for a University of Texas move to the Big 10. Here’s why.
3. Although there is much discussion of geography on message boards obsessing (as am I) about realignment, I believe geography is consistently underestimated as a factor in conference stability and an outcome determinative factor in conference alignment.
4. All the major athletic conferences were exclusively defined geographically, based on familiarity and the need to minimize travel distance and expense.
5. This initially produced some (what now seem) unlikely conference bedfellows (e.g., Sewanee in the SEC, Idaho in the PAC-8). Over time, some of these academic, cultural and/or scale “misfits” have moved on (e.g., Georgia Tech left the SEC, University of Chicago departed the Big Ten), but many have stayed (e.g., Vanderbilt in the SEC, Northwestern in the Big Ten, Cornell in the Ivy League).
6. Three of the most successful major conferences have over the years maintained geographically-defined cores: the Midwest for the Big Ten, the old Cotton South for the SEC and the Pacific Coast for the PAC-whatever and the Middle Atlantic for the ACC. In recent years, a relatively few geographical outlier programs have been added to these geographical cores (e.g., the Arizona schools in the Pacific-10, Miami and Boston College in the Middle Atlantic, Penn State in the Big Ten), but not many.
7. If there is one lesson to be derived from the long history of conference affiliation, it is that conferences work best when geographically rational and when the constituent colleges share compatible academic profiles, cultural values and scale. Schools which are outliers for one reason or another generally don’t last as members.
8. The Big 10, SEC and PAC-whatever until recently ignored the one-third of the country situated between Iowa City (Big 10’s Iowa) and Tucson (PAC-12’s Arizona), east to west, and Canada and Mexico, north to south. Although it’s relatively sparsely-settled, this “Heartland” (or “Great Plains”) region was the home to not one, but two, major conferences: the geographically- and culturally-well defined Big 8 and the geographically concise, but academically/culturally quite diverse, former Southwest Conference.
9. The real issue for the two Heartland conferences (other than the fact the old SW Conference contained as mismatched a set of colleges as likely ever shared a football field) was that despite its size, the Heartland has over the decades supported only three schools which have been consistent winners in football: Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas.
10. Although there have been other reasons cited, these three universities, which have either left (Nebraska) or have publicly considering leaving (Texas and Oklahoma), have departed (have considered departing) the Big 12 for the simple reason that there aren’t enough successful, major football programs in the Heartland to put together an economically viable conference.
11. The three Big 12 schools which have already departed, Colorado (leaving, in fact, because of culturally affinity for the west coast and their inability to compete), Nebraska (leaving, in fact, because of their inability to beat Texas and Oklahoma) and Texas A&M (leaving, in fact, because of their inability to beat anyone good consistently and their desire to leave the house of more successful big brother Texas), have been able to exit relatively easily because they are located on or near peripheries of the Heartland/Great Plains.
12. Colorado, Nebraska and A&M are located close enough, respectively, to the PAC-12, Big Ten and SEC conferences’ traditional geographical cores to be readily assimilated as relatively modest geographical outliers. It is no coincidence that Colorado was the furthest west, Nebraska was the most northeastern and Texas A&M is (was) the most southeastern of the Big 12 teams.
13. Geography, however, presents a more much significant obstacle to any effort by Oklahoma and Texas to realign into another conference. Texas is located almost exactly equidistant from either coast and further south than any other major football program outside the State of Florida. OU is located smack dab in the middle of the country, distant from any major conference core area. Thus, the simple geography of both Texas and Oklahoma, located distant from even the periphery of the major conference cores, make them problematic potential conference mates.
14. But there are other ways of thinking about geography and one of them is chronological– travel can be measured not only in miles, but also in time. Oklahoma and Texas are situated in the Central Time Zone. So are six of the current Big Ten teams (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern and Wisconsin). Although the mileage between Texas/Oklahoma and these six Big Ten schools is significant, team travel in an expanded Big Ten including Texas and Oklahoma as measured in time would be reduced considerably by the fact eight schools would be located in the same time zone.
15. The same cannot be said of a combination of Oklahoma/Texas and any of the schools the current PAC-12 or the current ACC. (Although a critical mass of SEC schools are located in the Central Time Zone, the academic/cultural differences seem insurmountable between, on the one hand, where Texas is now and where Oklahoma aspires to be, and the SEC schools, on the other.)
16. Realigning Texas and Oklahoma with the Central Time Zone schools in an expanded 14-team Big Ten would, of course, require that conference to abandon its current Legends and Leaders divisions. Substituting geographically-defined Central/Eastern [Time Zone] Divisions for Leaders/Legends Divisions seemingly designed in part to enshrine a current (but ephemeral or, worse yet, actually nostalgic) competitive balance makes a great deal of sense.
17. However, given how unsatisfying the similarly geographically-asymmetrical (and similarly, lamely-named) divisions in the ACC have proven, as well as the persistent criticism of the new (equally asymmetrical and equally lamely-named) Big Ten Divisions, realignment of the Divisions might not prove a major hurdle. A realignment which results in Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas competing in the Central Division and Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State competing in the Eastern Division would be an almost-too-metaphysically-perfect allocation of those traditional, football power programs.
18. An expanded 14-team Big Ten into Eastern/Central [Time Zone] Divisions would, of course, leave eight teams in the Central and only six in the Eastern Division. Surely one team in the proposed Central Division could be induced to switch. Perhaps Northwestern would be a good candidate, since it is located near the eastern edge of the Central Time Zone and has easy access to one of the world’s most convenient and busiest airports.
19. So there it is. Texas and Oklahoma should move to a geographically-rational Big Ten Conference with the potential for long term stability. No one can quarrel with the quality of Texas’ and Oklahoma’s athletic programs or Texas’ academic programs. Those in the Big Ten who sniff at Oklahoma’s academic programs might profit from another look. OU is making great strides in an ongoing academic upgrade. Does any major football power other than Oklahoma currently offer free rides to any National Merit Scholar no matter where they hail from? Not coincidentally, Oklahoma is reported to have more National Merit Scholars enrolled than any other university. They’re not where they ultimately want to be, but they are making significant progress. If the Big Ten was willing to take Nebraska, which promptly lost its prestigious Association of American Universities (AAU) membership, it should be able to welcome OU.
20. I went to undergraduate school in the Big Ten and have visited a majority of the conference campuses. My advice to fellow Longhorns (and any Sooners willing to listen) is that you have a lot more in common with the Big Ten schools than you probably think. In terms of athletic tradition, academics and scale, in fact, everything but weather, Texas would fit in extraordinarily well. I have also attended an ACC university and lived for years in both ACC and PAC-12 country, and while I believe that Texas could comfortably be part of either of those conferences, I submit that the Big Ten is the far better cultural/academic fit.
21. The best realignment strategy for the University Texas? Forget the Longhorn Network if need be, and join an expanded Big Ten conference which offers: (a) long term stability because it would be both geographically rational and composed of 14 schools remarkably consistent in terms of institutional cultures and scale; (b) academic affiliations with which your faculty and administrators would feel comfortable; (c) excellent major and Olympic sports competition; and (d) if Oklahoma accompanies us (we’ll even let OU through the door first since that seems to matter so much to them), continuation of the Red River Rivalry.
22. Even without the LHN, Texas will still be the richest kid on the block, and, if the current level of play continues in the Big Ten, all we’ll have to do to reach an annual BCS bowl game will be to beat Oklahoma.
LikeLike
Instead of moving over two Eastern teams, then Notre Dame likely is added to the East, leaving a 16th to join the fun.
Rutgers?
Florida?
Florida State?
Maryland?
LikeLike
That’s fine.
But what about Texas Tech and Oklahoma St.?
LikeLike
Future conference mates wiith kansas St & Baylor in the lesser Heartland Confernce of land grants and wealthy Southwestern privates…
LikeLike
I’m waiting for the movie………
LikeLike
The movie would only be shown in back alley theaters, NC-17 type stuff. Cause it seems like most of the people in this film are getting screwed.
LikeLike
Texcat,
This is an excelllent post. Posts like yours are one of the reasons I love this blog. I am a big ten alum (undergrad), attended an ACC grad school, lived in the bay area for five years and lived in Houston for 7. I completely agree with you on how similar Texas and Oklahoma are to BIG institutions. I also agree with you on the importance of geography. Much like the cost of living factor, it is sorely underrated and its importance is never fully realized until after the fact.
Thanks for sharing…
LikeLike
Perfect. Someone call Delany.
I think Texas is extremely interested in the B1G currently (despite travel and LHN). The addition of OU and ND would make it impossible to pass-up. Throw the LHN revenue into the pot – equal sharing all tiers. Re-establish the Neb/OU rivalry. I would vote for Mizzou over Rutgers. You have a contiguous conference that would be the premier academic and athletic conference locked-up regardless of further realignment. The B1G supporters talk about the B1G having a 50 and 100 year plan. Put OU in that situation and they’ll make AAU in 10-15 years.
LikeLike
So do you want Mizzou over RU because it’s a better academic school or because as a more populous state it will generate more money for the BTN and has better recruiting grounds?
Oh wait. That would be RU.
LikeLike
I didn’t read where you had the solution to the “Tech” problem or the Oklahoma State problem. Both of these schools are politically chained around Texas and Oklahoma. In addition, the LHN is a channel Deloss Dodds has already said there will no negotiation. If the BTN2 is a legitimate option for TLN, then fine. But until or if the BTN2 gets up and running, those are 3 poison pills that will prevent expansion to the B10
LikeLike
So instead of adding full members from worthwhile schools, the Big East is going to drape itself with the American flag and DARE the other conferences to light them on fire?
Why not add the service academies AND a good team or two? Oh, that’s right, they’d still rather have Villanova move up. *puke*
Maybe you’re over-estimating the leadership of the Big East, Frank. Maybe they’re just idiots.
LikeLike
You cannot serve two masters. In the Big XII, the problem is serving the interests of Texas and the interests of everyone else. In the Big East, the problem is serving the interests of football and the non-football schools AND Notre Dame. It’s hard enough to lead a group of people who all generally want the same thing. I cannot image doing it when people have entirely different motivations altogether.
The Big East leadership is idiotic though. In trying to satisfy everyone, they satisfy nobody. You have to at least figure out your alpha leadership. Oklahoma’s best play would have been to give Texas one more chance LAST WEEK. Before the Pac-12 Presidents made their thoughts known.
LikeLike
Like the SWC as mentioned by Texcat, the Big East is too much of a mish-mash to be stable. Providence, Louisville, USF, Notre Dame and Rutgers are 5 very different schools.
The SWC had the largest school in the nation in Texas (40k undergrad and 50k total) and the smallest I-A in undergrads, Rice, the “Harvard of the South” (2500 undergrads and 4k total at the time). It had 1 out of state school, 2 good but not great metro mostly upper income religiously founded schools, 1 small town middle class religious school, 1 commuter school, 1 large Ag school with a military tradition and previous all male history and 1 mid-size outlying state school. TCU and SMU were really the only schools with much similarity to each other at all.
LikeLike
Well, I would say Texas and aTm were similar enough to be indistinguishable. But neither will admit that.
LikeLike
Culture was pretty different. They were becoming more alike in the 90s. But they were very different schools prior to A&M’s rapid growth in the 80s.
LikeLike
Oh no you didn’t…
LikeLike
Huge schools. Wealthy. Good teams. Fine academics. Incredibly arrogant. I can’t really tell them apart…
LikeLike
Look for the sheep, loki. It’s not really that hard.
LikeLike
Aggies are the ones who sound like they have Tourette’s anytime somebody says “Texas A&M”. Longhorns are the ones who get teary-eyed when they hear “I’ve Been Workin’ on the Railroad”.
LikeLike
No, Mike, those songs are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!! There’s an entire extra note at the beginning of “Eyes.”
LikeLike
Hopkins, that reminds me of how Vanilla Ice used to explain the differences between “Ice, Ice, Baby” and Queen’s “Under Pressure.”
LikeLike
@HH – LOL. Went to a UT game in Austin with my wife in the Mackovic era. When they were playing “Eyes”, she commented, why are all these people so invested in “I’ve been workin’ on the railroad”? Fortunately, she didn’t say it too loud, and I explained.
LikeLike
Still better than SMU. If I ever hear “She’ll Be Comin’ Round the Mountain” again it’ll be too soon.
LikeLike
N.C. State’s fight song is derived from “The Caissons Keep Rolling Along.” A Kate Smith version of the latter was part of a movie showing World War II-era propaganda at the University of Maryland in the ’70s, and at one point in the song, I yelled “Go State!” and the crowd cheered.
LikeLike
There is also a parody of the NCSU fight song called “And The Tractors Keep Rolling Along.” Lyrics I recall include “Through the woods, through the sticks, N.C. State’s a bunch of hicks, and the tractors keep rolling along…Through the fields, through the herds, N.C. State’s a bunch of nerds, and the tractors keep rolling along…For it’s pitch that hay, the ‘necks are on their way…”
LikeLike
While I’ve always thought Navy leadership would reject the notion of joining a conference for football, the fact that its even under consideration and that our admission would be essentially a shield to protect AQ status, disgusts me. I was at USNA when our football sucked, let me tell you, nothing is worse than going to a game you KNOW you have no chance of winning. (BTW, its mandatory for the Brigade to attend ALL home games.) Its a thoughrly depressing experience.
I knowe some might look at the current BEast and believe thats a league Navy might have a chance to compete in, but I doubt it. Not because of familiarity of our offense, (though that will happen) nor due to the height/weight and service commitments (but that will also be a factor) but mostly due to that fact that Navy has a mission diametrically opposed to the other 117 FBS schools in the country. We aren’t trying to compete for a MNC. While Navy is independent, we don’t have a special exception like ND does with regard to the BCS. We’d have to be ranked in the top for top even get consideration and Navy will never put together a schedule that would merit such a ranking.
Navy football serves one purpose, to generate enough money to ensure our athletic department doesn’t cost to the taxpayers any extra money. Our success in the past 8 years has ensured the AD is fairly revenue positive, to the point that we can upgrade to our sailing and rowing facilities. Moving to the BEast will not further that goal. The fear of somehow being ‘locked out’ is irrational when you were never ‘in’ to begin with. Unless schools move to a 10 game conference schedule, there will always be teams available for Navy to play.
LikeLike
And all this time I thought the one purpose of Navy football was to beat Army. (I’m kidding, I’m kidding. Kind of.)
LikeLike
When I was there we couldn’t even do that.
LikeLike
How awesome is it that this board has gotten a graduate from the US Naval Academy to post here! Yet another reason why this is the most intelligent sports blog out there.
LikeLike
Add Green and Gold
LikeLike
Aside from the issue of whether or not the Big East can remain a viable home for its non-revenue sports, Notre Dame could be facing an additional problem with future scheduling. The Pac-12 will be moving their OOC games to the beginning of the season. The B1G will be reducing their OOC games from 4 to 3. The Big 12 have reduced their OOC games from 4 to 3 (and will remain that way if they find a replacement for A&M). Now BYU, Army, and Navy are all being discussed as future conference members. If the remaining independents all join conferences, scheduling in October and November will become increasingly difficult. Notre Dame will never have problems finding schools willing to play them. But they may have problems finding schools able to play them in late season games. Notre Dame fans may find themselves watching more non-AQ schools show up in South Bend.
LikeLike
USC and Stanford were both given permanent exceptions to the rule so that they can continue to play Notre Dame in October and November. Navy takes up another spot. That leaves 5 games in October/November/December (if Notre Dame decides to start playing on the first week of December) and I think they can find them. The Big 12 seems like will be acomidating and the ACC is probably going to remain open to some late season games. If they offered, I’d bet the Big 12 and Texas would work for a 1st week of December game between Texas and Notre Dame.
LikeLike
wasn’t aware that Stanford and USC had been granted permanent exceptions. I thought the exceptions were just through the length of the existing contracts.
LikeLike
Those two games were grandfathered in ad infinitum. The conference also has a clause allowing the no OOCs during conference play to be waived by (I believe) a 3/4 vote.
LikeLike
I am sure that ND could get an exemption from the Big 12 for OOC games anytime of the year with any of the members. Or join aas a non-ffotball member. Or even as a full member (see – Domer Law).
LikeLike
Frank,
I just leave you with a thought…do you think if then PAC-10 could do it all over again they would have told Colorado to get lost and taken Baylor which then would have meant they would have had the whole Big 12 South (Texas, A&M, OU, OSU, Tech, & Baylor). I think per capita that would have been of way more value than what they have now and remember at that point the LHN was still just an idea that could have been squashed
LikeLike
I’m not sure they would have taken Baylor (as the voting was still unanimous at that point and Cal or Stanford may have sadly said (not bad because Baylor is deserving, but because of their reasons for voting no)).
That said, I bet they wish they had been a little more open with 3rd tier rights. The schools still controlled them last year and coming up with a model that would have given Texas a little more control of its own rights (along with the rest of the members) would have been a small price to pay then to get them in. This year it would have been much harder with all of those rights already assigned (especially when that was a major concession from USC and UCLA).
LikeLike
Creationism research could have blossomed at Cal and Stanford…
LikeLike
If Scott could do it again, yes he’d have completed the Pac-16 the first time around…
LikeLike
He could have. But at the cost of adopting the Big 12 framework and stability, he (and the CEO’s) chose not to. We have not suddenly reached an ending point. If the Pac expands it will be on their terms, if not…well, they sat at an equalibrium for over 30 years before 2010.
LikeLike
As one of the conditions for granting Scott unilateral authority to pursue expansion, they gave him a no religious school order. There was no way the PAC would have accepted Baylor.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine the non-football sports at ND are too pleased with what’s likely left of the Big East. I would have to imagine there is some internal politicking going on to move ND into full conference membership.
LikeLike
yes, but the football tail wags the dog….the advocates of the olympic sports don’t have a lot of ammo…
LikeLike
Pingback: Texas A&M Leaving Big 12 - Page 947 - CycloneFanatic
Frank, I think you actually read my blog! I am truly honored. While my discussion of the service academies did not involve the Big East so much as the theory of the “4 SuperConferences,” the point is still valid. Anyone trying to leave the service academies behind (whether it’s from a BCS arrangement or a new tier of Division I) will face seriously bad PR and a lot of Congressional hearings. Imagine the “Tech problem” multiplies by the full weight of the federal government.
LikeLike
I think the Tech problem is misunderstood.
To me the Tech problem is more complex than just bringing along Texas Tech. I think it’s become a problem of how to handle 3rd tier rights in a future where more conferences will look at television networks to distribute those rights.
It’s easy enough to say that for the Big Ten or ACC, the Tech problem is one of academic heft. That might be a copout but it’s probably true for those two.
However, for the Pac-12, the problem isn’t academic in nature (Texas Tech and OSU are indistinguishable from the other OSU, WSU, ASU, etc.).
The problem is Texas is going to want control over content in a regional network situation. As a poster said in one of the previous threads, “no way in hell is Texas going to share a regional network with Texas Tech.”
So that is part 2 of the Tech problem in some sense… even if you get past the academics issues, the Noah’s Ark model is going to be incompatible with Texas’ aims.
LikeLike
I think it’s more simple than that. The “Tech” problem is that Texas Tech and Baylor need a soft landing in an AQ conference when Texas finally leaves (and make no mistake, they will eventually leave) the Big 12.
LikeLike
Here’s a solution. Texas pledges the profits from the LHN to the Big East if they take TT, Baylor, …
LikeLike
OSU, WSU, ASU, etc. probably feel a bit slighted…
LikeLike
Here is some firepower to go by. While not perfect if anyone asked me how I would list each school that is about right:
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?src=twrhp
LikeLike
I am puzzled by why so many posters are willing to assume that The University of Texas and Texas Tech are necessary or desirable partners in any realignment to the PAC-whatever. Now don’t get me wrong, TT is a wonderful school full of even lovelier people. In many ways, Tech’s the true Texas state university, not the pretender in San Marcos nor the defector in College Station. But why does UT need/want to move to the PAC-16 with TT in tow? Perhaps I’m missing the reason(s) in the answers to one or more of the following (largely rhetorical) questions:
1. Is it because Texas politics is forcing it? Not likely. Neither the current Governor, nor Lt. Governor, nor Speaker of the House is a TT alum. This isn’t the breakup of the old Texas-centric Southwest Conference and TT surely doesn’t have the clout that Baylor (then, momentarily,) did. Interestingly, nobody influential in Texas politics seems to be demanding that A&M take TT (or anyone else for that matter) in tow to the SEC.
2. Is it because something in UT’s makeup actually requires a “little brother”? If so, I’m really, really sad for us. I would also owe an awful lot of apologies to an awful lot of Aggies.
3. Is it because UT somehow would needs to demonstrate/maintain its “Texan-ness” by playing an in-state conference rival every year? I hope not, but if so, couldn’t we just schedule TT, or (God forbid) A&M, every year OOC?
4. Is it because of TT’s football prowess? Sad to say, the quality of Tech’s football will likely prove a passing artifact of the Mike Leach era. (The TT fans, if not the Regents, probably already regret the sacking of Leach largely because he wasn’t interested in kowtowing to wealthy alums).
5. Is it because Texas or the PAC-whatever need to lock in the crucial Lubbock/West Texas television market? Please.
6. Is it because UT would require/want three Central Time Zone opponents in some likely PAC-whatever divisional or pod structure? If so, I get Oklahoma — they’re essential. I also get OSU — Oklahoma politics apparently would demand it. But TT? Surely the University of Kansas would be an infinitely better choice for UT and an infinitely more acceptable option to the old PAC-8 schools. KU is significantly better in basketball than TT is in football. TT and KU are roughly comparable in enrollment and presumably have roughly equivalent fan bases. KU would bring the Kansas (and presumably part of the Kansas City) TV markets, while TT brings however many televisions there are in West Texas. As a member (since 1909) of the Association of American Universities (the “other” AAU), KU would be an academically palatable conference mate to the PAC-whatever Presidents.
Near the onset of the First World War, officials of the German Empire, referring to its ally, the decadent, ill-prepared, militarily-inept Austro-Hungarian Empire, are said to have lamented: “We are fettered to a corpse.”
Are the Longhorns handcuffed to TT? Do we need or want to be?
LikeLike
Texas’s mindset is what’s important.
Texas is a big dog. They don’t want to enter a conference and be without allies.
I think a big part of the appeal of a Pac-16 is having OU/OSU/Tech in Texas’ corner. The geography also really helps regardless of whether it’s a pod situation or Pac-8/SWC divisional approach.
Those are important reasons for wanting the little brothers to come along…
In a sense, the reason why the Big 12 is optimal is that Texas practically runs the conference, has the LHN, and is in a “prestigious” conference (always going to be a respected conference as long as it has Texas and OU; as bullet says, competitiveness has never been the Big 12’s problem).
LikeLike
Zeek:
If, in fact, as you convincingly suggest, UT actually wants “little brother(s),” why wouldn’t KU serve the purpose far better than TT, especially given that the PAC-whatever Chancellors/Presidents couldn’t colorably complain about adding an AAU member school on academic grounds?
LikeLike
One factor I do think people are overstating is the ND-TX connection….
ND and TX are buddies now because, as independents, they have similiar interests.
If both decide to join a conference, whether together or not, that bond is broken. What difference would it make to ND that they were in a conference with TX v. Michigan, FSU, USC, OK et al….? Obviously if they join a conference together, that’s adding a lot of firepower to that particular conference….otherwise, the decision to join a conference with TX in it isn’t much different than joining one with other top programs………
LikeLike
“ND and TX are buddies now because, as independents, they have similiar interests”
—When did TX go independent?
LikeLike
I think there is some politics involved. They may not be forced to keep them, but they need all the allies down the street at the Capitol that they can get.
I also think UT believes it is in its interest for TT to get to be a stronger academic school for two reasons (and that being in an AQ conference helps them achieve that):
1) Another area research partner and
2) Pressure valve to relieve enrollment demands, possibly allowing UT to be more flexible on who it enrolls. Before they changed the law requiring UT to take everyone in the top 10% of their class to 8%, 73% of the freshman class was enrolled by that law. With politics requiring UT to take JC transfers, the school is really handicapped. Even if Texas Tech doesn’t give UT that flexibility, it relieves pressure to expand beyond the 50,000 students UT thinks is the most it can reasonably serve.
I also think the state is very interested in Tech’s rise in academic stature beyond the additional research. A lot of good students at good schools can’t get into Texas or A&M because there are too many good students at their school for them to be in the top 10%. As a result, a lot of kids are going out of state to Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Georgia and others. Many will stay out of state after they graduate. My friends with HS kids are all now including out of state schools on their list. Tech rarely gets considered. And of course, Houston is a commuter school, so it doesn’t get a lot of attention either, even though it has significantly improved.
LikeLike
OU doesn’t NEED oSu, but T Boone Pickens can make a lot of trouble for OU if he isn’t happy. Now Texas Tech doesn’t have a T Boone, but they do have Ed Whitacre (former Chairman of AT&T and former Chairman of Government, er I mean General Motors), so they do have clout.
And BTW, what does the Southwest Texas Teacher’s College have to do with realignment?
LikeLike
Nothing, really — only that (the “other”) LBJ’s alma mater is now officially known as Texas State University
LikeLike
It’s actually a combination of things in mind. For the a PAC-16 specifically, twin nature of the conference (every team has a partner nearby) makes 2 Texas schools slide in nicely while just UT would have a little more awkward arrangement. Also if you are losing access in California, it makes sense to gain it in California and with 2 Texas teams, you could guarantee everyone a game in either California or Texas every year.
For Texas itself, it’s mostly politics. A&M was allowed to go because the rest of them were thought to be OK at that time. Texas leaving the Big 12 would leave the same impression and they would be under considerable pressure to bring on at least 1 member.
LikeLike
Let Texas in with Oklahoma – and if the Irish are coming bring Mizzou too.
ND/PSU/Indiana/Purdue
Texas/Oklahoma/Nebraska/Iowa
Mizzou/Illinois/Wisconsin/Minnesota
M/MSU/NW/OSU
Talk about a Super Conference!
LikeLike
What part of “needs AAU-level academics and must shake off Okie State” don’t you understand?
LikeLike
I believe that’s Ohio State not Oklahoma State.
Regardless, why have so many kings in one conference.
That’s an awful lot of losses piling up in games between kings…
LikeLike
Notre Dame is a king in name only….KINO. Don’t need to worry about too many losses there. Also, you wouldn’t play all of the kings in any one season.
LikeLike
Nebraska and Oklahoma are tied at 101 in the US News College Rankings and neither is an AAU member. I know that has been important, but I think the stars are aligned to overlook the requirement. OU and NU are, in fact, academically equivalent. The Irish are not members and have indicated they have no interest in joining AAU.
I think at this point it’s every man for himself. I can see the Sooners being forgiven for heading to the B1G with Texas and leaving the Cowboys behind. It’s rather obvious that OU’s position has been weakened.
LikeLike
won’t happen
LikeLike
Can you imagine the size of the shit-storm that will erupt if the Big East tries to partner with the United Stated Government… Maybe next, Google will partner with the IRS and perhaps HUD and Exxon can get together…
It’s an impossible scenario
LikeLike
That’d be more like if altavista.com partnered with the IRS or if HUD and Phillips 66 got together.
LikeLike
Good work. I like what you’ve done there.
LikeLike
Perhaps Dr. van Nostrand’s Belgian clinic should be an expansion target?
LikeLike
After OU’s recent humiliation, would they have the stones to stick it to Texas and walk out of the Big XII with the other five remaining former Big 8 members and start a new confenece along with TCU, BYU, Air Force, and (just to make it exciting) Boise State? I know it wouldn’t be sexy to the TV networks as the current Big XII (no UT), but it would be more stable as it would be a conference of relative equals with better revenue sharing and it would still have a “King” in OU. Yeah, total fantasy scenario, but I thought I should still throw it out there.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/colleges/oklahoma/football/story/_/id/7004850/oklahoma-sooners-staying-big-12-conference-caught-guard-pac-12-decision-not-expand
Another story from Sooner side on why there is no Pac 14. Leans towards Scott’s version and clearly contradicts the “bluff” theory, but source clearly doesn’t know definitively what happened at the end.
LikeLike
Mr SEC on Missouri
http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/mizzou-curators-take-no-action-for-the-moment-the-sec-looks-to-be-a-13-school-league/
It seems the folks who’d come to believe chancellor Brady Deaton might get the ax and that MU would rush headlong toward the SEC have probably just watched one too many episodes of “The X-Files.” No conspiracies were afoot.
[snip]
UPDATE – Hmmm. Maybe we need to start watching “The X-Files” ourselves. The folks at PowerMizzou.com — the Rivals site that covers Missouri — claims a source has told them that this morning’s meeting was set up to discuss Deaton’s future at the school. Deaton will “provide an update to the media on the Big 12 Conference and Mizzou Athletics” at 7:45 ET tonight, according to a school release.
So really, really stay tuned, I guess.
For the record, it still seems rather doubtful that the SEC would yank Mizzou just as the Big 12 is about to save itself. Especially considering how the league slammed on the breaks with Texas A&M due to Baylor’s previous threat to sue. Not saying it couldn’t happen, but it would require a surprising change in attitude for Slive and his league. After all, Starr could claim that the SEC damaged the Big 12 in August, then sat back and allowed the league to pull itself together, only to come back a month later for the final kill.
If we had to put a little money on Deaton’s presser, we’d bet that he’s going to announce Beebe’s resignation. As you know, Deaton is also the chairman of the Big 12′s board of directors in addition to his duties in Columbia.
Our SEC sources have gone stone silent on this one, by the way.
LikeLike
Look up “dysfunctional” in a dictionary, and it says, “See University of Missouri athletics.”
LikeLike
Navy to the SEC
http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2011/navy-sec-14th-team/
Guess that USC game made somebody think
Would this mean Army to the B1G, and Air Force to the PAC?
LikeLike
Coast Guard to the Big XII and Merchant Marines to the Big East?
LikeLike
I guess that means Marine Corps University at Quantico is getting back into football. (Hey, Villanova once played a game there — someone call Marinatto!)
LikeLike
As a matter of fact, we asked former Navy basketball coach Don DeVoe — who spent 12 years in the SEC before coaching the Midshipmen for 12 years — if he thought Navy would be a good fit for the win-at-all-costs SEC. His take:
“There’s no chance in Hell the brass at Navy would ever go for that. They just couldn’t compete at that level. They couldn’t compete for SEC-caliber recruits (due to government-mandated height/weight and academic restrictions). And there’s also the military commitment. No kid who could play at Florida or Tennessee is going to sign up with Navy. You don’t see many pro-caliber kids go that route. (Navy) would have a hard time keeping pace with Vanderbilt.”
http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/ex-navy-hoops-coach-no-chance-in-hell-navy-enters-the-sec/
LikeLike
So we’ll leave Navy as a “maybe”.
LikeLike
Since there is actually still football going on this weekend:
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
Duff – All of the AQ conferences have games of consequence this weekend, except the B1G.
Games featuring 2 ranked teams include:
#2 LSU at #16 West Virginia – prime-time ABC game and host to ESPN’s College Game-day, as well as your truly.
#14 Arkansas at #3 Alabama – 2:30pm CDT kick-off on CBS.
#7 Oklahoma State at #8 Texas A&M – 2:30pm CDT kick-off on ABC.
#11 Florida State at #21 Clemson
Other games featuring ranked teams against AQ opponents include:
Mizzou at #1 Oklahoma
#10 Oregon at Arizona
Undefeated Vandy at #12 South Carolina
#15 Florida at Kentucky
#23 USC at Arizona State
North Carolina at #25 Georgia Tech
LikeLike
Alan,
As we start entering conference games, the number of undefeated teams will start to drop quickly, as 1 team must lose. The oSu vs TAMU game is a perfect example, but I think Missouri playing at OU will not go well for the Tigers.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 really wants to survive and be stable (and who knows if OU and Texas really do) then they must make a bold move in expanding the conference and must get to 12 teams. Kicking around potential candidates I thought of this:
Louisville
Kentucky
Arkansas
Thought would be Kentucky could move into a very basketball-centric Big12 North with Louisville, KU, K-State, Mizzou and Iowa State while actually having a chance at competing in football.
Arkansas goes Big12 South in a very good football division.
I know for most discussion purposes the SEC is off limits in regards to a school leaving but if there’s any school that might look at leaving, I would think it would be Kentucky. If Arkansas were to see one conference mate jump, maybe they would jump too and be in a more geographically sensible conference.
Please shoot this down quickly.
LikeLike
Duly shot. Louisville is a genuine possibility; Kentucky, in a safe, wealthy conference, wouldn’t dream of leaving, and likely Arkansas wouldn’t, either.
It looks as if Brigham Young is a certainty, and Louisville and West Virginia could tag along. That’s not a bad trio to add.
LikeLike
You sure the Mormons will prostitute themselves for material gain? They have their needs met through independence. ESPN exposure, rights for BYUtv, ability to stand above the unseemly scramble. Remember, for them its about positioning the LDS church, not about college sports affiliation.
Then again, I’ve been way wrong on so many things. Another wouldn’t be a big surprise.
LikeLike
No. They crave AQ status like Smeagol craves the One Ring.
LikeLike
Arkansas already said no.
LikeLike
Read The D,
We had this discussion back in 2010 about Kentucky. Their stadium (and ability to maintain Top 20 – Top 25 in national attendance numbers) fits only in the B1G or SEC in their passion for football and size. According to Dosh they are #3 in the county in Tier 3 money and have been pushing hard to upgrade their academic standing. It would be slim for them to switch to the B1G, but going to the B12 is impossible. IU is UK’s historic rival not UL.
Arkansas wanted to get away from UT and the Texcentric SWC, so it is highly doubtful they would go back. Frank made a comment about the B12 being a prison, and I tend to agree with him on this. On the basketball end, the rivalry brewing with UK was quite intense, and folks in Fayetteville would like to see it return. Broyles is still alive, and I think he would reach from beyond the grave if Arkansas ever thought about going back to the SWC crowd. If TAMU gets in the SEC, I think that is all Arkansas wants of the old SWC.
LikeLike
Duffman,
I’m from Texas, the state not the school, and have some family in Kentucky. I went to the Louisville – Kentucky game at U of L last year. (The game was terrible, U of L especially but it was Charlie Strong’s first game and I noticed they improved as the season went on.) There is an in-state rivalriy there, and from talking to family while in Kentucky the football rivalry is definitely more recent; the basketball rivalry is older.
My train of thought for those 3 into the big 12 was this: if B12 can get Louisville, which seems to be a decent possibility, maybe UK would consider if approached. Like I said the basketball in the B12 would be an upgrade, which is what UK is all about. Then if 1 SEC member came on board, maybe Arkansas would re-think their “no” and consider a more geographically aligned conference and one with traditional rivals. Even Broyles admitted at one point that it was a mistake to get cut out of Texas recruiting.
I admit this is a stretch but if Big Zombie wants to do it right they have to make a splash and not just pick up leftovers.
LikeLike
The Big 10 should add Oklahoma, and strike while the iron is hot.
I really like the idea of an Oklahoma / Rutgers combination.
Big 10 East
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Rutgers
Big 10 West
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Northwestern
Illinois
I just don’t see Texas or Notre Dame ever joining the Big 10. You add Oklahoma and its hard to see the Big 10 ever slipping below the SEC as the #2 power conference, and if its big five ever get going at the same time, it would arguably be as powerful as teh SEC.
LikeLike
No schools other than ND or TX are accretive to conference coffers. Any other teams take more from the pie than they add. So – other schools may make sense as package with ND or TX, but not otherwise. OK would add a ton on the field, but not so much for TV$, which is the primary concern. I think I am parroting FTT a little here…
LikeLike
I think financially Oklahoma could work. However, it just has to leave OSU behind which it seems unwilling to do. The academics of Oklahoma are near the line for acceptability. Is it over the line? I don’t know.
LikeLike
Oklahoma has been as clear as they possibly can be that OSU comes with them. It’s nonnegotiable, probably moreso than the LHN is for Texas.
LikeLike
Just to be clear, television households matter – but only about the same weight as Women’s Basketball anymore. For the Big Ten Network now, it is much more about ratings increases and viewership then the old argument about adding tier 1 subscribers. The Big Ten Network views themselves as a national entity – like ESPN or CNN now, not like a regional entity like CLTV or NECN. As a national entity they are looking for programs that have a large following, and I believe a rabid following – the kind of fans that are re-watching classic games, coaches shows and other sports (because of their love for football). Oklahoma fills all of those easily. When I looked at tv dollars 18 months ago, I analyzed everything as a regional cable network when in reality the BTN was already going toward a national entity. Even looking at the numbers as a regional network – Oklahoma would have been a huge get, a little behind Notre Dame. Saying that the BTN is trying to be accretive, well, I just don’t see the BTN looking at it like that. The BTN could be accretive with Northern Illinois. They only see a few possible spots left and they want to MAXIMIZE those spots by adding the most cash they can, while getting a school that is like the Big Ten Schools.
My 2 cents.
LikeLike
@Justin – This is really the only setup that I could see that would be somewhat possible and would work financially without Texas and/or Notre Dame. The question is whether Oklahoma is academically acceptable to the Big Ten (I think they’re at least in the discussion and not automatically disqualified) and if they can move without Oklahoma State (which is the biggest issue).
LikeLike
@Frank – now that @danbeebe is out of the way, maybe @mayoremmanuel can convince his old boss to order a drone strike against T Boone. That’s the only way I see OU ever getting loose from oSu.
LikeLike
Justin,
I recently came to the conclusion that the OU and RU scenario is the best shot the B1G has to successfully expand without UT and ND. I believe that it would successfully raise everyone’s income, atleast if done in conjunction with the next network negotiations. It would add a homerun in OU that is especially important for the national stage and a state in NJ that is populous enough, and talent rich enough, to support RU’s admission.
I agree with what Patrick and Frank had to say about this scenario. I’ll add that I think OU could be key to finally getting UT to join the conference as well. Who knows for certain what it will take to get ND to join the B1G, or any conference, but there has been alot of speculation that reaching an agreement with UT will help do that.
LikeLike
Agree if the Big 10 adds OU, it would be hard to envision Texas leaving the Big 12 for any conference other then the Big 10.
LikeLike
Exactly. And Rutgers to the B1G destroys what’s left of the Big East, which leaves ND looking for a place to be.
LikeLike
Ah, Lenn Robbins and the New York Post...
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/big_east_could_face_tv_trouble_78itnUARcTmR1z4JUkyMEL
In a story dated at 2:10 a.m. and last updated at 9:08 a.m. today, he writes:
Sources said the league also is evaluating the benefits of inviting Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State and Missouri. The quality of the basketball programs at Kansas and Missouri would offset the loss of Pitt and Syracuse from a competitive standpoint but will never fill the void created by the loss of rivalries.
Guess the Post’s sports wire must have been down for a while. And here’s his previous paragraph:
The Big East has already begun moving to add Navy and Air Force, which because of their presence worldwide contain significant value. As technological advances of delivering content and platforms continue to emerge, the academy’s presence on ships and on military bases is a huge potential market.
If that isn’t grasping at straws, what is?
LikeLike
That last statement is totally clueless.
LikeLike
Your statement is clueless.
There is no way the United States Government can be legally bound and partnered up with a Football Conference… Not only is it totally stupid (What will the Department of Defense do with all of it’s ESPN dollars… ridiclous)… I’m sure it’s illegal. Imagine all the Top-Secret Navy Grants that could get funneled to Rutgers… Jesus, there would be congressional inquiries within 6 months.
Think People
LikeLike
I was referring to “The Big East has already begun moving to add Navy and Air Force, which because of their presence worldwide contain significant value. As technological advances of delivering content and platforms continue to emerge, the academy’s presence on ships and on military bases is a huge potential market.”
See every post I’ve written the past 2 days…, I wasn’t really for Syracuse/Pitt going to the ACC until I heard about this nonsense out of the Big East.
LikeLike
Got it… Sorry
LikeLike
Naw, should have been more clear what I was referencing.
LikeLike
Ummm….. They already are. Air Force is currently in the MWC and Army and Navy their non-football sports in the Patriot League.
LikeLike
I haven’t been one to say that I “know things” at all on this board, so bear that in mind when I say I’ve just heard something offline that will have me paying a helluva lot more attention to Mizzou’s press conference than I had been planning on.
That is all.
LikeLike
I’ll speculate:
1. Frank may be wrong about who Big 10 would add.
2. Mr. SEC may be wrong about who SEC would add.
3. Larry Scott was wrong about who Pac 12 would add or not add.
4. All Aggies everywhere were wrong about where A&M will play next year.
5. Domer Law.
LikeLike
You’re forgetting the Big East. And the WAC.
LikeLike
Purple Book Cat plans on streaking at the press conference.
LikeLike
How about a hint: is the press conference being shown on BTN?
LikeLike
Well, no hint because I don’t want to burn where this came from. But probably not. 🙂
Of course, I’m sure this is all made up as well too. So nothing exciting will really happen.
(I’m still watching, though.)
LikeLike
Good news or bad news for Texas?
LikeLike
I think “bad” but of course I’m seeing absolutely nothing else to confirm what I heard.
And if there’s anything we’ve learned from all this (other than “Texas is evil,” of course), it’s that Mizzou is leakier than a Vancouver goalie in a Stanley Cup-deciding game.
LikeLike
Karl Benson replaces Marinatto, goes east and merges the Big east and Sun Belt and creates Frank’s fearsome SunBeast with offices in Columbia, Missouri.
LikeLike
Texas to the Wac seems dead today. Let’s not encourage him.
LikeLike
What is date and time of press conference?
LikeLike
The Big 12 announces it’s replacing Dan Beebe with @DanBeebe? Because I would order pay-per-view for that. #ibeebelieve
LikeLike
Oh God yes, let that happen. He is on a roll at this very second.
LikeLike
Dan Beebe going out in style:
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2011/9/22/2443289/fake-dan-beebe-twitter-rant-transcript
LikeLike
What if fake Dan is really Jimmy D?
That would be really funny.
LikeLike
http://cuppygifs.com/beebeneinas-transition/
LikeLike
Hopkins, I just read through and died…he can’t go…he just can’t. That was spectacular.
LikeLike
fake Danny Dan Juice ftw
LikeLike
Chip seems to be off the wall with his latest. TCU in the lead for the Big 12. That seemed to be the most likely thing he said. It went down in credibility from there. Mentioned Boren is having a press conference to present his side of Pac 12 story at 6:30 upstaging Missouri’s at 6:45.
LikeLike
Wait, so now we have dueling press conferences this afternoon? A certain conference still doesn’t seem in harmony. Interesting…
LikeLike
OU’s attempts to save face have just been sad.
Boren’s got as much political experience running a university as anyone and yet he’s coming off like a buffoon in all of this.
LikeLike
I’d respected them throughout this whole process. They were about the last school I would have expected to wind up so embarrassed.
LikeLike
Not that I mind, of course.
LikeLike
If TCU were really in the lead, could one infer that BYU has said thanks but no thanks?
LikeLike
That’s probably the best interpretation of this news.
BYU may not be interested in all of the shenanigans going down in the Big 12.
What’s even more funny is that OU’s “power play” (they claim anyways) could have scared off the one school that’d be a solid replacement for Texas A&M…
LikeLike
Chip’s article says they are hesitant.
That was one of the things I found not very credible. From indy non-AQ to AQ and make an extra $10-$15 million in the process and upgrade your schedule when you can always go indy again.
LikeLike
you can always go indy again
But there is no guarantee they can get the same deal from the WCC. If I’m BYU I’m not joining the Big XII unless I get guarantees in writing from both the WCC and ESPN that I can return to our current agreement if the Big XII folds within 5 years.
LikeLike
Would they have to sign rights away for 6 years too? That would be a bit of a problem for “you can always go indy again”.
LikeLike
With Boren and OU jumping into the fray, I’ll take dibs on Big Ten adds OU and Missouri tomorrow.
LikeLike
@zeek – That definitely crossed my mind when I saw how close the press conferences were together.
LikeLike
I love it. Add ND and Texas (or Toronto or Maryland) later and were set.
LikeLike
HH,
Where can I see the presser online?
LR
LikeLike
Link for the Mizzou press conf at 6:45- http://www.komu.com/streaming-newscast/
LikeLike
Anon,
Thank you…
LR
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m thinking I can go ahead and put in a big ol’ “never mind” right about now…
LikeLike
Dammit Hopkins, I was all excited.
LikeLike
@HH – I think you spoke too soon. Missouri’s clearly not “all in” with the Big 12:
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/22/3161236/sec-still-in-missouris-sights.html
LikeLike
“Texas kicked out of Big XII?”
http://cardsandcats.com/2011/09/22/texas-kicked-out-of-big-xii/
—I probably wouldn’t put any money on that one happening.
LikeLike
Yeah, the Sooner board (hi, Redhawk!) was aflame with similar speculation yesterday.
Um, good luck with that.
LikeLike
Yeah, let’s just recreate the Big 8 without Nebraska, I’m sure the networks are dying to give rights fees to that amalgamation.
LikeLike
It was a bit touchy over there yesterday when I ever so politely pointed that out.
LikeLike
I mean what year is this, 1975?
The Big 8 was obsolete 17 years ago with Nebraska when only the SEC was at 12 teams.
Now it’s going to be feasible with Texas Tech in the place of Nebraska when 4 conferences are at 12-14 teams?
Have these people been paying no attention to anything that’s happened over the past 2 decades?
LikeLike
They should have done that before A&M, Colorado and Nebraska left. LOL
LikeLike
How many people have suggested Texas wants to recreate the SWC?
LikeLike
You’ve got it all wrong. It’s the Big 8 plus Baylor . It’s a whole different world.
LikeLike
That’s some serious Starr power right there.
LikeLike
Not sure if Jake will be excited to read this or not.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1269088
TCU may be rising up the list of candidates to become No. 10, two key sources said Thursday.
Expanding outside the current geographic footprint of the Big 12 has always been seen as a priority of the league (it was verbalized by Dan Beebe last year) to draw more television sets. But it appears the TV partners of the Big 12 (ABC/ESPN and Fox) would be comfortable enough with TCU replacing A&M to continue paying out the money in their current contracts with the league, sources said.
LikeLike
Horn, bullet, any other Texas Exes & Jake – what’s the Longhorns’ beef with TCU?
LikeLike
It’s not different than Delany’s “beef” with Pitt.
There’s no beef, it’s just that TCU is squarely in Dallas which is 100% delivered by Texas.
LikeLike
Best I can tell, there’s no specific beef with TCU. I think there’s just a reluctance to bring yet another in-state school to the big boy table, with the potential to muck up recruiting, etc. In other words, if TCU had taken the fourth spot in 94 instead of TCU, you’d probably be asking the same question about what our problem with Baylor was.
LikeLike
I still say that taking TCU would be a nice “F__ You” to A&M. Instead of Texas playing A&M, they can just play TCU. Make A&M irrelevant in their own state.
I have no skin in this game either.
LikeLike
I don’t think it has anything to do with recruiting. Its just that they add no value (they do to the Big East with no Texas schools). Also in the SWC they were at the bottom of the pack and had a half empty stadium. Texas didn’t like its Houston and DFW fans skipping season tickets because they could see the Horns at their opponents stadiums and get better seats.
LikeLike
TCU has a small fan base, small stadium and don’t deliver tvs like the RRR (sorry Jake, personally I like TCU and had them on my list for college applications). I would worry more about UH as the SEC might see thm as a way to try lock things up in the east (Texas).
LikeLike
I have the PERFECT move for the B1G…
Since we all believe it’s possible for the Big East to partner with Army or Navy (Part of the US government). I think the B1G should call dibs on the Federal Reserve and the House Budget Committee. I’m sure they have at least a flag football team. They may not be competitive on the field, but imagine the perks!!! 🙂
LikeLike
I know we’ve said that TCU doesn’t bring new markets to the Big 12. But other than BYU, is it necessarily a bad addition?
The question is, which schools do bring markets? Cincinnati won’t (come close) to carrying Ohio. WVU is 3rd in Pittsburgh. Louisville is second in Kentucky, although it has pretty good fan support.
UConn and Rutgers are so far away that travel costs have to be a consideration (for both sides even though I think UConn or Rutgers would take it in a heartbeat).
So if BYU says, no, is it such a bad thing to take TCU to get an extra game in Texas for recruiting (for the rest of the non-Texas based schools)?
Of course, TCU would probably get a significant bump in recruiting, so that’s a concern, but it’d be a relevant team nationally, that’d help the Big 12 more than it’d hurt. You’d save a lot of money on travel as well, etc.
Just rationalizing here…
LikeLike
As much as I’d like to believe it could really happen, UT, Tech and Baylor have compelling reasons to oppose TCU’s membership in the Big 12. Basically, they don’t want to put TCU on the same level as themselves. That’s less of a concern for UT, but a big concern for Tech and Baylor, who don’t have (m)any other recruiting advantages over TCU. And TCU would take (so we’re told) an even share of Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV revenues without bringing in a new market. Why would UT agree to that? Because Deloss Dodds felt a sudden longing for the Southwest Conference?
I would think that, aside from BYU, Louisville or West Virginia would both more attractive to the Big 12. Maybe Air Force or CSU to get the conference back into Colorado.
LikeLike
The various rumours say Texas doesn’t want TCU but many of the rest do, which is odd. TCU would be a threat to everyone except UT and OU in recruiting. Maybe with their success they have already become one, but it doesn’t seem that way. Jake-is TCU pulling people away from schools like Missouri and Okie St.?
LikeLike
Texas will never let another Texas based school into the Big12, TCU UH, SMU are all out. Those schools bring nothing in terms of TV sets.
BYU brings the LDS market which is big in Utah and in pockets elsewhere in the country, but they’re not really the Notre Dame of the West and they make a terrible stand in for Texas A&M, both in academic clout, football brand and viewers. Big12 is still unstable and will continue to be so long as ESPN continues to pay Texas 15 million a year.
LikeLike
TCU isn’t even 2nd in DFW. Probably 5th or 6th (although probably 3rd in Tarrant County). Big 12 doesn’t want to compete with the pros.
LikeLike
Mr. SEC thinks its just to announce that Beebe is getting whacked.
http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/mizzou-curators-take-no-action-for-the-moment-the-sec-looks-to-be-a-13-school-league/#comments
LikeLike
The MO and OU pressers are just gonna be a reaffirmation of their dedication to the survival of the Big 12 imo.
LikeLike
I agree something along those line. It’s too quick for them to be handing out invitations.
LikeLike
Sounds like OU is just jumping in front of this to get credit for the firing the Beebe…
That’s kind of just sad…
LikeLike
What’s worse… having to invite Navy or Navy saying “not yet”?
LikeLike
Frank, you need a message board.
There are too many topics to keep track off and discussions lost when a new post is made.
LikeLike
The moral of this chapter in the story is that conference realignment will have to occur slowly. The apples will have to be picked off in small enough numbers so as not to disrupt too many carts.
Losing only Texas A&M for now enables the Big-12 to stay cobbled together until somebody makes Missouri an offer it can’t refuse or until the economics of the Pac-12 become compelling enough that Texas wants to move there. For those who have ascribed high value to Oklahoma, I say “wake up and smell the coffee”. Oklahoma is a mediocre school in a small market that has the worst bowl game viewership relative to bowl game averages. In other words, it ain’t no national brand. I mean really, where did this idea come from anyways? How many Oklahoma alums are in your neighborhood? This ain’t no Notre Dame, Penn State, or even Colorado. There are A LOT of CU alums in the Bay Area and L.A. People here talk about Mizzou being okay paired with somebody more attractive. Well that applies to Oklahoma in spades too. Oklahoma makes sense paired with UT. Period. UT is valuable enough to the Pac-12 that it can support 3 piggy-backers to come along – on the right terms. But for the ACC & Big-10 , it appears only valuable enough to support one piggy-backer.
Speaking of the ACC, boy are they looking a bit hasty now. My take-away from their shock additions of Syracuse and Pitt now is that Florida St. will be #14 for the SEC. Otherwise, i just don’t understand the logic of their move at this juncture. Yeah, I know, better to do unto than be done unto, but still, why now?
LikeLike
“that has the worst bowl game viewership relative to bowl game averages.”
In fairness, you need to consider Oklahoma’s opponents before saying, “Oklahoma drags down bowl viewership.” OU makes bowl games’ ratings BETTER, considering the opponents they’ve been facing of late.
2010 Season: Orange Bowl vs. 8-4 UConn. UConn
2009 Season: Sun Bowl vs. 8-4 Stanford. (Not last year’s 11-1 Stanford.)
2008 Season: National Championship game vs. Florida. I’d be shocked if the ratings were enormous for that one.
2007 Season: Fiesta Bowl vs. 10-2 West Virginia. WVU isn’t exactly a blue blood.
2006 Season: Fiesta Bowl vs. 12-0 Boise State, before Boise State was making covers of Sports Illustrated.
2005 Season: Holiday Bowl vs. Oregon, before Oregon’s recent breakout seasons.
2004 Season: Orange Bowl vs. USC. Ratings were bad because the game was lopsided.
Let’s get real. When you put Oklahoma on national TV against a top 20 team that isn’t a no-name (like Boise was back in ’07), and if the game isn’t lopsided, their ratings are huge. FSU vs. OU = Monster ratings. OU vs. Ok. State last year = Huge ratings. OU vs. Missouri last year = Huge ratings. OU vs. Texas any year = Monster ratings.
I’ll go on to say that, living in North Carolina and having lived in Indiana, I’ve known more OU alums than Penn State, Colorado, or Notre Dame alumni. They’re a very popular program. Maybe they aren’t as massively popular as the biggest SEC or Big Ten programs, but they draw casual fans’ interest as well as anyone does. I’m not a fan of any of the teams I’ve named above except for FSU, yet I watched almost all those games because, hey, it’s Oklahoma, and you don’t get much more relevant in college football than Oklahoma.
LikeLike
Re: ACC (Redwood)
“Speaking of the ACC, boy are they looking a bit hasty now. My take-away from their shock additions of Syracuse and Pitt now is that Florida St. will be #14 for the SEC.”
—————-
If FSU wants to enter the SEC, sees itself as an SEC school, if Florida says ok, then they will join SEC.
Who was the ACC going to add: consistant with their academics, geography: please don’t say PSU, UT, ND; please don’t say UL, WVU; please don’t say Georgia, Florida; please don’t say OSU, Michigan.
LikeLike
ACC got the 2 most sensible additions that were available.
And the Big 12 would have surely gone after Pitt at least if ACC left them on the table…
LikeLike
Redwood,
I certainly believe that OU’s value is being psired with its rival Texas. That being said they do have a national brand, strong athletic program, one of the premiere football teams and they are THE team in the state of Oklahoma (similar to Alabama or LSU). They also have a fantastic car sales program.
LikeLike
[Trying this again]
Very well-made interactive conference map if you haven’t seen it. Apologies if it has already been linked.
usdirect.com/college-football
LikeLike
First time I’ve seen it. Thanks!
LikeLike
Neat. Thanks
LikeLike
Concise Larry Scott: We didn’t want OU without Texas.
“Scott also said that adding only the Oklahoma schools by themselves wouldn’t have been as attractive, as Texas was the market the Pac-12 was really interested in adding to the fray.”
LikeLike
If you listen to the full Scott interview, you learn that Scott was thinking pods if the Pac-12 went to Pac-16. Interesting.
Also, Scott cannot give special deals to any potential new members. He needs to make 1/16th of Pac-12 revenues + Texas, OU, OSU, and ?? compelling to Texas. I think that is going to take a long time – if it is ever achieved.
Scott also kind of dissed the ACC, relative to the Bigger 10 and SEC, stating it is not as stable or attractive.
LikeLike
That part about the Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC was amusing for how it blatantly left out the ACC.
LikeLike
Pods…you mean we missed out on pods?
LikeLike
I’ve been critical of Scott over the past couple of days.
But, I have to say that the Pac-12 has the best long-term solution to commissioner if he’s willing to stay there for 20-25 years.
LikeLike
Not sure why you have been critical of Scott. Pac-14 was a non-starter, but he could not say so publicly without destroying chances of achieving Pac-16. If anyone behaved irresponsibly, it was OU President Boren. Why did Boren go public about “considering all options” 3 weeks ago? Why was OU leaking its interest in the Pac-12? I believe it was an attempt to pressure Texas into moving with them. If not, Boren should have been discreet about his options-exploring.
LikeLike
Oh without question Boren is the biggest goat in all of this.
But Scott’s sources were leaking to Wilner and other Pac-12 sources that the Pac-14 was basically a done deal. Maybe that was aimed at Texas. But those same sources indicated that Texas was nowhere near a deal to join…
He had a little egg on his face from all of this backtracking the past two days.
But by far Boren and co. look like they were left at the altar by the Pac-12. And then this press conference to take political credit for getting rid of Beebe. And making those demands of Texas and losing leverage within hours of making the demands.
Boren and co. played extremely small time on a big stage.
LikeLike
Not to mention that OU’s antics may have scared off the best expansion choice in BYU…
LikeLike
You are probably right about Wilner’s sources being from the Pac-12, since he had the scoop on last year’s TV contract negotiations, but we don’t know that for sure. As a Stanford alum and fan, I can tell you that Wilner is NOT a respected reporter in the Bay Area.
LikeLike
Only sources saying “nearly done deal” were citing Texas sources, including Wilner.
LikeLike
I meant on the Pac-14 not the Pac-16.
LikeLike
And OU’s delay lost any chance at Pitt. The ACC acted while everyone in the Big 12 waited on Boren’s act. PItt was supposedly OU’s 1st choice. If they don’t act quickly, WVU may be gone to SEC.
LikeLike
Wilner was very anti-Texas. I guarantee he didn’t have any Texas sources. The majority of his sources were clearly from the Pac office or Pac schools. He may have had an OU source, but it was clear he had never ever talked to anyone from Texas. He didn’t understand the school at all.
LikeLike
bullet:
Pitt would have placed a call first to the ACC before accepting an invite to the B12.
LikeLike
Maybe Pitt would have called ACC. But ACC might not have been ready at that point in time.
LikeLike
In any event, it was a great round of poker. The Big XII-2 is now the Big IX. A&M will be free to go to the SEC without a legal threat from Baylor. Yet, everyone now knows that Missouri, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State are there for the picking – especially whenever we get close to the next Big XII contract negotiations. We also know that Texas will only move if all of its worthy conference -mates desert them (namely Oklahoma at this point) AND it is not forced to make many sacrifices. Meanwhile, the ACC appears to have panicked. This once again emasculates Big East football, and may have undesirable football repercussions for the ACC down the road.
LikeLike
Gotta figure that there were football repercussions coming down the road no matter what. Who could the ACC land to placate Florida State? If the SEC is such a raise, then they were jumping anyway.
LikeLike
Rather than pairing Texas-Oklahoma, perhaps we should be considering Oklahoma-Nebraska? This used to be one of the premier rivalries in college football (before the Longhorns undermined it). I think it would make a lot of sense for the B1G to restore this rivalry and anchor its western flank with Oklahoma-Nebraska, much like the eastern flank is anchored by OSU-Michigan.
However, there is a problem: Oklahoma is substandard academically. The B1G presidents have already swallowed a toad (Nebraska). It is too much to ask them to swallow a second (Oklahoma) so soon after the first. I imagine the presidents are thinking that after a few years in the CIC, Nebraska academics will improve to the point where they are no longer an embarrassment. But if they had Oklahoma (or, god forbid, Oklahoma State) at the same time, it would lower the standing of the whole conference.
In my opinion, the only way to get the B1G presidents to swallow Oklahoma is to pair it with an academic institution of the highest standing. Delany should get on the phone immediately to Vanderbilt. The B1G presidents would love to get Vanderbilt, Vanderbilt would love to be in a conference with academic equals, and Mike Slive would be thrilled to see his #14 problem disappear. Everybody wins.
If Vanderbilt declines to join the B1G (which I think is unlikely), then Delany should get Maryland, another top notch academic institution. By bringing one of these institutions to the B1G presidents, Oklahoma could sneek in under the radar.
With a fifth king (Oklahoma) joining the conference, the B1G can go to a straight geographical split (at the Illinois-Indiana border). This will be nicely balanced with two kings in the west (plus Wisc and Iowa) and three kings in the east. All major rivalries would be played within the divisions, so fixed crossovers would not be necessary (thereby allowing faster cycling of crossover games).
LikeLike
I almost forgot. PSU would be especially happy to see Maryland join the B1G. It has lobbied hard for an eastern partner and would be a strong supporter of this addition. Similarly, Nebraska would be a strong supporter of the Oklahoma addition.
LikeLike
It’s not fair to blame the OU/NU split on Texas; it was entirely Oklahoma’s idea from what I hear.
LikeLike
Oklahoma wanted to be in the South with Texas. Nebraska wanted either a protected rivalry or to continue it non-conference.
Oklahoma said no to both because they already had to play Texas and A&M annually…
LikeLike
Meant to add, so yea it was all on Oklahoma that it wasn’t continued. Didn’t really have anything to do with Texas or anyone else…
LikeLike
I don’t blame Oklahoma for the collapse of the Nebraska rivalry. It was seduced by the Longhorns. Texas has big assets and Oklahoma was weak, but hopefully it has learned its lesson and will return home to Nebraska..
LikeLike
No no meta, if something goes wrong, it’s alwaysTexas’ fault.
LikeLike
It’s always Texas’ fault?
My philosophy is that of South Park: When something goes wrong, BLAME CANADA!
LikeLike
That’s because it usually is! 😛
LikeLike
Granted, Nebraska is the least impressive academic institution in the B1G, but I don’t think that any of them would call it a “toad,” or claim that Oklahoma is on par with Nebraska. Nebraska hangs around the bottom end of the top 100 universities in the U.S. and so it’s not shabby at all. I think Oklahoma is a much tougher sell to the conference, especially considering their history.
LikeLike
Beebe out.. Neinans interim commissioner
http://www.timesunion.com/sports/article/Big-12-Commissioner-Beebe-out-2184363.php#photo-1611243
LikeLike
Polish up the resume frank.
LikeLike
I just died laughing…if you haven’t read Fake Dan Beebe’s send-off go read it…
http://twitter.com/#!/DanBeebe
LikeLike
Brilliant. Really, what will we do when the Big12 goes away.
LikeLike
RT @PeteThamelNYT: This is biggie. 6-yr grant of TV rights agreed by all schools.
Forget about Boren calling these handcuffs (can we get that guy a teleprompter?).
To me, the most funny thing about this is that the Big Ten will have a new deal in place for its first and second tier rights and the CCG right as the handcuffs are coming off…
2014-2015 negotiations for contracts that start in 2017…
LikeLike
Gee, ya’ think Mizzou negotiated that point? LOL
LikeLike
Or Texas and OU?
To 2022 would be more inspiring. 2017 could get messy with 5 years left on the contract, but its not a surpise.
I was thinking B1G was up in 5 while committment was for 6, but if its 2017, its the same time.
Same time, not next year or the next or the next, but the next after that.
LikeLike
I was watching the talking heads this past week saying that the ACC needs to show the country they can be viable for the 4th “super conference” slot. Right now the opposite is happening as UC is already up 3 TD’s and we are not even at halftime yet. If FSU beats Clemson this weekend, the water will get even muddier.
LikeLike
Frank, you should make your next blog about the #14 for the SEC.
No way they’re going to wait for 6 years at 13 teams (grant of rights of Big 12), so it’s got to be an ACC team or WVU…
Things just got interesting in the East.
LikeLike
That’s why the ACC took Syracuse and Pitt. They figure the SEC will take Florida State, at least.
They’re at 14, if they lose two they’re at 12 and do nothing.
If they lose one, they add WVU, UConn, and Rutgers (or Louisville if WVU is taken).
If they lose none, they take UConn and Rutgers.
It was a very shrewd move.
LikeLike
Or ND ;p
LikeLike
True, that was certainly on their minds as well.
I just don’t ever see it happening for a variety of reasons.
LikeLike
@zeek – Recall what I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the SEC:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/how-far-north-will-the-dirty-south-go/
If West Virginia and Missouri are out, then Florida State is really the main ACC target. I don’t find either Virginia Tech (state politics with UVA) or Clemson (doesn’t have national name to overcome overlapping market like FSU) to be realistic.
LikeLike
What’s the ACC going to do since they practically know that such is the case? I mean raising the penalty to $20M inspired confidence as well as adding Pitt/Syracuse.
But when you find out FSU, Maryland, and another school brought the proposed fee down from $34M to just $20M (and only a raise of $4M from the original $16M), all of a sudden that’s not such a confidence inspiring outcome.
I’d still take the ACC to remain whole, but if the SEC is really that focused on FSU, something has to give. I can’t see the SEC staying at 13 for longer than 2-3 years…
LikeLike
Frank,
vincent and I were discussing the ACC 3 based on who limited the fee to 20 Million, which was just 4 Million over the current number.
#1 was FSU
#2 was MD
#3 was “not identified”, so the big question is who this was – If it was VT, I would not dismiss them so quickly. The TAMU boards like VT, and the VT boards like TAMU. I still think a 3rd ACC school is considering leaving, or why worry what the higher exit fee would be?
LikeLike
I’m guessing it’s either Virginia Tech or Clemson; the latter may be closest in pure culture to its SEC brethren, and would probably be a cinch if it was located in the other Carolina. Not that I think Clemson has a chance of an invitation…
LikeLike
@duffman – I’d guess Miami. Even though they might be hammered with NCAA penalties for a few years, it’s still a top tier football brand with solid academics that has options.
LikeLike
Frank,
If that is the case then 2 of the 3 are B1G jumps! The last is an SEC jump, which means 2 of the 3 football jewels in the ACC are gone, so how long till VT pulls out and leaves the ACC with no football values?
LikeLike
BC?
LikeLike
Frank, I think you’ve misinterpreted what happened in the 2003 ACC expansion. VaTech is not tied to the hip to UVA due to VA politics.
Warner stepped in and forced UVA to vote FOR ACC expansion, but only if VA Tech was one of the invitees. He did that b/c VA Tech did not wished to be left in a (as they say on the MD boards) a BoD (bag of d***ks) conference (which is what the BE was looking like after Miami, BC and VaTech left but before the BE raided C-USA).
In other words – VaTech created the political pressure.
So, if VaTech, came to the conclusion it was in its own best interest to move to the SEC, there would no political backlash, nor anything to stop it. There is no UVA : Tech dynamic in Virginia, similar to want you see in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, or even NC between UNC and NcState.
LikeLike
You are assuming UVA wouldn’t create their own political pressure. I mean, if UVA thought that Tech’s departure would do serious damage to the ACC, and by extension UVA itself, then they could lean on the state pols. to keep Hokies from leaving.
LikeLike
Many Missouri fans seem to be irate about the possibility of being stuck in the Big 12. Oklahoma fans seem resigned. The Missouri reaction reminds me of the A&M reaction last year when Loftin initially dashed their dreams of the SEC. Given the lack of a firm commitment to the Big 12 by Missouri’s chancellor in today’s press conference, I think there’s a chance that Missouri may still be in play. See also: http://twitter.com/#!/Dave_Matter
LikeLike
If any conference actually wants them…
LikeLike
OU fan on Rivals:
“And now, judging from the fact that Castiglione is now out front for OU, it seems OU’s President has gone from crafty political genius to a guy who escaped his bed restraints at the nursing home long enough to make a few prank calls to the Pac 12.”
LikeLike
Re: OU fan on Rivals (Zeek)
Some of these posts and developments are hilarious.
Wish Frank had a “like” button on this board.
LikeLike
That’s very funny, and dead on.
LikeLike
bullet, you bring up a good point. If the Big 12’s 9 schools have all agreed on the 6 year grant of rights, then it is imperative that they move quickly on WVU if they want them. No reason to leave them for the SEC to change their mind on…
All of the Big 12 schools have a right to be pissed with OU’s antics (Missouri’s President/AD seemed miffed) because of how it’s really harmed their expansion options.
Losing A&M is one thing, but OU’s harmed their already narrow chances for long term survival.
LikeLike
I never heard WVU mentioned 3 weeks ago when the Big 12 was looking at replacing A&M, but I saw other discussions not related to the Big 12 saying Pitt and WVU were being viewed as a pair. I could have seen BYU, Pitt and WVU in the Big 12.
LikeLike
Back when the SWC was breaking up, there was discussion of SWC expansion. In addition to the Oklahoma schools, Tulane, Memphis and Louisville were mentioned. And Louisville is stronger now in football than they were back then.
LikeLike
Louisville is much stronger all around than they were back then. Their basketball program is by far one of the strongest. And they’ve put huge money behind their football program since then. They’d be a legit addition.
LikeLike
If Missouri somehow manages to escape the burnt orange work camp known as the Big 12, and the conference is down to eight, who becomes #12 if Brigham Young, Louisville and West Virginia join? Is it Texas Christian, hardly UT’s first choice? Houston, perhaps, as a way to assuage state officials seeking to elevate UH to higher status? Or does it go out of state, to Cincinnati or South Florida?
LikeLike
I’d say Cincinnati would be the first choice, since they’d pair well with Louisville and West Virginia. But TCU would be a good way to get an extra game in Texas for the rest. But Dodds may veto that.
Doubtful on USF because of distance.
LikeLike
Can we just not take Texas? Please?
Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Notre Dame.
How can anyone not like this?
LikeLike
Texas won’t join a conference for the foreseeable future. They have no reason to…
They wanted a “fake” independence the entire time. Now they have it in a Big 12 in which everyone is a vassal, including even OU which has backed itself into that kind of status even though they keep trying to puff out their chests.
Notre Dame won’t join a conference as long as Texas is in the Big 12. No reason to…
That leaves you with Missouri and Kansas. They’ll be vassals of Texas for a long time to come…
We may be at a stable endgame kind of scenario right now…
LikeLike
Stable west of the Mississippi, perhaps. If FSU leaves the ACC, Miami (+ much of the rest of the ACC) would be in play. I’m actually much more in favor of adding FSU & Miami, schools who want to be equal partners, than Texas & ND under special terms. The B10 could stop at 14 at that point and wait and see if ND and/or Texas is willing to join as an equal partner some time in the future.
LikeLike
Awful, awful. Academics are awful. Even if we are going to 16 without taking Texas, I’d much prefer ND along with Miami, FSU, & one of GTech/BC/Rutgers/Maryland. I consider them to be more peer institutions than any of OU/MU/KU. Plus, while OU is as much of a brand name as FSU, I’m much more excited about playing Miami and either Mizzou or KU, and I currently reside in MO.
LikeLike
That should be “than either”, not “and either”
LikeLike
Oh, and FL has more people than MO, KS, and OK (none of which are growing states) combined. Adding in one of NJ/MD/GA would be a cherry on top.
LikeLike
Not this again.
We have nothing in common with those schools or their fanbases. It’s the Big XII all over again.
LikeLike
Speak for yourself. Miami’s student body is closer to Michigan’s than KU’s. GTech is closer to Purdue than Mizzou is.
Note that the death blow to the B12 was nearly delivered by TAMU, who’s as Texan as UT, and OU, who’s just across the river from Texas, so I’m not sure why you think being in the same geographic area (rather than sharing similar views and ideals) is what makes a conference strong & cohesive.
LikeLike
I think we need to be careful about characterizing the academics of a given school. What metrics are we talking about? A US News ranking that is mostly based on irrelevant measures? I’m not aware of any reliable measures of educational outcomes, which is the real test of a school’s educational quality. Research productivity? Total or per capita? Texas has a lot more faculty members than Missouri, but per faculty member, the most recent statistics that I’ve seen indicate that Missouri outperforms Texas in both research spending and academic journal publications (and Nebraska outperforms Texas in per faculty research funding and is nearly equal in per faculty publications).
LikeLike
ARWU rankings, which give a good indication of how universities are perceived by university presidents.
LikeLike
Perception is not necessarily reality. And while the ARWU rankings include some real metrics of research productivity, there’s no way (that I know of) to see the per capita productivity. Size causes major distortions. For example, Texas is ranked much higher than Rice. Is Texas really a higher quality university?
LikeLike
Perhaps not in undergrad, but in research, I wouldn’t doubt it. I also know that Texas’s b-school is higher-acclaimed.
BTW, in engineering (which should be Rice’s forte), USNWR ranks Texas 8th and Rice 34th.
Incidentally, the B10 has a quarter of the top 20 in engineering (PSU is 25th), which is more than any other conference, including the Ivy League.
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/eng-rankings
LikeLike
You have to be careful with ARWU. Quality schools with missions outside the research track do not score well. Examples would be Notre Dame and Boston College. When you use ARWU, it’s a good idea to take a look at endowment, as well.
LikeLike
OK, I wasn’t able to find rankings for all research (or even all engineering), but the following site has both Mizzou and UNL trailing Texas substantially in research expenditures per faculty member in EE. I’ll see if I can find more comprehensive data. BTW, where did you read statistics that Mizzou had greater funding per faculty than Texas, if I may ask?
http://www.uscollegeranking.org/engineering/electrical-engineering-graduate-school-rankings.html
LikeLike
@Richard
Of course you may; I should have posted a link to evidence when I made the claim. It is from a 2009 report from the research office at Oklahoma:
Click to access 2009%20Annual%20Report%20Web%20View.pdf
I was looking for comprehensive data on per faculty research productivity (all universities), not just data on Big 12 universities, but this is all I was able to find in a quick search. The data are in figures that compare Oklahoma to other Big 12 universities. Note that this is a one year snapshot, and data from other years might show different patterns.
Full disclosure: I received my undergraduate degree from Cal, graduate degree from Texas, and I’m currently at Nebraska. I’m not biased for or against Missouri, but I have other biases.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. Without knowing what makes up the denominator, it’s hard to compare. Ideally, we’d have department by department per capita comparisons, but I don’t know where we’d get that information.
LikeLike
How do you see Boston College & Miami as ‘more peer’ than Missouri & Kansas?
Is it the private status, small enrollment, fickle of fan support or small research budgets?
LikeLike
Granted, BC would be as much of an outlier as ND. Miami, despite its small size, is already knocking on the doors of the AAU (and are higher in the research ranking than MU or KU, both of which may very well lose their AAU designation as UNL did in the next few years) and have better undergraduate academics.
LikeLike
What is the evidence for this? I’m not trying to harass you, just point out that these sorts of statements are rarely based on anything other than someone’s perception. The reason for this is that “educational quality” and “undergraduate academics” are hard to define and even harder to measure in a meaningful way.
LikeLike
Sorry, I should say “better undergraduate student body” using SAT scores and acceptance rates.
LikeLike
BTW, while it may be elitist, it does matter in the B10 more than other conference because both graduate students and undergrads can take courses in other member schools through the CIC.
LikeLike
“conferences”
I need to sleep.
LikeLike
Adding Miami would be a disaster. There fan base is terrible, there facilities are below average for a “name” school, and the NCAA is about to set back its football team at least a decade.
LikeLike
I think Miami would be a better add than the “non-name” schools, though. I agree that Miami shouldn’t rank ahead of ND, Texas, OU, & FSU in desirability (though ND & Texas have their oen issues; actually, all 4 do), but certainly Mizzou, KU, etc.
LikeLike
Geography alone makes Miami a TERRIBLE addition. That’s not even counting the fickle fans, small school, mediocre facilities, and the repeated history of NCAA trouble. I’d advocate Youngstown St. before Miami.
LikeLike
The problem is it’s not clear if my Miami is going to remain a name. It’s quite possible that the NCAA sanctions will be so devastating that by the time the football program recovers, which could very well take a decade, that they will just be another school.
LikeLike
frug:
Well, Miami will always have an amazingly rich local football talent pool (probably the richest, per capita, in the country) So long as they manage to remain in a BCS conference, I think they’ll do well enough to be a draw. Plus, I don’t think you can discount the fact that they won multiple national championships. The only school that’s won multiple championships in the past half-century who wouldn’t be considered a king today would be MSU (and they won their back-to-back MNC’s in the mid-60’s).
So unless the dynamics of football somehow shift again (MSU benefited from there being segregation in the south and the gameplans emphasizing brawn more than now; I doubt we’ll see resegregation and it’s hard to envision football where speed is less important than now), I think the U will continue to be a top TV draw.
LikeLike
frug,
Expansion decisions are being made for the next 50-100 years. As painful and damaging as NCAA sanctions could be, Miami will be back.
LikeLike
It’s easy. Mizzou? Kansas? Why in the world would I have any interest in these schools? And for B1G academic purists, RU and UMD are WAY ahead of those two.
LikeLike
This. If we’re going to add geographically proximate non-kings just because they’re geographically proximate, at least they should fit the B10 academic/research profile.
LikeLike
so total Big12 reforms done today:
1) Dan “Sacrificial Lamb” Beebe fired
And that’s it…nothing about LHN, nothing about signed over media rights, nothing about anything and Mizzou is still on the hunt…great…
LikeLike
I think that’s about right. Pretty typical for the Big 12: all hat, no cattle.
LikeLike
I never tire of that saying. It fits the Big 12 ‘central’ leadership very well.
LikeLike
From what I can tell they thought they had killed Rasputin at least 6 times. Does that mean the conference has at least 4 more lives? This is kind of fun, but we’ve had enough drama with this conference for this year. Rasputin, in that picture does look kind of like a Big Zombie. Frank do you and Hopkins need a mediator on the conference name? There’s a guy currently living in Dallas….
LikeLike
You mean me? Or Beebe? Hey, maybe I can grab a bite with him for lunch tomorrow. Let me send him a tweet and set this up…
(BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE!)
LikeLike
Hopkins and I had a discussion about this in the last thread. I recommended the Rasputin Conference (I knew I should have trademarked that idea before Frank had time to steal it!) and I actually noted that Rasputin looked like a zombie. I even linked to the same picture Frank posted above!
LikeLike
@frug – With so many comments over the last few days, I didn’t even see that! Great Illini think alike.
LikeLike
I’ll let it slide… This time.
Dun-dun-duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun!
LikeLike
Hmmm. Thamel tweet:
After a confusing night, this much is clear. Missouri hasn’t signed their rights away, and the door remains ajar for them to go to the SEC.
http://twitter.com/#!/PeteThamelNYT/status/117075647561601025
LikeLike
Interesting development to say the least…
LikeLike
Since it looks like the Big 12 will stay intact in the absence of SEC action, would it really be worth it at the end of the day to poach A&M and Mizzou if the end result was the creation of a three-time-zone, 16-team monster with Texas, OU and USC on your western flank?
It’s not guaranteed that a Mizzou departure would be the tipping point that would force Texas’ hand, but why take the chance?
So I think this means less than I originally read into it.
LikeLike
I tend to agree. Hard to see the SEC forcing the action at this point. The Big 12 is still in a teetering stage.
LikeLike
I just don’t see the B12 imploding if Mizzou leaves. The P12 won’t take Oklahoma without Texas, so the question is whether Texas would head west if Mizzou leaves. I don’t see why the Horns would do that.
LikeLike
If you’re the SEC you don’t care what the Pac or Texas does, you know you have the best brand as a conference and you play the best football. It’s unacceptable for you to be 3rd in revenue (behind Pac, behind B1G). Taking Mizzou opens up KC and StL, taking A&M opens up DFW and Hou. Thats four top 50 markets added to the SEC’s ATL media market, I would say it’s worth it. I doubt Slive wants to kill a conference but after all this ridiculousness it’s time for the gloves to come off. They need a 14, Texas isn’t coming, ND isn’t coming, FSU probably won’t be coming (depending on how ACC media renegotiation go). This is Mizzou’s time to to go to the promised land and they had better take it, or else they will be like OU this year (wishing they had gone to a different conference a year ago).
LikeLike
Yea, we’re going to be here not just next year but inside three months. If Baylor had any other alternative we should take it, but we don’t so therefore we are stuck here. We should be able to sue for emotional distress.
Some of the Tweets from Pete Thamel tonight below.
Deaton asked, if Big 12 issues can’t be fixed, could MU leave: “That’s a hypothetical that could occur.”
So the latest from the Big 12 on grant of rights is “an agreement in principle.” Another told me its in a “position philosophically.”
I’ve gotten three different stories from four different schools.
Now I really don’t know what to believe. Two Big 12 schools says yes on grant, and two others say just talking and need approval.
LikeLike
I mean man what a turd blossom this night has been. Boren should have shut his trap and let Deaton speak. The fact that nobody has agreed to anything and then go announce. That’s just stupid. This conference truly made up of misfits, morons, and arrogant SOBs.
LikeLike
BTW, if you are Mike Slive do you want anything to do with TAMU? This conference is going down next year at this time. Without any stability and no waiver, he will be staring down the barrel of big time lawsuit come next year. I wouldn’t touch anyone or anything in this conference with a ten-foot pole.
LikeLike
From a PR standpoint, OU’s implosion the past 3 days has been nothing short of spectacular. The level of embarrassment everyone associated with OU must be feeling should be staggering.
There was absolutely no reason for OU to step all over Deaton’s press conference. The total lack of respect was obvious with OU rushing to break the news on Beebe as if to take all of the credit for their bumbling actions of the past week that’s only made them seem weak. To top it all off, Beebe was never the problem. He was merely a symptom of the problems of how dysfunctional that set of schools has been for the past 15 years.
The Big 12 had a chance to come out of this decently when it all started with A&M leaving, but instead of sticking together and pursuing BYU or Pitt and other schools that they might have had a legitimate chance to get, they wasted 4 weeks on an OU powerplay that went absolutely nowhere. OU has no more power than they did 4 weeks ago and the Big 12 is in a much more precarious spot now that the ACC has raided the Big East and Missouri may be squarely in the SEC’s focus. Good schools that would have considered the Big 12 have to be afraid of what an imbroglio that might turn into if they turn over their rights for any period of time. What a mess.
LikeLike
Boren knew that Mizzou had not completely signed on yet, so he jumped ahead with his press conference to make it look like everyone is together and everything has been finalized. And now MU will look bad if they show interest in the SEC.
LikeLike
Not to its fan base or anyone with familiarity about this mess.
LikeLike
Gotta agree with VP. Nobody in Mizzou is happy at this point. This just built another TAMU.
LikeLike
I absolutely agree with you zeek. I cannot tell you how much respect I have lost for David Boren over the last few weeks especially since I grew up just outside of OKC and remember him as a governor and a US senator. He has definitely lost his fastball and quite possibly his mind given all this. I cannot imagine how much worse this could have come out for OU and I have no idea what they were trying to accomplish. Instead of Pitt or BYU; we’re probably stuck at 9 or maybe we get ECU or Memphis. This truly was the nail in the coffin of this conference. Tonight just curb-stomped this conference. If I am a Mizzou alum, I am totally ticked at my administration and I know they will end up just like TAMU did this year if not in the next three months inside a year. What a cluster. My only hope is Baylor is starting to plan. I just do not see how this is going to last three months let alone six years.
LikeLike
The good thing for Baylor is that you have a capable president (not like most of the saps running these institutions who have no clue how to play hardball with anyone, and I’m no fan of Starr, but you could do far worse in this situation), and that your football team is playing well at such a crucial point in the Big 12’s history. Just 4-5 years ago, you guys probably would have had no chance in an event like this. But because those two things have come to pass, you guys won’t end up in the worst possible outcome; you’ll have a much better chance at ending up packaged with Kansas/Kansas State/Iowa State, etc. It obviously sounds hollow to say this right now, but at least you have those things going for you right now when it’s so important to have those things.
LikeLike
Regarding Beebe: He wasn’t the cause, but he could have done better. He was in the background on a lot of this instead of getting people to work together.
Boren said losing the 3 schools wasn’t inevitable. I don’t agree with Boren. A&M might have been saved. They needed some serious ego stroking. But CU has been inevitable for 15 years, just whenever the Pac called. Nebraska was inevitable once OU/UT et al started flirting with the Pac and Nebraska realized they were vulnerable and the B1G took their call. There was no way they would turn down more $, academic prestige and stability. And realistically, they only had CU has an every year rival in football so they weren’t leaving a lot behind. They had dominated the other north schools with decades long win streaks. In the B1G they’ve got at least Iowa and Michigan.
LikeLike
Agreed… mostly. As I understand it, when the Big 12 formed, CU had offers to join the Big 12 and the Pac. I believe the vote was close, but they chose the B12 (a decision that I believe they regretted, shortly after making it). When the B12 South were thought to be going to the Pac, what was anyone in the B12 North supposed to do, wait around to see what happens? No, I’m sure they were all looking for an out, but only UNL received & took one. Idk that I agree on TAMU, though. I believe that like CU 15ish years earlier, they regretted their decision to remain in the B12 almost immediately.
LikeLike
“I will bring my experience as a conference leader … in taking the Big 12 to the next level of success as from a competitive and financial standpoint”
— Dan Beebe, Sept 5, 2007, at the press conference announcing his appointment as Big XII commissioner
LikeLike
Hard to pin this on Beebe.
Weiberg, one of the most talented guys in the field, couldn’t get it done as Big 12 commissioner for the better part of a decade.
The schools run that conference because they’re all looking at self-interest and don’t see themselves as a set of equals.
But the problem is the grouping themselves. Texas controls most of the TV sets. OU sees themselves as an equal to Texas on the field but never had the same power as Texas in the conference offices. Colorado always yearned for the West Coast. Nebraska got out because they were the same as Oklahoma except they actually tried to resist the rest of the conference more. Missouri’s tried to sell themselves to every conference. The Aggies are the Aggies; always bristled under Texas’ reign and wanted a way to build their own brand.
OSU and Texas Tech are just along for the ride.
Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State were always at the whims of the rest.
LikeLike
They need to disband the B12, and reform it as the Big 16. Either UT comes along or it does not, but at least it starts on an equal footing.
LikeLike
Again, good luck with that.
LikeLike
That sounds like a Big 8 but with 16 mouths to feed and without Nebraska.
You seriously want to try to feed 15 other mouths off of just Oklahoma when Nebraska + Oklahoma couldn’t even feed 6 others?
LikeLike
zeek,
The Big 8 was OK, KS, NE, MO, IA, and CO
right now they are OK, KS, MO, and IA
adding UL + UC + WVU adds 3 new states
adding TT + BYU + AF adds 3 more
that leaves 4 more slots (1 reserved for UT)
will it be at the level of B1G / PAC / SEC, no, but neither was the B12 in the first place
you could build a solid conference just below the Big 3 and probably upgrade most of the schools from their current values (ie, making more than they are now). UT could keep the LHN, with limits on broadcasting (such as HS games, and taking tier 1 or tier 2 games from the conference deal), and OU could have OUN. KU already has a nice Tier 3 deal with IMG, and the others could bundle theirs to increase value)
If the other option is CSUA or Sun Belt, I think the deal could get done. Boise State or TCU would get a better deal than they have now.
LikeLike
So let me look at this a little differently:
If the Big 12 (with perhaps an assist from the SEC) doesn’t step up to the plate and kill the Big East as a viable football conference by poaching multiple teams, is the most likely consequence that the Big East will seek to replenish its ranks by adding a number of schools currently non-BCS (service academies? Nova?) to its ranks? If so, does that lead to an even greater difficulty in getting to an eventual 4×16 model if there are that many more schools which would have to be demoted in such an evolution? And if so, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
LikeLike
Texas keeping the Big 12 alive as a fifth conference in itself probably killed the 4 x 16 concept, which frankly didn’t have much of a chance to begin with.
LikeLike
I don’t think it would lead to greater difficulty in getting to the 4×16, but it depends on whether you believe that it’d be politically feasible to leave those schools behind. There’s 4 scenarios:
Scenario 1: Big East expands with service academies and non-AQs; Big 12 goes to 10.
In all honesty, I think it’d be easier to get to the 4×16 later if the Big 12 stays at 10 as Dodds prefers. None of the service academies’ brass views them as football factories in need of a route to the national championship or the BCS. If they did, we already would have had this outroar, so I think they’d be willing to just let it go. I think the Big East could legitimately be left behind in the next BCS contract or the one thereafter. As others pointed out, it’s mostly a group of promoted non-AQs from the past years at this point.
But if you believed that it would make it harder to shake off the Big East, then yes you’d be adding more BCS schools to the picture, and you’d still have 6 AQ leagues with around 70-75 teams.
Scenario 2: Big 12 raids Big East to go to 12 or 14. Big East adds service academies or whoever they can find.
In this scenario it’s much easier to see the Big East getting left behind. They’d probably lose Louisville and WVU or Cincinnati or TCU or USF, so it’s hard to see why they’d be kept AQ in the next one.
I think this round showed how far away we are from 4×16 if anything. Texas and ND are nowhere close to joining the 4 presumed leagues of the 4×16 (ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC). You need them in those conferences to get close to it. Texas may in fact be moving away from the 4×16 endgame due to the LHN, and if that’s the case, then ND is not moving closer to joining a conference.
You could in fact see stable 12-14 team leagues for the long haul after this.
In the scenario 2 case, that means you end up with 5 stable leagues and a playoff. 5×12-14 is a more plausible endgame instead of 4×16 at this point.
LikeLike
Actually, change my first sentence to Vincent’s and you have what I think is going to happen.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – That was the crux of my argument for the past year of why I didn’t think the SEC would go after Texas A&M… and yet they did so anyway. If Oklahoma is locked into the Big 12 with Texas, then losing Missouri (while bad) still won’t kill that conference. It appears that Texas is perfectly fine with a Big 12 as long as there’s OU and the LHN – everyone else seems to be replaceable filler. The fact that the Big 12 still isn’t dead is a medical marvel.
LikeLike
@Frank the Tank
I still think the SEC did not go after aTm. aTm forced their hand.
LikeLike
That’s a very fair point.
The SEC may have been trying to work on FSU or Va Tech (boosters/pres or others) because they’ve known of the A&M interest for a long time and almost admitted them last year.
My guess is the groundwork on the ACC raid has been weakened significantly and now they’re in plan B mode.
LikeLike
loki,
I agree 100%
I think when the administration said no in june 2010 is set off a s**tstorm in College Station that continued to grow over the whole year. In june 2010 the administration thought only 20% of the fan base wanted the SEC. Over the next year they have come to understand that the fan base is more like 80% in favor of the SEC. Point being, it still took over a year for the administration to make their move to the SEC.
LikeLike
@Frank – It isn’t Texas that keeps Oklahoma locked in the Big 12, it’s the big orange turd called Oklahoma State.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 doesn’t effectively kill of the Big East there will be more AQ schools and it will be determined totally by the whims of Providence College alumni. It will also make the MWC closer to AQ status since they may be better than the BE. That has to make the Pac, B1G, SEC and ACC unhappy.
Does that encourage the B1G to move? Does that encourage the ACC to be the 1st to 16?
LikeLike
KC Star: SEC still in sights for Missouri as Big 12 tries to unify
Quotes:
“We either stick in the Big 12 because everything came about the way it needs to, the right way, with all the differences being settled in Missouri’s favor,” a university administrator who asked not to be identified told The Star on Thursday night. “But what are the odds of that happening?
“The other option is to join another conference and I believe that is something that we’re very open to.”
Asked if the SEC was still in play, the administrator, who contacted The Star, said: “You will not look stupid by insinuating that.”
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/22/3161027/sec-still-in-sights-for-missouri.html
LikeLike
I’m getting the hunch that Mizzou is seeming intent on out-OUing OU.
LikeLike
Ding Ding Ding.
After Missouri’s attempt to try to sell itself last year, we’re now getting Missouri’s attempt at a powerplay after OU just ended up with pie on their faces.
You seriously can’t script this…
LikeLike
Is this the zombie’s 3rd life?
LikeLike
Could be its 5th or 6th if you count back to the SWC days.
LikeLike
What a freaking nightmare. I think Baylor, ISU, KU, and KSU just need to package themselves up for the Big East and damn the financial consequences cause this thing can’t go 24 hours without erupting. This is madness now.
LikeLike
Looks like Mizzou is headed to the SEC:
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/22/3161027/sec-still-in-sights-for-missouri.html#ixzz1YkJ6bxVd
LikeLike
@Andy – If they have the opportunity to do so, they need to pull the trigger. The SEC is certainly taking its sweet time, though. If they’re still waiting for those waivers, they’re never going to get them.
LikeLike
A lot of sources at Mizzou are saying it’s looking increasingly likely. I would put the chances at above 50% right now.
I agree that it’s the right move at this point. Most of us wanted Big Ten, but we can’t sign on for another 6 years of this mess. We need to get out, and if it has to be SEC, so be it.
LikeLike
Andy,
Your comment sums up why the SEC will not invite MU! Arkansas, South Carolina, and TAMU all wanted to go to the SEC. MU does not, and Slive will want a school like VT or FSU first because of the sports culture. I really feel like listening to Alan and Bamatab on here that the SEC does not want to be anybody’s second choice or “last resort”.
LikeLike
SEC already has invited Mizzou, and are currently trying to persuade them to join. Plenty of Mizzou fans are thrilled. I attended the University of Michigan so naturally I’m more of a Big Ten fan, but the fanbase is split on this.
LikeLike
Andy,
I have not seen one official word out of Birmingham. All the chatter is sources inside MU about this “invitation” and so far I have not found 1 credible source from the folks actually issuing the invitation. I call BS until I see proof from the other side. My gut feeling is that MU was bluffing an SEC invite to see if they could get one from the B1G the same way OU did with the PAC. Look how that just blew up in their face when Scott issued his public statement. I feel MU’s bluff is about to be called and they will be stuck for forever like OU is now. The big winner in all this is UT knowing they own the conference now. They got rid of TAMU – who was a real threat to them long term – and UNL, who would have fought them in the future. The rest just showed how weak they are instead of standing up to UT and making their demands. Deloss Dodds and Powers must be laughing at all this, and knowing the LHN is safe.
LikeLike
re: Duffman below. For some reason the blog is not letting me reply to his post.
You won’t see anyone on the SEC end officially say anything about an invite to MU unless we accept it. They have no motive to announce it as long as MU might turn them down.
But it definitely exists, and it is the main focus of decision makers in Columbia this week.
LikeLike
Andy,
When was the last time Slive was in Columbia?
Who is the MU to SEC connection?
answer both of those questions, and I have more faith. Missouri is the “show me” state, so show me.
LikeLike
All the SECers on Fbaum want WVU. They are hot hot hot for SEC, calling in and pleading their case for admission. Does that mean Slive will listen?
LikeLike
@duffman,
I think that Mizzou does offer the SEC one thing that they desire, and that is a large tv market. There was a rumor going around that Slive was not a happy camper with the Mizzou folks because of the leak about their offer. According to the rumor, Slive yanked the offer because they leaked it. I’m not sure how true that is, but Slive would prefer to act stealthly from here on out. I’m betting that even if that rumor has and amount of truth to it, if Mizzou comes back and expresses an earnest desire to come to the SEC, then Slive will accept them based on the markets they provide. After reading there message boards, there is no doubt in my mind which conference their fans want to be in. So if they were to join, I don’t think there would be a big risk of them leaving the SEC for any other conference.
LikeLike
If/when the SEC goes to 16, then I believe MU is the frontrunner for #16. I think that #14 # 15 will be from the east. Pick two of FSU, VT, NCSU or WVU. That keeps the E/W divisions the where they are. Unless, of course, they go to pods/sub-divisions…
LikeLike
Some common sense in the realignment drama
George Downes: Michael’s chasing Kimmy?
Julianne Potter: Yes!
George Downes: You’re chasing Michael?
Julianne Potter: YES!
George Downes: Who’s chasing you… nobody, get it? There’s your answer. It’s Kimmy.
I could care less what anybody from a “chasing” school says. The only question to answer is what are Delany, Scott, or Slive saying?
Scott: “we are staying at 12”
Slive: “we are only adding TAMU”
Delany: “I have been playing golf”
All the chatter filling the media is from schools looking for homes, bloggers with “sources”, or media folks who can’t find snow in a snowstorm. OU was bluffing, WVU was bluffing, and I am willing to bet MU is bluffing their a$$ off. I could be made to be a liar tomorrow, but for right now I think the Big 3 are done unless ND says yes to Delany, UT says yes to Scott, or VT / FSU say yes to Slive. Outside of any of that happening, the only realignment going on will be lesser schools in lesser conferences, which will mean very little to the big media companies.
UT has won, ESPN has won, UNL has won, PAC has won, B1G has won, TAMU should win, and the SEC has won. What else could drive a major movement?
LikeLike
@duffman – Did you just bust out a scene from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”? And do I lose my man card for recognizing that right away?
(To be clear, my wife is a massive Julia Roberts fan.)
LikeLike
No, you do not lose your man card, once you are married sometimes you have to do stuff to keep peace in the barnyard. Braveheart is a chick flick disguised as a flick for guys. If you get no man cave in your house, or she nixes poker night, then it may be time to turn in you card.
LikeLike
My wife also is a big Julia fan.
I do think Mizzou is being pursued, simply because the SEC has discovered they are Julia Roberts.
Also the WVU getting turned down means someone else is in the lead. But I don’t know how long the SEC will pursue Mizzou when they are George Downes (best male friend Ken Starr). How does the scene go? There won’t be love, there won’t be sex (shudder), but Mizzou and the SEC will be dancing.
LikeLike
I do think Mizzou is being pursued, simply because the SEC has discovered they are Julia Roberts.
I dunno — with Missouri’s track record, one senses they’re more the Ralph Bellamy type (the third wheel, not the heroic FDR “Sunrise At Campobello” Bellamy), and will wind up playing the sap once again.
(Trivia note: Bellamy’s last film was the one that made Julia Roberts a star, “Pretty Woman.” In the early ’30s, he made a movie or two with Jean Harlow, as well as with Irene Dunne, Carole Lombard, Rosalind Russell and other stars of the era.)
LikeLike
You forgot Dan Beebe:
“I WAS TRYING TO GO MOSTLY IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BUT I FORGOT MISSOURI. IMAGINE THAT, SOMEONE FORGETTING ABOUT MISSOURI. MISSOURI THROWS MORE PANTIES THAN THE CROWD OF 8TH GRADERS AT A JONAS BROTHERS CONCERT AND YET NOBODY EVER PICKS THEM UP.”
LikeLike
college football needs to find a way to get rid of these stupid football games that get in the way. it was barely acceptable when realignment was confined to the off-season, but now that realignment has gone full year, the games are an annoyance.
LikeLike
Is it bad that I’ve been way more hooked on the realignment drama than the games themselves. It’s gotten out of control.
LikeLike
i hope it isn’t bad, zeek, because that’s where i am.
LikeLike
To be fair, the early season has a lot of snoozer games. Been a few good ones, but things really ramp up when the conference games are in full swing.
LikeLike
There’s been a lot of funny stuff in this realignment drama, but that was the biggest laugh I’ve had!
LikeLike
Has anyone ever been a greater fail than Mizzou Administrators? How many times do you need to be embarrassed before you understand nobody likes the desperate one and nobody likes the tattletale. A desperate tattletale is just annoying.
I still think it all shakes out with them going to SEC with A&M and the OK schools, but the constant “leaks” is not very SEC like and could shut them out in the end….or they never had a chance and it just looks sad.
All that said, 99% of all anonymous sources cited by the media are completely made up in hopes of guessing something right.
LikeLike
These are not made up. They aare 100% legit. As for leaks, I’m pretty sure every school is doing this, not just Missouri. Texas A&M leaked like crazy.
It’s only a fail if they don’t get what they want, which is to be members of a stable conference. If that doesn’t happen, then they failed. Right now it’s a work in progress.
LikeLike
Andy,
The difference was TAMU had a former SEC coach on their board back in 2010 to be the conduit between the schools. In addition, back in 91 TAMU would have joined the SEC with Arkansas, but they were bribed with Reed Arena. Going even farther back TAMU was in the SEC back when it was the SIAA. The point is, all along TAMU has wanted to go to the SEC. This time they had UT’s blessing and no threats to their funding. Remember, UT and TAMU share the PUF. TAMU has a long football history with Arkansas and LSU and some history with almost every other SEC member school. Where is any of this in Missouri’s history with the SEC?
LikeLike
Mizzou has no history with the SEC. They don’t really belong, except that they boarder 3 SEC states: Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Also, Missouri was a slave state and a large portion of the state fought for the confederacy.
But as far as history with the SEC, there isn’t much. Mizzou has played SEC schools in football 29 times, and holds a 20-8-1 record. They had a basketball rivalry with Arkansas for many years.
The main reason Mizzou would go is because they’re a strong addition, and the SEC wants to add someone. Mizzou has won 40 games in football in the last 4 seasons. They have top 25 football attendance. Their basketball typically makes the NCAA tournament. Nate Silver’s recent NYT analysis of # of fans ranked Missouri #23, which would place them in the middle of the SEC. Mizzou is an AAU school and ranks 90th in the latest USNWR rankings, which would place them in the top third of the SEC. Bottom line is Mizzou is good enough that most any conference would be happy to have them. SEC invited Mizzou, now they’re thinking it over and they’ll probably take it if only because the Big 12 is a complete mess right now.
LikeLike
Andy,
The SEC has a good old boy system and who you know matters. Gene Stallings and Frank Broyles went to bat for TAMU, who went to bat for MU? My friends in Arkansas said Ken, Frank, and RC were all at a function in Arkansas together – which means they were not in Columbia lobbying for MU, or in Birmingham bending Slive’s ear. That tells me a great deal about the interest level of MU to the SEC really has. Mike Slive was in College Station in 2010 when the 6 were headed to the PAC in June, has anybody seen Slive in Columbia in the past 24 or 48 hours? MU was one of the schools not waiving rights after UT, OU, and TT did. Do you really think that won favor with the SEC folks actually casting votes for an invite? If I am reading the SEC folks, it just does not jive with the MU “sources”. Who on the board of trustees of MU has a long and deep relationship with someone at the top of the SEC?
I am not trying to shoot you down, I am trying to see something that fits the SEC profile in how they conduct their business. I never remember MU being one of the 6 schools in the discussion back in 91′, while many given serious mention – including TAMU – were on the short list back in 91′. The SEC really is a family so culture matters way more than AAU status or some guy from the NYT with a skewed fan analysis. Right now MU would be in the bottom quartile of the SEC with Vanderbilt, Mississippi, and Mississippi State. These 3 are original members, and may not be invited if they were trying today. I have empathy, because I know if IU was not already in the B1G, it would probably not make the cut today. You quoted ~30 games between MU and SEC schools, but TAMU has ~150 games against SEC schools. They are currently in a decade long neutral site (JerryWorld) series with Arkansas. What similar history does MU offer?
LikeLike
The SEC approached Missouri last year and they turned them down. Missouri has been focused on joining the Big Ten for about 30 years. The SEC may have taken us earlier but our sites were set elsewhere. The current instability in the Big 12 is forcing them to make a move, so now they’re making ourselves available, and due to MU’s overall strength as a school and as a football program, the SEC is eager to take them.
Truly, the only schools the SEC could get that would be better than Missouri would be North Carolina, Virginia Tech, or Florida State. But none of those schools are offering themselves up, and Missouri is, so they’re shooting for Missouri right now. The SEC presidents have already approved the move. They’re just waiting on Mizzou’s decision, and it’s looking very likely that Mizzou will take the SEC’s offer.
LikeLike
‘SEC already has invited Mizzou, and are currently trying to persuade them to join.’
‘The SEC approached Missouri last year’
could you speak a little louder, andy? ken starr is a tad hard of hearing.
LikeLike
I think most anonymous media sources have small pieces of real info and extrapolate. I don’t think they really make it up. Your 99% may be true on internet posters with information.
LikeLike
Gotta say I’m with duffman and Hopkins Horn on this.
Considering Missouri’s actions last year and Oklahoma’s actions this year, I will be totally shocked if Missouri is doing anything other than making a blatant power play on the Big 12.
Yes, Boren made a fool of himself and OU this past couple of days, but that’s still not a good enough reason for Missouri to jump the boat. The general dysfunctionality of that group is a good enough reason, but why should we believe that the scenario of Missouri -> SEC is any different from Missouri -> Big Ten? Stalking horse anyone?
And the only way the SEC definitively goes after Missouri is if they’ve totally given up on Va Tech and FSU. Maybe they’ve given up on Va Tech because of how strongly they struck down those rumors.
But FSU’s chairman of the board has been all over the place and stated several times that they haven’t been approached yet by the SEC. He even went so far as to blatantly show FSU’s hand in that they brought down a $18M raise on the exit fee (from $16M) up to $34M down to only a $4M increase to $20M.
I find it highly suspicious that the SEC is just going to offer a spot to Missouri like that if it hasn’t yet contact FSU which should be its true target. No one else is at 16 and although Auburn has indicated it is open to moving to the East, I just find it hard to believe that they wouldn’t make a play on FSU first when FSU has left themselves open entirely to a play due to the loose lips of their chairman.
Missouri was a stalking horse last time for Nebraska; they might be a stalking horse this time for FSU.
Perhaps I’m wrong about all of this, but it just seems really suspicious that the SEC hasn’t made a move on FSU before going to Missouri…
LikeLike
Chancellor Brady Deaton would not have said what he said at his press conference today if Missouri didn’t have a rock solid offer from either the SEC or the Big Ten. All sources are saying it’s the SEC, and Missouri will likely join within a week or two. You don’t have to believe me, but that’s what’s going on.
LikeLike
That’s what they said about OU to the PAC and we saw that played out…
LikeLike
yeah but just because it’s happened before, doesn’t mean it will happen again. i think mizzou brings a couple of things the SEC wants – tv markets and academic prestige. no way the presidents of vatech or fsu leave an elite academic conference like the ACC to go to the SEC, no matter how good the football is. these guys are academics first, football fans second.
I think the threat of Mizzou leaving is quite real, after getting burned last year so publicly I think the Mizzou admin will play it closer to the vest this year. If they think this is the only chance to get out from Texas – they’ll take it. Texas so far hasn’t given up anything.
LikeLike
if the big ten bemoans missouri’s academic standing and the sec covets it, that tells you all you need to know about those two conferences.
LikeLike
The SEC also has more need of Missouri than the PAC did, solely because of taking Texas A&M. Thirteen is a mess for a divisional format They want to go to 14 and want to do it soon.
LikeLike
@zeek – Mizzou only takes SEC to 14, not 16 (yes, I know I’m stating the obvious). Point being: adding Mizzou now does not preclude adding VaTech and FSU down the road. So if you view Mizzou as the 16th member, their addition makes sense.
Now if the SEC thinks they can eventually get Oklahoma or Texas (very unlikely), then that changes things for Mizzou. But Mizzou is a better candidate than WVU or Clemson.
LikeLike
To recap conference realigment from Dec. 2009 to Present…
Big Ten:
+ UNL (from B12)
– none
Atlantic Coast:
+ Pitt (BE)
+ SU (BE)
– none (yet?)
Big East:
+ TCU (or… B12 or MWC, even)
+ ‘Nova, Temple, USMA, USNA and/or AFA (?)
– Pitt (ACC)
– SU (ACC)
Stalag 9:
+ Boise, Cin, CoSt, UL, USF, TCU, WVU and/or someone else (?)
– UNL (tBT)
– CU (P12)
– TAMU (SEC)
Pac-12:
+ CU (B12)
+ UUt (MWC)
– none
SEC:
+ TAMU (?)
+ FSU, MU, VT or WVU?
– none
Mountain West:
+ Boise (WAC)
+ Fresno (WAC)
+ UHi (WAC; FB Only)
+ UNv (WAC)
– BYU (WCC/Ind)
– TCU (BE?)
– UUt (P12)
Western Athletic:
+ Denver (Non-FB)
+ Seattle U. (Non-FB)
+ UT-Arl (Non-FB)
+ UTSA (FCS)
+ TxSt (FCS)
– Boise (MWC)
– Fresno (MWC)
– UHi (BWC/MWC)
– UNv (MWC)
* UMt (FCS, Big Sky; declined their invitation)
Notes:
* Big Ten & Pac-12 appear to be done… for now
* BE & B12 are looking for new members/prisoner(s)
* ACC is at 14 (but I believe they are poachable)
* SEC is looking for #14 (which I think will come out of the east)
Side Notes:
* UMass (FCS) is moving to the MAC (FB Only/A10)
* USA (FCS) is moving to the Sun Belt
Did I miss anything?
LikeLike
Great summary.
The Sun Belt is adding South Alabama, who has already been a member for several member for other sports, for football in a couple of years. The MAC is adding UMass for football only in a couple of years also. App State has stated its intentions to move up and all but stated that C-USA is where it wants to go. Lamar is debating whether to move up and is a potential new member of the WAC.
That’s pretty much it at the FBS level.
LikeLike
The folks at Okie and Okie Lite need to get on their knees and beg for the PAC-X to take them. That’s their best solution and the ultimate vengeance against Bevo. Texas should be left and marginalized alone in some strange hybrid of the BXII and the SWC. Recruits will flock away from the Lone Star State or to Texas A&M.
I am really starting to think that college football is better off with a weak UT.
LikeLike
‘The folks at Okie and Okie Lite need to get on their knees and beg . . .’
wrong verb.
LikeLike
i’ve done a bit of reading on sooner boards, and the majority there seem to be trumpeting the boren story. you need to understand that revisionist history is a core course in oklahoma secondary education.
whatever chance there was for the two ok schools to head to the pac on their own (minuscule, apparently), i think boren’s behavior the past several days thoroughly eliminates it. given boren’s response to the pac decision, scott’s comment on boren’s response, and the upstaging press conference yesterday with them parading poor stoops in a buttressing role, i’m betting baylor has a stronger shot at admittance to the pac than either oklahoma school and especially both.
LikeLike
and i bet the big ten has been paying attention.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen this posted here. Frank and the board, what is your take on Notre Dame’s continued delay in announcing where it will play Hockey? Yesterday, Western Michigan and St. Cloud State joined the new National Collegiate Hockey Conference (NCHC).
From the college hockey news website:
“Notre Dame, meanwhile, has been investigating for months now which conference it wanted to join. That decision was further affected by the recent decision of Syracuse and Pittsburgh to leave the Big East for the Atlantic Coast Conference. Notre Dame is in the Big East for all of its other sports except football, but now may be looking for a new all-sport conference, a decision that may or may not impact its hockey decision.
According to the Herald, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick told a radio station over the weekend that his school will make a decision within 10 days”
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/09/21_wmu,_st_cloud_to_join_nchc.php
LikeLike
Notre Dame is going independent in men’s ice hockey because NBC Sports Network will sign ND to a separate contract for ice hockey.
There is no need for ND to join Hockey East and have to play road games at Lowell, Merrimack, or Vermont.
There is no need for ND to join the NCHC and have to play road games at Grand Forks, Colorado Springs or St. Cloud.
ND will play road games at major ports of calls only. That means the likes of Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Denver, Omaha, Boston College, Boston University.
==
(The WCHA will NOT be classified as a Division I entity by the NCAA if Bowling Green does NOT join that league. However, Bowling Green really doesn’t have a choice if it wants to keep men’s ice hockey.)
LikeLike
@OT
(The WCHA will NOT be classified as a Division I entity by the NCAA if Bowling Green does NOT join that league. However, Bowling Green really doesn’t have a choice if it wants to keep men’s ice hockey.)
What will it be classified as?
LikeLike
If Bowling Green does not join the WCHA, the WCHA will consist entirely of Division II schools “playing up” in Division I men’s ice hockey.
The NCAA will then put the WCHA in the “unclassified” category so that the WCHA will have no vote in any Division I or Division II matter.
LikeLike
Has there ever been an unclassified category? I’m going to assume you know there is no DII hockey. The WCHA is fully secure as a DI hockey conference according to everything I’ve read.
By the way, it’s been rumored that Bowling Green is deciding whether or not to keep hockey.
It’s a mistake to apply the same logic and motivations and logic that apply to football to hockey. That is why you won’t see the Notre Dame be independent in hockey. No one wants to be independent in hockey. Ask Alabama Huntsville.
LikeLike
The WCHA will need to have at least one Division I member school in order to maintain its classification as a Division I conference for the 2013-2014 school year.
If Bowling Green does not join the WCHA, then the WCHA will consist entirely of Division II schools. Because the NCAA does not offer ice hockey at the Division II level, the WCHA will become “unclassified” for the 2013-2014 school year and the WCHA will lose its voting rights in any NCAA Division I matter.
There is a possibility that Bowling Green will decide to drop ice hockey (a la Wayne State or Illinois-Chicago.)
Being “unclassified” is not good for the WCHA, as the other Division I men’s ice hockey conferences can vote to strip the WCHA of its autobid to the NCAA tournament and the WCHA will have no vote in the matter.
LikeLike
I would like to see any support for your claims about this “unclassified” category.
LikeLike
this would never work. it’s just way too small of a draw. people in the hockey hotbeds won’t even watch this. i give this a 1% chance of happening and it would be an epic disaster if it did. the OHL draws better than college hockey.
LikeLike
furthermore, i think those schools you mention would tell ND to get bent. they are not in hockey what they are in football. ND has refused to schedule MSU in BB for a very long time. it cuts both ways. The UM and MSU crowds are excited as hell about getting MN and WI. ND cannot afford to try to grandstand here or they may well regret it.
LikeLike
Oh, really?
ND will have a national TV deal with NBC Sports Network.
What does Hockey East have? NESN?
What will the NCHC have? ROOT Sports Rocky Mountain?
What will the WCHA have? Alaska Public Television?
ND will hold its TV deal with NBC Sports Network over the other hockey schools like a club: if you want to play on NBC Sports Network, you have to come to South Bend to play Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Er, not only that, but why the hell would they be given access to the playoffs. This isn’t football, and it certainly is not the BCS. ND needs a conference.
LikeLike
Send me whatever you’re smokin
LikeLike
OT, if Notre Dame maintained that policy, I wonder what its chances of landing a berth in the NCAA hockey tourney would be? Barring a really stellar record, not very good I would think.
LikeLike
@OT – I’m sorry, but you’re out of your mind.
Comcast has said that they feel that NBC overpaid for Notre Dame’s football rights, and the NHL’s ratings have been awful since before the lockout. They can and will fill that television slot with cheaper programming that will get higher ratings.
LikeLike
OT, congrats on not accidentally posting about ND hockey as Karl Benson. Good job getting your multiple logins under control.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m wondering if his tirade is going to become his new copy/paste.
LikeLike
OK, so who will ND play in hockey as an independent when conference play starts? Will they play UAH 20 times?
LikeLike
I love ND hockey, but I can’t see ANY way that is going to happen. Notre Dame hockey doesn’t have anywhere near enough fans. Heck college hockey as a whole barely has enough fans. I have a hard enough time believing VersusII would pick up the NCHC game of the week on Friday or Saturday night.
The rumor has always been that which *conference* would get the NBC deal would also get the Irish. Going independent would hurt scheduling, hurt the pair-wise, and hurt recruiting.
IF ND joined “the Nat’l”, I would imagine they would bring BG as a eastern travel partner and to get them to ten teams. The WCHA remains at 8. UAH, as always, remains on the outside looking in.
LikeLike
What’s the speculation among ND hockey fans regarding where they finally end up?
LikeLike
Generally, we think we are waiting for Comcast to decide on who’s getting the TV deal before we make a decision.
Most who are willing to guess are guessing NCHC. I think part of that is because they are made from the old CCHA and the WCHA teams we’ve played since hockey regained varsity status, and partly because with the Midwest, Great Plains, and Denver metro they think they’ll be more likely to get the NBC deal.
Folks seem to worry more than realistically think we’re joining the B1G. No one seems to think independence is a good idea for hockey.
LikeLike
Well, the NCHC would be the only other hockey conference with teams that draw enough support to turn a decent profit, so it’s hard to see Versus choosing another conference.
LikeLike
I expect NOTRE DAME to get the TV deal with NBC Sports Network on its own, as an independent. That will force teams (other then members of the B1G) which want exposure on NBC Sports Network to come to Notre Dame to play.
==
Hockey East is stuck on NESN because Hockey East basically consists of 1 major TV market: Boston.
NCHC will probably be stuck on ROOT Sports Rocky Mountain with televised games mostly from Denver and Colorado Springs. The lack of big TV markets will hurt the NCHC.
(FOX Sports North has no interest in Duluth and St. Cloud by themselves. Minnesota was the big attraction.)
The B1G will be on BTN. Don’t know yet whether FOX Sports North, FOX Sports Wisconsin, and FOX Sports Detroit will be allowed to simulcast a handful of games. (Forget FOX Sports Ohio, as Ohio State men’s ice hockey does not sell. The jury is still out on Penn State so we don’t yet whether ROOT Sports Pittsburgh will be involved.)
The WCHA will be stuck on either PBS affiliates owned by the schools, or on cable access channels. The WCHA will be the western version of Atlantic Hockey, a league of leftover schools, mostly Division II, which have nowhere else to go.
Reminder: if the WCHA does not lock up Bowling Green, the WCHA will no longer be classified by the NCAA as a Division I entity as of the 2013-2014 season. The WCHA will lose its vote on all NCAA Division I matters (even though WCHA members will still be eligible for the Division I tourney.)
LikeLike
But WHY would Comcast take ND hockey alone? They are not a traditional power. They’ve only been competitive for NCAA bids for just over a decade. They only recently started selling out <2,900 seat arena. No one in the history of the world has ever used the phrase "Hockey-mad Indiana". Hockey fans hate the fact that WSOP has higher ratings that NCAA hockey.
If Comcast tries to turn ND hockey into hockey equivalent, there's no way Delaney and the ADs will allow BTHC games @ ND. ND frankly NEEDS those games against the Big Ten to keep that new barn we just built full, because there's not enough die-hard college hockey fans in South Bend to fill the place, and the average non-hockey sports fan has only heard of hockey schools that have BCS football teams (BC and BTHC) and the Ivies, but they don't know that the Ivies aren't that bad.
I hope that TPTB don't get cocky and attempt independence for Irish Hockey.
LikeLike
Comcast (NBC Sports Network) has three choices:
1. Sign Notre Dame on its own
2 Sign the NCHC
3. Sign with Hockey East, B1G, or ECAC Hockey for Tier 2 rights
(NESN has Tier 1 rights to Hockey East, BTN will have Tier 1 rights to the B1G, and I believe CBS Sports Network has Tier 1 rights to ECAC Hockey. I believe NESN also has the Beanpot.)
Assuming that Comcast do NOT want “Tier 2” rights (meaning no marquee games such as BC-BU, Michigan-Michigan St, or Harvard-Yale) Comcast is left with the choice of signing Notre Dame hockey on its own or with the NCHC.
The problem with NCHC: lack of “brand names” in big TV markets. The biggest TV market for the NCHC is Denver:
Denver
Colorado College (technically part of the Denver TV market)
North Dakota (small market)
Omaha (small market)
St. Cloud (small market)
Duluth (small market)
Western Michigan (small market)
Miami of Ohio (completely irrelevant in a medium market)
This is not a difficult decision for the programming executive at NBC Sports Network. The logical choice is to 1) sign Notre Dame on its own as an indy so that Notre Dame hockey will appear every other Friday night and 2) sublicense a handful of “Tier 1” games from Hockey East, B1G, or ECAC Hockey to fill out the schedule.
The likes of BC and BU would want to play at Notre Dame for the national TV exposure. Ditto everyone in the NCHC and ECAC Hockey.
LikeLike
@FLIP_NDRox – Thanks!
LikeLike
Uh, OT, you still haven’t explained who exactly ND would play if they went independent once conference play starts in college hockey.
Do you realize who and how many people actually care about college hockey? Markets aren’t of any importance if no one in those markets actually watches college hockey.
LikeLike
It’s down to Hockey East and the NCHC according tweets from Irish hockey Media Day. Dan Murphy of Blue and Gold Illustrated reports the Coach Jackson says independence is not an option.
http://twitter.com/#!/BGI_DanMurphy/status/118398084387577857
The take-away I have is that there is no smoke for a ND-B1G merger in the next 12mo. Also that Versus is interested in a conference deal, not the Irish alone. None of this is surprising, but it is nice to see.
My guess is that the Irish will end up in the NCHC because they’ll be more likely to get the Versus deal. Why, because HEC is Eastern time ONLY, and the National can give double-headers on Friday and Saturday, since local start time are from Eastern to Mountain.
The big question remains of who, if anyone will come in with the Irish. Will it be CCHA refugee Bowling Green? Will it be long-time target BC? Or will it be no one? Stay tuned =D
LikeLike
I’m going to go out on a limb and make some comments on the actual, um, season that’s taking place…
– Man, is Tom O’Brien’s hard-line stance not to allow Russell Wilson to return to the NC State team looking dubious now or what? NC State is 2-2 with wins over Liberty and South Alabama (which is only its third year of existence as a program) and losses to Wake Forest (projected as the ACC’s #12 team) and a Cincinnati team that went 4-8 last year. I was hoping maybe, somehow, the Wolfpack and Badgers would end up with a win-win situation, kinda like when the Chargers released future Super Bowl MVP Drew Brees but got to keep an excellent quarterback of their own in Phillip Rivers.
– Speaking of Wisconsin, they’re looking really good right now, but I’m ready to see them face a real test. Penn State looked great prior to facing top-notch competition, but they need to face a top 25 team before I’m completely sold on them as a national title contender. I do think, though, that October 1 will be only the first meeting this year between Nebraska and Wisconsin. Lots of red in the Big Ten this year.
– It’s a shame that the Big 12 is so danged dysfunctional. We do focus a lot on the fact that certain schools don’t bring much of a market (Iowa State, Baylor), but let’s face it: winners bring eyeballs from everywhere. I watched some K-State games in the 90’s when they were really good, even though I have zero connections to the school, and I know that I was not alone. I’ve done the same in recent years with Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma State despite their lack of tradition. Heck, I even watched TCU-Baylor with great interest, even though everyone tells me they don’t add a new market. I’m convinced that there is always an audience out there for winners, and outside of the SEC, this league has had as many or more of them as any league in the country.
– Despite Florida State’s hard-fought effort in a loss to OU, I believe they’re back to top ten status, and that they’ll stay there. Jimbo Fisher has handled an awkward succession plan to one of the game’s most legendary figure with as much class and on-the-field success as anyone could ask for. I’m very, very excited about the team’s future, which, personally, I hope remains in the ACC.
– Speaking of FSU, I do not buy the notion that it’s “good” for college football that they’re getting better. The return of one dormant power to the national spotlight almost always coincides with the setback of another. When FSU’s power waned starting in the early 2000’s, Oklahoma returned to prominence. As Miami, Notre Dame, and Nebraska fell back, we saw the return of Texas and USC to prominence and the rise of LSU and Wisconsin as true powers. The only argument I’ll buy is that a better FSU is good for the ACC, but better college football itself? No. As long as there are a good handful of the national powers are doing really well, whether it’s Michigan and Ohio State, USC and Texas, Florida and FSU, and/or Oklahoma and Nebraska, the game won’t be in “need” of any particular teams to do well.
– I feel like throwing my shoe at the TV set each time I hear some “expert” saying, “Ya know, the SEC is the strongest conference in America. There’s not even a debate about that anymore. They’ve won the past five national championships.” I mean, wow. That’s Emmy-worthy analysis right there. We get it. The SEC is the best at football. Tell me something I don’t know.
LikeLike
How about ESPN’s power rankings put the Big Zombie Rasputin 12-1-1 as the best at football this year?
LikeLike
If only these schools would pay attention to that fact…
LikeLike
Why didn’t O’Brien want Wilson back??
LikeLike
Short story: Wilson is a dual-sport athlete with an MLB offer. He was waffling, and NC State had a quarterback of the future in line, so O’Brien gave him the spot in order to prevent a QB controversy because he didn’t want to wait on Wilson to decide.
LikeLike
At Joe Pa’s Tuesday press conference, he left the door open for PSU to “Get into something different.” Is Penn State seriously considering leaving the Big Ten for the ACC “North?” Or is this just Joe dreaming about playing Md, BC, Pitt and ‘Cuse every year again?
LikeLike
Unless JoePa can cut a few billion in checks to buy back PSU’s TV and pay off PSU’s researchers for the CIC loss, he’s just being wistful.
LikeLike
While the CIC saves the schools money through cooperation that doesn’t mean that a B1G school could not be as, or more, successful outside of the B1G. Take a look at schools like UNC, Duke, Stanford, Cal and so on. They aren’t members of the CIC but they earn more in research money than most B1G schools. The uniqueness of the B1G is having so many successful schools in one conference. That doesn’t mean that a school has to be in the B1G to be successful.
LikeLike
It’s not so much that a school can’t be successful outside of the CIC – although there are probably fewer schools outside the CIC than in it in that tier of research universities – its that PSU *is* a member of the CIC and it’s a gross breach of fiduciary duty to try to break away from it. The ACC doesn’t have anything comparable either – it would be a straight financial and academic loss, every year, forever.
Even if PSU to the ACC made financial sense (it doesn’t) and PSU could take their TV rights with them (not without someone cutting a nine-figure check), the cost to the university of losing CIC access would far exceed any financial gain on the football side. As it stands in reality, PSU would get less TV money, less bowl revenue sharing, pay a hundreds-of-millions penalty to unwind their TV rights, AND likely be booted from the CIC.
It’s nonsense.
LikeLike
“The uniqueness of the B1G is having so many successful schools in one conference.”
—Think about what you just said for a moment, really think about it. WHY do you think the B1G is unique in this regard?
It is in large part because of the CIC.
If Penn State really is missing beating up on east coast patsies so badly that they are willing to hurt the university by throwing away the benefits of membership in the nation’s premier academic consortium then more power to them…but I sincerely believe that the actual administrators at the school aren’t nearly so foolish.
LikeLike
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/22/3161236/sec-still-in-missouris-sights.html
Mizzou fans are singing:
Show me the way to E$$ EEE CEE.
LikeLike
Rasputin.
The one certainty. Just one you think they are dead… they come back.
Wait… a second certainty. Just when you think they have survived… something puts them back on death row.
Given that… I think it has to happen this way. Several weeks of BigIX calm. Paperwork drawn. Everything sounds great. All is quiet.
And just when you think it is all resolved… THEN Missouri flees to the SEC. At that point, the paperwork gets held up. The Pac-12 starts talking to Oklahoma again. Baylor and Iowa St. look at the Big East with Wellesley and CCNY as rumored candidates and figure that the MWC may just be better than the Big VIII or the Big East. But, in the end, we end up with the Big VIII.
Until Kansas decides that it is fed up with the Big VIII…..
LikeLike
Just thought we should take a minute to note and give credit to LSU for playing a tough non-conference slate this year, and that isn’t unusual for them. On the road at WV and a neutral site Oregon game, definitely worthy of respect. You could argue that DFW is sorta a home game for nearby LSU, but it still isn’t the same as playing in Baton Rouge and sleeping in your own bed.
Contrast that with gutless Florida’s same ol’ ridiculous nonsense of never leaving their state and copout excuses of how FSU is such a burden and the SEC is so tough. Yet LSU, Bama, Auburn, Arkie, UGA, and Tenn don’t have a problem traveling to tough OOC opponents.
So raise a glass to LSU, scheduling the way college football should.
LikeLike
I raise a glass to LSU not only scheduling up, but also pulling off #3 in the Oversigning Cup. Top 5 are all SEC. Clemson is #6 and trying to prove their SEC worth.
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/the-oversigning-cup/
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree. Florida’s schtick is among the lamest in all of college football. So many great out of conference games that could be schedule with them, and yet it’s Alabama, LSU, and Tenn (somewhat) doing the heavy lifting for the SEC in terms of ooc matchups.
I noticed LSU at WVU this weekend and was like “damn, that and the Oregon game easily has to be the hardest non-conference slate this year)”…
LikeLike
Eh. FSU usually _is_ tough. Most kings usually schedule only one high-profile OOC game a year, which is why ND is is almost always the only high-profile OOC game Michigan plays while tOSU plays a rotating set of kings/near-kings (though props to the Wolverines for playing Alabama OOC next year and bringing in Utah and Appy St. in the recent past). BTW, Florida is set to visit Miami in the future, though they’ll still not have left the state of FL to play an OOC game in several decades.
LikeLike
@FrankTheTank
Frank. Are we ironclad sure that if for some reason one of the Big 10 schools left tomorrow that their rights would not go with them automatically and that they would have to either be released by the Big 10 or would have to be repurchased by the exiting school. The question came up over at Mr. SEC in reference to what the Big 12 is looking to do with their pledged media rights.
LikeLike
The question is moot… no one is going to leave the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Agreed. Hence why its come up in a discussion surrounding the Big 12 doing the same thing where it absolutely could happen. I am more interested in the mechanics and if the Big 10 is under the agreement as its been represented.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s ironclad.
I’ve mentioned this several times in responses to the Penn State -> ACC stuff.
If Penn State leaves the Big Ten, all of its TV sports rights are still owned by the Big Ten until 2027 or 2032. So any game that Penn State (is the home team for, I assume), any TV money from that game would go to the Big Ten, even if Penn State is in the ACC…
LikeLike
I still want to see that language.
LikeLike
No “seeing the language” necessary, this is a very elementary legal concept. It’s the assignment of a legal right from one legal entity (PSU) to another legal entity (B1G). The legal entity that is getting the right then owns that right as its personal property.
PSU has as much input with the B1G on its TV rights as you do.
LikeLike
Thanks Peter for your leagal analysis….but show me the language.
LikeLike
Does the contract lock the schools into the conference or require the schools to give up the rights as long as they are part of the conference? It may help to actually see the EZCUSE, er, I mean language.
LikeLike
Don’t have the language, but Delaney said back in 2007 that “…the Big Ten had extended the grant of rights in 2007 for either 20 or 25 years…” (out to 2027 or 2032, as zeek stated above).
LikeLike
Thanks Boomershine.
LikeLike
Peter… thanks. I am a lawyer and can draw my own conclusions regarding the actual agreement itself after reading it. Just because a PR release and a newspaper regurgitation of same placate you, that does not end the analysis.
Let’s try just one simple escape approach. Does the language require Penn State to obtain media rights? Suppose Penn State hosts Wake Forest. Logic says that this is a Penn State home game that gives it TV rights. But what if Penn State says… “you can have them.” Now Wake Forest has the TV rights and can do what it pleases with them. Nothing gets assigned to the B1G. The B1G cannot get what PSU never had in the first place.
Conversely, perhaps the agreement mandates that Penn State assign its rights and guarantees that this will include a minimum of 6 games per year. OK, good for the B1G. Well… what if Penn State just does not do so? What does the agreement state regarding a penalty? Maybe it is nothing, which would default to damages. But what are the damages for B1G not having TV rights to Penn State v Wake Forest? And so on.
But let’s suppose it is all ironclad and the B1G has the rights to all of PSU’s games for 20 years. If a network was willing to pay for PSU to slide to the ACC–without regard for the inability to have a full TV slate for 20 years–the contract wouldn’t matter. ESPN gave a crapload of money for the Rasputin conference last year. Who is to say that someone wouldn’t pay extra just to get a portion of Penn State games. After all… Penn State visiting Miami–where the ACC would have the rights–would be a big TV draw. So what if they lose Virginia Tech @ PSU and other PSU home games.
And the ACC could just agree to let the B1G televise PSU games and reach the Midwest market. Exposure without even having a network. And it could cause ACC markets to pick up the BTN–another win for the B1G. Alternatively, would it embarrass the B1G to televise a non-conference game? If so, maybe getting what they bargained for is not a great deal in the end.
And this is without even seeing the agreement. So, yeah, I would want to see it. KTHANKS.
LikeLike
Now… maybe the agreement assigns PSU’s TV rights to the B1G to negotiate. In that scenario, a Penn State-Wake Forest conference game would be negotiated between the B1G and Wake Forest (or the ACC somehow).
That could cause the B1G to say… we want the rights and will not agree to anything else. Good luck playing the game without it on TV anywhere. And that’s assuming we don’t decide that a track meet is better programming. But it’s 100% our right or PSU doesn’t play. (If they even have THAT power).
Or would it? If there is no agreement, does that mean both schools get the rights to televise? I don’t know. Maybe the end result would be that any PSU game would be televised on the BTN, but it could also be on ESPN. Sucks for ESPN, but better than nothing.
LikeLike
Unless it’s PennState because they’re pissed at the BIG for ignoring them for 20 years about adding an eastern travel partner……….
LikeLike
The Big Ten hasn’t ignored them, they just haven’t found an eastern team. There simply aren’t any schools that border Pennsylvania that would, by themselves, make more money for the conference.
LikeLike
Why do they need a partner? I have never understood the idea of travel partners. Not like they ride the bus together. Not like USC can fly up to Washington for a football game…. stay the week… and then play Washington St.
And if they needed one, why not get one when first being added? And somehow they have survived. After 20 years, pretty clear that Penn State can hold its own without one.
Suppose they add Rutgers. Now Rutgers is the Easternmost team. Do they need a team in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean for a partner? No, they can look west to Penn St.
Well, Penn State should just look west to Ohio St. And they should be more concerned that Ohio State has been so much better on the field.
LikeLike
I really don’t understand this.
Penn State was an independent for decades. Now they need a travel partner because some of their alumni live on the East Coast?
For the ACC, it made sense to connect the region to Boston College and make the Northeast de facto ACC territory. Going after the top basketball schools with good football tradition made sense in terms of synergy with the UNC/Duke and that region is much more basketball intense anyways when you get games in front of MSG (way more than they care about college football anyways).
Big Ten has asked ND like 3-4 times to join; they didn’t want to. It’s not for a lack of effort that Penn State doesn’t have another Eastern school…
LikeLike
Is ND even East enough? I think it is west of me, which is west of Lansing, which is west of Ann Arbor, which is west of Columbus, which is west of PSU…
LikeLike
Travel partners are not for football. They are for non-rev sports and basketball. Ohio State’s volleyball team could travel to Penn St and their “travel partner” and have an easy Thursday-Saturday road trip and go home. Not having a easily driveable travel partner complicates non-rev scheduling.
LikeLike
Fine. Wait, what does PSU care about the travel plans of teams coming to them?
Are they hoping that the Iowa tennis team would play Rutgers on Thursday and be home sick by Saturday?
LikeLike
“Travel partner” probably should be renamed “destination partner”, enableing a traveling team 2 games/matches/whatever for esentially extending a trip by a day or two.
LikeLike
I think mushroomgod’s use of the term travel partner are being misunderstood.
Most of the Penn State arguments about this are that they want an Eastern team in the conference so they can send 10k alumni based in the Eastern state of that team to the game and for recruiting.
Of course, the fact that they could just do this out of conference seems entirely lost on that group of posters advocating for Penn State -> ACC.
LikeLike
Ok, speaking as a PSU fan the idea of “travel partner” or school where they can “send some alumni” is completely off base. It has only to do with recruiting…
PSU has traditionally pulled its football recruits from Northern VA, MD, New Jersey, Eastern Pa, Central NY, Western PA, Eastern Ohio. A quick look over those regions shows only two areas listed are covered by the Big Ten conference schedule and even then only by one game a year (and its a heavily recruited area anyway). Where as tOSU can guarantee its games can be seen in areas where it recruits most heavily (Ohio, Western PA, and Mich) PSU can guarantee its games won’t be (at least on the highest ranked channels).
No other school in the Big Ten has this problem of recruiting and PSU as the sole mid-Atlantic team has long pushed for another team on “this side of the conference” to help increase the conference’s presence in the mid-Atlantic.
LikeLike
PSUGuy:
Eh, no other B10 school has as many fertile recruiting grounds so close by either, so forgive me if I’m not too sympathetic. NJ and greater DC are probably the most fertile recruiting grounds in the entire north, and PSU also has western PA (not to mention what should be a stranglehold on eastern PA).
No other B10 school can compare. NE Ohio is as good as eastern PA, and there’s also Detroit (which is why tOSU has done so well) Otherwise, there’s only Chicagoland (fought over by all the B10 schools east of PA), which doesn’t compare to NE Ohio, much less NJ or greater DC.
PSU’s recent recruiting woes have more to do with JoePa being ancient and not being able to relate with the young’uns (or draw up offensive gameplans that entice skill players; or have the energy for recruiting) than with PSU not making more trips out east.
The only other potential football power in PSU’s area is VTech, but Frank Beamer is 20 years younger than JoePa. At his age, JoePa was still rattling up double-digit win seasons and 3 years away from another undefeated season.
Once PSU replaces The Ancient One with a decent coach, I can’t see PSU losing recruiting battles in the mid-Atlantic.
LikeLike
Besides Ohio the region that the Buckeyes focus on the heaviest is Florida, not PA (and certainly not that state up north). That doesn’t mean we should add UCF to the conference.
LikeLike
@Richard
If this were 2000 you’d be right, but in the current days you’re pretty wrong on your assessment of our recruiting woes.
Since PSU got Bradley and Johnson we’ve been able to recruit the Western PA mildly well (simply too many schools fighting over the same territory to “own” that area) and Northern VA very well. The problem is with Rutgers, UConn, MD, Temple etc. placing more emphasis on football these teams have been sucking up more of the local recruits in the area. You don’t need those schools to be “great”, just good enough to make a kid want to stick close to home (Rutger is a perfect example).
What’s more, just becuase recruiting grounds are close, doesn’t mean they are viable. Say what you will, but the rest of the conference plays 10+ games where it (largely) recruits while PSU plays at most 2. Part of what made PSU so dominant prior to the Big Ten was it went anywhere in the mid-Atlantic and regularly beat the home team. If a kid wanted to play for the best they were given ample proof PSU was the that “best” to play for. Nowadays, you see Rutgers/UConn/Pitt/Syracuse/Temple/Maryland regularly beat each other which means local recruits are likely to stay local since all the teams have a relatively equal chance to making it to a bowl game and they get to play in front of “ma and pa” every weekend. Those same kids playing at PSU might spend a large portion of the season not even on tv in their home market.
Listen, I’m not saying “woe is PSU” and don’t think anything should really NEEDS to be done, but there are real issues with the geographical footprint of the Big Ten and PSU’s strengths and weaknesses because of it. They knew what they were getting into, but in the end I don’t think people should be all that surprised on why PSU has traditionally pushed for another Mid-Atlantic school to be added to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
PSU:
Hey, I’d like one of Rutgers/UMD in the B10 as part of my Big16 dream scenario as well (lucky you, I have PSU in a pod with tOSU, Rutgers, and Miami), but both DC and Newark are a 4 hour drive from State College. Surely ma and pa can drive 4 hours . . .
LikeLike
Going forward I will treat all rumors as rumors unless someone can offer up one of the following.
a) Delany, Scott, or Slive in the city of the rumored school
b) Person of “substantial” credibility in the city of the rumored school
c) Media boss that can affect outcome
TAMU was serious from day 1 because Broyles and Stallings had history with TAMU. Uconn to the ACC seems possible because of ESPN’s history with both. Delany showing up in South Bend would tell me the Irish are serious. I know all this should be simple, but the more I watch realignment, the more you can tell who is pushing whom. Aside from TAMU, I just see a bunch of B12 schools begging to get away from UT, but not being man enough to stand with each other and be masters of their own domain. I still think UT is laughing all the way to the bank and will be the winner of all of this.
LikeLike
The good news: The Washington Post has come up with a “choose your own college football realignment” survey:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/choose-your-own-college-football-conference-realignment/2011/09/21/gIQArnYWnK_blog.html
The bad news: Not only are some of the candidates (and omissions) ridiculous or not timely (Boise State to the Pac? Cincinnati. Louisville and West Virginia — all also listed for the ACC — Big Ten candidates and not Maryland?), but you must select 3 for the SEC, 4 for the Pac and Big Ten, and 2 for the ACC in order to register your choice. (Someone at the paper must be a firm believer in the “4 x 16” setup.)
Sad to say, but I think even Lenn Robbins from that “other” Post could have designed a more sensible survey than this.
LikeLike
It’s still funny to see people who just act like the conferences will do the whole “go to 16 in 15 minutes approach” (courtesy of Slive).
I mean I’ve seen so many ridiculous suggestions that the Big Ten will just leap to 16 with whoever doesn’t have a seat.
I’m beginning to think that 5×12-16 is the actual outcome and it’s pretty much under our noses…
LikeLike
I’ve been saying this (5×12-16) for some time. It is more likely that we end up with 80 or more “BCS” schools than it is that 64 schools break away from the NCAA. I wouldn’t be surprised if we continue to have 6 conferences of 10-16 schools throughout the lifetime of everyone who posts here.
Consolidation is about making more money for those schools in the expanding conferences, not taking the opportunity to make money away from others. Atleast not directly. We’ll continue to see conferences like the MWC and C-USA on the fringes if not elevated directly to AQ status. The BE may shoot itself in the foot, again, with service academy additions but unless all of the current fb schools switch to other conferences the BE will continue to reload and limp along. Same with the B12.
Heck, if OU and the others had jumped to the Pac and the B12 merged with the BE I wouldn’t have been surprised to see a conference made up of MWC and C-USA schools quickly formed to eventually become AQ #6. It would make alot of sense for the top schools in those 2 conferences to form a new conference today in an attempt to become AQ #7.
LikeLike
vincent,
I agree, the way it is set up greatly limits actual reality.
LikeLike
“A look at how the Big 12 was formed”, excellent read in the Manhattan, KS Mercury, based on interviews with Jon Wefald, who served two terms as the Chair of the Association of Big Eight universities from 1989-93 and also was K-State’s President during the formation of the BigX11.
http://themercury.com/K-StateSports/article.aspx?articleId=3d2af06db8284de69292e4bd5d8d69a2
LikeLike
Frank,
I have to disagree with you on sharing of tier 3 rights. Equal sharing of tier 1 and 2 make sense. Not tier 3.
Everyone should read this post on barking carnival that does a great job o summing up where we’ve been, amd dispels some of the misinformation about Texas in this.
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2011/09/22/realignmentality/
And the money quote on tier 3 revenue:
”
In the previous school year to these discussions, the other 11 Big 12 schools had made $28.5M from their Tier 3 rights while Texas made less than $340K. What does that mean? IT MEANS THAT WHEN TEXAS WAS MAKING LESS THAN MOST OTHER SCHOOLS NONE OF THEM CARED ABOUT SHARING THIRD TIER MEDIA REVENUE. Did Texas ever complain that Jayhawk TV revenue wasn’t being shared? Did Texas ever ask T. Boone why his school wasn’t voluntarily giving up some of that $6M they were making? No, because Texas has always said and continues to say that third tier media revenue belongs to the school. Texas did not whine about how other schools were making more money and not sharing it, instead Texas went to work developing their own third tier distribution concept. Let’s be honest, folks, the other Big 12 schools don’t care about everyone sharing their third tier media revenue. No, they care about Texas sharing Texas’ third tier media revenue. And to that Texas has quite justifiably said “No thank you.”
LikeLike
Perhaps I’m missing something. I don’t think the Big12 has/had a problem with schools retaining and using tier 3 rights, but the LHN is not a tier 3 platform. When did conference games become tier 3? in any BCS conference?
LikeLike
A conference game isn’t tier 3, but ESPN is specifically buying it from the tier 2 owner (Fox) and getting the go ahead from the school (for fee) before airing it.
LikeLike
Should say “(for a fee)”
LikeLike
When you have backroom deals between ESPN and FOX to let a few slide down.
LikeLike
Trusting those numbers is a big mistake. It’s one of those areas where how individual schools choose to do the accounting makes a big difference because the methods of accounting vary from school to school.
If you use those numbers, you’re concluding Oklahoma State somehow has Tier 3 rights that are 18 times more valuable than Texas. Think that’s accurate?
LikeLike
Summary: Texas isn’t evil, they just lost the PR battle to the media wizards at Texas A&M and Oklahoma.
LikeLike
The money isn’t actually the biggest issue with the LHN, it’s the other stuff that ESPN does that gives UT such a big edge and makes the other schools angry. In the near future the LHN is a 24/7 channel on basic cable that will be spreading the gospel of UT, UT propaganda, UT influence and keep UT’s profile high in the public zeitgeist. No way any school in the Big12 can compete with that. Just as the BTN promotes the BigTen’s “brand”, the LHN will do the same but only for UT. Makes it hard for other schools to compete, A&M hopes to do it by marrying their “brand” with the SEC’s.
If you’re a recruit or college football fan how can you not be influenced by an always on, deeply integrated cable channel that by it’s very nature can’t say anything bad about UT (there are contract clauses to this effect)? UT already has the most money, the most influence and the most media coverage in College Football – they’re about to get a whole lot more.
This is exactly why the Longhorns refuse to give it up, share it or let it be folded into a conference network.
LikeLike
And now for something completely different. (stolen from the ESPN B10 blog)
http://www.ncsasports.org/about-ncsa/power-rankings/%28year%29/2011/%28tab%29/1
NCSA Collegiate Power Rankings
2011 NCSA Collegiate Power Rankings
The Collegiate Power Rankings from NCSA are calculated for each college/university at the NCAA Division I, II and III levels by averaging the Learfield Sports Directors’ Cup ranking, the NCAA student-athlete graduation rate of each college/university and the U.S. News & World Report ranking. The collegiate power rankings based off of the Learfield Sports Directors’ Cup rating evaluates the strength of NCAA athletic departments, while the U.S. News & World Report rating recognizes institutions of academic excellence. The student-athlete graduation rates are based on those provided by the NCAA.
—
The top 20 is stacked with Ivies and near Ivies. Duke #1, Stanford #2, ND #3.
10 of 12 B10 teams make it with Nebraska and Indiana missing out. Iowa at #41.
Too lazy to count up the other conferences. Pitt #74, Syracuse #38! Clemson 56. WVU, Rutgers, Missouri, Oklahoma unranked.
LikeLike
In the Pac-12 only the 4 Cali schools and UDub make the cut. Not a huge surprise. Long live the AAWU!
LikeLike
SEC had 6 schools in the listing. aTm was not one of them. What does this say about the SEC reputation for academics? More on the list than PAC12.
LikeLike
UCSD #1 in Div II. Woot!
LikeLike
The Big Cigar’s (connected dude at Texas) latest realignment take from Barking Carnival:
“I continue to laugh at all the surprised chatter with respect to OU and realignment. I told you to watch for Boren taking the lead on this issue, and the instability it would cause. Of course the Okies called bullshit, so now it’s good to get a laugh at their expense. Boren is under tremendous pressure to not appear to be Texas’ little brother and this pressure caused him to run his mouth which ended up making the whole school look foolish. I’m told the California schools had a mild revolt at the thought of taking OU and OSU to begin with. Boren should have continued to let Joe C do the talking and back-channel partnering with Texas. The partnership was going to lead to some really cool things for both schools but Boren has probably spent all of that goodwill.
Now not only do the Okies have no place to go, but their relationship with Texas is strained when it didn’t have to be.
As for Texas, they’re partnered with Notre Dame long term now, when OU should have been part of the equation. Short term, the Longhorn strategy is to hold the Big 12 together until LHN gets established and then go superconference. If another Big 12 school goes loony and blows the thing up, then B1G is a likely option with indie in football close behind as the other sports join the ACC. I’ve been told the groundwork for both scenarios has already been done. We have a lot of options and are as confident as ever. We just need one major carrier to grab the LHN and we can write our own ticket if we couldn’t already.”
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2011/09/22/mondays-in-the-humidor-2/
LikeLike
Indie in football is an option only if the ACC is willing to become the BE to Texas. Considering that they rejected the Longhorns already, well, something would have to change.
LikeLike
You didn’t see Swofford say that, did you?
LikeLike
Sounds a lot like sour grapes. Like it or not, OU successfully took UT down a peg or two with their little gambit.
LikeLike
Um, how, exactly?
LikeLike
Not buying it. If by “took UT down a peg or two” you mean they tripped over UT’s leg and fell face first into a pie, you’d be right.
OU got completely outfoxed by UT, although they seem to have outfoxed themselves.
They tried a powerplay on UT, and it backfired completely on them. What have they really achieved? The removal of Dan Beebe? He’s just a symptom. What leverage do they actually have with respect to their demands of UT? Why can’t Texas just take a hike knowing that OU has baggage that the Pac-12 didn’t want…?
OU misplayed their hand and was left to stumble all over Deaton’s press conference to assuage their ego that they accomplished something by sacking Beebe.
LikeLike
actually, they did accomplish one thing.
after the flurry of almosts last year, nobody knew for sure whether just the oklahoma schools could get an invitation from the pac. not even them. now we all know, and i’ll bet dodds/powers are pleased to have that information.
LikeLike
Hah, that’s a good point. I mean talk about a loss of leverage here.
At least before, they had the unknown of a Pac-14 possibility to scare UT with…, now what? Is Texas going to be afraid of OU bolting to the SEC? Does the SEC even want OSU?
LikeLike
that’s exactly right. they blew their wad over nothing.
LikeLike
er *UT tell OU to take a hike* is what I meant…
LikeLike
another thing.
i don’t think ou was outfoxed by the longhorns. i think texas has put a lot of effort into building a good working relationship with the sooners over the past couple of years. we’ve been hearing some promising things about that for a year or more, so, as has been reported, the longhorns are none too happy with this turn of events.
several years ago, the univ of houston pulled a slick one on deloss. a game that had been penciled in for reliant stadium was switched almost at the last moment to their little on-campus stadium, and lots of longhorn ticket-holders were out of luck. that on top of some crappy, in-your-face behavior whereby uhouston made it plain they were not impressed with texas. uh has never stepped onto a playing surface with the longhorns since then and may never again in our lifetimes. i have to wonder if uhouston would like to turn back the clock on that.
this latest dancing hippo act by the sooners may prove to be equally damning if we ever find out what deloss and crew had in mind to do with the sooners as business partners.
LikeLike
What increased the problem was that some temporary seating they put up for the game was condemned the week of the game. Some UT fans had been questioning it and got the city to inspect it and they determined it was unsafe. So about 4,000 tickets couldn’t be honored.
LikeLike
that’s right. but that’s not the fundamental issue. the agreement was to have the game at reliant, and the uhouston folks knew that mattered to texas. the move thoroughly flew in the face of the agreement, and the dangerous bleachers would have been horrible seats even if they had been usuable. the whole experience was distasteful and texas officials were disgusted.
expect texas to play uhouston about when we next play a&m. we’re likelier to do a home-and-home with the nebs than either of those schools.
LikeLike
That’s pretty darn close to what PBC has been saying.
Texas and ND working together? Check. B1G a likely destination for Texas? Check. Integrate LHN within BTN framework? Check. Groundwork already completed on this? Check.
And for the first time, we’re hearing it from the Texas side as well as the B1G.
LikeLike
That’s the way I’m reading it, Mike. The ironic thing is that the crazier it is, the more likely it is to be true when someone from both sides references it.
LikeLike
Interesting read, but I think Big Cigar is better described as “connected” rather than connected. NO one at BC really knows any more than the rest of us.
LikeLike
that guy seems to get really good information, but sometimes, by the time it gets to us, it’s no longer true. no knock on anyone. it’s just how fast things can change. but his insight has shown time and again to have some hard validity.
i wouldn’t bet against him.
LikeLike
Wasn’t he the one saying earlier that the Pac-12 would never happen as long as they had the shared networks model (Texas/TTech)? If so, he was 100% correct on that information.
LikeLike
i believe that’s right. there are a couple of inside sources, and i mix up which said what.
LikeLike
we’ve been hearing for a good while, now, about the tight relationship with notre dame, but i don’t recall that the big ten has specifically been mentioned before recent word. perhaps i forget. i read so much so many places. anyway, it has dovetailed beautifully with pbc’s insights.
as i mentioned, we’ve also been privy to a good deal of talk regarding texas and oklahoma working together. many — including me — thought the sooner gambit was something they and deloss cooked up. i was very unhappy that subsequent snippets from the sources indicated that was not so and that the promise of a great future working with them had evaporated like so much ether.
LikeLike
like the ags, they are difficult people, by and large. just in different ways.
LikeLike
this from a question and answer session at recruitocosm, a barking carnival member site. jesus shuttlesworth is the guy who has big cigar connections:
Can you further comment on the long term relationship between TX/OU? Hopefully, they can now mend fences as the long term stability is vital to one of the great rivalry’s in college today
Sure, when Joe Castiglione was working with Deloss behind the scenes in preparation for the impending demise of the Big 12, OU was in on talks involving a loosely affiliated group of schools that would make up the first superconference. OU, BYU, Texas, and Notre Dame were the core that would attract other like minded schools to the party. Schools that wanted their own network and their own pie all to themselves. Hell, Texas speaking with ESPN and OU officials about a Sooner network, was the rumor floating around out there.
In August, the Big Cigar told us that Joe C was probably going to get kicked to the curb because of perception from OU’s big money guys after the LHN launch was announced. To those guys, it looked like Texas was pulling a fast one on OU and Joe C was just UT’s pawn in the game. Enter David Boren and his peacock chest and the rest is history. It pissed off Texas because it made us do serious contingency planning with the ACC and to an extent the B1G when we were simply trying to get the LHN launched before moving anywhere. That was the plan all along and OU was aware of this every step of the way. They screwed us over and now they’ve been moved to the back of the line. At least they’re in front of A&M, who we will never play again by the way–at least if Deloss is still around and it’s not televised on the LHN.
http://recruitocosm.fantake.com/2011/09/23/qa-is-here-for-reals/
LikeLike
It’s interesting that all along Longhorn fans have talked up the “Texas is just doing what is best for the school” & “In the same position any other school would do the same”.
Now suddenly when Oklahoma is trying to do what’s actually best for the itself as a University the story suddenly becomes “Oklahoma is screwing Texas”.
LikeLike
texas didn’t scuttle the efforts of several programs. texas, notre dame, and probably byu had put considerable thought and effort into developing an approach that would include the sooners and would establish some sort of network arrangement for them that would have been a good deal for all the schools.
it would have required key people in that program to keep the paranoid among them happy and quiet, and that didn’t happen. i gather the whole operation has now been abandoned, and all the other schools are having to make other arrangements. i’m sure notre dame, byu, and whoever else may have been involved are no happier with the sooners than are the longhorns and feel that trying to involve and elevate the sooners was a royal waste of time and effort.
lessons learned.
LikeLike
OK, here’s the problem I see with that dreamt up, now stillborn “superconference”:
No one in the B10 wants to (or can, having given up TV rights to the conference) join. USC may have been interested, but they also are now locked in to the Pac. I don’t see such a concoction attracting any SEC schools. Who else is there? There’s the ACC, but the top football schools there actually have trouble monetizing their appeal locally. Miami certainly can’t. An FSU network would likely make less money for the ‘Noles than as a member of the ACC as well (look at their athletic department revenue; it’d be in the lower half of the B10). I believe that’s true for VTech as well (and in any case, they’re not leaving the ACC, as we’ve seen from the SEC courtship). The heart of the ACC (UNC & Duke) won’t abandon the ACC either.
So who exactly did DeLoss and company think would join their “superconference” that would be so super that it’d still have fewer brand names than either the SEC or B10?
LikeLike
richard, i don’t think it was ever envisioned as a conference of ‘kings’. the plan was to attract a group of relatively like-minded organizations. the foundation group would likely be the programs i mentioned.
LikeLike
i might add that i was highly skeptical of the sooners fitting in with that group, but over a period of time the word was that they were enthusiastic supporters, and i assumed some corners had been turned by that group. my suspicion was that the impetus there was boren. i could easily see, given his background, that he might be a visionary with the clout with that crowd to convince them to see things in a different light.
i was never so surprised to discover — just now — that it was castiglione who was the visionary, and that boren is apparently a real cluck.
this is very disappointing to me. i have never had much hope for the aggies, but i could really see the sooners as possibilities to help forge something better.
wie schade.
LikeLike
OK, but then, if you’re a non-king, why would you even consider leaving a conference where revenues are shared equally for a conference where you’d have to be able to generate money from your own TV channel? Basically, you’d only be able to get schools that are mediocre yet still manage to have a large following. Other than BYU (and again, putting the B10, Pac, and SEC off-limits), who comes to mind? What other schools could generate more money on their own TV channel than by taking an equal conference distribution? _Maybe_ Clemson (and I doubt they’d leave the ACC unless that conference is heavily raided by the SEC). Other than those Tigers, who else? I suppose the military academies. Hawaii. I’m having trouble thinking up of even non-AQs who can generate more money from their own TV channel than from taking an equal conference distribution.
So your “superconference” would look like this:
ND
Texas
OU
BYU
Army
Navy
AFA
Hawaii
Well, at least you’d have the requisite 8 to get a BCS slot. Travel costs would be a b*tch, though. Now only would Bill Powers have to fly his softball team in to the snowy Midwest, but also the snowy Northeast, snowy Colorado, and the middle of the Pacific.
LikeLike
I forgot: Potentially Boise St.
BSU brings a tiny home market, but their current drawing power is such (and the MWC TV payout is so little) that the rest of the schools in the “superconference” could potentially pay Boise enough money for its home game TV rights for the Broncs to defect from the MWC. A national channel would likely pay at least $4M for a BSU vs. ND/Texas/OU game (assuming Boise remains good). If even $2M of that for each game (total of $6M) goes to Boise, it’d more than doubt their MWC TV payout.
Of course, Boise would have to remain good for that scheme to work.
LikeLike
Thinking about it more, though, I highly doubt ND would want to have more than 7 conference games, and Hawaii gets the nod over Boise because that gives the Domers an extra game every other year to fit in their myriad rivalries, so sorry Boise.
Assuming they’d still play USC, Stanford, and Purdue every year & Michigan and MSU 2/3rds of the time (which I think will happen once the B10 goes to 9 conference games, as the 2 MI schools want to keep at least 7 home games and still play some AQ school other than ND some of the time), that leaves 7 games over 6 years for everyone else (BC maybe half the time; maybe Pitt/GTech/Miami intermittently). They’d get good coverage of the country every year though: 1 game on the west coast, 1 in the mountain west, 1 in Texoma, 1+ in the Midwest, 1+ on the East Coast, half the time in Hawaii, and every so often in the southeast.
LikeLike
i should also say that by saying ‘just now’ i didn’t mean this week. i meant in the past month or so. the word that the wheels were coming off the sooner schooner came from the ol’ stogie in august, and a month or so would qualify as ‘just now’ because we’d been hearing about this for quite some time.
LikeLike
Like others on this site, I really enjoy the conference reallignment talk and also have no clue where all of this is going (which I suspect is consistent feeling with many of the key player in all of this). From my own biased point of view (Illini grad), I do continue to see Notre Dame and Texas as a reasonable possibility to the Big 10.
– I feel that the Longhorn network is more about branding than it is about money. I do not think that the Tier 3 rights are going to be a deal breaking issue for the Big 10 (which I understand historically has NOT shared this revenue) and the LHN could be integreated fairly seamlessly into the Big 10 as a regional BTN2 (allowing other schools the opportunity to do the same or have regional networks).
– If this is about branding, remember what the Cowboys did with the NFL by insisting that they have to be included within the East division in order to be America’s team. By going along with Notre Dame into the Big 10, Texas would be rebranding itself from state/region centric to a (nearly) nation-wide following (such as NYC market).
– There are other academic and revenue benefits for both if they would be interested in joining, which has been discussed ad nauseum.
I would say that there is at least a reasonable chance at all of the above happening, but who knows. In this scenario, I see Rutgers coming along to lock up NYC market (and to provide a team to beat) and the 16th spot to be held open for a last school to once and for all join what would be the premiere academic and athletic conference in the nation. Under this scenario, I see Maryland as the most realistic – but quite honestly, most schools would have to at least consider that 16th slot.
LikeLike
Miami for 15/16 along with Rutgers. B10 would be in 4 regions of the country (Midwest, northeast, southeast and southwest).
LikeLike
I do not think that the Tier 3 rights are going to be a deal breaking issue for the Big 10 (which I understand historically has NOT shared this revenue
I believe that the Big 10 gained control of member schools Tier 3 rights back in ’80’s and have been sharing them for at least 20 years (though I could be wrong on this)
LikeLike
You are likely correct regarding Tier 3 rights. I made the above post based on various things that I have read – many of which are contradictory.
Regardless, I do not share the viewpoint that some do in respect to the LHN being a non-starter for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I doubt the “lower” schools would sign off anything that would set a precedent for uneven revenue distributions. At the same time, I suspect the top schools would resist an arrangement where they continue to prop up the other schools (at the cost of millions of dollars a year to themselves) and Texas does not.
Best deal I could see the Big Ten offering is letting UT keep all LHN revenue in exchange for a reduced conference payout until the expiration of the Big Ten’s TV deals in 2016. Beyond that, Texas would have to be “all in”.
LikeLike
frug:
If, say, a BTN2 with content from the original members goes out nationwide (except Texas) and the LHN is confined to Texas with money from the BTN2 only being split by the original members and money from the LHN kept only by Texas, it may be suitable to both sides, as the money coming from the BTN2 could very well be more than the money generated by the LHN (which, you have to keep in mind, is really only $5M a year, as the $15M includes all media rights, which are worth $10M by themselves).
Plus, the key thing you have to remember about the B10 is that the sum is greater than it’s parts. tOSU can get more money from an equal share of the BTN than it can from a Buckeye Network that is available only in Ohio because the BTN gets value from tOSU/Michigan/etc. fans in Chicagoland that otherwise would be unextracted (as well as OSU fans in Indy, Wisconsin fans in the Twin Cities, etc.) So the kings of the B10 actually aren’t subsidizing the lower-drawing schools (except NU; I fully admit that my alma mater is subsidized).
LikeLike
Point taken, but the “name” schools are losing money they could make by insisting on unequal revenue distribution for the BTN.
While it is true that Ohio St. and Purdue both make more money from the BTN than they would by operating a Buckeye Network and a Boilermaker Network, the difference is far larger for Purdue than OSU. Moreover because conference distributions make up a larger percentage of the operating budgets of the Purdues of the conference than the OSUs, the top dogs could have leveraged unequal payouts even if they insisted the have nots put up the same original investment.
LikeLike
frug:
The top dogs could have insisted, but they actually lack the leverage to force through an unequal revenue split because they’d be outvoted. In that case, what are their alternatives? Leave the B10 (and likely make less money)? Start their own networks (and make less money)?
In the Pac, USC & UCLA actually had far more leverage, with a home market that was several times bigger than any other Pac pair’s market + the only football brand and only basketball brand in the conference, yet they ended up with an equal share as well and gave up more of their TV/media rights.
Long-term, it’s actually in the interest of even the name schools to share and build up the Big Ten brand. None of them have the market power of Texas (which has over twice the population of any B10 state). Plus, note that an equal share of the BTN already brings in more income than all of the LHN (which pays an average of $15M/year but includes media rights, which are worth $10M, so the TV part is worth only $5M annually). tOSU’s 3rd tier rights (equal share of BTN) and media rights brings it more money than Texas’s 3rd tier rights and media rights (the LHN). In the future, equal shares of either the BTN or PTN will likely dwarf what 100% of the LHN brings in. If the Longhorns want to make less money just to have their pride-and-joy, so be it. I don’t think any current B10 school would be so short-sighted.
LikeLike
The difference is that when the when the PAC was instituting its new revenue rules it was 10 vs. 2. When the Big 10 was setting up the BTN was set up it would have been 8 vs. 3 (UM, OSU and PSU). Now the rules between the PAC and Big 10 are probably different, but USC and UCLA were able to maintain unequal revenue sharing 8-2 and the B1G schools might have been able to do the same.
LikeLike
Let’s try this:
When the Big 10 was setting up the BTN it would have been 8 vs. 3 (UM, OSU and PSU).
That said, I agree it is in the interest of the schools for branding purposes to promote an all for one mentality and promote competitive balance.
(That’s the reason they are the only conference that has sharing of gate revenue.)
LikeLike
If this is the case…and big 12 schools( they all out vote UT) are listening..they need to add TCU, Houston, Louisville, SMU and Cincinnati now….wait for Texas to push the button in 2014/15…and protect the Texas market, and have a viable conference without the big bad UT. OU and the rest (maybe…MAYBE..Mizzou goes big ten)…have nowhere to go!
I still think ND is off to the ACC…as stated two weeks ago!
LikeLike
The B1G and Pac-12 schools agree to sign over their top tier media rights to the conference, correct? Does the SEC also have that policy?
LikeLike
Big Ten has had it since 1988 (renewed for 20-25 years in 2007).
Pac-10 got it when Scott arrived, so probably late 2009.
Those are the only conferences with it as of now. ACC, SEC, Big East, Big 12 don’t have it.
Big 12 will presumably have it for 5-6 years whenever Missouri agrees to stay…
LikeLike
It just fascinates me that University Athletic Departments remind me of teenage girls. Oklahoma was like all over USC and Texas was like all whatever and then the SEC kids were all like totally hitting on Missouri but everybody knows she’s a skank.
LikeLike
Do teenage girls play their hand as badly as OU?
LikeLike
Was that a double entendre?
LikeLike
It seems the Big XII been like since at least last summer. =)
http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/6/4/1500646/the-rumormill-the-big-xii-to-pac#storyjump
LikeLike
Another good read from Barking Carnival:
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2011/09/22/realignmentality/
Sums up the last 1 1/2 from the UT perspective. Good read.
LikeLike
I am a bit tired of every Texas or Oklahoma or whatever big 12 or espn blog or what not making up bs reasons why the Cornhuskers left the Big 12. Partial qualifiers? Really. Nebraska joined for one reason and one reason alone: Money. Thats it. Big Ten schools make the most money from tv and more importantly the most money from research, which is way more than any other conference. Look what the Big Ten did for Penn State’s research funds. They exploded. So for every writer that says Nebraska left cause they couldn’t beat Texas, or lost the Sooners rivalry, or partial qualifiers let me give you the facts of the situation: the Big Ten is the only conference, and that includes the great SEC apparently, that could get to 16 teams in 15 minutes right now without taking the little sisters of the poor. And why is that? Money, with tv revenues being simply the cherry on top.
LikeLike
PSU hockey, you just explained why Maryland voted with Florida State in knocking the ACC exit fee from a proposed $34 million to a more manageable $20M. College Park officials are dreaming of having their M Square research park (close to the Green Line Metrorail station, IIRC) amplified with CIC bucks.
LikeLike
PSU hockey, I think you have a better handle on the situation than JoPa.
LikeLike
“Partial qualifiers? Really. Nebraska joined for one reason and one reason alone: Money. Thats it.”
—Amen
LikeLike
PSUHockey, please head over to the Rivals PSU board and explain that to your fellow alumni. They seem to be lost on that concept.
LikeLike
I’d say stability was also a reason. After you factor in exit penalties, added travel costs and the fact they won’t receive a full share of the BTN revenue about 5 years, NU won’t actually start making more money than they would have by staying in the Big XII for at least 6 years or so.
LikeLike
I would go with ‘growth potential’. The B1G offers more of that (academic, all around athletic, financial etc) than any other conference. But ultimately we’re all talking about the same thing.
LikeLike
The 1-9 comments aren’t serious. They’re just digs at the Nebraska fans who say Texas control of the conference drove them out. Osborne and Pearlman asked for that type of stuff by using their exit press conference to lay out their case for reducing exit fees by criticizing Texas instead of using it to point out all the benefits to Nebraska from joining the Big 10. Their press conference was an insult to the Big 10 as well as Texas.
LikeLike
I just read the barkingcarnival article. What is the B10’s poilcy regarding partial and nonqualifiers? Does anyone know?
LikeLike
Back in the 90s only the Big 12 and SEC had restrictions. The Big 10 didn’t have a restriction because they knew nobody would abuse it. The Big 12 and SEC had restrictions because they knew a number of their schools would abuse it. In 1995 Nebraska had 23 on their football team which was more than any other conference in the country.
But I believe the whole thing was rendered moot as the NCAA raised its standards and then later did away with the old definitions. They’re relying on the APR now to make sure schools bring in somewhat academically qualified students. So I think the writer is off-base in claiming that was a motivation for UNL to the B1G.
LikeLike
To add,
The BIG academic requirements are currently higher the NCAA requirements, so I think the writer is being disingenious to suggest that was part of Nebraska’s motivation. Personally, I think the folks at Nebraska saw the writing on the wall a little sooner than did everyone else in the room. Good kings are always aware of shifting attitudes and perceptions in t heir kingdom, which I think is one of Delany’s real strengths. Texas underestimated this shift, and while they will be fine, the gnashing of teeth that is the Big 12 has been the result of the last 18 months or so….
LikeLike
1995 Nebraska had four starters that were PQ’s, and I’ve seen a source that said they had “at least 12 total” in ’95. I’m curious where you got the number 23, bullet.
LikeLike
There was at least one article at the time. That’s 15 years ago so I don’t remember the source and I’m sure I couldn’t find it. It was probably either the Houston Chronicle or on-line ESPN. And, of course, it was 15 years ago (when the Big 12 PQ battle was being fought) so memories aren’t perfect, but the numbers stood out because there was such a gap. 2nd was a Big East school with 8 or 9, either VT or Miami.
LikeLike
According to this article from 1995 Nebraska had 12 partial PQ’s on their 95 team. Link below.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1007647/1/index.htm
LikeLike
The phrase in the article is “at least 12.”
As I said, memories aren’t perfect. I may have remembered wrong. Or it might have been 1994 instead of 1995. It might have been all sports instead of just football. Or I may be right. That article which says at least 12 isn’t inconsistent with there actually being 23.
LikeLike
Interesting that some conferences restricted PQ’s, while now I think there are few restrictions on JUCO’s., the modern version of PQ’s. I guess JUCO’s are somewhat self limiting because you normally only get them for a few years. I suspect that for most schools PQ’s were limited because of academic prestige issues or because of the added administrative overhead needed to get the PQ’s qualified. While most “kings” probably thought PQ’s were not worth the trouble, I’m surprised there were not more K-State type schools (that have used JUCO’s extensively) that didn’t pursue the PQ route with more prospects.
LikeLike
Baylor always had good signing classes in the 90s, but most of their top 4-5 recruits never qualified at all. They still have a few of those. I remember one prospect went JUCO and ended up at Oklahoma State. It was part hoping they would qualify and part Houston Nutt’s strategy of signing them now and hoping they will re-sign after JUCO.
With the JUCOs, they have proven they can stay eligible. Most usually have at least 2 years of college under their belt when they transfer. So they’re less of a risk than the PQs were.
LikeLike
I thought Oklahoma State is JUCO?
LikeLike
PQ’s were a bit more risk, but more reward. One year to prove themselves in the classroom, and you get them for four on the field.
LikeLike
schwarm,
What risk?
LikeLike
Richard – more risk in the sense they are academically deficient when they get to campus, and that needs to be cleared up before they see the field. Also HS players I think are a bit more of a gamble in general; a fair number are just not going to pan out (true of all HS recruits). Usually top 50 JUCOs will contribute on the field.
LikeLike
OK, I wasn’t clear if you were comparing PQ’s to HS or JUCO.
Of course, the caveat is that most top talent generally make the academic grade so relying on JUCO’s likely puts a ceiling on your talent pool (this is assuming that you could get top talent out of HS).
LikeLike
Interesting interview with South Carolina President. Wants 14 and only 14 in SEC but not necessarily right this minute. Major reforms coming in NCAA.
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/sports/college/football&sa=NCF&eid=7009433
LikeLike
Quick question, could the SEC still withdraw there acceptance of A&M if Baylor and co. don’t back down? As I understand it, they approved admission contingent on the granting of legal waivers, but what happens if the SEC changes their minds before the waivers a granted? (Let’s assume they didn’t put any time stipulations in the contract they made with the Aggies)
LikeLike
SEC could withdraw the acceptance at any time until A&M gets free of Baylor. But would they? No. They’ll go to 13.
LikeLike
Thanks.
LikeLike
Or if they’re smart, call Ken and make some deal (home and homes with SECers for several years?) to help extricate themselves from aggygeddon. No waiver no tickee.
LikeLike
it would have to be the lesser SEC children, as having LSU or BAMA roll into town and lay 50 to 100 points on the Baylor faithful may bury their image for quite some time.
LikeLike
One of the things surprising to me in all this is that no conference has tried to duplicate the BTN. It seems to be such an amazing asset to the B1G, and yet several conferences have gone through negotiation cycles and not retained these rights. Why:
1.) B1G is the most national conference?
2.) B1G alumni are more nationally dispersed?
3.) B1G simply has bigger alumni and fan base?
4.) B1G alumni/fans are wealthier (i.e. the pro tennis effect)
5.) BTN is the result of a personality clash between Delany and the ESPN dude.
6.) ESPN realizes their mistake and will not let another conference directly distribute.
7.) B1G is unique as they balance revenue disbursement.
8.) Major B1G metro area (i.e. Chitown) is not aligned as LA to USC/UCLA and bay area to UCB/Stanford.
Your thoughts?
LikeLike
Pac-12 is trying to take it one step further though, with 6 extra regional networks. I’d like the thought of 3 BTN2s with 4 schools each for further rights.
We’ll see how well the Pac-12 does at it, there’s always room for improvement.
LikeLike
Maybe. Will you equate the LA (USC/UCLA) regional network with the Oregon (UO/OrSU) regional network. I think B1G can avoid this dilemma more than most based on its fortunate (?) structure.
LikeLike
Well, they’ll be able to go a step further in showing events that won’t reach the main Pac-12 Network.
I think the BTN will look into the possibility of a further regionalized structure for even more events.
The Big Ten’s advantages in terms of the sheer size of its schools and the dispersion of its graduates have been among its strong points.
The weakness of that though is that it necessarily doesn’t match what you’re saying. The Big Ten makes the most money off the BTN from its footprint. It only gets a tiny amount from subscribers to higher tiers who have the BTN outside of the footprint. Yes, having more alumni outside the region does help availability outside of the footprint, but in terms of payoff, alumni outside the footprint help most with national ratings on ABC/ESPN. I’d probably argue that having more fans outside of the footprint is an advantage for the Tier 1/Tier 2 rights negotiations.
The one advantage that the Big Ten has in terms of time is a nice advantage; being out in front by 5 years is a big advantage in terms of carriage inside/outside the region due to the sheer mass of channel offerings nowadays and how saturated some carriers are in certain markets with specialty sports networks (i.e. NYC).
Of course, the advantage to coming in 2nd is that you can improve on the ideas. I think the Pac-12’s model will be an improvement over time, but there’s no reason why the Big Ten can’t work in some of their improvements. They’ll also own their entire networks, which is something the Big Ten won’t be able to say. But that’s the cost of being a first mover, so it’s not anything worth really worrying about… and besides, that’s only for another 20 years…
LikeLike
I really dislike the idea of a regional network. It segregates sports and teams when I really want to consume everything.
A BTN2 would be preferable, even if it was more expensive.
LikeLike
2 – 5, though 1 soon enough.
The Midwest is unique in the country, in that we’re the only region that actually cares about all sports at all levels. Consider the fact that our universities are prestigious, world-class institutions, we attract a number of alumni that are well dispersed in all of the major cities of the United States, plus there is an undeniable emigration to the sun belt.
There’s a reason why the Detroit Tigers are a great road team. It’s the same reason why the Big Ten stands above all the others. We have demand for sports that only the SEC could ever hope to match (and they won’t come close). The Pac-12 and the ACC just don’t have the same kind of connection with their fans; there’s relatively few people clamoring for the non-“king” schools’ programming.
LikeLike
Well, baseball is the one sport where the Big Ten has really fallen off the map.
As for the rest, the SEC’s football strength outside of its footprint makes it somewhat different. They don’t need a network that would only get basic carriage in the footprint. They need as much as possible on CBS/ESPN in order to max out their monetary gains.
It’s just different.
LikeLike
I have a pending post about national exposure, and how the Big Ten can emulate the SEC’s use of it.
I would be interested to watch more college baseball, even if the talent is terrible (I mean at the collegiate level, not just the Big Ten).
LikeLike
One thing I can’t wait for is the BTHC. Would be cool to get another school or two into hockey. Someone needs to get Mark Cuban on that ASAP.
LikeLike
Well, the beautiful thing about making all of this money is that it can be folded back into athletic departments.
Maybe Illinois and Indiana can promote their club teams?
LikeLike
metatron:
Hockey’s an expensive sport, and with Title IX, any new men’s athletic scholarships need to be offset with women’s athletic scholarships. While some women’s basketball, volleyball, and gymnastics programs manage to be revenue-neutral (and an even smaller number even turn a small profit, you’d likely need someone to donate a big chunk of money to get a DivI hockey program off the ground.
BTW, if any B10 school starts a hockey team besides Illinois, I would think that Iowa would be more likely.
LikeLike
Not to mention you also need an arena for it.
For a school without an already dual-purpose arena, we’re talking like at least $30-40M for a hockey arena/regulation ice rinks/staff/offices as well as $20M+ for scholarship seed money.
Pegula’s gift was around $90M to give Penn State top-of-the-line everything in that respect.
Even if you wanted to do it on the “cheap” using a dual-purpose arena; you’re still going to need a big time benefactor to grease the wheels.
LikeLike
Talent in baseball all comes out of the south as they play baseball 12 months of the year in the south…
B10 teams due to NCAA scholarship limits (not every baseball player gets a full scholarship, far from it); tons of players are left with partial scholarships. Decision to play baseball in the SEC, ACC, Big 12 or Pac 12 versus the B10 is an easy one for those kids only offered a partial scholarship. Cost of in-state versus out-of-state at B10 schools is enormous…
Until the B10 is allowed to offer a lot more full scholarships to its baseball recruits, they’ll continue to be abysmal at baseball. Even then, the southern conferences will hold a huge advantage through tradition & location…
I’d love to become a fan of B10 baseball but its difficult when there is so little hope of them competing nationally.
LikeLike
3 plays a very large role. Alumni are the core of any fanbase and the Big Ten has the largest alumni group of any conference (I don’t think any other conference is even close).
Big Ten alumni might be wealthier, but I think a larger factor is just the population. A lot of “rust belt” jokes are made, but the Big Ten has a substantially larger population base than any other conference.
5 and 6 also played a role, but a relatively minor one.
LikeLike
I still don’t think the Big Ten’s deal is tiered enough. There are six (eight soon?) conference games in any given week (unless a bye); and a number of networks with available programming holes.
As I’ve noted earlier (see links below):
– ABC/ESPN is overloaded.
– FOX has MLB commitments until November (usually 7pm EST, no?).
– CBS shows a SEC game during the day.
– NBC only shows Notre Dame home games.
While none of these are perfect fits, we can work around FOX’s and CBS’s schedule for games (a day/night game respectively) and Notre Dame has a no-night game clause built into their contract (they will make an exception for USC this year).
My point is, the Big Ten needs to maximize their exposure. It’s fine to have regional games from time to time, but the major networks can give us national broadcasts and are virgin territory as far as I’m concerned and we’re the first to get there. Even if we could make more money by dealing with one network, I think we ought to lock up as much air time as we can.
We have four “kings” (six if the rumors are true), plus a stable of up and coming programs. If Texas and Notre Dame did come onboard, we could offer viewers across the nation a week of Ohio State/Michigan, Penn State/Nebraska, Notre Dame/Texas. Think about that for a second. We have alumni and fans around the country, and parts of the nation with little or no college football presence. Exposure creates demand.
The world is ours for the taking.
http://www.the506.com/ncaaf/
http://lsufootball.net/tvschedule.htm
LikeLike
Delany’s going to try to do something about that in 2014-2015 for the 2016-2017 starting contract.
With Fox owning 51% of the BTN and paying $22+M per year for the CCG, they might want to take the first tier rights of the Big Ten. At the very least, there would be a lot of synergy to owning the national rights to the Big Ten games and making it like “BTN on Fox” like how you see “ESPN on ABC”.
Either way, we just have to wait and see what happens to the next contract…
LikeLike
ABC/ESPN has a distinct advantage over the competition, in that they are the largest name in sports and they have three channels available to the average consumer (ABC, ESPN, ESPN2). FOX has their FSN Regionals, NBC has Versus, and CBS has CBSSN, but they have their share of problems.
If I’m Jim Delany, I’d keep as much as I can off of cable.
LikeLike
I should point out that barring a renegotiation/renewal, MLB on FOX will end in 2013.
LikeLike
Fox has FX, which is where they’re starting to put some B12 and Pac12 games.
Virtually everyone has cable now and no matter which network the B10 first tier goes to, at most only 1-2 games a week will show on network channels.
For instance, if the Fox got the B10 rights, they could show an afternoon game (and primetime, before November) on Fox + both noon and afternoon games on FX.
Even if the B10 expands to 14 or 16, they could easily limit to at most 6 conference games a week (besides the final week) given an 8-game conference slate by spreading conference games out (sprinkling byes liberally in the schedule).
LikeLike
So, in the new Pac12 deal, FOX/FX will get 22 games a year, or roughly 2 a week. Let’s say the B12 is still around and also gets a game a week on FX. Fox probably has 2 slots (afternoon and primetime) while FX has 4 (noon, afternoon, primetime, and west coast). That means there would still be 3 of the 6 available slots for the B10, and the Pac is going to have only 10 games shown on Fox/ABC total each year. Say Fox shows 5 of them. Essentially, that means that if Fox lands the B10’s first and second tier rights, the B10 will have about 20 games shown on Fox, with almost all weeks before November featuring 2 B10 games, in both the afternoon and primetime.
Incidently, if ESPN loses the B10, ABC would have awful little to show in both the afternoon and primetime. They’d have solid SEC teams to show on ESPN and ESPN2, but would have to choose the best from the Pac, ACC, and depleted B12 to put in the prime slots.
LikeLike
I’m not interested in just selling first or second tier rights.
This is the realm of fantasy and speculation, so I take liberty to be creative, but I would try to get as much air time on the traditional networks as possible.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big Ten would leave ESPN completely.
More like cut a deal to put first tier on FOX and second tier on ESPN.
You want some presence on the WWL for promotional purposes even though they are ESECPN…
LikeLike
zeek:
The Pac was ready to take everything to Comcast/NBC until ESPN/Fox worked out their hybrid offer.
However, you have a point; another hybrid offer between ESPN & Fox for the B10 first and second tier rights is probably in everyone’s best interest.
LikeLike
Now that’s it’s been a week since any actual conference moves, I figured the comments here could go back to what they do best: unsubstantiated rumor and conjecture.
A Louisville radio station is reporting the Big East will invite Navy, Air Force and ECU, all as football-only invites.
http://www.whas11.com/sports/university-of-louisville-sports/Future-of-Big-East-Conference-still-uncertain-130452258.html
My theory is that the rumor that the basketball schools planned on splitting is true, and they are forcing the football-only nature of the invitations.
LikeLike
Why invite for football-only if the basketball schools are splitting off? Isn’t the whole point of football-only schools to limit the total number of basketball schools for the benefit of the non-football schools.
LikeLike
Why would Air Force join the Big East for football only when it’s already part of an all-sports conference with comparable football a lot closer to Colorado Springs?
And if I’m East Carolina, I insist on all-sports status, especially since I’m in an area with no other Big East teams. Being treated like a Temple vassal doesn’t cut it.
LikeLike
Exactly, especially considering that most of the other members were C-USA just a few years ago; at this point, I dislike the second-hand citizen approach…
LikeLike
Plus if Air Force moved to the Big East football only they would have to move their other sports to a D-IAA conference.
LikeLike
The argument I’m hearing over and over for why ND belongs in the ACC as opposed to the B1G is (to my shame) really starting to irk me. It revolves around the false impression that east coast schools are so OBVIOUSLY more ‘cosmopolitan’ than the B1G because, as everyone knows, the midwest is backward. This coming from the southern fried ACC of all places.
There’s a joke they tell all Freshman at UofM orientation that ‘if you’ve walked more than two blocks without hearing five languages, you’re no longer on campus’. I mention this only because it also happens to be true -and pretty annoying to be honest. Anyway, I apologize for using the world ‘cosmopolitan’ in a football thread. Definitely a banning offense.
LikeLike
Is that coming from ACC fans or ND fans? I was under the impression that ND joining the conference wasn’t on most ACC fans’ radar.
LikeLike
My rant came after reading the Boston College Rivals message board. Wow. I guess when a school has lost as much stature as BC has over the last twenty years a superiority complex is expected.
LikeLike
Your previous post highlighted the problem with the midwest: the people generally are narrow-minded socialists.
LikeLike
Well thank goodness we have your completely unbiased broad brushing stereotypes to show what open minded right thinking look like. 😐
LikeLike
The Midwest is now a hotbed of socialism? You can’t be that stupid.
Madison and Ann Arbor perhaps, but the midwest? Not even close.
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState – Absolutely. The free market solution would be to allow slave labor.
LikeLike
Brian,
where are you?
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N525MB/history/20110924/1300Z/KOSU/KCLL
from the where is Jim Delany today file?
plane is in air now
LikeLike
Battling the SEC for A&M?
LikeLike
VERY interesting….
LikeLike
this plane is owned by a flight service and is based out of columbus. i gather the ohio state airstrip is its home.
is delany based out of columbus? i know the league hq is in the chicago area. why do you guys suspect delany is on board? why not an ohio state representative who might not even be involved with athletics?
LikeLike
it was more of a question of who might be on plane? thats why I asked brian. Buckeye’s are playing @ home today so what Buckeye fan would be flying to College Station? Hoping Brian might know something about the planes Ohio State uses? Like the big booster for Oregon using his plane for Larry Scott in 2010.
LikeLike
makes sense. that would certainly be my question, as well. that also explains why your question is directed to brian. i was just curious whether the assumption would be that delany is in college station, and, if so, why we would be pretty certain that is so.
further, i am curious. where is delany based? chicago area?
LikeLike
I would presume he lives in Chicago. The HQ are in Park Ridge, Illinois. Delany has to travel a lot for his job, but it would be awfully hard on his family to if he lived he didn’t live in driving distance to the place where he works the most frequently.
LikeLike
thanks. that stands to reason, assuming he goes to the hq frequently. i know so little about how conferences function that i have no clue whether a commissioner needs to be at the office much at all.
my suspicion is that plane was carrying an ohio state employee on a visit having nothing to do with athletics other than possibly just to attend the game.
LikeLike
He lives in Hinsdale, but I feel he is on the road a lot. Being in Columbus would not be out of the question, especially if he was using a booster plane to cover movement as Scott did in 2010.
LikeLike
thanks, duffman. he’s not that far from where frank lloyd wright lived, i see.
LikeLike
FYI: plane update
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N525MB/history/20110925/1415Z/KCLL/KOSU
flew back today early this morning!
Ohio State to College Station to Ohio State in 24 hrs when both were at home?
Brian, can we get any more idea of this plane from the Ohio State end?
LikeLike
Duff:
Putting my conspiracy hat on, College Station to Austin is a mere 2 hour drive. A B10 representative (Delany or Gee or both) could have flown down to College Station, confirmed that the Aggies are really going to the SEC, and then drove to the outskirts of Austin to meet with Texas reps. As the Horns have this weekend off, pretty much all the powerbrokers would been available to meet. Why not fly directly to Austin? Probably to throw off suspicions. San Antonio and Waco are just as far from Austin as College Station, but at least flying in to College Station may throw people for a loop.
LikeLike
that’s as reasonable a guess as any, richard. the timing suggests that it was for someone to attend the tamu/ok st game, but, as you say, the longhorns having a bye week opens the possibility that texas reps could have met with whoever was on the plane. it wouldn’t have been much trouble for texas people to hop over to college station. if they wanted to talk with a&m people, it almost surely would have to happen in bryan or college station.
it does seem odd to me for someone in columbus to miss the ohio state game there in columbus. and given that it was a commercially-owned business jet, i tend to think it was something involving fairly high stakes. beyond that it’s anybody’s guess.
LikeLike
A thought re: the LHN and the issues it creates for relationships between Texas and, well, everyone who might want to deal with Texas.
There seems to be two sources of concern:
1) recruiting advantages that might accrue from showing HS football
2) competitive advantages that accrue from the profits of running the network (the NY Yankees effect)
1) can be handled by decree/agreement. Do not allow HS football to be distributed alongside the Texas brand name. Regionalize and brand it as ESPN-whatever, for example.
It is interesting to note the reflexive assumption that (2) is, in fact, an issue. It rests on the assumption (which may well be the Longhorn intention) that profits will flow to the athletic department.
Texas is a world class research and academic school, it ranks a bit above the middle of the B1G (by AWRU ratings). The cuts in state funding etc. have concerned many in Texas with respect to maintaining affordability, access, and academic standing. The LHN is a way to monetize the brand — the question we have glossed over is: To what end should the profits be used?
Texas could warrant whatever profits are derived from the LHN will go to the general university fund and that its athletic budget will grow by no more than inflation from its current (presumably generous) level. They are a public institution — why not open the books to show such a pledge was being kept? Would anybody argue seriously that Texas is not now competitive in recruiting, facilities, etc.?
Universities can have a nice little money-maker with some understanding. [Things I’d like to know: In how many states is the highest-paid state employee the coach of a university team?]
It’s time to recognize that monetizing university brands via athletics need not be also a commitment to ramping up the (cold) war. Texas can be Nixon to China.
(Apologies for that rhetorical flourish. My defense: I watched “Dr. Strangelove” again last night.)
LikeLike
I always roll my eyes at the idea that the LHN will give Texas a recruiting advantage. Texas doesn’t lose recruiting battles now. In the last 5 years, 5 recruits with a Texas offer have gone to A&M (as opposed to 60 who went to Texas with an A&M offer). Texas was 49-5 against Oklahoma and 155-6 against the rest of the Big 12 combined. Against the SEC, Texas was 76-13.
A&M only gets 1 UT recruit a year now. I don’t see why the LHN would do them irreparable damage in that area.
LikeLike
Did Texas win all of those battles during the 80’s & 90’s?
If Texas HS players saw their games on TV associated with the Longhorn brand during that time would it have made a difference in their thinking? If it had existed in the 70’s would seeing the Longhorn brand associated with ‘football’ have had an influence on the next generation of players that would be going to college ten years later?
“Now” is an awfully limiting data set when discussing issues that will be influential over decades.
LikeLike
i agree with m. i don’t think many texas people — and probably none in any official capacity — have viewed the network as a tool to improve recruiting. at least, not directly. it’s all about establishing an identity. i have lived extended periods in many parts of the country and have been startled a few times by people who obviously didn’t realize texas and a&m were different universities.
i think a major goal of the network is to produce quality programming that helps promote a more focused and, of course, more positive impression on people in general. one might argue that that could improve recruiting, particularly in non-revenue sports, but so do facilities upgrades, etc.
i think the doomsday responses by several organizations have been misguided. moreover, my guess is that if the project is a success, that most schools will move toward having their own network calling card in fairly short order.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree with you glenn but it does need to be repeated that building a platform to build the Longhorn identity (which I don’t think any reasonable really has a problem with) & then using said platform as a vehicle for HS football runs a very real risk of conflating the two in the eyes of viewers.
LikeLike
@Scarlet_Lutefisk
I totally agree about conflating the Longhorn Network and HS coverage. Coaches can’t in any way, shape, or form discuss recruits until they have sign a letter of intent. Yet a channel branded as the Longhorn Network can televise recruits that are specifically selected due to being Texas recruits? That doesn’t pass the smell test.
I also don’t think BTN or PACN or any other conference network should be allowed to televise high school athletes. It totally crosses the line.
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/24/neinas-to-make-last-ditch-attempt-to-keep-aggies-in-big-12/
After being asked about expansion candidates, Neinas comments “In the Big 8, the Big 12, there was a connection with the natural resources and agriculture. In the Big Ten, the SEC, the ACC, there was a flow of commerce between the states. Now conferences are reshaping to scheduling opportunities, TV and revenue. Conferences had a culture of their own. Now its amalgamated. Bottom line: I don’t know which direction we’ll go.”
LikeLike
A little different take. Suggests Notre Dame and Texas will eventually join another conference, but on their own terms.
http://www.freep.com/article/20110924/COL08/109240411/Drew-Sharp-Big-money-Texas-has-earned-right-call-its-own-shots
LikeLike
Another guy over at Barking Carnival who seems to take the TX/ND to B1G semi-seriously. In a long article about realignment he said:
Big Ten – They stayed quiet this time around but did see possible future targets in Pittsburgh and Syracuse move to the ACC. There are some unsubstantiated rumors about discussions between the Big Ten, Texas, and Notre Dame, but certainly not enough to rely on at this point. The thing that makes me most likely to believe this rumor is the fact that the Big Ten has been almost too quiet, as has Notre Dame. Meanwhile, Texas has been the quietest of the Big 12 schools involved. When institutions of this magnitude are keeping quiet in the face of this much activity, I get suspicious. Of course, that’s just how some people do business. Or don’t do business. Your guess is as good as mine.
LikeLike
Here is the reality of the matter, and I say this from the perspective of a Penn State fan. I really wanted to see Pitt in the Big 10 (We need a major rival), and I am sure Pitt fans feel even stronger about this (They are losing the “Backyard Brawl” against West Virginia, as well as not having PSU in the Conference). However, deep down, they also know that the probability is the Big 10 was not going to invite them to join (They had 20 years to invite them, and they also know what happened to Missouri, when the Tigers wanted to join), and they (Like the University Administration (Whose opinion really matters)) did not want to take a chance that they would be left without a chair when the College Football music stops.
Being a PSU fan, I know the logic behind the Big 10 Conference has never changed (And never will): They only want schools that will upgrade the entire Conference (Which means academics & research $$$$ as well), which is why they only added three schools (Michigan State, Penn State & Nebraska) since World War II. It goes without saying that Texas & Notre Dame would do just that, and if their academic standing would increase, so would Oklahoma, but Rutgers, Pitt & Missouri would NOT (So I am not getting my rival back (I will have to reserve my dislikes for the three R’s: Red Sox, Ravens & Rangers (I am a Yankee, Steeler & Islander fan). The Big 10 thought process probably is that is better to wait five years (Or more) to possibly get schools of the caliber of Texas, then just simply “Settle” for the likes of Pitt. If it turns out they can’t, they will simply remain right where they are, which means tons of profit for all schools involved
LikeLike
Why I agree with your points, I’d just add that the Big Ten’s not really in a position to be adding at this very moment.
Nebraska could get paid easily because of the added CCG and general growth of the BTN combined.
That’s why Nebraska could be added with no immediate dilution.
However, if we added two additional schools, we’d probably see immediate dilution in the next 2-3 years. It’s much easier to just wait till 2014-2015 when we’re negotiating the next contract and then look around.
Nebraska was a special case because you always lock up a king looking to move even though we were only halfway through the current ABC/ESPN contract; we also go the $22M per year boost from the CCG. So Nebraska’s addition won’t result in any loss to any other school. You can’t really say that about #13 and #14 until we get to the next contract.
From my understanding of it, the addition of Nebraska did not cause a renegotiation of the ABC/ESPN contract…
LikeLike
Which really fits PBC’s little “reports” well…in other words…”We’ll let all of this conference stuff ebb and flow, but when it’s over, Texas and ND will be ready to join the Big Ten.”
LikeLike
If you noticed, I did mention that the Big 10 would be willing to wait 5 (Or more) years to have the right school become available, and if they do not, they are comfortable to remain the way they are. On the other hand, if (And I know this would not happen), Notre Dame called, and said they would want to join the Big 10, they would be voted in Tuesday (If not earlier), despite any short-term dilution of dollars. As far as dilution is concerned, there are certain schools within the Big 10 (See Minnesota as exhibit A), who essentialy suck off the rest of the Conference when it comes to football revenue (Guess why the Golden Gophers had to join the Big 10 Hockey Conference, when Michigan read them the riot act?…… Because they are total pikers whose competitive presence in the Big 10, is on the level of Iowa St in the Big XII, and there is no way that the Gophers were going to take money away from the Wolverines Hockey Program).
LikeLike
David Brown says:
As far as dilution is concerned, there are certain schools within the Big 10 (See Minnesota as exhibit A), who essentialy suck off the rest of the Conference when it comes to football revenue (Guess why the Golden Gophers had to join the Big 10 Hockey Conference, when Michigan read them the riot act?
Source of “Michigan read them the riot act ” please.
LikeLike
Yeah I’m curious what you’re referring to. I follow Michigan sports pretty closely and never saw anything about that.
LikeLike
I’ve seen that “Michigan reads the riot act” thing over Big Ten hockey, but not from any source but rather speculation on fan boards along those lines. I’ve never heard any real source say that happened.
Before the Big Ten Hockey Conference was announced, there were several reports that the Gophers were against it because of their concerns about playing the other Minnesota schools. But it sounds like they just worked out an agreement where the Gophers could regularly play Duluth and the others non-conference rather than the Wolverines (or Badgers) reading them any riot act.
LikeLike
@Zeek: Both the ABC/ESPN and the BTN agreements were renegotiated when Nebraska joined. The BTN agreement resulted in approximately $7M annually, approximately the per team amount. I have not seen the amount of additional money from ABC/ESPN but part of the non-financial renegotiation was that ABC/ESPN lost its exclusive broadcast windows for football and basketball and received additional basketball games for ESPNU.
LikeLike
Pitt has always been the first program I wanted to see admitted as well. Strong academics, a solid history in FB, burgeoning basketball success…. and it would slam the door on any other conference gaining a foothold in PA (pats Temple on it’s cute little head).
All that being said I certainly acknowledge the arguments against…very small athletic department overall, no on campus stadium, middling fanbase & the stake through the heart….already within the existing conference footprint.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that Texas and Notre Dame keep talking about joining the same conference. That can only be ACC or Big Ten. Notre Dame would never EVER join a southwestern conference.
LikeLike
Did anyone just hear that from the ABC/ESPN side line reporter? I backed up on my Tivo:
In reference to new Big 12 commish that they would like TAMU to stay
ABC Reporter: “I spoke with A&M President Bowen Loftin about leaving, he responded no – we (TAMU) decided a year and half ago we were leaving and we are leaving.”
Question for our resident lawyers: Would that mean that any deals or participation in deals were done so in bad faith? Does this change the dynamics at all. Are we promissory estoppel country now for a KU or ISU if they had a deal on the table from another league ie the Big East? That seems like something you should not be saying as a school president.
LikeLike
Is it okay for me to brag on Florida State for having been ranked in the top five at one point in the season?
“FSU is back…” /quiet, sheepish voice
LikeLike
Yeah, the “FSU is back” preseason hype was really unfounded. They may have got a good recruiting class but it will take time to pay off.
Still, it isn’t anywhere near as bad as the annual “ND is back” hype.
LikeLike
Painful, but true.
LikeLike
I’m no FSU fan, but, geez, give the guys a break. They lost by 10 points to a #1 ranked Oklahoma team, looked to me like they got some injuries in that game as well. Then the very next week they run into a hot Clemson team that is now 4-0 and playing some great ball – they lost that away game by only 5 points. FSU may not be MNC material but looking at their schedule they could be 9-2 going into the Florida game and that one ought to be winnable. I think FSU still has an outside shot at a BCS game if they go 10-2. Certainly no worse than Chick-Fil-A bowl.
LikeLike
Frank, I just heard on the television that Illinois is 4-0 for the first time in 60 years. Good for you, man.
LikeLike
Yeah, I heard that last night as well and was stunned. Really?!? 🙂
LikeLike
Wow, has the B1G ever sucked more than they do this year? Half the conference can’t even beat the scrubs they pad their schedules with. North Texas? S. Dakota St? Lucking out against Toledo in Columbus? Way to gut it out against Western Mich. Sorry if I’m not impressed with Wisconsin pounding Cupcake States at home.
Nebraska is going to win the conference in their first year.
LikeLike
Ohio State being way down right now has really hurt the depth of the conference. Iowa having a shaky year doesn’t really help.
Penn State hasn’t been Penn State for a couple of years, and it likely won’t be until Joe retires and a new coach takes over and elevates the program back to top tier status.
Plus, when you compare how the mid-tier teams in the Big 12 have really stepped it up this year, every other conference looks bad by comparison.
LikeLike
As for Indiana and Minnesota…, well they’re Indiana and Minnesota. Minnesota has been owned by the Dakotas these past 5 years; lost 3 of their “cream puff” games. Indiana has consistently been bad…
LikeLike
The reality of the matter is Minnesota basically sucks and is getting worse (If possible). Last year, they even stunk in Hockey (Check out their year in the WCHA). In fact, Minnesota-Duluth Hockey saved the state from having the dubious distinction of being the WORST sports state in America (Twins, Vikings, T-Wolves & of course, Gophers all suck, and the Wild is fair at best. I would not be shocked that within five years of start up, Penn State’s Hockey Program is better than the Gophers, and PSU’s hoop program (A notorious embarassment for decades (See the blacked out seats at Bryce-Jordan)), does the same (Surpasses Minnesota’s)
LikeLike
Uh, what? PA will never have the hockey talent MN has, so what exactly are you basing your predictions of Minny’s continued mediocrity in hockey on? Their recent mediocrity? Were you saying the same thing in 2000 about Gopher hockey?
As for bball, you’re predicting that a program that recently had their alum head coach desert them for _Navy_, was evicted from their practice facility in favor of Bon Jovi rehearsals, and draws roughly half the fans for bball games that Minny does (Minny’s in the top 25 in bball attendance; PSU is about 50 spots below them) will outperform Minny in the future. OK, then.
What’s with your hatred of Minnesota?
LikeLike
Penn State hasn’t been Penn State for a couple of years, and it likely won’t be until Joe retires and a new coach takes over and elevates the program back to top tier status.
While I agree with this, PSU does have a favorable schedule for the first 4 conference games. If they can win against Iowa and Illinois (both home games), with NW as a good road test, they might be a better looking team than people give them credit for now. Their final three-game stretch is brutal, but Ohio State is certainly beatable and while Nebraska is good their defense has enough lapses on occasion that I would not hand the division title to them just yet. I think many of the Big Ten teams are treating the OOC games as “preseason” and using these games to adjust their schemes. This year everything hinges on getting to and winning the B1G CCG. Let’s see how the season plays out before anointing “champions.”
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree. Nebraska looks good but not unbeatable considering how much their defense has given up in terms of yardage. Wisconsin has looked great against one of the weakest non-conference schedules in the conference (although you can’t blame them for Oregon State being especially terrible this year due to how scheduling works).
I don’t think anything should be taken for granted at this point.
LikeLike
Since 2005, Penn State has 2 conference titles, more than any other school except for Ohio State, who cheated. Michigan State, due to Ohio State’s cheating, won last year outright. In 2005, if Jason Avant was properly called out of bounds, Penn State is undefeated and plays in the BCS national championship. Same in 2008, except for a last second Iowa FG. Penn State has a .753 winning percentage in that period. Penn State in the Paterno era is .747. How hasn’t Penn State been Penn State over the past few years?
LikeLike
Penn State losing records 2000-2010 = 4
Penn State losing records 1950-1999 = 1
LikeLike
Losing records 2000-2004 = 4
Losing records 2005-2010 = 0
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
LikeLike
I’ll take the Badgers next week and in the CCG.
LikeLike
How does IU and Minny losing to patsies and tOSU being down tell you anything about Wisconsin? If you’ve noticed, Nebraska has issues on defense. I’m taking the Badgers.
LikeLike
I remember when we hired the Zooker a Florida friend told me we would win one game a year we shouldn’t and lose one we shouldn’t. At Florida losing a game you shouldn’t costs you more and at Illinois winning a game you shouldn’t helps you more.
We have perhaps already won a game we shouldn’t vs. ASU. Look at the box score and try and figure out how the heck we won that one. Then look at the box score from yesterday and try to figure out how that one was close.
Maybe we have already dodged the Zooker zinger this year?
LikeLike
Sounds like an Illini trend. That was John Mackovic as well.
LikeLike
You mean Mackovic at Texas?
At Illinois, he had Lou Tepper as defensive coordinator.
LikeLike
He was that way at Texas and Kansas City. I presumed he was the same way at Illinois.
LikeLike
Did anyone else on this board know that Andrew Luck is West Virginia AD Oliver Luck’s son? Never put the one and one together until tonight…
LikeLike
Yeah, I knew of the connection since mid-last year. I think it was mentioned maybe at the Heisman ceremonies and a couple of other places like when he chose to stay at Stanford.
LikeLike
Second generation kids stay in school
LikeLike
Yes he is. It has been mentioned on many WVU and Stanford broadcasts.
LikeLike
WEEK 4 summary – Top 25 and conference alignment – teams with loss in bold
SEC 5/25 = 20% : Alabama, LSU, South Carolina, Arkansas, Florida
7 wins vs 4 losses = 64% : losses to SEC schools = 4 : OOC losses = 0
B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, TAMU, Texas, Baylor
5 wins vs 2 losses = 71% : losses to B12 schools = 2 : OOC losses = 0
ACC 5/25 = 20% : Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, UNC
5 wins vs 6 losses = 45% : losses to ACC schools = 2 : OOC losses = 4
B1G 4/25 = 16% : Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Michigan State
8 wins vs 2 losses = 80% : losses to B1G schools = 0 : OOC losses = 2
PAC 2/25 = 8% : Stanford, Oregon
4 wins vs 5 losses = 44% : losses to PAC schools = 4 : OOC losses = 1
MWC 2/25 = 8% : Boise State, TCU
4 wins vs 4 losses = 50% : losses to MWC schools = 0 : OOC losses = 4
BE 2/25 = 8% : West Virginia, USF
5 wins vs 2 losses = 71% : losses to BE schools = 0 : OOC losses = 2
.
.
.
.
22 undefeated teams left, 17 max by end of week:
B12 32% = Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Baylor, ISU, KSU, TT
Baylor vs Kansas State / Texas vs Iowa State
SEC 18% = LSU, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina
Alabama vs Florida
B1G 18% = Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois
Nebraska vs Wisconsin
ACC 14% = Virginia Tech, Clemson, Georgia Tech
Virginia Tech vs Clemson
PAC 4.5% = Stanford
MWC 4.5% = Boise State
BE 4.5% = USF
CUSA 4.5% = Houston
LikeLike
Just for fun, my transitive rankings (where if A beats B and B beats C, A gets a win over C too).
1 LSU 31-0 (4-0)
2 Illinois 28-0 (4-0)
3 Alabama 26-0 (4-0)
4 Georgia Tech 24-0 (4-0)
5 Oklahoma State 23-0 (4-0)
6 South Florida 22-0 (4-0)
7 West Virginia 21-1 (3-1)
7 Michigan 20-0 (4-0)
9 Penn State 19-1 (3-1)
10 Clemson 16-0 (4-0)
10 Kansas State 16-0 (3-0)
10 Florida 16-0 (4-0)
10 Virginia Tech 16-0 (4-0)
14 Arizona State 16-1 (3-1)
15 Temple 16-2 (3-1)
15 Nebraska 14-0 (4-0)
17 Texas 13-0 (3-0)
18 Southern California 14-2 (3-1)
18 Iowa State 12-0 (3-0)
20 Ball State 12-1 (3-1)
20 Wisconsin 11-0 (4-0)
22 Kansas 11-1 (2-1)
22 Auburn 11-1 (3-1)
22 Notre Dame 12-2 (2-2)
22 San Diego State 11-1 (3-1)
22 Maryland 15-5 (1-2)
Oklahoma has 3 wins, but their opponents have only 1 FBS win a piece (and only one of those opponents has an FBS win). Boise State has only beaten 2 opponents with FBS wins. Similarly, South Carolina, Stanford, Texas Tech, and Baylor are undefeated, but they’ve beaten a very weak group of teams (or at least teams without impressive wins so far).
Big Ten
2 Illinois 28-0 (4-0)
7 Michigan 20-0 (4-0)
9 Penn State 19-1 (3-1)
15 Nebraska 14-0 (4-0)
20 Wisconsin 11-0 (4-0)
27 Iowa 10-1 (3-1)
42 Michigan State 9-3 (3-1)
47 Ohio State 13-8 (3-1)
65 Northwestern 8-9 (2-1)
74 Purdue 1-3 (2-1)
108 Indiana 0-18 (1-3)
110 Minnesota 1-22 (1-3)
Bottom 10 BCS:
85 Pittsburgh 1-5 (2-2)
85 Arizona 0-4 (1-3)
93 North Carolina State 0-8 (2-2)
93 Virginia 1-9 (2-2)
98 Mississippi 0-10 (1-3)
105 Duke 3-16 (2-2)
108 Indiana 0-18 (1-3)
110 Minnesota 1-22 (1-3)
115 Colorado 4-36 (1-3)
116 Boston College 0-34 (1-3)
120 Oregon State 0-42 (0-3)
LikeLike
Man, basketball season needs to get here soon! 108 out of 120 is depressing!
LikeLike
Temple appears to be back on the BE’s list. I’m not sure if the BE is a step up if it’s a fb only invite. I guess if the money is better you go for it but who knows what the conference will look like in a couple of weeks let alone a year or two. Maybe the ACC should consider doubling up on PA if ND isn’t interested. 🙂
Temple Football Goes on Offense to Lure Philadelphians – Mark Viera, NYTimes.com
…”Temple could be an option to help stabilize the Big East after the recent announcement that Syracuse and Pittsburgh would be leaving for the Atlantic Coast Conference. The university and the Big East have been in communication in recent weeks, according to a person involved in the discussion.
…Once primarily a commuter university, Temple now has about 12,000 of its 37,000 students living on or near its North Philadelphia campus, which has engendered spirit for its sports teams. The university is also undergoing a $1.2 billion construction and renovation program over the next decade. The team shares Lincoln Financial Field with the Philadelphia Eagles, whose coach, Andy Reid, has a son on Temple’s roster. Addazio also noted that the region is the country’s fourth-largest media market and a home to rabid sports fans.”
LikeLike
Perhaps a possible offer from the ACC would coerce the Big East into giving Temple an all-sports invite. If it’s football-only, I would tell the Big East, been there, done that, not again.
I agree, however, that Temple could well be a stealth ACC candidate. It’s underperformed over the years even compared to the likes of Rutgers (their relatively youthful big-time histories are somewhat parallel). The main difference is that while Rutgers was late to the Big East all-sports party, Temple had to stand at the door and take meager football hors d’oeveres, since Villanova wouldn’t let the Owls completely inside. Put a BCS program in Philadelphia, especially one armed with the allure of ACC or Big East basketball (Temple has a superb hoops tradition and regularly plays ACC members), and Temple has more potential than one may think.
LikeLike
That would be a wise addition.
LikeLike
The problem is that the BE fb schools appear to have totally surrendered to the bb schools. I read somewhere that the conference wants only top flight bb schools. That’s all well and good for a strong all sports conference but for this conference it is saying that the bb schools now completely rule the roost.
LikeLike
Forgot to add that according to what I read the BE will not offer Temple an all sports invite. The bb schools and will back Nova on that.
LikeLike
Well, look at the roster of football schools that are left: Other than WVU, is there any school that is a draw of any sort?
LikeLike
Whoops. Forgot TCU. The point is, the bball schools now have the power because there are almost no remaining schools that they can’t live without (they’d like UConn, though they may lose the Huskies to the ACC anyway, and Louisville is worth something; then who?)
LikeLike
Temple instead of UConn and Rutgers? I can’t see that. Only way I see the ACC taking Temple is if they lose several members (enough that they believe they’d need 2 more additions) and the B10 takes Rutgers.
LikeLike
@Richard – I agree. Temple has zero leverage on anything. The BE kicked them out even in the wake of the 2003 ACC raid because the football program was so horribly run. Honestly, I have no idea why any non-AQ (outside of “special” fan bases like Navy and BYU) would have any type of leverage to ask of anything from the BE. They can either take a football-only invite or else the BE will move on to the next school on the list. The C-USA schools are kidding themselves if they think they can actually demand something here.
LikeLike
While none of us knows for sure what the end result will be after the SEC and Big 12 are finished expanding, we do know the following: the conference in the most danger is not the Big 12. It’s the Big East, and it’s not even close.
It is a 100% certainty that the Big East is going to lose at least one more of its remaining football programs (and I’m including TCU in that group). One of these three scenarios is certain to happen:
1) SEC takes a Big East team for its #14.
2) SEC takes an ACC team for its #14. ACC replaces the team it loses with a Big East team.
3) SEC takes Missouri. At least one of the Big 12’s replacements for A&M and Missouri comes from the Big East.
These scenarios are the least harmful to the Big East, which goes to show how much the Big East is in dire straits. Of course, there are several possibilities where the above scenarios still apply and the Big East loses more than one more member:
1) BYU chooses not to join the Big 12, so the Big 12 pursues a Big East team instead as its replacement for A&M.
2) The Big 12 chooses to go back to 12 members instead of just 10.
3) The ACC decides to invite Rutgers AND UConn.
4) The SEC decides to go to 16 members. (Very unlikely)
5) The Big Ten decides to go to 14 or 16 and includes Rutgers. (Also very unlikely)
John Marinatto ought to work to make sure one of the scenarios from the first list happens and that nothing more does.The first item on his agenda should be to lobby for BYU to join the Big 12 and A&M’s replacement. If the Big 12 goes back to 10 members without taking BYU, then the Big East will indeed lose two more members, and, again, it could lose even more.
—————————————————————————-
In the end, I expect Florida State to stay in the ACC because, even though there would be a financial bump by switching leagues, there has to be an overwhelming amount of support to switch leagues and that support is just not there. FSU does not have a “conference bully” ala Texas that it’s angry with, and it has enjoyed congenial relationships within the ACC throughout its tenure. In other words, FSU is not to the ACC what Texas A&M is to the Big 12. Virginia Tech has stated perfectly clearly where it wants to be. Clemson adds nothing. Georgia Tech adds nothing. North Carolina schools are unattainable.
I also expect Missouri to stay in the Big 12. Neinas sounds like exactly the kind of consensus builder the league has needed. He’ll be able to persuade Deaton and co. that granting rights to the league is the smart thing to do because it ensures them no one is going to leave anymore. Besides, I really believe Missouri would rather be in the Big 12, as long as the Big 12 can be stabilized, than in the dog-eat-dog SEC.
So my prediction is that the SEC takes a Big East team. Out of West Virginia, Louisville, and TCU, I think Louisville would be the most attractive. Granted, WVU would add a tiny bit of a new market, but WV is less than 2 million people, and even though there are notable number of WVU fans in the Pittsburgh area, they don’t exactly capture the market. Pittsburgh interests are 1) Steelers, by far, 2) Penn State, 3) Pitt, and 4) WVU, and Pittsburgh isn’t even all that big of a market. TCU doesn’t add a new market, although it would help solidify Texas. Louisville would add the least in terms of market, but it would do more to increase the SEC’s basketball TV value than either of the other two could to increase the football TV value. Right now, the only teams that casual basketball fans outside of the SEC watch are Kentucky and maybe Florida. Louisville doubles viewership in Kentucky and spikes viewership in the Midwest.
As for the Big 12, I think BYU joins for football-only in short order and eases its way out of the West Coast Conference a few years later so that it can minimize damage to the relationships it has already built with those schools.
The Big East will be in big trouble.
LikeLike
To many Florida State fans, it has a de facto conference bully — the ACC’s basketball-oriented culture. While Syracuse and Pittsburgh were probably the best available football programs for ACC expansion (assuming academics put West Virginia off the table), they weren’t the caliber that substantially strengthens the ACC as a football league. The SEC mindset derides the ACC brand as impotent, and for many Seminoles fans, this is their chance to escape. If it’s possible, FSU will do it.
LikeLike
I think the ACC breaks because it is UNC centered (like UT vs TAMU) and basketball centered. Pitt and SU are not going to help FSU or VT with football, or NCST with basketball with UNC and Duke in front of them. Once again I think Vincent is correct in his observation of how FSU views the ACC (I would add VT and NCST as well). If I have an 80,000 seat stadium, or if I want one, it will not get filled playing Duke, WF, SU, and other ACC schools the same way it will with UGA, USC, and UT. Pretty much every stadium in the SEC – including Arkansas, South Carolina, and Kentucky – are in the top 25 in attendance every year according to the NCAA. Mississippi @ ~61,000, Mississippi State @ ~55,000 (10 consecutive sellouts and a ~75,000 seat upgrade on the drawing board), and Vanderbilt @ ~40,000 are still better than most ACC schools, and their fans travel, when the ACC fans will not.
Vincent and I both noticed that 3 ACC programs fought voting against higher exit fees – above the 20 Million level – that would say somebody is considering jumping. If the 16 team model is the future only the B1G, PAC, and SEC can assure football protection, any other conference will only be able to hope.
LikeLike
vp19,
I’m not sold that FSU would leave the ACC. A lot of FSU supporters love the ACC. They recognize games like Oklahoma, BYU, West Virginia, and Colorado don’t happen if they’re not in the ACC. They also recognize that the ACC provides a lot of academic prestige, which DOES matter, especially for a school with AAU aspirations. Going to the SEC would be opening up too much opportunity for the “Criminole” reputation to return.
To alleviate the concerns that FSU is a “football school in a basketball leauge,” look for FSU to be realigned in a division with Georgia Tech. Atlanta is home to more FSU alumni than any city outside of Florida, and it’s the closest ACC opponent. Tallahassee is the closest ACC city to Georgia Tech besides Clemson. Both have thus expressed interest in being in the same division in recent years. Annual games against Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech, NC State, and non-conference vs. Florida should be enough to alleviate concerns about an uninteresting schedule.
LikeLike
NO CHANCE UK ALLOWS UL in SEC, ever.
LikeLike
Eh, then West Virginia.
LikeLike
The Aggies say they’re officially accepted:
http://www.aggieathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=27300&ATCLID=205288805
LikeLike
From Birmingham
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/228257/texas-am-to-join-southeastern-conference.aspx
Looks like TAMU will join SEC in next fiscal year
LikeLike
“The addition of Texas A&M University as the SEC’s 13th member gives our league a prestigious academic institution with a strong athletic tradition and a culture similar to our current institutions”
Wait, which one is it? Is their culture similar to SEC schools, or is A&M a prestigious academic institution?
LikeLike
Not any different from UF, I suppose.
LikeLike
But with dude cheerleaders instead of hot chicks.
LikeLike
well, yes, but they think their dudes are pretty hot.
LikeLike
Figured this would drag out until the Big 12 ironed out its media rights assignments. Obviously, the Presidents told him Thursday A&M was free to go.
Big 12 ADs meet T&W. Haven’t heard when the expansion committee is meeting. They should have the assignment issue dealt with mostly this week. Then #10 is next.
BYU fans seem to be all over the board. Some are convinced they have info BYU will turn down an invite. Others are convinced everyone is board with going to the Big 12.
Unless they are determined to go to 12 and think they should only go east, I don’t see how they don’t invite BYU. They easily have the biggest fan base and they are the only one who can join next year for certain (TCU may still be able to). Non-AQs other than BYU are not serious contenders.
LikeLike
The heck with the BE. With the expectation that UConn is headed to the ACC and WVU to the SEC or the B12, create a new conference with the schools listed below. This conference would have 3 currently ranked fb schools–USF, Boise and TCU with UH on the cusp. That makes it stronger than the current BE fb conference already, even if you add Navy (ugh). If WVU doesn’t get an SEC or a B12 invite there are 4 ranked schools and you make it a 14 school conference by adding SMU to the west. The top bb schools would be Cincy, Temple, UL, Memphis and BYU. If WVU doesn’t get an invite to the other conferences they add a heck of a punch to the bb side of this conference.
If I’m looking ahead 25, 50 or 100 years and the possibility of being attached to a BE conference controlled by the bb schools, which will keep the fb part of the conference stuck in mediocrity forever, or stepping out with some solid, and some up and coming, fb programs I go with the fb. With the BE remnants, TCU, BYU and Boise it sure smells like a BCS conference.
East
——-
USF
Cincy
RU
Temple
ECU
UCF
West
———-
UL
Memphis
UH
TCU
Boise
BYU
LikeLike
BYU wouldn’t touch that mess. And if UConn goes to the ACC, Rutgers could, too.
LikeLike
Idle speculation on my part, just for fun.
Even so, I seriously believe that the schools on that list would be better off forming a new conference rather than getting, or staying, entangled with the BE. If I were BYU I’d seriously consider this as an alternative to the B12 and however many schools they have this week. They probably prefer independence to either alternative right now. If the B12 schools follow through and agree to sign over their tv rights then I could see BYU seriously considering the joining. I wouldn’t consider it a lock though. They seem to be looking more than 6 years ahead and they’re not naive. They’ll trust OK and UT as far as they can throw them.
LikeLike
http://dailygamecock.com/news/item/2221-texas-am-officially-joins-sec
Good interview with USCe president.
Some info:
“We are prepared to exist as a 13-member league for a season or two if necessary. We are not going to raid another league. We are not going to go recruiting.” Pastides said other schools “may or may not” have had informal conversations about joining, but no other university has applied for membership.
The new ESPN deal is ““neutral financially in the short-term. Hopefully in the long term, the expansion of the league into a larger, new market will mean additional revenue”
-Sounds like ESPN just did a pro rata increase.
He says that if the SEC stays at 13 for a couple years, A&M might rotate back and forth between divisions.
LikeLike
So they are going to both only stay at 13 for a season or two and not raid another league. I get that the team has to come to you, but lets not put too much spin on this.
LikeLike
Yep pretty clear ESPN only added an additional share. So much for the argument they could tear up their contract and start over. The Conference USA deal with ESPN becoming public pretty much did that one in.
LikeLike
Frank,
Granted my hackles were up when they picked on us and the gophers,
http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/97608-The-Big-Ten-s-scrubs-are-embarrassments-to-the-sport
but it is stuff like this that makes me unhappy to have UT in the B1G! They are arrogant, and would do nothing but cause problems if they were added. They got turned down by the PAC because they would not share, and they would not go to the SEC because they felt smarter. This just burns me up! I am thrilled with UNL, and they were thrilled to be part of the B1G. This is the way it should be, but UT just thinks everybody wants them. I say no way, too much ego.
LikeLike
Pretty mild compared to what people say about the Big 12. How many times do I hear how the Big 12 is worse than the Big East, especially by Big 10 people. Sorry, North Texas is awful and it took 3 late TDs by IU to make it close. ND ST. is FCS. IU and UK should have played this year. It would have been close, at least.
OOC vs. FBS so far
Big 12 20-2
SEC 19-4
B1G 25-11 (and 1 FCS loss)
Big East 13-9
Pac 12 12-10 (1 FCS loss)
ACC 12-10 (1 FCS loss)
MWC 9-8 (2 FCS losses)
Indie 6-8
CUSA 8-18
SB 5-17 (1 FCS loss)
MAC 7-24
WAC 2-17
LikeLike
Bullet,
People say the Big 12 is worse than the Big East in terms of dysfunction, not in terms of the quality of football. No one questions whether the Big 12 is a good football league, especially this year.
LikeLike
FWIW the Big 12 is 39-40 vs the B1G since 1993 (the year Penn St joined).
LikeLike
Over the past 10 years it’s 26-18 in favor of the Big 12 (mostly due to Texas, Nebraska & Missouri).
LikeLike
Small correction: that ten year range 00-09 not 01-10.
LikeLike
01-10 = 24-19 in favor of Big 12. The primary difference apparently being Missouri has beaten up on Illinois quite a bit.
(and I’m done making a bunch of little posts, I promise)
LikeLike
A lot of people make the other argument, including this year. I read it all the time.
LikeLike
bullet,
I actually miss IU vs UK just for that reason. They were usually fairly well matched so the game was fun to watch, and with the basketball rivalry to match it made a great border rivalry.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, both are really bad this year. UK had their best game of the year against Florida and lost 41-10.
LikeLike
IU needs to find another Miami U. coach. John Pont (you and I are two of the few on this board who actually remember IU in the Rose Bowl) and Bill Mallory were at Miami U. before Indiana and both got IU winning. Michigan had Bo Schembechler, Ohio State had Woody Hayes, Notre Dame had Ara Parsegian and Northwestern had Randy Walker who looked like he was going to do a good job for them. Even Illinois has gotten into the act with Zook, who played there and Mackovic who was a graduate assistant there in the mid-50s.
LikeLike
Be gentle duff. Longhorn fans are coming off of a season where they got their asses handed to them by just about everybody in their conference (not including a gift win again Nebraska) so they have to talk big to salve their insecurity issues.
LikeLike
Also Duffman-
What part of the name, “Barking Carnival” do you not understand? The title fits the board.
LikeLike
Every conference has fans like that. It does amuse me though that any fanbase outside the SEC is throwing rocks considering that of the past 5 SEC NC wins, 2 came against OSU but 2 also came against UT and OU which carry the Big 12’s flag.
I don’t know why you’d read a site called “shaggybevo” though; every fanbase has fans that view everything through an extremely tinted lens like those.
LikeLike
Texas sites have splintered over the last few years and each one seems to fit a different niche.
LikeLike
Sagarin has it about right in my opinion:
1 BIG 12 80.98
2 SOUTHEASTERN 80.75
3 BIG TEN 76.85
4 PAC-12 76.54
5 BIG EAST 74.34
6 ATLANTIC COAST 73.87
The Big 12 basically doesn’t have any bad out of conference losses. In the SEC, Kentucky and Mississippi are horrifically bad (and Vanderbilt, Mississippi State and Auburn are suspect), but the middle to top is very good (with Alabama and LSU both having good wins). Minnesota, Purdue and Indiana are terribad (and Northwestern has played like that so far), but after that the Big Ten has mostly solid if not spectacular teams.
LikeLike
Seems pretty good to me
LikeLike
That sounds pretty accurate to me too; SEC & Big 12 are a level above everyone else… B10 & Pac 12 are a level below them.
LikeLike
So when we hear that confernece re-alignment is all about football, and football drives the bus, and things like that, its not really that simple. The #1 conf has lost a team to #2 and #3 and two to #4. And for good measure the #5 conference has lost two teams to #6.
Maybe I’m stating the obvious, but its not about football, rather about the people that watch football and how they watch it. I think its also about stability, and a cohesive culture.
LikeLike
1 to #4 (so far). The B12 likes to spread out the love. If Texas ends up in the ACC but the B12 survives, they could have ended up sending a single member to 4 different conferences (which would have to be a first)
LikeLike
Its about revenue potential. Big 12 is behind B1G, SEC, Pac and ACC in population. In the long run it should be 5th in revenue, although when their contract comes up (if they don’t lose anyone else), they may be briefly first, until the B1G renews. I think the “cohesive culture” has a lot to do with similar missions/institutions. That is something pretty true in B1G, ACC and SEC. Big 12 and Pac are more about geography.
As for football strength, over the life of the Big 12, the Big 10, Pac and Big 12 have IMO been pretty close in average strength, not that far behind the SEC and not that far ahead of the ACC.
LikeLike
As an alum, I will agree that Purdue is bad. I hope they get rid of Hope. But in the teams defense they are playing with the third string quarterback.
LikeLike
Duff:
That why I said I’d prefer FSU & Miami under equal terms than Texas and ND under unequal terms, though the latter 2 probably would add more money to each current B10 member even with unequal terms.
LikeLike
Go read the Miami boards some time. If ‘jerk internet fans’ is a strike against the Longhorns in your book you’ll be shocked to see what the typical Hurricane supporters spew.
LikeLike
Well, OK, I should reserve judgement until I hear from administrators, not fans, but while I’m confident that both FSU and Miami administrators would be satisfied with equal payouts from the B10, I’m not sure Texas would be.
LikeLike
I tend to think fans who type stuff like that are teen-agers or at best immature college students. Adults don’t talk like that.
Well, maybe they do under the guise of an anonymous screen name, but it feels easier to excuse stupid behavior when it comes from kids than from adults.
LikeLike
For the record, that comment was intended as a response to the link posted by Duffman, not at anyone on this board. 😉
LikeLike
michael,
It is why I steer clear of the ESPN and Rivals type boards. OB is a pay board, and looks more recruiting based. It is not hard to talk smack, especially for kids who never actually played sports. Back in the day you practiced, played the game, then win or lose, you prepared for the next game.
LikeLike
Here’s a thought:
I think everyone has been operating under the assumption that the B12 collapses if Texas leaves (certainly it does if both OU and Texas leave), but could it survive if only the Horns leave to the B10 under a PBC-type scenario? We know that OU and OK State together is unpalatable to the Pac now, and I believe the SEC also wouldn’t take the Cowboys to get OU, so even if Texas leaves, OU would have to choose between leaving little brother (and not-so-little-in-terms-of-influence Boone Pickens), likely to enter the shark-infested recruiting waters of the SEC (which they don’t want to) or sticking it out in a B12 where they clearly rule the roost. The BE is ripe for the picking, so I think a B12 that OU has pledged itself to would be able to pick off any BE school they want (I would choose TCU, Louisville, and WVU). Minus Texas (and TAMU and UNL and CU) + those 3 would get the B12 to 11. The last choice would be between BYU (if they deign to join) or Houston. OU would still get their access to Texas recruiting grounds and has a clear path to a BCS bowl every year. The divisions could even be “East” and “West” (though every school in the west would be in OK and TX and maybe UT). The B12 could still (with it’s 3-4 TX schools + OU) be a force in Texas, splitting TV viewerships with the B10 (Texas) and SEC (TAMU). Thus, in terms of TV money, the B12 may not even have to take much of a haircut, if at all, especially since first tier B12 TV rights are up for bid again mid-decade, and TV rights have increased by 3-4 times since they were last negotiated. Plus, with the BE going away, ESPN & company have an incentive to keep the B12 viable so that football power isn’t concentrated even more (and there would be one less competitor for TV space and money. The new B12 may have to play weekday games nearly every week to get the same money, but if they get BYU, they’d also have a footprint that stretches from the suburbs of DC to the LDS enclaves of the west and south to most parts of Texas along with a king in OU and schools that can deliver a decent audience/performance in TCU, BYU, Mizzou, OK State, TTech, and WVU. The new B12 may even be the clear #4 in football, above the ACC, in desirability and TV money, especially if the SEC & B10 pry away FSU and Miami.
What happens to the BE at that point would be interesting to see; the bball schools may split, in which case UConn & Cincy would be pleading to ACC membership (only coming if the ACC loses FSU&Miami or some other schools), though the ACC may consider UCF or/and USF as well.
LikeLike
WEEK 4 summary – Top 25 and conference alignment – teams with loss in bold
SEC 5/25 = 20% : Alabama, LSU, South Carolina, Arkansas,, Florida
7 wins vs 4 losses = 64% : losses to SEC schools = 4 : OOC losses = 0
B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, TAMU, Texas, Baylor
5 wins vs 2 losses = 71% : losses to B12 schools = 2 : OOC losses = 0
ACC 5/25 = 20% : Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, UNC
5 wins vs 6 losses = 45% : losses to ACC schools = 2 : OOC losses = 4
B1G 4/25 = 16% : Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Michigan State
8 wins vs 2 losses = 80% : losses to B1G schools = 0 : OOC losses = 2
PAC 2/25 = 8% : Stanford, Oregon
4 wins vs 5 losses = 44% : losses to PAC schools = 4 : OOC losses = 1
MWC 2/25 = 8% : Boise State, TCU
4 wins vs 4 losses = 50% : losses to MWC schools = 0 : OOC losses = 4
BE 2/25 = 8% : West Virginia, USF
5 wins vs 2 losses = 71% : losses to BE schools = 0 : OOC losses = 2
.
.
.
.
WEEK 5 beginning – Top 25 and conference alignment – Conference and OOC
B1G 5/25 = 20% : Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois, Michigan State
11 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 5 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 1 IND : 0 OTR
SEC 5/25 = 20% : Alabama, LSU, South Carolina, Florida, *Arkansas
11 teams : 4 SEC : 1 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 2 OTR
B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, *TAMU, Baylor, Texas
8 teams : 1 SEC : 3 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 1 OTR
ACC 4/25 = 16% : Virginia Tech, *Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech
11 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 3 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 5 OTR
PAC 2/25 = 8% : Stanford, Oregon
10 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 5 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 0 OTR
MWC 2/25 = 8% : Boise State, TCU
5 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 5 OTR
BE 2/25 = 8% : USF, *West Virginia
8 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 2 BE : 0 IND : 4 OTR
moved in : Illinois
dropped out : North Carolina
* teams losing in previous week
.
.
.
.
22 undefeated teams left, 17 max by end of week:
B12 32% = Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Baylor, ISU, KSU, TT
Baylor vs Kansas State / Texas vs Iowa State
SEC 18% = LSU, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina
Alabama vs Florida
B1G 18% = Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois
Nebraska vs Wisconsin
ACC 14% = Virginia Tech, Clemson, Georgia Tech
Virginia Tech vs Clemson
PAC 4.5% = Stanford
MWC 4.5% = Boise State
BE 4.5% = USF
CUSA 4.5% = Houston
+ Congrats to Frank on Illinois
+ 5 teams in for the B1G
LikeLike
So after an excellent weekend of football back to the salt mine of conference realignment the following is now in play:
TAMU now in the SEC and SEC given no assurances from the Big 12 – 3 non-waiver + 1 lawsuit ready will not be going after Mizzou, OU, and oSu. Slive is unlikely to press his luck. I don’t think he has a real willingness to tangle with a former Solicitor General and Federal Judge regardless of how good a case he thinks he has and is happy just to have TAMU and give the rest of the Big 12 a wide berth.
So as the SEC looks around for its 14th, it has 1 – 2 years to try and lure away FSU and that’s why this thing is about to go into overdrive.
The next move will be made by the ACC. It will be fast and it will be to implode the Big East by taking UConn and Rutgers. Why would Swofford do this so close to Cuse and Pitt? 1st it gets Cuse and Pitt to the ACC faster. Second and more importantly, the more time Swofford allows the SEC to work on FSU the better chance FSU leaves. Its to ACC’s benefit to force the hand of the SEC to make a decision quickly on #14. How do you force the SEC’s hand? You make the SEC make a decision fast about Louisville and WVU.
Slive was willing to let WVU slip by because it was an open option available to him at any time and all of Slive’s options reside in the ACC or Big East. With the implosion of the Big East and the defection of two more schools would solidify the ACC and would make Slive either have to stay at 13 and hope he can pick off FSU at a future date or take a school now that he may not want, Louisville or WVU.
Not only is this a great defensive move by he ACC going to 16 and fortify against an SEC/Big 10 raid, forces the opponent (SEC) into a compromising situation, and aligns with the interests of ESPN. By imploding the Big East, Comcast/NBC cannot get involved and ESPN would probably raise the conference’s payout pro-rata based on what they may have had to payout to the Big East to keep the rights.
Slive is in precarious situation and Swofford has shown himself to be crafty. If the ACC plays its cards right it will be at #16, strong, and WVU will be an SEC school.
LikeLike
I fail to see how adding UConn & Rutgers
1. fortifies the ACC
2. makes FSU less likely to leave (if anything, adding 2 schools that are even worse football draws than Pitt and ‘Cuse far far away from Tallahassee would make the FSU fanbase more willing to leave)
3. pressures the SEC in to anything.
I just don’t see the SEC taking a school that they wouldn’t want; it may take a while, but they’ll wait out FSU. Only way I see them taking WVU is if FSU opts for the B10 instead and the B12 collapses if Mizzou is taken.
LikeLike
I forgot to add: This is a 50-100 year decision. The SEC isn’t going to settle.
LikeLike
You mean like they didn’t settle for South Carolina or Arkansas? Those teams aren’t exactly world beaters…even including the recent success of USC.
IMO, the SEC shows a disturbing willingness to absorb mediocre teams with good recruiting grounds in order to put more wins on their traditional powers and push for “new and interesting” methods of capitalizing on their moves (championship games, oversigning, etc.)
LikeLike
Well, that’s the key: SCarolina and Arkansas brought recruiting grounds. What recruiting grounds would WVU bring? Plus, despite their mediocrity, both those schools average around 70K in attendance. WVU, at 50K+, would be battling it out with the MS schools for second worst attendance in the SEC.
Granted, WVU in the SEC likely would expand their stadium and get an attendance boost (as Arkansas did), but they still can’t do anything about their tiny state population or lack of a football talent base.
LikeLike
That’s my point…the SEC’s “playbook” is to settle and turn it into something better, but what they have to work with isn’t exactly the best even by their standards.
LikeLike
Right, but WVU isn’t even at the level of SCarolina or Arkansas when they joined the SEC. It’s hard to build up a program when they don’t have a recruiting base.
LikeLike
It depends on what metric you are using. Strictly going by football success WVU is far head of where the Gamecocks were (but not to the level of the Razorbacks)
LikeLike
The thing to remember about Arkansas is that they were a “prince” when they joined the SEC. They lost Texas recruiting and have never recovered. They’ve taken 3 west titles, but haven’t been a national title contender like they were in the SWC. They might not have been a home run addition, but they were a stand up triple.
LikeLike
Remember, Arkie and USCe a brought a CCG with them. No one else is going to be able to add that value.
LikeLike
Well, I’m going by success and potential. SCarolina may not have done much, but they always had good fan support and a fertile recruiting ground.
I’d say both SCarolina and Arkansas were triples. Worse than PSU, UNL, FSU, or TAMU, but better than Colorado, Utah, Pitt, and Syracuse.
LikeLike
The SEC’s preferences ahead of South Carolina back in 1990 included FSU, Miami, A&M, and Texas.
Odd that Miami picked the Big East over the SEC, but that was before TV contracts meant EVERYTHING and before the SEC became the ESSSSS-EEEEEE-SEEEEE.. Miami’s logic for the Big East: it’s a northern school that happens to be located in south Florida.
USCe was no triple. A double, at best.
LikeLike
Michael:
All four of those schools are home runs, ranging from grand slam (Texas) to 1-run homers (Miami & TAMU), and all except TAMU are kings. SCarolina is definitely a triple, giving their fan support and fertile recruiting grounds.
I surprised that the SEC pursued Miami, though. These days, the SEC would not.
LikeLike
“Well, that’s the key: SCarolina and Arkansas brought recruiting grounds.”
Huh? Arkansas (the university) only had 7 Arkansas recruits last year. Every other SEC school had more from their home state except Kentucky and South Carolina (which also had 7).
Arkansas and South Carolina are two of the worst 3 SEC states for recruiting.
LikeLike
PSUGuy,
USC and Arkansas both had intangibles
Arkansas had Wal Mart, and trust me they have undergone massive upgrades
USC had loyal fans, and they sell that stadium when team is not great. Historically Clemson was the primary sports school in the state, but I would argue USC has now passed them. USC is the little engine that could.
The assets both the schools may not have been obvious to outsiders, but was to folks around the schools. In addition, both had history with schools already in the SEC.
LikeLike
Miami has a lot of students from the NE. In addition, they got to have their cake and eat it too in the Big East. The revenue sharing deals were set up much like a confederation of independents, with much less sharing than in the Big 12.
LikeLike
M:
Well, OK, you’re right, Arkansas didn’t bring recruiting grounds, though they brought a little bit of a winning tradition. Maybe a double.
LikeLike
1. You took the four best programs in the Big East and basically you now own the Northeast including a good chunk of the NYC area. (Cuse, UConn, and Rutgers). Notice how everyone has been saying that Rutgers could help in NJ and NYC. Well having all three of those schools together basically is how the Big East built its media rights so yes I do believe it increases the value of the ACC.
2. As we have seen with TAMU who hated the Big 12 or more specifically its place in it, it takes time for a fan base and school to get comfortable with the idea of moving especially when they are in a good situation. This didn’t apply to Pitt and Cuse cause they were in a very bad situation. FSU as an entity has to start thinking this out to come to a decision. I think at least 1 to 2 years to do so. Also, doesn’t say a whole lot for your university when you back out almost immediately after re-upping with your conference. While the exit fee got tamed down from 34 to 20 MM the fact they agreed means they have ideas about sticking around. FSU isn’t going to the SEC tomorrow – maybe a year or two but definitely not this year.
3. So let’s put this on the board. Big East blows up tomorrow morning. WVU and Louisville are free agents. The SEC has room for 1 – 3 schools and these are two good schools. So Slive makes a stab and gets rebuffed by FSU see above. If you are the SEC, those two schools are going to Conference USA/MWC where you may be able to pick them up in a year or two and still work on FSU in the meantime. Of course, if you never get FSU you can go get those schools but doing that basically you have put those schools and your conference in a very awkward situation. You weren’t good enough two years ago when they were Big East. Now after playing two years of shifting divisions in the SEC, these two schools are now ok when they had to go down to MWC or Conference USA? Doesn’t make sense. So yes, the SEC would have to make a decision even if its no decision.
If the SEC chooses to make no decision, it sends two schools it might like to purgatory to wait and Swofford knows where he stands and can defend FSU at all costs. If the SEC chooses one of the schools it gives up on FSU. Either way the ACC wins. The problem with all this is the SEC didn’t have #14 in the chamber ready to go. That works for Big 10 because its central location they can pick from the West, Central, South or East of it. The SEC has the Big 12 to the west which is now toxic, the Big 10 to the north, not going to happen, the ACC to the North East, which would solidify, and the Big East to the far north. In many ways the SEC has the same issue as the Pac 12. Its location and conference protects it from poaching, but is locked by location.
LikeLike
So let me get this straight: You think the SEC will pick up Louisville and/or WVU instead of forcing them to go elsewhere (likely the B12, not CUSA) because Slive is afraid of hurt feelings at those schools? Uh, no. If it takes 1-2 years for FSU fans to warm up to the idea of the SEC, the SEC would wait for 1-2 years rather than take schools they don’t want. That’s really a non-decision. The only way the SEC may consider them is if FSU is off the table by going to the B10. Even in that case, the SEC would likely look to poach again from the B12 and risk lawsuits (which may not come, since, if the BE goes away, as in your scenario, the B12 is there to stay as a BCS conference so long as OU and/or Texas stays put).
BTW, “owning the NE” (without ND) didn’t seem to do the BE a whole lot of good; not sure why you think it would do the ACC all that much good. Granted, if ND joins the ACC, the analysis changes, but if they don’t, I think my previous analysis holds.
LikeLike
Did I mention hurt feelings in any of my points? No. I said it would make it rather awkward for the SEC and the schools involved. In addition, the SEC would have lowered the value of the schools in not acting straightaway. Does it make a lot of sense to lower the value of an asset that you intend on buying if you are already getting a steal of a deal? No. Would one of those schools run with open arms. Absolutely, but it still doesn’t change the perception of the school coming into the conference.
I would see only 1 of those schools getting to the Big 12 not both and only in a 12 team conference. Assuming the Big 12 went back to 12 the numbers would be BYU (#10), Louisville/WVU (#11), TCU (#12). IF and I mean IF they were to go to 12. The screams out of legislators if UT left TCU behind again given that through TAMU actions the secondary effect was the implosion of the very conference that TCU intended to go to fulfill its AQ destiny would be so loud as to guarantee TCU a soft landing. This I am quite sure meaning one of the schools would be left out in the cold.
Right now your scenario the entire SEC depends upon getting FSU to come into the conference to make it work. Only problem is its not Beebe on the other side of the table this time, its the guy who won this round of realignment and he knows the SEC is coming. Also, this time its not a totally disgusted university that wants out from under big brother, its a university that is making academic progress and is a relatively strong power in its own conference. I am sure there are many inside FSU that would be happy to move to the SEC, but its not the ratio that TAMU had.
Why would Slive go back to the Big 12 well again? His next could implode the conference hence why he put the waiver on TAMU to begin. Also, in this scenario if it plays out the Big 12 would have bound their rights into the conference therefore nobody would be going anywhere for the next six years. The SEC can’t wait that long at 13 and by taking TAMU now without getting waivers Slive is thrown Mizzou off the table. Its Mizzou’s best interest now to bind up the Big 12 at least it creates some forced stability. The Mizzou ship sailed this afternoon.
The BE problems are not due to media rights, but to the structural nature of how the conference has formed and developed over time. The conference was set up from the get go as basketball and that is where the power has been when football is where the money is. Also, the ACC is not depending solely on the those new media rights – after the proposed move would now completely own the East Coast from Florida all the way to upstate New York. The addition of the four schools in question Pitt, Cuse, UConn, and Rutgers solidifies the Northeast while taking chips away from the Big 10 and ultimately limiting Delaney’s maneuverability on the east coast while shoring up the conference in a way to stop an SEC raid. Who knows, perhaps a deal could be put on the table for ND to be non-football member as long as they played 3 ACC teams a year and give FSU one of them as permanent.
Regardless, the SEC has now made its move and cannot make a quick move for FSU meaning that their next move or lack of will be a reactive one. The ACC’s best move is a quick one to not only expedite the entry of Cuse and Pitt, but also implode the Big East now that the SEC tiger is now looking east.
LikeLike
Also, the ACC is not depending solely on the those new media rights – after the proposed move would now completely own the East Coast from Florida all the way to upstate New York. The addition of the four schools in question Pitt, Cuse, UConn, and Rutgers solidifies the Northeast while taking chips away from the Big 10 and ultimately limiting Delany’s maneuverability on the east coast while shoring up the conference in a way to stop an SEC raid.
If Delany wants Maryland and/or Rutgers, what the ACC does won’t get in the way, just as if the SEC wants Florida State (and FSU feels likewise), it won’t matter.
LikeLike
VP I’m not disagreeing with you but the whole idea of conference realignment is based on two actions: does the school want to go and does the conference want/have a slot for them. As I said about Oklahoma and the Pac 12 – OU has to want to go and Pac 12 has to be willing to take them. In the case of OU, OU wanted to go the Pac-12 didn’t want them.
In the case of FSU. I don’t believe FSU is in a state right now to go, but two more years of this realignment nonsense they may very well be. Now, if you are the ACC you have to either ward off the SEC or put the SEC in a position to fill its slot. How do you do that? You take away the SEC’s backup options in the Big East. In the current set up, the SEC knows if it can’t pull FSU in two years it can grab Louisville or WVU and call it a day. However, if that option is compromised then the SEC has to make a decision/non-decision quickly. Either take an imploded Big East school, which would suit the ACC fine or stay at 13 and try to work on FSU. At that point, the ACC knows that its all about FSU and could do as much as it can to stop the defection by making FSU happy. Not to say that the SEC couldn’t still poach FSU, but it would be made more difficult by an ACC who would know SEC is coming.
As for going after WVU or Louisville 2 years after a BE implosion, please see my other comments.
LikeLike
@hangtime79,
If you go over to the FSU boards, take a look at their reaction when the ACC added SU & Pitt. They were not happy because they viewed it as the ACC adding basketball schools and not football schools. By adding UCONN and Rutgers, I think that would just stoke that fire. The FSU fanbase and boosters really want football schools to be added. If the ACC really wanted to make a move that would “appease” FSU, then they should look at adding WVU (since that is probably the only football school that is available to them). But with that said, I don’t think there is much of a chance that “tobacco road” is going to allow WVU into the SEC.
I think the ACC has two choices. Either continue to be agressive has you point out by grabbing UCONN and Rutgers and risk further alienating the FSU fanbase/booster, or staying pat and hoping that the FSU fanbase/booster settle down and thus not providing FSU the needed pressure to jump to the SEC.
LikeLike
Would bringing West Virginia into the ACC persuade many of the Florida State faithful to stay? Tend to doubt it, and since the ACC really doesn’t want WVU for academic reasons, I think that’s moot.
Truth is, there are no available football candidates that could remotely satisfy FSU without compromising ACC academics. If an SEC invite is available in Tallahassee, it leaves.
LikeLike
hangtime:
1. The SEC doesn’t mind lowering Louisville or WVU’s values because it doesn’t intend to take them.
2. If FSU isn’t available, I’m not sure why you think the B12 would be immune from poaching. As I said before, if either OU or Texas stay, the B12 will remain a BCS conference and there would be no lawsuit. We’ve already seen that OU+OSU isn’t welcomed to the Pac. If the SEC doesn’t invite them, they’d have few options other than staying. In fact, if I was the SEC, I’d encourage the B12 and WVU and/or Louisville to perform a mating dance, as a more stable B12 gives me the option of picking off Mizzou. As for tying up TV rights in the B12, notice that Mizzou is the one school that sounded most reluctant to do so (and they actually haven’t done so yet, so no, that ship hasn’t sailed; reread what the Mizzou chancellor said). Maybe Slive would have to make a decision about taking Mizzou in the near future, but I’m certain that there’s no way the SEC would be “forced” to take either WVU or Louisville (and there’s certainly no way they’re taking both to get to 16).
LikeLike
1. I think ACC is conservative. They aren’t going to be in a hurry to get to 16.
2. Notre Dame. Like the B1G, they will wait on the possibility they may get Notre Dame. If the Big East dissappears, ND may be ready to join someplace and they won’t have a slot if they are at 16.
I think they stand pat at 14. I also don’t think FSU will leave.
13 is a really bad number. I think SEC settles if they can’t get an ACC school and I think they aren’t going to risk a Big 12 school unless OU becomes available. WVU has a pretty good chance of being in the SEC.
It would be interesting to see what the SEC does if the Big 12 invites WVU & Louisville. If they couldn’t get an ACC school and UL and WVU were tied up for at least 6 years, they might have to go for USF, TCU or UH–or quickly try to pre-empt the Big 12 move for WVU.
LikeLike
If the B12 adds WVU & Louisville, the B12 is less likely to fall apart (as that would mean the BE is nearly picked clean), which makes it safer for the SEC to take Mizzou.
However, I think they’ll try 1-2 years to see if they can pry away FSU (or less likely, another ACC school).
LikeLike
Not much reason to rush to 16 when they can pickup Rutgers, UConn whenever they want them… Neither is a significant addition, getting both would appear like they are attempting to kill the Big East and they’d have a legal issue with the remaining Big East members…
LikeLike
Wolverine,
The rush is that the longer the ACC waits, the more time is left open for FSU to contemplate a move to SEC. If I am the ACC, I don’t want to wait around for FSU to get picked off if I can force the subject. Also, time doesn’t change the ACC’s list of potential candidates for the better. In fact, the longer it waits the most likely it is they have to find a 1 or 3 candidates out of their comfort zone. (1 if just going back to 14 in the event of an FSU defection or 3 in the event they want to go to 16).
LikeLike
Why would being at 16 prevent FSU from leaving? I am really missing that logic.
My read is that FSU has remorse that the league is not adding football schools. Not sure who FSU thinks the ACC should add, but adding UConn and Rutgers isn’t going to change that.
In fact, I think NOT taking Rutgers and UConn would improve ACC football. Syracuse was a prince from 1987 to 2001. In that span, they got a lot of players from Connecticut, New Jersey, and Florida. Note that during that period Rutgers was useless and UConn didn’t exist. And USF was non-existent. Destabilizing all three of those schools helps Syracuse (and Boston College and FSU/Miami) recruit NE, NJ, and Florida.
I agree with all who say the ACC does not move unless ND is coming or to replace a team.
LikeLike
Ezcuse,
The idea is not to stop FSU from leaving. The goal would be to get the SEC to take WVU or Louisville thus ending this around with the SEC at #14. If the round doesn’t end with the taking of WVU or Louisville – Swofford moves down to Tallahassee and takes up permanent residence.
LikeLike
I still say the ACC wants ND, but if the B12 was smart they would clean house (internal issues) and go for 16.
current 9 + UC / UL / WVU / TCU / SMU / UH / Rice
North = OU + oSu + KU + KSU + ISU + UC + UL + WVU
South = UT + TT + BU + TCU + SMU + UH + Rice + UM
MU really does not fit in the south, but just a thought
LikeLike
Adding Rice? No BYU? You’re making my 12-school new B12 without Texas seem realistic by comparison, Duff.
LikeLike
richard,
I just have a feeling BYU will not be in the B12, if they are in the same division as UT. Call it a gut feeling, but it would not surprise me.
LikeLike
there has been speculation on texas boards that the sooner dalliance — but more importantly, the appearance that the big 12 is nothing like a mutually agreeable environment — has pushed byu in another direction.
it’s funny. nebraska was noisily unhappy and left. things settled down and it seemed that it would go smoothly with them gone. then a&m became noisily unhappy and made other arrangements. ok, but that leaves a good, cooperative core group to build around. so oklahoma became noisily unhappy and stormed out its emergency exit only to discover it doesn’t go anywhere. so oklahoma is back inside and is pushing HARD for the big 12 to survive. is that what it took for the big 12 to settle down and become a conference?
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t really see how the Oklahoma position is defensible in any way.
They made a powerplay that makes it unlikely that they get either of their top options (BYU or Pitt). They were never really going after Arkansas or ND; those options were mostly bluster although ND could go there for non-football if the Big East implodes.
All Oklahoma did is weaken the future of the Big 12 via their power play. It’s hard to believe that they did it for any other reason than they honestly believed they had a Pac-14 invite on the table.
LikeLike
oh, zeek. i absolutely agree.
the ou power play — and i agree that they thought they had a ticket to ride — let all the air out of a balloon that had been a couple of years in the making, and, much worse, left the big 12 in a very precarious state. that move smacked of treachery, and i don’t have warm fuzzies for the conference to recover. anybody of consequence who had been considering pitching in with the big 12 is probably quite cool about it now and is reconsidering their options. if the conference goes belly up in the near future, i think historians will point to that as the death knell.
LikeLike
another thing.
whether the sooners actually thought the ok schools could get in on their own or not, i think they thought the move would force texas to capitulate and come along. scott may have thought the same, as well, and may never have represented to the sooners that the two schools could get in. if so, they misjudged how determined texas is on keeping the network pretty much as is.
i think oklahoma people are reacting to the longhorn network out of paranoia. i don’t think it is anything like as threatening as they imagine. that said, assume the network is going forward. there is some serious backbone behind it from several directions.
don’t forget that the sooners were very bullish as long as they thought they could float a similar network. they didn’t become recalcitrant until they tested their waters and didn’t find them deep.
LikeLike
What’s everyone’s opinion so far of CFB on Fox? (broadcast on FX)
I thought Charles Davis and Gus Johnson would have been a decent combo to listen, but their announcing seemed a little forced. They also lacked the nuanced knowledge of college rules that I always find grating. Hopefully they’ll gel into a cohesive team once they get a few more reps under there belt.
LikeLike
Depends what announcing crew you get, I like ‘most’ of the Fox broadcasters on the BTN and the production quality is excellent.
LikeLike
The SEC can stay at 12 teams – if they let Vandy go to the ACC where they would fit right in. It would be a coup’ for the SEC, adding to the TV footprint without having to cut the pie into any more pieces. It would also work well for Vandy – especially if the conference gave them several million dollars for the transition – as they would be surrounded by similar schools academically that they could compete with in all sports, year in, year out. The ACC would benefit as it would be the first super conference, after adding Rutgers, and they would truly own the Eastern Seaboard. They would be one of the big boys forevermore.
I see 4 pods:
BC/Syracuse/Pitt/Rutgers
Vanderbilt/Maryland/Va Tech/UVA
The 4 North Carolinas
Clemson/Georgia/FSU/Miami
LikeLike
Considering Vandy was actually the founding school of the SEC, and they have had many chances to leave before, I would not hold my breath on that one. Vandy may be different, but the other schools in the SEC protect Vandy.
LikeLike
If LHN is morphed into BTN2 upon entry to B1G, UF would have to be seen as a similar cornerstone for a regional BTN2. At that point FSU to SEC makes sense for all.
LikeLike
I believe UF & UGa to the B10 is part of the B10 presidents’ endgame ideal, but for that to happen, the SEC would have to have 1-2 schools get the death penalty.
LikeLike
baxter:
Considering the revenue differential, and discounting cashflows, the SEC likely would have to pay Vandy close to $100M just to make them whole when they join the ACC, and that would not be enough for them to forsake the conference they founded. I can’t see anything short of $200M up front for Vandy to even consider switching conferences. Just because you want Vandy to leave the SEC doesn’t mean Vandy wants to leave the SEC.
LikeLike
Texas A&M finally got its invite. Shows all comes to those who wait. The SEC did a study and developed a target list of 6 schools for expansion based on changes in the TV rights landscape. Texas A&M, Texas, and FSU are on the list. A&M expected to be the 12th school after Arkansas in 1991, but South Carolina (also on the list) got that invite. Despite the list being 20+ years old, not much has changed in the relative landscape, except that Virginia Tech might replace Miami on a current list. So this move was 20+ years in the making.
Texas A&M leaving for the SEC has nothing to do with the Longhorn network, etc. The statements A&M made at the Ok St game pretty much sum it up. “in head to head recruiting with Texas we only win 20% of the time. We expect a move to the SEC to improve that” Also stated the decision was made 18 months ago (before the B1G Nebraska invite). Logical conclusion is that A&M did not move to the SEC last year because they did not have an invite, or at least one that did not require Texas to come along. Oklahoma found that out with the Pac12, no TX, no deal.
The destruction and instability of the B12 has nothing to do with unequal revenue sharing, but greed and a bad TV contract that did not pay close to what other conferences were receiving.
Nebraska was the prime mover to institute unequal revenue sharing when the B12 was formed (as a refugee from the imploded SWC, Texas has no power in 1995). The tier 1 agreement was 57% equal share with the rest based on apperances, but that was increased to 76% equal shares for this year. The objections to elimination were from Kansas (there is money in Basketball) and Oklahoma the schools that benefited most. I think Texas A&M was also responsible for the $20M minimum to A&M, TX, and OK. When the 5 small schools offered their shares of the NE/CO exit money to keep the conference together only A&M took the money (they got 2/3 shares since A&M took the other third). So much for A&M leaving due to unequal revenue unless A&M thought they should take the full exit fee from the small schools since TX and OU would not take this money.
As far as LHN, TX was receiving $9M from IMG College and now claims they pay $4M to them from the ESPN money, so it does not appear to have much net money. GA gets $11M+ and OSU $10M+ for third tier rights from IMG college also. Not sure how OSU deal works with the BTN. TX gets it real money from Tickets: $45M/year compared to $40M for MI and $38M for OSU. Other than OK/PASt, all other B12/B10/SEC schools are at $30M or less.
BYU gets invite to B12 to deflect some of the network issues TX has since BYU runs their own network (and thus the invite to Utah by the P10 last year). Further expansion will dilute payout.
SEC may court Missouri, but like with the B1G, I expect this is to attract the ACC partner the SEC really wants. They do not want to split the AL schools between the divisions. Even if OK could move without OK St (doubtful) they do not add the TV $$$. Its not about the product on the field; if it was the B12 would not be in the trouble.
Frank is spot on about ND and TX. If B12 implodes TX will either join B1G or be independent, and this has more to do with olympic sports than football since TX can schedule paid appearances in Austin to fill out its football schedule.
LikeLike
Didn’t see this posted yet. PBC has this to say:
“Re: my expansion posts, I don’t encourage anyone to believe what I post. The content very likely is the 5 excess pounds of BS alluded to in this thread. I’m not trying to establish credibility. I don’t really care about what people think about my posts related to expansion. In fact, they are likely very inaccurate. Nobody should take literally anything I post on this board related to expansion.”
LikeLike
What is Larry Scott thinking?
No, not like WHAT WAS HE THINKING !! but more like what is the PAC end play?
Below is a list of all the D1 CFB programs west of the Mississippi that the PAC could add. I think looking at the list it is fairly easy to see how few are must get teams. Texas and Oklahoma have to be at the top of that list, and their pairs (TT and oSu) are in the top quartile. While I can understand the PAC not wanting to take UT with the current LHN in place, I am unsure why they did not go ahead and add OU and oSu? What did Larry Scott have to lose by just going to 14 and waiting? The ACC going to 14, and the SEC going to 13 means the 13 team barrier has been broken, so what did Scott have to lose? Anybody care to offer their opinion on this one?
Team Stadium Capacity
Texas Longhorns Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium 100119
Oklahoma Sooners Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium 82112
San Diego State Aztecs Qualcomm Stadium 71294
Missouri Tigers Faurot Field 71000
Rice Owls Rice Stadium 70000
Tulane Green Wave Louisiana Superdome 69000
BYU Cougars LaVell Edwards Stadium 63275
Texas Tech Red Raiders Jones AT&T Stadium 60454
Oklahoma State Cowboys Boone Pickens Stadium 60218
Iowa State Cyclones Jack Trice Stadium 55000
Air Force Falcons Falcon Stadium 52480
UTEP Miners Sun Bowl Stadium 51500
Kansas Jayhawks Memorial Stadium 50071
Baylor Bears Floyd Casey Stadium 50000
Kansas State Wildcats Bill Snyder Family Football Stadium 50000
Hawaii Warriors Aloha Stadium 50000
TCU Horned Frogs Amon G. Carter Stadium 44008
Fresno State Bulldogs Bulldog Stadium 41031
New Mexico Lobos University Stadium 38634
UNLV Rebels Sam Boyd Stadium 36800
Colorado State Rams Sonny Lubick Field at Hughes Stadium 34400
Boise State Broncos Bronco Stadium 33500
Wyoming Cowboys War Memorial Stadium 32580
Houston Cougars Robertson Stadium 32000
SMU Mustangs Gerald J. Ford Stadium 32000
Louisiana’s Ragin’ Cajuns Cajun Field 31000
Arkansas State Red Wolves ASU Stadium 30964
Louisiana Tech Bulldogs Joe Aillet Stadium 30600
North Texas Mean Green Fouts Field 30500
San Jose State Spartans Spartan Stadium 30456
ULM Warhawks Malone Stadium 30427
New Mexico State Aggies Aggie Memorial Stadium 30343
Tulsa Golden Hurricane Skelly Field at H. A. Chapman Stadium 30000
Nevada Wolf Pack Mackay Stadium 29993
Utah State Aggies Romney Stadium 25513
Idaho Vandals Kibbie Dome 16000
LikeLike
I believe it was the Presidents, not Scott, who stiffed OU and OSU…….likely after Scott had promised OU it would be no problem………
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s pretty clear Scott was in favor adding the Oklahoma schools (by themselves if necessary) but he simply couldn’t whip the votes.
LikeLike
That list shows why their hoped for endgame is Texas/Oklahoma plus their in-state pairs. There is no other good option for the Pac-12 that would be acceptable to their schools.
Larry Scott himself said that its the Texas market that makes the Pac-16 attractive along with the possibility of pod scheduling to give decent access to all schools to California and Texas.
They even threw out the idea of a Pac-14 with Oklahoma/OSU; that really shows that they’re going for Pac-16 or bust.
The problem is that they want to maintain their equality of access/money and not cut Texas a special deal on the LHN (whether over finances or content control). If Texas doesn’t ever come around to their way of seeing things (unlikely), then the Pac-12 is the endgame.
LikeLike
no idea how valid, but the word around austin is that the academicians of the conference threw a fit. the thinking is that a foursome with texas and tech would have been marginally acceptable, but any combination that didn’t include the longhorns would not be.
if that’s the case, it’s a bit of an eye-opener for me. i don’t like the pac for various reasons, but i had decided that there was no academic backbone whatever in that group, and that several top schools are members was pure happenstance. i still think there is no moral backbone out there, but i’m beginning to think they do still value academics.
LikeLike
Yeah, best I can tell the CU, UU and AZ schools weren’t willing to give up So Cal access and the No. Cal schools revolted over academics.
LikeLike
Your list pretty clearly shows their limited options. Other than Big 12 schools, there is noone they would add. Maybe in 20 years, Hawaii, UNLV, New Mexico, Houston, UTEP or TCU could be at an acceptable level academically and athletically for them, but noone is now.
They really get a scheduling mess that makes everyone unhappy if they go to 14 with the Oklahoma schools. And its bad for the student-athletes to have those two schools out on an island. They just don’t NEED to go beyond 12. If the SEC ever invites Oklahoma, the Pac will have time to re-consider, and if OU left, UT will be looking for a new home as well.
LikeLike
Technically, isn’t Tulane east of the Mississippi? 🙂
LikeLike
Hop – Tulane is located east, west and north of the Mississippi River. They don’t call New Orleans the Crescent city for nothing. But you are correct that Tulane is located on the east bank of the Mississippi, just as the #1 LSU Fightin’ Tigers are 80 miles upriver.
LikeLike
Hey Alan, I see what you did there. I didn’t say nothing about the #1 LSU Fightin’ Tigers in my question, yet you were able to work in a reference to the #1 LSU Fightin’ Tigers in your response. Well played.
Hey, who’s #1 this week? I wasn’t certain.
LikeLike
HH,
with the win, and no couches to burn, I am just surprised they did not burn Alan’s plane before he got out of town.
LikeLike
HH,
Yes, but if academics matter, and UT keeps the LHN, then the PAC 16 looks like this:
Pac 12 + Rice + Tulane + Missouri + Kansas
all 4 are AAU schools 🙂
LikeLike
Also, UNT moved into new digs this year — Apogee Stadium. The capacity’s about the same (30,850), but it’s actually a top-rate, architecturally-cool facility for a lower-tier DI school, a huge upgrade from the high school stadium quivalent they’d played in for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apogee_Stadium
LikeLike
Article on PAC-12 and expansion:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-pac-12future
Oregon State prez says: “But I know that some of my colleagues said `You know what? I don’t care what any of the facts are, I don’t want anything to change.”’
Which may explain why OU got turned down. Or whatever they claim.
LikeLike
“Oregon State prez says: “But I know that some of my colleagues said `You know what? I don’t care what any of the facts are, I don’t want anything to change.”
The kind of thinking that made the Pac-10 what it was.
LikeLike
Awful?
LikeLike
Billy Liucci sums up the Ags move. Not Longhorn friendly.
http://v4.texags.com/Stories/2979
Fast forward to July, 2010 … just weeks after the league survived the realignment scare. At the annual Big 12 media gathering, Commissioner Beebe stated that there were no guarantees as far as what particular teams would earn. Beebe later backed off of those comments, knowing that A&M, along with both Texas and Oklahoma, were guaranteed a minimum of $20-million per year as part of the conference-saving agreement. The comments didn’t bother the Sooners or Longhorns — both of whom knew they’d easily soar past that threshold — but it ruffled plenty of feathers in College Station, serving as the first warning sign that this hasty marriage wasn’t built on a foundation of trust.
The other shoe dropped in January, when it was announced that ESPN would partner with Texas to form the Longhorn Network. The 20-year, $300-million deal represented a stunning development — something no one from College Station to Norman to Lincoln ever saw coming. Even in their wildest dreams, Dodds and the Longhorns themselves couldn’t have imagined such a lucrative deal being struck
Texas partnering with ESPN presented a giant, unforeseen problem for the Big 12 moving forward — something that Beebe and the league’s other eight teams could all see but that no one knew better than those in Aggieland. Suddenly, the Worldwide Leader had a vested interest ($300-million worth, to be exact) in finding programming for the first team-specific channel of its kind, the most attractive content, of course, being live football games.
Beginning in late June and into July of 2011, word started getting out that the LHN planned to air high school football games featuring several Texas commitments. There isn’t enough space in this column to begin to delve into the litany of reasons this idea was frowned upon by not only the Horns’ Big 12 brethren but also by college coaches around the country and most of the national media. Yet Beebe and the league office stood idly by, essentially letting drama and frustration levels mount.
Meanwhile, the Horns and ESPN pushed even harder, setting the stage for what was probably the final straw as far as Texas A&M was concerned. The perception was that the Longhorns and ESPN were essentially operating on their own, without any feedback or, even more damnable than that, with consent from the league itself.
The Aggies and others pointed to ESPN and Fox Sports apparently working behind the scenes to move one of Texas’ Big 12 games to the LHN as undeniable proof that the current arrangement was destined to rip the league apart. Not only was the original understanding that the Longhorn Network be afforded just a single televised football game per season thrown out the window but, suddenly, a Big 12 conference game was going to air on the network, as well. To make matters much, much worse, all of this happened with the league’s “other” nine institutions left entirely in the dark.
LikeLike
Revisionist history. Everyone knows the Aggies wanted out in June 2010 but reluctantly chose to sty despite knowing full well that Texas was planning its own network — a network the Aggies had a chance to partner up on but chose not to.
The 20-year, $300-million deal represented a stunning development — something no one from College Station to Norman to Lincoln ever saw coming.
So the real issue isn’t so much that Texas is launching its own network. It’s that the Aggies underestimated the ability of UT to pull it off so successfully. Just think of those extra dollars which could have been heading towards College Station had Bill Byrne had just a little bit for foresight.
In that case, the cheer Longhorn fans derisively yell at Aggies, “Pooooooooooor Aggies,” seems particularly on-point in this case.
LikeLike
From Longhorn Network and Delusion http://longhornnetworkanddelusion.tumblr.com/
… (In 2009 and 2010, Deloss Dodds approached Bill Byrne (Athletic Director at TAMU and former Athletic Director at Nebraska) about putting together a joint network for both schools’ third tier rights. Byrne rejected Dodds stating he did not believe that it would be profitable and viewed it as unrealistic. Byrne posted about this in his weekly Wednesday column on the TAMU athletic website but that post has mysteriously been taken down in the last few weeks. Without TAMU as a partner, Texas continued to work tirelessly towards a network for its third tier programming and in early 2011, ESPN (the biggest dog in all of college football) and Texas announced the creation of the $300 million Longhorn Network to begin airing in August 2011. In late 2010/early 2011, Byrne saw the error of his previous assumptions and tried to reconnect with Dodds to see if Texas was still interested in being partners in the network. Dodds and Texas, after taking all the risk, putting in all the work, and doing all the negotiating, were not terribly receptive to Byrne’s desire to cash in on the backs of work done by Texas post hoc (would you like us to shine your shoes for you too?).
LikeLike
What has UT risked?
LikeLike
At the very least opportunity.
LikeLike
I guess I don’t understand. Are you saying the risk was to accept $$$’s from ESPN in exchange for ESPN fronting the money and doing the work building a channel? Is this a risk that others had available to them? What was the lost opportunity? The Pac offer? Wouldn’t that still be available to them in the absence of the LHN?
LikeLike
Wait…A&M had an offer after all? Without OU? Pretty much means your input should be ignored given the absolute denial of this by you for 18 months now.
Now, lets talk about about the LHN and what the Aggies new full well about. First, Bill Byrne is on record as wanting a B12 network and that was a primary driver in this decision. He was pushing for a conference network. Second, the partnership was not on equal terms per numerous contacts within the A&M AD. Texas offered to share the costs but want 80% of the revenue and content. Second, Bill Bryne is also on record as having concerns about the LHN content when it comes to HS football or conference games. He voiced those concerns before the LHN was a reality. The Houston Chronicle has an article expressing these concerns in January of this year.
I’d say the real issue is that Texas didn’t think A&M would jump to the SEC and leave Texas with not options other than the LHN. In this case, the name Aggies derisively yell at Longhorns “tu T-sips” seem particularly on-point in this case. Hope you make it to Kyle this year for your 4th loss in 6 games to chants of SEC and “poooooooooor t-sips”. I usually abstain from those yells but I won’t this year.
One other thought, A&M has an SEC offer?? LOL, you’ve been exposed as the tool you are, horn.
LikeLike
Actually overall not very biased by Aggie bulletin board standards. Does keep to the SEC delusion that ESPN will open the bank vaults when they have already said they are just keeping per school payout the same. Also repeats the SEC delusion that somehow UNC or VT will join the SEC (in fairness, the AJC article I mentioned also quotes NYT as saying SEC is looking at VT or Carolina schools). I found the comment about how they bring so much more value than OU rather amusing, as well as the constant attacks on Mack Brown (Powers and Dodds I don’t agree with, but they could at least make a case for). Their comment on UT/ESPN/Fox doing the 2nd game on TLN in secret was pretty amusing too, considering the conference members had to approve it and how they talked about equal revenue sharing being important when A&M is the ONLY school who wanted a guarantee and who wanted some of the have-nots money to guarantee it.
I know Frank thinks the Longhorns are biased who say A&M to SEC is a bad move for A&M, but there was a telling comment that said A&M recruiting had never been better (and that’s in the Big 12 with most of it occurring before any of the SEC talk came up). The belief that A&M will do better in the SEC is, IMO, based on several fallacies:
1. Aggies don’t recruit well. If you look at the top 100 lists in Texas, its clear UT, OU and A&M get the top players and rarely lose recruiting battles to anyone but each other. If you’ve seen the Aggies’ teams, there is a lot of talent that isn’t reflected in W-L. Missouri has won 40 games over the last 4 years with half their team being what they get from Texas after UT/OU/A&M have taken their pick (and battling with OSU/TCU/TT, etc.). And as the articles said, A&M has dramatically improved their facilities, which for a time lagged (and they still had pretty good recruiting classes).
2. A stronger conference results in better recruiting. If you are talking Big 10 vs. MAC, yes. But FSU is top 5 nearly every year while in the ACC.
3. SEC will result in lots more money as the networks will bow down to the SEC, tear up the contracts and offer them whatever $ they want. That’s been proven wrong. SEC is not getting any more money per school from the ESPN contract. There’s no indication CBS is going to do any more than keep them the same per school. The Big 12 is at $15 million per school over their contract’s life vs. $17.1 for the SEC, but the Big 12 will have a new 1st tier contract in 4 years. Their Tier 2 just increased 450%. The Tier I only has to increase 50% to exceed the SEC. So the SEC will result in less TV money over the next 15 or so years.
A&M certainly has the possibility of realizing their potential as FSU realized theirs. Coaching is the primary factor in achieving that. A&M has a history of not keeping coaches who did well elsewhere. Dana Bible built programs at Nebraska and Texas. Bear Bryant, of course, won many national titles at Alabama. Gene Stallings won a national title at Alabama. A&M followed up their 1939 national title with a 3-31-1 streak against Texas with Bryant and Stallings responsible for two of those wins. I just don’t see how changing conferences helps A&M realize their potential. Stability is certainly improved, but A&M is mostly responsible for the latest round of instability. And its one thing inviting Missouri into your state to recruit. Alabama, LSU, Auburn and Tennesse are bigger names and bigger challenges. For those of us who saw what happened to SWC schools when a lack of national TV appeal and recruiting scandals drove many of the blue chips out of state from the mid-80s to mid-90s, the Big 12 building a wall around Texas was a good thing. Everyone in the Big 12 except perhaps Nebraska and Colorado (is it a coincidence those are the two that left last year?) has better talent than they did in 1996. A&M is opening the door to out of state schools and I think it will hurt everyone, but perhaps A&M the most.
LikeLike
bullet, i don’t think anybody except an ag would suggest a&m is even on par with oklahoma on the football field, but the sec is really hurting for academic respectability, and the ags can really help on that front. at least until their governor reshapes them in his image.
you mention a&m’s coaching problems, but you didn’t mentioned their biggest problem there, and it really impacts their economic issues. the ags tend to overpay and overextend. they aren’t good judges of coaching merit, and the least appearance of success has their paranoid elements clamoring to tie the guy down with bucket loads of money and a long, long contract. then when he shows to be human, they can’t wait to get rid of him and bring in the next savior savant. it is not unusual for them to be paying several head coaches at the same time. no wonder they clamor for the money that ought to be going to the have nots.
LikeLike
didn’t mentioned ?
yeesh.
LikeLike
I think they really screwed up getting rid of RC Slocum. He was a classy guy and an excellent coach. He continued to win even cleaning up after Jackie “probation” Sherrill. Like Baylor after Grant Teaff, they have made some bad coaching decisions (and like Texas after Fred Akers-took 3 tries to get it right). Michigan is struggling with the issue and Penn St. will soon face it.
LikeLike
i agree and disagree.
agree that it was a huge mistake to send rc packing. they’ve not come close to having another as good as him.
having a bit of trouble with ‘classy’. check with mack on how classy he thinks rc is after that bonfire game experience. if rc and the rest of the gang didn’t use that experience to sneak a win, i’ll eat my hat, and i’m not that fond of hat.
LikeLike
I don’t think RC was part of any deliberate food poisoning if that’s the part you are referring to.
LikeLike
haha…deliberate food poisoning=we got beat but need to find any excuse, even a hilariously stupid one. Yes, you would have beaten Bama if Colt had not been “injured (scared)” too.
LikeLike
I think I speak for this entire board when I say that I would to thank Frank the Ag for reinforcing every stereotype I have about Aggies. Every so often I run into a reasonable one, but comments about how the quarterback who graduated with the all-time wins record was skrrred of Alabama brings me back.
LikeLike
Yes, I’m the one blaming a loss on deliberate food poisoning. Perhaps my Colt was scared comment was over the top but who is making excuses, Ags or Horns?
I’ve read countless stories claiming Texas would have beaten Bama if only Colt had played. Guess what, he didn’t and you lost. Mack Brown himself stated it. Then he blamed last years 5-7 season on a “hang-over”. Do you guys ever just get beat?
LikeLike
RC was not only classy but also devoted to A&M, through and through maroon-blooded. He was IIRC the winningest coach in aggy history. I always wanted A&M’s first loss to be to UT, State Pride, familial connections, sibling institution, etc. When they dumped RC and brought in Fran (?????) I lost all respect for A&M. Mind numbing move. Worse than dumping Mack to hire Bobby Petrino.
LikeLike
‘Bryant: If we could offer a boy the same scholarship deal Texas does, and there were 20 good prospects, how many would we sign?
Finney: Ten
Bryant: You mean we would get half?
Finney: At least.
“That impressed me because I knew I could win with that,” Bryant wrote. “But I didn’t know the Aggies then like I know them now. Old Jack was exaggerating. You couldn’t get ten. You would be lucky to get one. The chances were you wouldn’t get any. Not then.”‘
From Maisel’s article on ESPN. I don’t really see A&M getting much of a bump in recruiting from going to the SEC.
The only way this reverses (for a short period) is if Texas really stumbles and has a bad decade or at least several bad years. If Texas is up, they’re going to win the best recruits, and OU will come in a close second.
LikeLike
zeek, the greatest hope the ags have for texas to stumble is for about 5 or 6 schools to suddenly need head coaches and come at our staff with blank checks. maybe there won’t be big doings this year or maybe there will, but, regardless, when these guys get the corners knocked off, this thing is going to roll.
LikeLike
Aggie message board standards are well above what you find barfed out by most longhorn sites. Who was more on-target about A&M to the SEC? I challenge you to find one Texas board who acknowledged Texas A&M had a stand alone SEC invitation prior to it becoming painfully obvious to all over the few months. Two of the three primary A&M boards have been steadfast on that position for 18 months.
As to your points:
1)”A&M will recruit better” is the arguement not that A&M has recruited poorly in the past. Anybody who even casually follows recruiting understands that A&M typically lands top 20 classes with occasional fringe top 10 classes. One easy example is Louisiana recruiting should see a significant uptick as we now play in the state every other year. There is more talent (per capita) in that state than any other and A&M will expand it already aggressive efforts in the state.
2) “The SEC is strong” A&M as the only SEC school will prove to be a differentiator. Recruits want to play in this conThe SEC’s obvious superiority to the B12 will entice more blue chip Texas talent.
3) “The SEC will results in more money” This hasn’t been proven wrong. You think that, sure, but that hardly makes it a fact. Here’s a fact for you. A&M received $10M in TV revenue last year from the B12. The SEC paid out just shy of $19M that same year.
…and Texas is the most responsible party for this instabliity despite your weak claims.
LikeLike
2. Only time will tell if A&M is right on #2, but FSU doing just fine in the ACC is a better argument than any theory.
3. If you have been following-and why one Aggie on here said A&M was in such a hurry to get out, to avoid higher exit fees which are based on conference distributions-Fox increased the Tier II contract from $20 million to $90 million per year and A&M was projected to get over $20 million a year in distributions (over $15 million from TV money). There will may be $1-$2 million a year more in the SEC the next 4 years, but based on the increase in rights fees, its hard to imagine the Big 12 not increasing at least 50% on Tier I, which makes the Big 12 contract higher.
LikeLike
I have been following it. Show me link to the B12 with comments stating the term averages $90M per year. I’ve seen plenty of rumors and 3rd party announcements but nothing from the B12. In addition, that new contract doesn’t begin until 2012 so it won’t increase A&M’s revenue (or exit fees) at all. In addition, that rumored $90M term is an average for a backloaded contract. Next year, when the contract kicks in the payment will be much closer to $60M. So for 2011 the 10 teams will earn close to what they earned last year – $10M or so. In 2012, the team wil likely split $65M from tier 1 and $60-$65 from tier II. That’s $12.5M from TV if the league still had 10 team.
One more point regarding your initial post. You state that Texas A&M is “opening the door” to out of stae teams. I find that really interesting coming from a Texas fan. Oklahoma benefits the most from recruiting top talent from Texas. Which Texas school has empowered that relationship the most? Yes, that’s right, UT. Texas has allowed OU to play in this state and raid the state of HS talent for decades. Your argument is hypocritical and asks that A&M be held responsible for acting exactly like UT. You can make this claim when you stop playing OU in Dallas every year. Better yet, just quit the B12 and reform the old SWC.
LikeLike
We’ve been playing OU since they were in the SWC, not that anyone on this board is old enough to remember that.
The SEC’s $17 million a year is backloaded too. You’re right the Aggies won’t get any of the Fox money. That’s why their exit fee according to the by-laws (not what they will end up paying) was estimated at $28 million-1 year at around $10 million and 1 year higher. Beebe came out and said after the contract, there was no reason for A&M to be concerned about not getting their $20 million per year.
As for the $90 million, you’ve probably followed this board. Its been posted from several sources, but it has been kept “officially” confidential by Fox, just like changes on the ABC/ESPN Big 10 contract.
LikeLike
bullet,
old enough to remember = yes
old enough to be there = no
LikeLike
The fact that the Longhorns have been playing OU since the SWC doesn’t change the hypocrisy of your point, it enhances it. You also conveniently ignore the fact that Arkansas and LSU, the two schools most likely to benefit from A&M “opening the door”, have long standing rivaliries with Texas A&M that go back to the SWC days.
The $90M has been posted by several sources without any tangible proof. The SEC annual TV payments are announced officially, so are the contract terms. When A&M officials publically state they will make more money (the announced today they would earn up to $5M more in 2012), I doubt they are guessing. You seem to be since you can’t provide evidence for your claimed fact.
LikeLike
I’m not going to do the work for you on the contracts. We’ve all seen the articles. You can choose not to believe them if it suits you.
The door got slammed shut on Arkansas when they left the SWC and they’ve suffered ever since. And its a difference with the Aggies and Texas occassionally playing Arkansas and being in the conference with them and playing them every year. Its also a difference with continuing a 100 year series vs. joining another conference.
It the Aggies had wanted to stay, I would have been happy if Arkansas and LSU somehow wanted to join the Big 12. But there’s a difference between 2 and the whole SEC in addition to the whole Big 12 recruiting in Texas.
College realignment history might have been a lot different if the participants at the initial SWC meeting had joined and the big schools had stayed-Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St. (then A&M), Southwestern and LSU.
LikeLike
@Duffman
I’m impressed!
LikeLike
You also conveniently ignore the fact that Arkansas and LSU, the two schools most likely to benefit from A&M “opening the door”, have long standing rivaliries with Texas A&M that go back to the SWC days.
Perhaps but probably at the expense of A&M, but not Texas.
LikeLike
“Aggie message board standards are well above what you find barfed out by most longhorn sites”
That’s a good one. I would direct you to about 1 of perhaps a few hundred threads on TexAgs under football, look for Faylor, Gaylor, K*…those that live in glass houses should not throw stones because there are some boulders sitting out there.
LikeLike
I’m skeptical that the move will improve their recruiting against Texas, but A&M currently gets almost no one with a Texas. In the last 5 years, only 11 recruits have gone to A&M with a Texas offer, while 101 have gone to Texas with an A&M offer. Against Oklahoma the numbers are slightly better but not much (35 vs 64).
LikeLike
Should be “Texas offer”…
LikeLike
That’s very true M. The SEC angle is a very good chance to push those numbers into a more postive position.
LikeLike
M, could you tell me what site you got this info from? Do they have more schools? I’d like to see how well certain schools do against each other. Thanks.
LikeLike
The data is from Rivals (so only 2002-2011). I collected it with a program I wrote, so no website yet. If you have any particular matchups in mind, I could run them and let you know the results.
LikeLike
NU vs. everyone 🙂
Seriously, I’d like to see how well the B10 powers and secondary powers do against the local secondary powers and other BCS programs. So for instance, Michigan, tOSU, and Wisconsin vs. Miami, TAMU, USF, and TTech.
Thanks.
LikeLike
@Richard
I wrote up some of the data here:
http://www.offtackleempire.com/2011/9/27/2451995/recruiting-wins-and-losses-how-desirable-is-your-school
There’s a link at the end of that article to a spreadsheet with the head-to-head records of all 120 FBS teams over the last 5 years.
LikeLike
Sweet! Thanks, M!
LikeLike
Also kind of amusing. Two Aggies in the Texas legislature, Tommy Williams (R-the Woodlands) and John Otto (R-Dayton), are going to introduce a bill to force Texas and Texas A&M to play in football. Where did we hear the biggest outcry about the legislature getting involved in football matters?
LikeLike
Would a bill like that even pass? It seems utterly silly to support that unless you’re an aggie (not sure how many of those there are in the legislature).
LikeLike
Sounds like a hostage situation that’s contrary to the American way of life. I’m sure the A&M leaders will agree.
LikeLike
A Longhorn Fan’s Last Letter to the Aggie Nation.
1. It may come as a surprise to you that an awful lot of us still don’t want you to go. Think of this letter as a last ditch intervention, providing you what lawyers call a “last clear chance” to avoid the train wreck of joining the SEC.
2. Maybe y’all should pause for moment to reconsider just why you are leaving. Sure, I know what President Loftin and others have said publicly — that joining the SEC will enhance the academic and athletic prestige of your University, but look deep within and tell me that’s the real reason. You’re actually not so much joining the SEC as you are leaving UT. There, I’ve written it, and you know it’s the truth.
3. A critical mass of A&M Regents/alums apparently has concluded that your University cannot compete academically with UT and is looking to address this (partially real and partially imaginary) deficiency by heading east to plough less competitive academic fields (please excuse the agricultural analogy, it seems appropriate given your academic focus). That same critical alumni mass believes you are becoming progressively marginalized athletically (no conference football championships for 13 years) and views the only solution to the secular downtrends to be secession from UT/ the Big 12.
4. Although your fine History Department might quibble about the details, there is a compelling (and I would argue useful) analogy here to 1861. The antebellum cotton-belt “South [east]” was slipping further and further behind the industrialized “North” every year. By every economic and developmental measure, the South[east] saw itself being increasingly marginalized. Substitute football performance and academic prestige for economic and industrial development and the analogy between A&M circa 2011 and the South[east]ern states of the Civil War-era is complete. Just as each seceding South[east]ern state sought to unite in the Confederacy with other states similarly positioned, A&M today seeks to secede from the UT/Big 12 (“Union”) and join a SEC (“Confederacy”) composed largely of academically marginal public universities in the old cotton-belt states (Florida and Vanderbilt being obvious exceptions). I’m sure a professor in your History Department could tell you how few of the men who marched east with the Texas Brigade to join the Army of Northern Virginia actually made it back home at war’s end. Heading east to fight a culture war didn’t work out so well for Texans in 1861-65, and it likely won’t work any better 150 years later.
5. The antebellum South[east] convinced itself that what truly mattered was not economic development, but rather its superior culture (i.e., manners and chivalry). The modern SEC universities, like the antebellum South[east], take much of their identity from their excellence at cultural pursuits (which many of the students, at least, apparently define as football, fraternities and alcohol consumption), not academics. In the realignment debate, many A&M Regents/alums are emphasizing what they believe to be an affinity between your University’s rural, small town and military institutional values and those of the SEC schools. You might want to consider, however, whether identifying with the cultural values of Starkville, Mississippi, Fayetteville, Arkansas and Auburn, Alabama is really the way you want to go.
6. That’s the real reason y’all are leaving, but what about the other reasons you’ve advanced? Multiple A&M spokesmen, I’m not quite sure who, have cited the academic benefits of membership in the SEC. However, by almost any conceivable metric, A&M’s academic standing exceeds that of all the public schools currently in the SEC (except Florida). So by joining the SEC, you’d actually be engaged in the academic equivalent of slumming. And although I suspect it’s possible through diligence to obtain a fine education at any of the SEC public Universities, an education is sadly not the primary goal of many (perhaps most) of their students. A&M’s choosing to affiliate with lesser academic lights is a profound shame, since A&M is actually a much better school academically than many of your Regents/alums/students apparently recognize, deserve or value. You might also want to consider that fact that in considering their own conference realignment options, UT President Powers and OU President Boren have consistently stressed they want to upgrade their academic affiliations (this, of course, is the reason why neither University appears to be considering the SEC, despite the fact the SEC is undeniably the country’s best football conference and probably would be absolutely delighted to have either or both Universities). Even if an apparent majority of A&M Regents/alums/students don’t seem concerned about joining a conference with academics by and large inferior to your own, I wonder how the A&M Faculty Senate feels about it.
7. A more commonly cited, and superficially more plausible, reason advanced for your leaving is that A&M will gain a competitive edge against UT in recruiting athletes. Again, you might want to think that one all the way through. Will you attract better recruits simply because they will be playing in the SEC? Unlikely. Any four or five star recruit in the state of Texas who wants to play in the SEC now can simply pick up the phone and offers (and, it is alleged, envelopes of cash) will pour in. So unless the opportunity to play SEC ball specifically in Texas will produce the anticipated recruiting bonanza, your expectations may be unrealistic. I doubt very much that the opportunity to play 3 or 4 SEC home games per years in College Station is enough to dictate the choice of any top recruit. Especially since that circumstance will do nothing to redress the profound recruiting disadvantage that currently causes you to lose top talent to UT and OU: many 4/5 star football recruits with NFL aspirations are simply not attracted to the small town, rural, and military cultural values that your University chooses as its self image. The chance to play 3 or 4 SEC home games per year in the College Station metroplex would not alter that reality.
8. What certainly would improve your recruiting, of course, would be better on field performance. But since A&M’s winning percentage against SEC schools is something like 40%, why would you expect the move to improve your record? Y’all have won the Big 12 South Division only twice in 15 years, most recently 13 years ago in 1998, the year you won your sole Big 12 Championship. A&M has been to BCS games just three times, none in the last decade. There is an old saw that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The definition of true insanity might be doing the same thing over and over against tougher competition and expecting a better result. On the other hand, maybe being the SEC’s 13th member will actually prove lucky for A&M. It could happen.
9. Before y’all rush headlong into the arms of the SEC, though, you might want to consider Arkansas’ experience since joining the SEC West in 1992. In 19 seasons, the Hogs have won something like 55% of their games. (That’s total games, including the two or three annual tune-ups each year against non-conference programs.) I suspect that against SEC opponents only, the Hogs have actually have had a losing 19-year record. Arkansas has finished first in the SEC West just twice in 19 years (now before you point out that its three times, remember that in 2002 Alabama actually finished first, but was ruled ineligible because of some pesky NCAA rule violations, an altogether too regular an occurrence in your new neighborhood), has never won the SEC championship and has been to a BCS bowl only once.
10. I would also presume to suggest that you might profit from additional consideration as to why the SEC would want you in the first place. Yeah, I know they say it’s because you are a prestigious school. While most Longhorn fans would freely acknowledge that adding a university the caliber of A&M would only increase the academic standing of the SEC, we know that academics is not what the SEC is all about.
11. They also say that including you would enhance their access to Texas media markets. I’ll be the first to admit that I watch 2 or 3 SEC games per week (its great football). But would I or any other Texan be more likely to watch you lose to Alabama than say the Alabama vs. LSU game? Not really. Would I watch any more SEC games simply because A&M is in that conference? Again, not really. While I usually watch A&M when you are (too rarely) on television, would I or any other non-alum Texan be more likely to watch you beat Vanderbilt than Baylor? Not really (actually, not at all). UT owns the Texas media markets and I don’t think that A&M’s membership in the SEC would make any dent (unless in the unlikely event you somehow put together a string of conference championships).
12. Several of the SEC coaches have gleefully anticipated that adding y’all would enhance their recruiting in Texas. Not likely, however, and in their hearts they know it. As discussed previously, any 4/5 star Texas recruit who wants to play in the SEC can do so now. Would a Texas recruit be more likely to go to an SEC East school like Georgia or Florida simply because their friends and relatives could see them play every second or third year by driving to College Station? Again, not likely.
13. That leaves the real reason the SEC wants you. All successful conferences have three tiers of teams: (1) teams which are contenders virtually every year; (2) teams which can challenge the leaders occasionally; and (3) teams which the leaders can count on stomping year in and year out. Come on, which one do you honestly think the SEC expects A&M will be? One of the perennial championship contenders, elbowing aside Florida, Alabama, LSU, Auburn and Georgia? Not a chance. If the very capable Athletic Directors at those schools actually thought that, you wouldn’t be getting an invitation in the first place. How about one of the occasionally good squads like Tennessee, South Carolina or Arkansas? Well, maybe. I certainly hope so, but your recent record doesn’t support it. Or maybe your prospective SEC conference mates have cast A&M as one of the perennial cellar dwellers like Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Mississippi State and Ole Miss? It’s gratuitous advice from a Longhorn, surely, but you might want to revisit this issue before you actually make the jump.
14. By the way, have y’all given any serious thought to finding a partner in a new SEC West rivalry? Auburn’s already got Alabama. LSU has Arkansas. Ole Miss really isn’t good enough to be anyone’s hated rival. That leaves Mississippi State. Think about how much you have in common. You both wear maroon and white. You both are the second public universities in your states. You both enshrine small town, rural cultural values and have an animal husbandry major. Just think how much fun the Corps would have marching down the main street (they probably don’t even have traffic lights) in Starkville, Mississippi before your big, annual game.
15. In sum, step back from the edge of the precipice. You are a great University and have been a fine rival. Recognize that the State of Texas, the Big 12, Texas A&M, and, yes, UT would all be diminished by your departure.
P.S.
Although you don’t really seem to care one way or the other, we’ll be okay if you leave. While our series was for years one of the great ones in college football, our true rival for the last few decades has actually been OU. The silver lining of your leaving would be that we would no longer be playing an annual, season-capping game against a rival to whom the game means so very much more than it does to us. You’ve always played over your heads against UT (witness the record in recent years). Your leaving the Big 12 will likely mean no more Thanksgiving Day games for us against a rival which can salvage an otherwise dismal season by “sawing off varsity’s horns.” Y’all should know, however, that even at the end of our demoralizing (yes, it was truly horrible) 2010 campaign, UT fans by and large didn’t consider Thanksgiving Day a chance at redemption, just another game.
LikeLike
I stopped reading at “cannot compete academically”. Typical UT fan.
LikeLike
@sanantoniotexcat
Not my regents. I have nothing to do with aTm. If you have a link where the aTm Regents stated they can’t compete with UT academically, I’ll take a look at it. Otherwise, I’ll put it down to the standard Longhorn arrogance.
LikeLike
Just some fact checking:
Arkansas conference winning percentage in the SEC is .465.
In the last decade, SEC teams have collectively gotten 31 UT recruits on 170 offers. Arkansas got 3 on 29 offers, a slightly better percentage than A&M. LSU has been the most successful (12 out of 32).
Mississippi State ends the season with Mississippi and I doubt that changes. Considering that MSU’s record is worse than Mississippi (since ’92), I don’t know how they would be beneath them.
A&M’s Big 12 record the last decade has been 37-43, good for 8th in the conference (2 wins fewer than Colorado, 1 win better than Kansas State). I don’t know what alchemical process will instantly improve the Aggies after entering the SEC, and I don’t know how their recruiting will improve if they are consistently sub .500 in the conference.
As far as the “not so much joining the SEC as you are leaving UT”, I think the comments by the A&M president about how they would go independent rather than stay in the Big 12 speak for themselves.
LikeLike
@M
Our Board and alums consoled themselves in ’94 with the knowledge that the only reason UT was throwing away 80 years of tradition was their own greed.
LikeLike
Texas A&M leadership’s position is clear (see 2:40 mark or so)
They are willing to play the Longhorns anyplace and anytime. They have also made it clear that if the Longhorns decide to end the relationship, then so be it. The SEC will bring great matchups to Kyle Field on a consistent basis so there really is no issue for A&M.
It isn’t A&M that is facing this home schedule in 2012:
Wyoming
New Mexico
Iowa State
Baylor
Missouri
Replacement for A&M
LikeLike
loki:
I wasn’t stating that as my opinion, but rather as your Regents’/alums’ apparent (misguided) conclusion and justification for departure. If you had kept reading, you’d have found that I wrote:
“. . . by almost any conceivable metric, A&M’s academic standing exceeds that of all the public schools currently in the SEC (except Florida).”
LikeLike
Yeah loki, how did your Regents’/alums’ justify abandoning Texas?
LikeLike
@ Loki
Yes. Why did the MOB abandon us?
Actually, the difference with the SWC was that the programs were suffering. The SWC champ was regularly going to the Cotton Bowl and getting pummeled. It was necessary to maintain national relevance, not greed. Texas and Texas A&M did pull the plug, but greed wasn’t the reason in 1994. The Cowboys and the Oilers and OU and UGA with their lawsuit against NCAA control of the TV contract that really killed the SWC.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Not the first time politics have gotten involved, it took Frankfort to get UK and UL to play each other.
LikeLike
I believe WVU and Marshall and UNC/NCSU and ECU are the same way.
LikeLike
Atlanta Journal-Consitution (ajc.com) has a nice summary on the Big 6 in Sunday’s paper (except that they referred to the Bleacher report when talking about the Big 10). Can’t find an on-line link. Says ACC will stay at 14 “unless a university of tangible financial value surfaces (Notre Dame or Texas)….according to The New York Times.” They also say the SEC’s preference to take Missouri is gone and that the Big East had eliminated all CUSA schools from consideration except Central Florida.
LikeLike
Big 6? I count 5. 🙂
LikeLike
That’s going to be the interesting thing come 2014. It’s not like the other 5 really need the Big East anymore without Pitt/Syracuse, so whether they get an AQ slot will be interesting.
Of course a part of that may depend on the Big 12 and SEC. If the Big 12 goes to 12 and the SEC gets to 14 (more easily assumed than the Big 12 at 12), you’d have 64 teams among 5 conferences (65 if you include ND). They wouldn’t really need the Big East anymore at that point. The case for dropping the Big East would be amplified if ND joins the Big 12 for non-football sports.
Thinking about it though, this really shows how hard it is to get from where we are to a 16×4 scenario. The Pac-12’s only option is Texas/OU/Tech/OSU, and it’s not certain that the ACC or Big Ten would go to 16 (or even 14 in the Big Ten’s case) without Notre Dame. The SEC won’t go to 16 without ACC teams.
LikeLike
If Texas chooses content control for LHN over a Pac-16 Texas Network, then every conference might have just 12 or 14 members for the long haul.
LikeLike
the irony there is that texas presumably doesn’t have content control. had texas actually had control over network content, i doubt the espn guy would have made his remarks that kicked off this firestorm.
LikeLike
Either the MWC or MWC/CUSA hybrid gets in as a 7th AQ conference (which no playoff proponent wants since it makes it impossible to sell an 8 team playoff to the Hopkins Big 5) or the Big East loses theirs if they continue on their current path. Air Force, Navy, Army and Villanova guarantee that there is a big gap between them and the rest of the AQ conferences.
LikeLike
From what I’ve heard, USF wants no part of UCF in the Big East. I’m not sure if they can singlehandedly stop it though.
LikeLike
Observations and fun facts from Morgantown, West Virginia.
The state police headquarters is located just off campus.
The students love their tattoos, and their facial hair.
The students are more vulgar than the Ole Miss and Florida students, put together. In spite of the constant F**K – U – L – S – U chants, I found most everyone to be very friendly.
I have now removed taking a swig of moonshine from my bucket list. I was a bit disappointed that all the moonshine offered to me was in mason jars and not the clay jugs.
Selling beer in the stadium is a good thing. If drinking beer in THAT stadium goes without incident, its probably safe to sell beer in Bloomington.
For a stadium with only 60,000 seats, it was very loud. And I know loud.
9 out of every 10 ‘eer fans that I spoke with wants to join the SEC. The few that didn’t worry that they will become Mississippi State East.
The fans are passionate and fun. I had a great time in Morgantown, but am very thankful that my Tigers won. If the ‘eers would have won, things could have gotten ugly very quickly.
The couch burning only occur after a West Virginia win.
Many students proudly wore their West F**kin’ Virginia t-shirts.
West Virginia fans like to say f**k, a lot.
Morgantown is cultural experience unlike any other.
LikeLike
You’re a braver man than I. 🙂 Not sure if I would have had the lesticles to make that trip if Texas played in Morgantown.
LikeLike
alan,
thanks for the follow up. shine is usually in mason jars, and has been for a long time.
LikeLike
Nice to see that things haven’t changed much from the 80s when I made that trip a couple of times to see the Nittany Lions walk into the ‘eers den. Fun when you go in there and win, a nightmare if you lose. I had to burn my clothes after the game where WVU broke PSU’s winning streak in the rivalry.
LikeLike
Big XII offered to Louisville?
Is more expansion/realignment in the Cards? (Sorry, couldn’t resist)
LikeLike
This is odd…
A little known fact: Sources familiar with Stoops’s contract confirmed to the Tulsa World that Oklahoma’s football coach can leave without paying a single penny of a buyout should Boren unexpectedly resign as OU’s president.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/OSU/article.aspx?articleid=20110924_202_B1_CUTLIN158273&subjectid=93
LikeLike
You heard it hear first….Bob Stoops is the next head coach at Ohio State.
At least, I wish.:-)
LikeLike
*here* oops, my bad.
LikeLike
As do I. 🙂
LikeLike
I heard that he’s going to Notre Dame next year.
LikeLike
Probably USC. That’s why he didn’t want OU and Texas going to the Pac!
LikeLike
does it say how much he owes if boren expectedly resigns?
LikeLike
Found a news article about a popular discussion point on this blog..the population shift seen in recent decades to southern and south-western states.
Long story short, the “boom areas” are being hit hardest by the “Great Recession” and the “Rust Belt” areas are actually bouncing back faster.
In the end, ESPN may have overpaid for product (the huge ACC/SEC contracts) in an area where the amount of return will be less than anticipated.
LikeLike
Every contract thus far has been underpaid relative to contracts that come even just 2-3 years later. Regardless of conference (talking about the Big Six).
That is no less true of the ACC or SEC in the past 2-3 years than it was of the Big 12 or Big Ten or Big East (5-10 years ago).
The ACC and SEC are likely to just get pro-rata increases for their additional teams.
The Pac-12 was way behind until it just signed its new contract to leap it forward to the front. The Big East got a contract almost close to what the ACC earned just a year later because of the Pac-12 breaking the bank.
As Larry Scott has said, college sports have been undervalued (criminally I might add) for a long time. What changes the game are the conference networks because in a sense they keep “revaluing” every year as the conferences get to keep a portion of the profits. Those profits always grow way faster than the built-in rate negotiated into contracts for T1/T2 rights.
The Big Ten and Big 12 will blow all the contracts out of the water in 2014-2015 when they are negotiated. That’s just how the game works.
LikeLike
I’m not talking about under-paying…I’m talking about OVER-paying.
Right now the Big Ten started a fire storm of buying for low grade football games and 3rd tier rights by starting up their own conference channel and making a boat load of money off of it. But here’s the thing…they make a ton of money off subscriptions and 2 tons of money of advertising for the channel in question…how do the “big players” do the same?
The ABC/ESPN’s of the world already have a channel and its near saturation as far as market growth is concerned (I pay $10 a month for basic cable and still get ESPN/ESPN2 for example). Simply put, by buying more content they aren’t going to achieving any greater market growth/penetration than they already have. What’s more the tv slots they already have are already filled with the “top” games from each conference…they don’t have any “empties” as it is so where does the additional content go?
Now there’s the “ACC Network” / “SEC Network”, etc but in the end they are just names plastered to already established channels in order to promote product. They aren’t anything like the BTN. The LHN was the first “dedicated” channel ESPN paid for and they’re finding just getting intriguing content (ie: football games) is causing enough friction to tear a conference apart…and without that content there’s no chance in hell of it getting on cable carriers any time soon. Those “channels” could be turned into regionalized “ESPN 8” channels focused on the local conference, but that’s going to take time/money/infrastructure that simply doesn’t currently exist without even getting to the question of whether a cable carrier is going to want to shell out more money for very specialized programming (its one thing for schools like tOSU who pump out hundred’s of thousands of students to want basic carry rates in a state because they can deliver…how does Wake Forrest or Vanderbilt make that claim?)
Given this is all just conjecture and speculation, but this does point to ESPN shelling out a ton of money for product it may not be able to maximize potential on.
LikeLike
If there is a college sports bubble, its related to the cable TV model. Prices have gotten so high, some people are dropping cable and just settling for on air TV. The current administration, however, is assuming everyone has cable and is trying to force TV into vhf that doesn’t work well for digital and trying to take spectrum for wireless services. They already got channels 52-69. Several colleges are starting on-line networks. I certainly wouldn’t put any money on how this will all play out. Betting on how realignment scenarios will play out is a much safer bet.
LikeLike
Education helps.
LikeLike
I should say “Education pays”.
LikeLike
It allows Michigan grads to move to other states to find jobs!
LikeLike
And its a real estate recession. The areas that boomed the most are suffering the most. Obvious they have a point of view they are trying to drive. Right after they talk about a “Great Lakes renaissance,” they mention Michigan being among the highest unemployment states. Michigan is the anomoly. They are the state hurting badly that didn’t have a real estate bubble.
LikeLike
I agree. I’ve pointed this out in earlier comments on this blog, in response to “the Midwest is dying”. Currently, southern and western states dominate the list of states with an unemployment rate greater than the national average.
Southern and western 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)
LikeLike
Actually I was disagreeing with the long term trend part of the article. We’re very much still in a real estate recession and will be until the foreclosures start moving and the commercial market bottoms out. And that has hurt the areas that were growing fastest and had the highest price appreciations. Those areas will be the last ones out of the recession. But the recession won’t last forever.
I did agree with the arguments on the other thread that its hard to see how Nevada and Arizona can keep growing at their pace with the lack of water. That’s not an issue for states like Washington, Colorado and much of the South.
LikeLike
Actually, Colorado (and Utah) have water issues as well.
LikeLike
I actually think the south will be hurt longer than just because of the housing bubble.
The south gets a disproportionate amount of federal $$$ due to military base expenditures (“land is cheap so put a military base down there”). The DoD is going to get cut HARD over the next 10 years and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a round of BRAC’s / program cuts that effect local (southern) economies.
They’re still going to have cheap land and low taxes so businesses will continue to want to headquarters there, but if the housing/military type jobs are dry enough long enough the tax might start to go up and the differential may not be as large as it once was.
LikeLike
The south is the center of the military because it has been more conservative and they have returned their reps and sens to DC until they have run the militrary associated committees and kept them there until they died. I don’t think land cost has been an issue.
LikeLike
The previous BRACs closed a lot of bases and the south kept on humming. I don’t think they can or will cut any significant amount more than they did last time. They’ve increased the planned size of the army since the last round of BRACs.
In addition to LargeR’s reasons, the south and west have a lot of lightly populated rural areas that don’t complain about the disruption bases cause and have favorable weather.
LikeLike
bullet:
You could argue, however, that the growth of the past few decades in many parts of the Sun Belt without much innovation/industry (I’m thinking of AZ, NV, some of SC, and much of FL) was built on a Ponzi economy where jobs and growth were dependent on new people arriving, driving up RE prices, creating paper wealth and consumption and jobs, leading to more people arriving, etc. in a virtuous cycle, at least until the RE bubble burst and people stop arriving. The thing with housing booms and busts is that they can each last a looooong time, as in several-decades/half-century long (CA is still in the midst of one). How much of the growth of the Sun Belt in the past 3 decades was due to rising RE prices? Will that growth take place if there isn’t another housing boom or (worse), we become Japan 2.0? I personally don’t think that we’ll see another housing boom in this country in my lifetime. At best, US housing will flatline and rise at about the rate of inflation over the rest of my lifetime (which is what RE has historically done, if you take a centuries-long view).
BTW, I think the NW and Mountain West will do very well due to global warming, but relatively few people have moved there so far (compared to the Sun Belt).
LikeLike
There will be booms. People forget. Oil industry had several up to 50s. Then people got conservative. By the late 70s they forgot about it and people bet on $100 oil. The group that got burned then is retiring. Same thing happens with housing market. Texas didn’t get crazy housing prices because they remembered the early 80s bust.
There will be places that slow down. When we moved to Atlanta 3 years ago, it was obvious to me they were due for a bust. Too many cranes. That portion of the economy will slow in AZ, NV, GA. But people will still want to go to Florida. And Texas grew quickly without that housing boom. South is also younger on average than NE and MW, so more kids. Also more Hispanic immigrants. Rural areas in Georgia have groceries with Mexican sections with Spanish signs (maybe incorrectly spelled or gramatically incorrect-but they get the idea across).
The Mountain West will do well if for no reason other than of the Mormons. They don’t believe in small families. So, to connect back, BYU should continue to grow and do well in the Big 12.
The midwest has the problem that so many of the good jobs were manufacturing, which is moving overseas. The decline has been a 40 year drag like the housing market in the current recession. A lot of those graduates from the great Big 10 schools move elsewhere to find white collar jobs. The places that are doing better weren’t as reliant on manufacturing-Indianapolis, Columbus, Chicago vs. Pittsburg, Detroit, Toledo, Dayton.
LikeLike
bullet:
True, there are always booms and busts in everything, but my point is that housing boom/bust cycles are much longer than other types (historically speaking).
Per FL (and the desert west), that depends on the rate of global warming. FL in the 70’s is pretty nice. FL with 90 degree days in that humidity, more frequent hurricanes, and rising ocean levels (most of the state is at sea level)? Not so nice.
Texas has done well recently because energy (another big boom/bust industry) is in the middle of a boom period. You guys will also have to worry more about drought conditions in the future.
Per manufacturing, what has moved overseas because of labor costs have mostly already done so. Plus, the Midwest also isn’t as dependent on manufacturing as it once was. You’ll have to update your mental map a bit; after Big Steel almost died in the ’80’s, Pittsburgh now has far more people employed in life sciences/health care & education than in steel. These days, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center employs almost 10 times as many people as the biggest steelmaker (US Steel):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Pittsburgh
I do agree that the future isn’t bright for the second tier cities and industrial towns in the Midwest (like St. Louis & Cleveland), but cities that can generate a vibrant culture and draw educated folks (Chicago, Twin Cities, Pittsburgh, etc.) will do well.
Overall, while I don’t like the fiscal situation the state of Illinois is heading towards, when I look at the other regions and consider the likely future of the world and country (more global warming, globalization, premium on education, and disparity between rich and poor), I see only the Pacific Northwest and Mountain West being areas that will do better than the Midwest. The other regions all will have greater problems than the Midwest (besides the NE, which will be similar).
BTW, I know that the south has received an influx of Mexicans, but Chicago has the most Mexicans in the US outside of the states that were formerly part of Mexico. IL has more Hispanics than the entire SEC outside of FL. IN has more Hispanics than any SEC state beside FL and GA.
Click to access c2010br-04.pdf
LikeLike
bullet:
True, there are always booms and busts in everything, but my point is that housing boom/bust cycles are much longer than other types (historically speaking).
Per FL (and the desert west), that depends on the rate of global warming. FL in the 70’s is pretty nice. FL with 90 degree days in that humidity, more frequent hurricanes, and rising ocean levels (most of the state is at sea level)? Not so nice.
Texas has done well recently because energy (another big boom/bust industry) is in the middle of a boom period. You guys will also have to worry more about drought conditions in the future.
Per manufacturing, what has moved overseas because of labor costs have mostly already done so. Plus, the Midwest also isn’t as dependent on manufacturing as it once was. You’ll have to update your mental map a bit; after Big Steel almost died in the ’80’s, Pittsburgh now has far more people employed in life sciences/health care & education than in steel. These days, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center employs almost 10 times as many people as the biggest steelmaker (US Steel).
I do agree that the future isn’t bright for the second tier cities and industrial towns in the Midwest (like St. Louis & Cleveland), but cities that can generate a vibrant culture and draw educated folks (Chicago, Twin Cities, Pittsburgh, etc.) will do well.
Overall, while I don’t like the fiscal situation the state of Illinois is heading towards, when I look at the other regions and consider the likely future of the world and country (more global warming, globalization, premium on education, and disparity between rich and poor), I see only the Pacific Northwest and Mountain West being areas that will do better than the Midwest. The other regions all will have greater problems than the Midwest (besides the NE, which will be similar).
BTW, I know that the south has received an influx of Mexicans, but Chicago has the most Mexicans in the US outside of the states that were formerly part of Mexico. IL has more Hispanics than the entire SEC outside of FL. IN has more Hispanics than any SEC state beside FL and GA.
Click to access c2010br-04.pdf
LikeLike
The midwest will still be around well into the next college football tv contract. Unless they take the jet black topsoil from the plains and deposit it in Sun Belt, it might even make it to the one after that, too.
LikeLike
Nebraska was an excellent addition, but I might have gone for population to increase the Big 10’s lead over everyone else in that category and added someone like Maryland, if available, or Rutgers. The Big 10 doesn’t NEED more people, but it also didn’t NEED another king. The Big 10 will have plenty of people in its footprint for the next 50 years, but the issue is that its lead is decreasing. Nebraska didn’t noticeably increase its population advantage over the other conferences or impact the rate of growth. But for now, the B1G should wait out Notre Dame to see what they do. It was time to get off 11, but its not time to go to 14.
From a competitiveness standpoint, the Big 10 needs the bottom half to step up more than it needed the top half to improve.
LikeLike
I see your point, but for #12, considering a CCG rode with it, getting a “king” was of the utmost importance, and Nebraska was clearly the most sensible addition from a football/academic perspective.
I can see the waiting for Notre Dame, but that could also be served in #15-16, especially since ND won’t go to a conference until all its other BCS options are exhausted.
If the primary goal of #13-14 is to add population (important, given the BTN’s relative in-state/out-of-state subscription values) and needing “the bottom half to step up more,” Rutgers and Maryland are the most logical choices — especially since both complement Penn State along the eastern seaboard.
LikeLike
Speaking as a proponent of expanding into the Mid-Atlantic I highly agree.
That being said I would say a Mizzou & Rutgers addition is the way to go. I like Maryland a lot, but I think it a “School 16” type addition.
LikeLike
Personally I’d rather seen Maryland over either of those two.
LikeLike
I think both Rutgers & UMD are #14/#16 type additions (to round off the conference if only one king is added each round), but both are above Mizzou in my opinion, They all bring roughly the same population base, but Rutgers and UMD fit in comfortably with the rest of the B10 academically while Mizzou does not.
LikeLike
I really don’t see that much of a difference between them. Undergrad rankings at Mizzou are down around Nebraska’s where the other two are a good deal higher. Research money is similar to Rutgers (and both significantly trail Maryland). Athletically Missouri & Maryland are similar (and both significantly ahead of Rutgers). Population wise MO & MD are about the same 3M behind NJ. Culturally Missouri is closer to the majority of B1G schools than Maryland (just a bit) or Rutgers (significantly more). It’s a wash afaic.
(And I really need to start editing my posts. “rather seen more”? *sigh*.)
LikeLike
Scarlet:
Mizzou doesn’t bring Nebraska’s football brand.
If the B10 is going to add a non-king, it has to academically fit well in with the rest of the conference. In both grad (ARWU) and undergrad (USN&WR), UMD and Rutgers are both significantly ahead of Mizzou (granted, UMD is ahead of Rutgers in both).
There’s really no reason to take Mizzou over UMD, and I’d argue for Rutgers over Mizzou as well. They don’t have the recent athletic success of the Tigers, but bring a bigger population base, are close to NYC (good for meeting alums, and many B10 schools have alums there; in fact, I daresay that NJ has more B10 alums than MO). I also can’t really see the culture argument either. Have you lived in both NJ and MO? I grew up in IL, lived in NJ, and now live in MO, and the East Coast (west of Boston, anyway) just doesn’t seem that foreign to me. I daresay that the Ozarks would be a greater culture shock.
LikeLike
@Richard – “Have you lived in both NJ and MO? I grew up in IL, lived in NJ, and now live in MO, and the East Coast (west of Boston, anyway) just doesn’t seem that foreign to me. I daresay that the Ozarks would be a greater culture shock.”
I grew up in southern Ohio and worked in MD for a number of years (& took some classes @ College Park while I was there). Culturally the Ozarks aren’t very different than much of southern Ohio, Indiana or Pennsylvania nor much of Michigan for that matter (I75 was called the Hillbilly Highway for a reason). Regardless that argument is somewhat disingenuous given the bulk of the state’s population resides around Missouri or KC and has far more in common with the neighbors to the east than the ones to the south.
LikeLike
Scarlet:
True, there is probably a greater urban/rural divide in all Midwestern states. However, the point stands that culturally, the East Coast (outside New England; true New England, not Fairfield county, which is part of greater NYC) just doesn’t feel than different to someone who’s use to the industrial cities of the Midwest.
Heck, our accents are all changing together: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_cities_vowel_shift
LikeLike
And you’re missing my point that Missouri alums & fans primarily fall within the category “industrial cities of the midwest”. It’s hard to argue that there is a greater cultural divide between a group that matches the one you’re using as the baseline and one outside of it.
LikeLike
“And you’re missing my point that Missouri alums & fans primarily fall within the category “industrial cities of the midwest”. It’s hard to argue that there is a greater cultural divide between a group that matches the one you’re using as the baseline and one outside of it.”
Sure they do, but if I had a choice between a school where the fanbase is a fit and the academics are a fit and a school where the fanbase is a fit but the academics aren’t a fit, all else being (roughly) equal (i.e. neither are kings and both bring roughly the same population base), I’m taking the school where both are a fit every time.
LikeLike
If I’m Missouri, I have to jump at the SEC, which — to paraphrase the title of an old Miracles song — may not be the one it wants, but is the one it needs. (Actually, the song in question, “Come ‘Round Here (I’m The One You Need),” wasn’t written by Smokey Robinson, but by Holland-Dozier-Holland, and intended for the Four Tops. No wonder on it, Smokey sounds like Levi Stubbs.) Pining for the Big Ten won’t cut it if you’re still a vassal to Texas. The SEC provides money and stability.
LikeLike
Well, people have to eat (which is why NE, IA, etc. are doing relatively better than the rest of the country) but farming doesn’t actually employ that many people nowadays (which is why NE, IA, etc. are small population states. What gives the Midwest an edge is actually the good public B10 universities and the good public high schools of the upper Midwest.
LikeLike
I guarantee people aren’t eating that much corn. Its going into ethanol. I drove from Cincy to Chicago to St Louis to Bowling Green, KY last summer and didn’t see anything but corn. But it does have to be transported and Chicago’s a big transportation center.
LikeLike
@bullet – The vast majority of food products you buy today have corn in them (in the form of HFC).
LikeLike
Is the LHN viable if Texas is down like it was in the 80’s and early 90’s? If it’s not, then ESPN has a vested interest in the success of Texas. Could the following scenario happen where Texas isn’t doing anything wrong but ESPN starts steering recruits to Texas?
“Johnny Utah” is the number one QB in the Nation and plays for Bodhi HS. ESPN owns a recruiting service and finds out through interviews with other top QB prospects (because schools never talk to recruiting services) that Johnny is the top QB target of Texas. Johnny is not yet committed, and the Longhorn Network is only interested in airing games of Texas commits. ESPN’s recruiting service checks in with Bodhi High’s coach Pappas and Johnny and tells them that the LHN will purchase the media rights for the schools upcoming game with Reagan High for $20,000 if Johnny were a Texas commit. ESPN’s recruiting service is very clear that they are not pressuring Johnny to commit and that he should commit to the school of his choice when he is 100% ready. ESPN’s recruiting service then tells coach Pappas that a commit and then de-commit would reflect poorly on the school in the eyes of ESPN. However, if they want the game broadcast (and the money) they need to act soon.
LikeLike
Texas doesn’t really need to do that though. The world is completely different than it was during the SWC.
Texas’ profile is way way way bigger, so even if it stumbles, it’s hard to see them losing those prized recruits like in the SWC days when the national football structure was way more fragmented.
I really don’t think that’s an issue.
LikeLike
What if you replace Texas with Oklahoma or Baylor and ESPN with (just for arguments sake) NBC? Did Texas just create a new model for payola?
LikeLike
For themselves maybe. For everyone else, the most sensible route is the conference route to payouts or some form of selling their T3 rights to a regional network.
Texas is an extremely unique case of giant state/region that they have a dominant presence in… (i.e. no other kings in state), no other school comes close to what they have.
Ohio State or Penn State comes the closest to what Texas is I guess, but all their TV rights are owned by the Big Ten.
Notre Dame is the inverse; they need a national network because they have no population base around the school, since their fanbase is spread everywhere along the coasts.
Michigan, I’d argue has its fanbase more spread out than Ohio State’s (i.e. bigger % leave Michigan), and it has Michigan State in its borders (which is similar in profile to Texas A&M), but perhaps they could pull it off.
Nebraska’s state is too small, ditto for Alabama/Auburn (which split it in some proportion), same for LSU.
Florida has its state, but the state is shared with two other kings in Florida State and Miami that in their areas (panhandle/South Florida) are really big among the lay fanbase. (That nixes all 3 in a way).
USC is dominant in South California but also has UCLA with it.
It’s just hard to see who can follow Texas’ model. Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan come to mind, although all of them only have state populations 1/2 that of Texas, and of course, all their TV rights are owned by the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Zeek:
In the B10, I think only PSU would be incented. Both tOSU and Michigan send too many alums to Chicagoland (and elsewhere in the B10) to want to forsake them with an in-state network, even if they could pull it off. Outside the B10, I think only UF (and maybe USC, though the passion for college sports, really sports fandom in general, in Cali is rather lacking) have the population and brand appeal to pull it off. Maybe UGa as well.
LikeLike
Plus, considering the revenue that the LHN generates (an excess of $5M, as $10M of that annual $15M is for media rights which tOSU gets $10M for), even tOSU, Michigan, and PSU probably make more money with an equal share of the BTN. Note that with an equal share of the BTN, tOSU makes more money off of it’s third tier rights (BTN) and media rights than Texas does off of it’s third tier rights and media rights while getting 100% of the LHN payout.
LikeLike
Not to pile on ESPN, but…
ESPN Obscures Its Own Role in the Conference Realignment Mess
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/espn_obscures_its_own_role_in.php?page=all
LikeLike
Slive being interviewed live about contracts (media)
http://www.aggieathletics.com/
discussed two different clauses in SEC contract to deal with changes
LikeLike
as a side note, Loftin and Machen knew each other through wife and daughter interest in horses.
LikeLike
B12 AAU before realignment:
7 schools
Texas, TAMU, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa State
B12 AAU as of today:
4 schools
Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa State
2 years ago if I said such a thing would be possible, who would have accepted that bet?
If what is going on in the B12 with the LHN, and the conference revenue is the right thing, why are all the smart schools leaving?
LikeLike
duffman,
you know the answer has nothing to do with “institutional intellect”. Colorado is a PAC school and was not a big loss for the conference from an athletic standpoint. Had Nebraska stayed we still would have lost an AAU school. Finally haven’t you heard that A&M leaving raises the IQs of both conferences involved?
LikeLike
jtower,
I know two things
a) TAMU is an AAU school
b) TAMU is not in the B1G
I would have been happy to have TAMU in the B1G, and feel if UT had not been so tied to the LHN this might have happened. I ponder if the flight from Ohio State to TAMU this weekend meant the B1G was in the hunt to the end. If history shows this to be the case down the road, I feel this was a loss, and a gain for a competitor. Back in March or April of 2010 we discussed on here where it would be good if TAMU wound up, and the last place was the SEC. Now the SEC has a foothold in Texas, and has gained an AAU school in the process. How exactly is this funny?
LikeLike
Duff,I would have been thrilled for A&M to go BIG with Texas.
LikeLike
If Mizzou goes SEC, SEC would have more AAU schools than Big 12
LikeLike
And the question remains who cares? Other than the Big Ten who cooperates through the CIC, conferences aren’t about academics.
LikeLike
You can’t tell me that the ACC doesn’t care about academics. It may not hold AAU membership as such a litmus test the way the Big Ten does, but the league cares very much about having first-class institutions. Otherwise, West Virginia would be much more on its radar.
LikeLike
It matters to most members of the PAC and ACC…..and supposedly matters to Missouri, but the point of the comment was that Missouri isn’t really shunning the SEC for Big 12 on Academic grounds if they have a choice between the 2.
LikeLike
Isn’t the ACC setting up a cooperative? Hasn’t the SEC been working to facilitate academic cooperation? The CIC is not something that can’t be copied, or even improved upon. To think otherwise is very B1G centric. And the AAU argument is only relevant to the B1G because no other conference has made research such a priority. There are plenty of very good academic institutions that just don’t make research a priority. That doesn’t make them better or worse, just different.
LikeLike
Perhaps it can be copied but will it be as effective? There is an element of scale in the research activities of B1G that make the CIC what it is, and also some semblance of equality among the schools. Grad students are allowed to float among CIC members. Hard for me to believe that Vandy is going to be too excited about their grad students picking up a few credits in Starkeville.
LikeLike
May soon read:
Big Twelve AAU schools = 3. Texas, Kansas and Iowa State
SEC AAU schools = 4. Texas A&M, Florida, Vanderbilt and Missouri
Chart below is from the US News and World Report and it
Kinda shows that the rankings of better educational universities favors the SEC over Big 12
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/
# 17 Vanderbilt
#45 Texas
#58 Texas A&M
#58 Florida
#62 Georgia
#75 Alabama #75 Baylor
#82 Auburn
#90 Missouri #90 (this week)
#97 Iowa State
#101 Tennessee #101 Kansas
#101 Oklahoma
#111 South Carolina
#124 Kentucky
#128 LSU
#132 Arkansas #132 Oklahoma State
#143 Mississippi #143 Kansas State
#157 Mississippi State
#160 Texas Tech
Missouri is still in the Big Twelve today but most boards outside the Big Twelve and even some in the Big Twelve have Mizzou gone south. Where there is a lot of smoke there is usually a fire.
Now I know that you can throw bullets at this and hop all around the facts. hMMMMMMMM, that is what politicians do. Seems the facts show that the SEC may soon top the 12-2-1-(1) in higher ranked educational colleges. Already does. Seven schools in the top 100 (SEC) versus four (minus 1=3) in the top 100 (B12).
LikeLike
Big 10 hockey
Saw an article today-Oklahoma, Texas and Texas A&M all have club hockey teams. A&M frequently sells out their games.
LikeLike
A friend of mine played against A&M in College Station. For club hockey he said the atmosphere was incredible. Not the best, but better than most.
Here is a link if you want to know more about club hockey. Schools can sponsor multiple teams, so for example, Iowa St has a DI club hockey team and a DIII team. Generally DI club hockey is better but what division you are in can depend more on geography (i.e. who is around you).
http://achahockey.org/
LikeLike
Lots of chatter tonight, radio, tweet, etc, that WVU to SEC is now a done deal. 10-2 vote over the weekend.
LikeLike
Same thing with UL to Big 12. Normally wouldn’t even post that, but ADs are meeting in Dallas and Emmert criticized them (and Presidents) for the conference realignment mess. Logically, they would ignore that and keep on doing what they were doing.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/09/emmert-chides-schools-embarrassing-conference-realignment/1
LikeLike
Loki,
not sure that makes sense as Slive, UF’s president, and a dozen SEC staffers are in College Station right now.
LikeLike
If that’s the case, the frustration buildings in Tallahassee. It may mean the “gentlemen’s agreement” won’t be broken (for 14, at least, maybe for 16). Add Louisville heading to the Big 12, and the Big East football conference is coming apart at the seams like dollar-store house-brand pantyhose.
LikeLike
Interesting if true. I would have thought the SEC would spend at least 1 – 2 years working on FSU and hang with TAMU for the time being. FSU would still be an open option just not as easy a one if FSU decided to bolt down the road and the SEC went to 15. The 16th pull would be really tricky one as I’m not quite sure who they would grab unless they went back to the Big 12 pool for another dip. If if is true congrats to WVU for going from the outhouse to the penthouse. If the BE implodes I think Big 12 goes back to 12 and grabs Louisville, BYU, and TCU. Going to be a lot of pressure to take TCU into the conference and give them a soft landing if the Big East blows up.
LikeLike
Agreed, this is my take. Along with what vp19 is saying, I see no reason for the SEC to rush to 14.
WVU is a very solid backup plan if Missouri is really off the table, and they really tried to grab FSU.
But all indications out of Tallahassee (i.e. from Haggard) are that they haven’t yet been approached. I don’t get why the SEC wouldn’t work over FSU just like you guys.
14 is probably more stable for the eastern conferences given that it’s easier to maintain rivalries with 14 than 16 unless you’re talking about the natural 16 team setup of the Pac-16 with pods.
LikeLike
WVU is a great fit for the SEC. I think the football culture fits. The stadium is smallish, but by no means embarrassingly small. WVU has avoided the substantial downturns that have plagued Pitt and Syracuse with horrible hires (see Greg Robinson era). They may have a bad year every so often, but they don’t stay down long.
I know we all talk about markets, etc. But if Florida St is the other option… what market does it add?
I know Florida State is a King. But are they really? We are going on a full decade without relevance to the national title picture. This year is not changing that either. FSU won it 1999.
By comparison, Tennessee won the national title in 1998. That’s how long we are talking. And WVU had a better past decade than Florida St.
Whatever the end result is of all this realignment… a school like WVU has to have a seat at the table before teams like UConn (1 BCS appearance) and Rutgers (0 BCS appearances). I think there is some nice karma to be gained in the big 4 locking up Pitt, Syracuse, and WVU.
LikeLike
Missouri is still in the running if it doesn’t sign the six-year rights deal with the Big 12. Were that to happen, who takes its place in the Big 12? Cincinnati?
LikeLike
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…the SEC takes “good but not great” schools and turns them into $$$ via off the field methods. Preferring to let the “big boys” they already have have another punching bag (or 4) to rack up wins against…ok maybe a little unfair. How about, “the SEC prefers to expand with middle of the pack teams to ensure the top guys stay at the top and there’s always a ‘random’ from the middle that can play up every year”?
WVU and TAMU fit solidly into that description.
LikeLike
It worked for the Big 10 with Penn State. 🙂
LikeLike
Hehe touche!
Though to be honest I always felt the Big Ten took a great product in PSU and was willing to turn it into a 2nd tier commodity. The Big Ten has refused to (and still does) see additions of anything other than the highest sort as being a non-starter.
I get it, for a long time there really was a “Little 8” reality in the conference and that reality needed to change, but for the last 10-20 years you have 6-8 teams per year legitimately in the Top 25 discussion. Adding “middle-of-the-pack” schools (that still fit the conference mind-set) to maintain the strength in the middle (and contend for a title every couple years) is the real impact of what the SEC has done (the old “there are no easy games in the SEC” argument) and I just don’t see the Big Ten ever seriously considering that course of action.
I mean, sure getting Texas and ND may be amazing additions…but the old adage about “being careful of what you wish for…” is certainly going to hold true.
LikeLike
Corning the market on Appalachian Americans.
LikeLike
Now that it appears expansion mania is dying down (for the time being) & because the masthead does say ‘Pop Culture’, I leave you with these two jaw dropping videos of vocalists who sound
EXACTLY like rock stars. The first one (Freddie Mercury) has racked up almost 3 million hits in a week, and the second is a chilean Eddie Vedder that in indiscernible from the original. Great stuff.
BTW: Thanks for a terrific blog, FTT, I’ll spread the word!
LikeLike
Marshall to the ACC?
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=42372
West Virginia has a focus on football and basketball, which is nice, but doesn’t bring a lot to the TV market.
But if they think about West Virginia, can we make an out of the box suggestion? Why not at least consider Marshall?
It would be a leap for them, but here’s why we think it’s worth considering: their fans are nuts. They’d pick fights with anyone (in a rivalry sense, not a fisticuffs sense). Within a few years, the Marshall-Virginia Tech games would be huge, and Maryland fans wouldn’t back down either. Just from an intensity angle, it’d be worth it. We love Marshall fans. They’re totally devoted.
LikeLike
If WVU heads to the SEC or Big 12, Marshall would be a good replacement for the Big East to pick up. For the ACC? Don’t think so.
LikeLike
The ACC should take Temple before Marshall. And I don’t think they should take Temple.
It’s ND or bust for the ACC.
LikeLike
I had not seen this come up yet this morning. http://www.chron.com/sports/college/article/C-USA-considers-merging-with-MWC-to-get-BCS-bid-2190320.php
I wonder what impact it will have on the Big East?
LikeLike
I knew the MWC was up to something.
The Big East is dead. It’s a sinking ship that won’t keep their AQ-bid once the option to renew them comes up.
LikeLike
Talks that start in a merger pretty much always end up being a raid. The question is who would raid whom in this case. And who would go. The MWC seems stronger since they’re the ones that get the “at-large” BCS bids, but CUSA is in the bigger markets.
One issue is that the two most desirable schools in each conference are Boise State and Central Florida, and they’re on opposite ends of the continent.
LikeLike
From what is being reported it looks like this will be a merger on paper only. The two will technically be a single conference in football only, but will really be two conferences that play a CCG and present a joint application to the BCS but otherwise act independently of each other. Decent chance they might even keep separate TV contracts. Mergers usually lead to raids but I can’t see it in this case.
LikeLike
If Delany & co want to keep the BCS, they should endorse this plan (after the BE collapses), as that would get more than enough votes to keep the BCS alive.
LikeLike
Bingo. By 2013 there will be 124 FBS schools, so there needs to be at least 62 AQ schools to keep the present system*, meaning if the Big East collapses the other conferences will have to either expand or promote another conference to AQ level.
* Technically they could try and maintain the system as a minority but it would require the current AQs to resorting to really extreme measures like threatening to leave the NCAA, refusing to participate in any football postseason besides the BCS or simple bribery.
LikeLike
Is there really votes with all current conferences getting one vote? If so, that system make zero sense given the vast different amount of resources they bring. I guess it would play bad in the press if that ended, but it’s silly to set-up a private system and give the Sun Belt an equal vote to the SEC. This isn’t the NCAA which establishes rules, it’s the BCS which sole purpose is managing the bowls which the AQ conferences brought to the table in the first place.
LikeLike
Eric:
All NCAA schools get 1 vote. No non-BCS school gets a vote on how the BCS is run, but if there are a majority of non-BCS schools in NCAA Div I-A, they could just vote to institute a playoff with revenue sharing, which would kind of kill off the BCS (or maybe force the top schools to split). Of course, all that messiness, conflict, and angst could be avoided just by giving a big chunk of voting schools a small slice of the pie.
LikeLike
Are college sports in a bubble? An analogy I’ve not seen before.
“The Big East also fell into a common business trap. It produced an excellent core product — basketball based in big cities with private and public schools — and tried to attach its brand to a football product that simply couldn’t compete against the more established brands in the SEC, Big 10, and Pac-12.
(It’s also no surprise that reports have surfaced about a possible Big 12-Big East merger in a last ditch effort to salvage their BCS standing. If such a deal came to pass, it would almost certainly be the sports equivalent of AOL Time Warner.)”
http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2011/conference-realignment-bubble/
LikeLike
More like Sears buying K-Mart.
LikeLike
An interesting article (though speaking as someone who studied economics the author lost much credibility by mentioning Austrian economics) and one that dove-tails nicely with the NYTimes article I posted above.
College sports in general, and football in particular, are at historic popularity highs which have pushed the schools participating to scramble over the diminishing resources (great coaches, recruits, etc) and has created an “arm’s race”. The tv broadcasters have had nearly 20 years of ridiculously low interest rates which means they can offer ever increasing payouts and still have good confidence they can repay any loans they might have to make and still make money.
One is feeding the other, but there are already plenty of areas where it can be seen the system is losing steam (how many athletic departments made money last year?).
Now I don’t think the “end is near” especially since other broadcasters (Fox) are starting to get heavily invested in the college sports arena, but I think it more than fair to say the success of the BTN has created a very “bubble like” mentality for rights (basically Tier 3) that may be profitable only in very specific circumstances.
LikeLike
I’m reposting from above-it fits better here. If there’s a bubble, it may be Tier II.
If there is a college sports bubble, its related to the cable TV model. Prices have gotten so high, some people are dropping cable and just settling for on air TV. The current administration, however, is assuming everyone has cable and is trying to force TV into vhf that doesn’t work well for digital and trying to take spectrum for wireless services. They already got channels 52-69. Several colleges are starting on-line networks. I certainly wouldn’t put any money on how this will all play out. Betting on how realignment scenarios will play out is a much safer bet.
LikeLike
Interesting blog post. Now, is it really a bubble for college sports or could we actually consider it to be a market correction in comparison to pro sports other than the NFL? College football is consistently the highest rated sport in America besides pro football and has a higher income/more highly educated audience, yet conferences still don’t get paid as much as MLB or the NBA. The Pac-12 deal might be more of an indicator that college football was an undervalued sports property before and it’s just now getting into line with its true vale.
LikeLike
ESPN was able to pay the big prices for the NFL and demand higher carriage rates from cable providers. But how much can they push that? Colleges may have been undervalued relative to the pros, but maybe all are overvalued. More likely IMO, they are all about right, but don’t have a lot of upside unless viewership goes up.
Also, if the cable rates continue to rise, there will be more political pressure for a la carte pricing. Neither the cable providers or suppliers wants that. That’s probably not likely, but they don’t want to push things
The cable market is in certain ways like our dysfunctional medical market. Insurers negotiate with providers, but the ultimate consumer is the patient. In cable content providers negotiate with cable operators, but the ultimate consumer is the viewer. The difference is that for viewers its not a necessity and they pay more directly than they do for medical services.
LikeLike
You could consider the past few decades as a correction based on the relatively recent explosion in popularity of football (both Pro and College).
The problem I see is the latest massive contracts seem to be paying heavily for Tier 2 and 3 rights when even the most profitable use of those rights (the BTN) seems to be very “circumstantial” in its ability to create revenue.
I just don’t care how hard ESPN pushes Vanderbilt’s women’s volleyball team the sport doesn’t have a strong national draw and the school itself doesn’t provide enough market saturation to warrant ESPN displacing more “compelling” content (ie: other sports) or enough leverage to stand up an entirely new channel. Make that team PSU and put it on the BTN though…a school that can reliably deliver most (if not all) of Pennsylvania and a channel that has surplus tv slots begging for product…and you see how lower tiered content can be a huge money maker…
So unless ESPN stand’s up a true “SEC Network” / “ACC Network” (just like its trying to do to mixed success with the LHN) I don’t see how they’re (ESPN) going to be recouping on all that money (unless of course its just payment for rights ESPN has no interest in actually using, but just wants to ensure no one else can use them either).
LikeLike
We are in a big bubble both specifically in sports and in debt as whole on a larger level as a society. I stand by my prediction that the recent PAC-12 deal will be the biggest (in real dollars at least) we will see for at least two decades.
LikeLike
Don’t know how reliable this guy is, but he is saying BYU and UL to the Big 12 is all but done.
http://gregswaim.com/2011/09/big-12-meets-offers-new-members/
Its logical, but I’m skeptical it is this far along, at least with Louisville. However, with the ADs in Dallas yesterday, there were probably a lot of meetings and discussions. If the Big 12 goes back to 12, those are the obvious #10 and #11. #12 should be WVU, but they may be SEC bound.
Seen various places that WV Senator and Connecticut Governor have been making calls. Not sure if article was posted on here, but CT governor said, to paraphrase, ACC was waiting on a home run (i.e. Notre Dame) and would probably invite CT as #16 IF that happened. UConn and Rutgers seem to be in as bad a position as USF, TCU and Cincinnati.
LikeLike
UConn- BCS appearance
TCU– BCS appearances
Cincy– BCS appearances
USF– BCS appearance this year?
Rutgers– had that one exciting game that one year.
LikeLike
Hey there about Rutgers. It says this on the Rutgers Scarlet Knights football Wikipedia page:
With its rich history of “dominating football teams”, I am surprised that the Big Ten and SEC isn’t beating on Rutgers door. 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutgers_Scarlet_Knights_football
LikeLike
What is the Big East thinking? No UCF, Houston, or Temple?
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/bulls/content/genshaft-reports-blocking-ucf-are-wrong
“Those statements that are out in the press are not true. That is not the case,” Genshaft said. “I am not stopping any university from coming in. What is happening is the league, or the conference, now is looking at schools and they have looked very much at schools that are not in any of the states that are represented by the Big East schools right now. The ones that they’re looking at right now, they do not sit in any state that the Big East schools currently are in.”
LikeLike
More on BYU to big12:
http://www.theupsetblog.com/2011/09/brigham-young-has-big-12-offer.html
LikeLike
“Key in the finalization of such a move is how [the university] fits in to the [new conference], as well as how much of its current [multi-year] deal with ESPN [it] can keep.”
Irony?
LikeLike
Big East and thinking? Those words do not go well together. And that just happens to be the answer to your question, which was no doubt rhetorical.
LikeLike
If such Jon Lovitz-type arguments are right, I suppose that means Villanova is blocking Central Florida, and South Florida is blocking Temple. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
The Big East is a sinking ship trying to determine which passengers to theoretically let on (if anyone wants on at all), while ignoring potential lifesavers tossed its way. (And no, I don’t mean the candy Groucho Marx tosses to Thelma Todd in “Horse Feathers.”)
LikeLike
About sums it up.
LikeLike
Mr. Slive thinks that the BCS limit of 2 teams per conference should be revisited:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bcs-2teamlimit
LikeLike
As expected. Super conferences should have the ability to get 3 schools in IMO.
LikeLike
Maybe that will be the push for more than 12 teams. Change the BCS rules: a conference with 14 or more teams can have up to 3 BCS teams. Though I don’t think the BCS is interested in driving expansion.
LikeLike
I don’t see 3-bid for 14 team conferences rule happening. At this point, only the SEC would be expected to vote in favor. I doubt the ACC would, as a 3rd SEC team could very well bump a 2nd ACC team more often than the ACC getting a 3rd bid. None of the non-14 team conferences would vote for it, which are still a majority of the AQ leagues.
Even a 3-bid rule in general, without regard for conference size, is unlikely. Who would vote for it? SEC and B1G. Every other AQ conference would vote against it.
LikeLike
Agreed 100%.
Only two conferences stand to benefit from even a general 3 bid rule, and really mainly the SEC, which can more easily get 3 teams in the top 10 by the end of the season easily with 14 teams. Big Ten could get 3 in some years as well.
Pac-12, ACC, Big 12 are going to vote to reduce the number of at-large available to them? Same for the non-AQs?
Seems like that idea won’t really go anywhere.
LikeLike
zeek:
The non-AQs don’t get a vote on BCS matters, and the B12 has often gotten 2 bids as well (though with so many defections, they may not want to increase the limit to 3).
LikeLike
More credence to the “gentleman’s agreement”?
From Matt Jones @KySportsRadio:
“Two tidbits from interview with Mitch Barnhart: Says UK would not be interested in move to ACC and would not rule out a veto of UL to SEC”
http://twitter.com/#!/KySportsRadio/statuses/118717958066409473
LikeLike
I reckon everyone in the SEC would veto Louisville, not just UK. The key question is whether FSU gets in. There’s really no reason for the SEC to add Clemson when they can get WVU and virtually no reason to add Louisville, period.
LikeLike
Frank, this is the twitter of the day
@frankthetank111
Frank the Tank
The name of my 2000th Twitter follower: @HuskerDopeMan. I’m both intrigued and a little frightened.
ps, anything special planned for when you hit 2,000,000?
LikeLike
For those using Firefox, I would suggest waiting a couple days before upgrading to 7.0. Just tried and it is pretty buggy (at least for me). I had to go back to 6
LikeLike
Haven’t been keeping up anymore due to expansion overload, however it seems the Big 12 will live on even if MO decided to try some WAY late in the game maneuvering. However it seems the Big East football wise has been mortally wounded and is still wobbling around living dead style. To me, it consists of West Virginia and the lucky non-aq gang, with more non-aq’s looking to get lucky. And this is coming from a guy who wants to give credit to non-aq programs when credit is indeed due, a la TCU and Boise today (and BYU has won a NC before so they are in the club). There are a lot of legit rumblings from here in Texas to get TCU into the Big 12, which would further jeopardize the Big East football stature. How could the Big East’s BCS AQ status possibly be legitimized if it reloads with just academies and/or not even elite non-aq’s to fill its ranks? How could the historical and traditional BE schools stand to have their league back-filled with relative newbies? As fun as it is to poke fun at the Big 12 and its dysfunction, in the end they are all stout long-time individual college athletic programs that have a tough time working together. The Big East football school wise isn’t even close to the club after losing their 2 most historical/traditional athletic institutions.
LikeLike
Now Missouri (the original) wants to start looking around again and I will go put my head in an oven. I swear the case of wandering eye syndrome in this conference is legendary. Everything is always a little greener somewhere else. I would love for KU, KSU, ISU, and Baylor to move in mass to the Big East just to spite the rest of this conference and let them go “fulfill” their destinies. But the BE is no better today then the B12 and we are all stuck here again waiting on MU as to whether it wants to move. Blech.
LikeLike
This is a good time to put that call in to the Big East.
LikeLike
Adding Boise State, Brigham Young, Louisville and West Virginia at the expense of an SEC-bound Missouri would still be a plus for the Big 12, although creating divisions would be tricky. Assuming it’s an east/west split, with UL and WVU in the east and Boise and BYU in the west, how do you split the middle eight? Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State are likely east candidates, but do you send Baylor east or split Oklahoma and Okie State?
LikeLike
Divisions are tricky no matter what you do. I don’t think UT and OU want to possibly have to face each other twice. But if they are in the same division, you probably don’t want BYU in there also.
LikeLike
Yeah definitely. I actually think BYU would like a setup with it in the North. If it consistently could get into a Big 12 CCG against Texas or Oklahoma, that would go a long way to helping them to devellop their brand.
LikeLike
The problem with that scenario is that Boise has become the better football program. Heck, Utah and TCU passed BYU in the MWC. They will be forever handicapped by their affiliation, and governing by, the Mormon church.
LikeLike
This would be a case where the total is less than the sum of its parts. These conferences that are stapled together without regard to geography or fit won’t last.
LikeLike
Not really sure they have a choice. That conference is in a situation where they want to have 10-12 teams that are desired by no one (i.e. Texas and Oklahoma have baggage in the form of LHN/Tech/OSU and the rest aren’t sufficient to justify expansion or other leagues aren’t interested in (i.e. Pac-12 non-interest in BYU)).
It’s like what we said about the Big East before except that Syracuse and Pitt were the ACC’s only options so they had to get them to try to strengthen their group.
LikeLike
West Virginia is, like SU and Pitt, a traditional big-time football school (the only three in the Big East). If WVU’s academics were even remotely comparable to those two, it potentially would have had a seat at the ACC table.
WVU to the Big 12 feels weird at first glance, but it’s sort of the eastern equivalent of Missouri in that its location enables it to go in different geographic directions. But unlike Mizzou, it has shifted over the years — remember, it was a longtime member of the Southern Conference, and might have joined the exodus to the ACC (at a time when academics weren’t quite as noticeable a factor in college athletics) if it hadn’t voted in favor of the bowl ban that led Maryland, Clemson and others to revolt against the Southern and form the ACC in 1953. (Virginia Tech was similarly ostracized.) Eventually, WVU repackaged itself as an eastern rather than southern institution. Now, with Louisville, it would look west (though if the school was located in Huntington, home of in-state rival Marshall, such a move would appear more congruent).
WVU and Louisville fleeing to the Big 12 would reduce the Big East to five football members — Cincinnati, Connecticut, Rutgers, South Florida and Texas Christian. Would that give potential Big East candidates more power in seeking all-sports membership, since the Big East would lose BCS status without a sufficient number of members? Or would the basketball schools simply dissolve the Big East as a football conference and let that slot, and the money, fly out the window? If that happened, would those five, as additions to the Mountain West or Conference USA, be enough to lift either to BCS level?
LikeLike
Well, the bball schools in the BE don’t see the football money now anyway . .
LikeLike
Why an East-West split? Why not traditional North-South? Just plug BYU in to the south. Have one cross-over game for BYU & Boise.
LikeLike
Lots of stories on Big East boards and stuff from California. Really nothing from Big 12 states. Leads me to believe my original timetable was right. This week is about getting the Big 12 stability issues ironed out. Also, the quiet could mean they are seriously evaluating candidates, while the Big East boards are jumping on any contact and blowing it out of proportion. Somewhere I read Missouri’s Board of Curators meet on Friday. Nothing can really happen until sometime after that.
Neinas said he thought that most were in favor of 10 teams. I have heard OSU and OU talk about leaning toward 12 with UT definitely favoring 10, but noone seeming dead set on any number. 10 could still be the number but I’m guessing they go to 12.
LikeLike
Well, I’m not sure how fast they’d have to move. If Missouri stays, getting BYU into the league in 2012 would be easy, since they have no attachments.
The issue is more of if Missouri leaves, then you need 2 more by next year if you want a full 10 team league.
Getting to 12 can be done later, I’d think the focus would first be on getting to 10 by 2012, and if they want 12 that can be targeted by 2013 or 2014.
LikeLike
Actually, getting BYU in to the league fast would be toughest because they’ve already scheduled a lot of games, so that’s a lot of games to buy out.
LikeLike
I have read that everyone but Texas is in favor of 12. The biggest reason is it gives them a one game chance at a title (a la KSU in 2003). Most feel that in a ten team league titles will be dominated by UT and OU.
LikeLike
That’s weird, because I’d think the exact opposite. A 10 team league allows for co-championships which makes it easier to win (not even accounting the extra 2 games). A CCG means one champion. It also means 1 division potentially being seen as permanently the lesser one like the north was often viewed.
LikeLike
Link?
LikeLike
I wish I could find it.
LikeLike
By that I mean, I wish I could find the article that stated the reasons why. Dodds has been pretty clear about favoring 10 teams. The Oklahoma schools favor 12. Here’s a link for that.
http://newsok.com/re-inflating-the-big-12-will-require-expanding-back-to-12-teams/article/3606875
After the conference has been saved again, presidents David Boren of OU and Burns Hargis of OSU both said they favor expansion back to 12.
LikeLike
That’s the only thing I’ve seen that states anyone’s opinions on the matter.
LikeLike
Here ya go bullet…
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700181210/BYU-football-Cougars-a-top-choice-for-Big-12-expansion.html
The Associated Press reported that Dodds “acknowledged the league is considering BYU as the 10th member once Texas A&M leaves in 2012,” adding that “while some league members might want to push the number back up to 12, Dodds said he considers a 10-team league ‘perfect.'”
LikeLike
David Boren on Sep. 3 (prior to the PAC-12 fallout):
“Obviously, I think if we could eventually — and that doesn’t mean in one year, maybe it’s going to take two or three years — if we were to eventually get back to 12, I would feel better about it.”
He’s been talking about this for a while.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6923495/oklahoma-sooners-president-david-boren-says-school-interest-multiple-conferences
LikeLike
I don’t interpret “some” as 8 out of 9. Clearly there are at least 2 in that category.
LikeLike
bullet – I can’t find the article that stated Texas was the only school favoring 10 over 12. Since you said my Boren and Hargis quote was the only thing you saw I linked to a Dodds quote as well.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t surprise me if that ends up being the case. I think OU and UT were the ones who were most in favor of 10.
But I did see that Neinas quote in the last couple of days (some interview that got posted on this board) that said he thought most were leaning to 10. And the ISU AD today speaking as head of the ADs said there was no consensus, quoted saying ” 9, 10, 12, 16, pick a number.”
LikeLike
IMHO, OU and UT should be most in favor of 10. Beat the other and most years you get a conference title and a BCS berth.
LikeLike
FYI – while not yet publicly posted, Missouri sources confirming this morning that Board of Curators are meeting on Tuesday. T.B.D. as to agenda…
LikeLike
Lots here (too much to quote) from Wilner on Big 12, TCU, BYU, Boise, WAC, MWC, CUSA, Big East and North Texas.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/27/bcs-football-big-12-expansion-options-boise-state-byu-missouri-to-the-sec-and-more-on-realignment/
LikeLike
Mizzou news?
@BryanDFischer
So a private plane goes from Birmingham to Columbia and stops for four hours then there’s a Curators meeting a week later. Hmm….
LikeLike
MU curators set to meet next Tuesday. Lots of blogs point to “heart” wanting to stay in Big 12 due to old Big 6/8 ties, and “head” pointing to leaving and joining the SEC. Mizzou is a transition state with southern roots in bottom third of state and midwestern culture in top 2/3rds. The school itself is VERY midwestern, with VERY close STL/Big Ten influences. School wants Big 10, not anyone else.
Rumor has it that Illinois and Iowa presidents didn’t want MU because those schools have been successful in recruiting in the STL market for kids who wanted to play in the Big 10. If Mizzou was added, then they feared losing that market to Mizzou. If so, Mizzou should forget about any future Big 10 invite. Just rumors though.
Mizzou will be the same fit in the SEC as it is in the Big 12, football-wise. So, what’s really the deciding factor? It always seems to be money. They throw the “stability” word around a lot, and the SEC is certainly more stable, and would generate more money for Mizzou. I think it’s a tough call for Mizzou. Wouldn’t want to make that decision.
LikeLike
I have read Missouri’s board of curators (and some other school’s boards also) needs to approve the assignment of rights to the conference. This meeting doesn’t mean they are leaving.
I don’t think the SEC Presidents would want Missouri so much that they would risk the lawsuit issues, especially since the Missouri leaks and Loftin’s comments made it clear their, “they approached us” was pure nonsense. They didn’t risk it on A&M until the issues were gone and A&M was a bigger fish. Also, circling back after things stabilized after the A&M disruption, would certainly create some bad feelings, which the Presidents would be reluctant to create. There’s also the fact that Missouri wants the Big 10 and really isn’t that enthused about the SEC. Its just more likely the SEC waits a year or so to see if someone else becomes available or settles for WVU. WVU may not have the population, but they make up for it in enthusiasm.
LikeLike
B1G isn’t going to take Mizzou, it would just be another AAU mouth to feed for the conference since BTN is already on cable in Missouri.
For the SEC – Mizzou is a different proposition. It would upgrade the conference’s profile academically, increase the number of TV markets the SEC has by adding StL and KC and if the SEC would eventually roll all their Tier 3 rights into an SEC network – it could easily add alot of money to SEC coffers, not to mention maybe doing enough to trigger TV contracts renegotiation.
For Mizzou SEC is attractive because of money and stability and you can get away from Texas. Potentially if the SEC decides to pool their 3rd tier rights, the Longhorns and the Big12 suddenly become like Roschack in prison in the movie Watchmen, “LET’S GET THIS STRAIGHT! I’M NOT LOCKED IN HERE WITH YOU…YOU’RE LOCKED IN HERE WITH ME!”
LikeLike
Bobo, be careful what you say, Your comments may be way too logical for this board.
LikeLike
This isn’t Risk; the Big Ten isn’t fighting for TV markets.
Missouri will get an invite, but only if the situation changes to warrant an invite. Right now there is no impetus to add another member, and if Notre Dame and Texas don’t want to come onboard, there may well never be one.
The question is, does Missouri believe it can wait? They’re the ones trying to hold the Big XII together, and with that wish seemingly granted, do they feel secure enough for the time being?
LikeLike
I should’ve clarified; if TV markets were the be-all, end-all of Big Ten metrics, Rutgers would be sitting in Nebraska’s chair.
I think a lot of people are looking at this from the wrong angles. Look at the Tampa Bay Rays; huge “media markets”, but no fanbase. You need water to fill a bucket, you need fans to watch your games. Missouri only adds to the Big Ten profile, regionally and nationally, and when you look past the end of your nose, you appreciate their status compared to the other candidates.
LikeLike
The BTN is not on cable everywhere in Missouri. I live in KC with Time Warner Cable, and it’s not on the basic package, nor is it on the extended digital package. It’s available on a special sports tier along side Fox Soccer Plus and ESPN Classic.
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/28/mizzou-to-sec-chatter-continues-to-grow/
A source with knowledge of Mizzou’s thinking told CFT five days ago that “the SEC hasn’t been taken out of play“; another source told the Star around the same time that joining another conference “is something that we’re very open to.” Per our source, nothing’s changed on that front, with Mizzou-to-SEC talk possibly coming to a head — and a resolution — by the end of next week.
And, as if to add another layer of intrigue to the situation, Twitter has been all abuzz over a private plane that took off from Columbia, Mo. — home of the University of Missouri – Tuesday evening and landed in Birmingham, Ala. — home of the SEC offices. After a stay of just over four hours, the plane headed back to Columbia
LikeLike
What happens to Missouri’s wrestling program if they join the SEC?
LikeLike
Bo – maybe the Mizzou wrestlers can affiliate with the WWE.
LikeLike
[WCW joke here]
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/sep/28/missouri-coaches-talk-about-secs-pros-and-cons/?tigerextra
Wrestling Coach Brian Smith said he feels the same way, though his team would have to seek conference affiliation elsewhere — a common arrangement in an endangered sport. Only the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big Ten and the Big 12 follow the traditional conference model. Like in hockey, most wrestling leagues are a regional collection of schools. Four of the Pac-12’s seven members belong to other conferences. MU could conceivably stay in the four-team Big 12.
“It’s how you look at it,” said Smith, who’s spent the past 13 years building wrestling into one of MU’s most competitive sports. “People jump on the negative part of a report. I kind of see things like when I first took the job; everybody laughed at me and said you can’t win here. Wherever we are, we’re going to win and we’re going to be successful and we’re going to grow the sport.”
LikeLike
I see an easy Missouri decision: If I get an invite I outta here to the SEC. The hard decision is by the SEC presidents. Do they want to risk certain lawsuits to take an average choice in Missouri or tell the ADs to deal with 13 for next year and wait for a better #14, since I do not see WVU being given a bid, and even if given Big East is trying to hold members 2 years. The B12 prison may not be maximum security, but it is still not an easy escape.
LikeLike
Mack:
I’m not sure lawsuits are certain if the B12 survives (and it will be Texas and OU, or even just OU, stays).
LikeLike
“Rumor has it that Illinois and Iowa presidents didn’t want MU because those schools have been successful in recruiting in the STL market for kids who wanted to play in the Big 10. If Mizzou was added, then they feared losing that market to Mizzou. If so, Mizzou should forget about any future Big 10 invite. Just rumors though.”
That rumor doesn’t have legs because MO just isn’t a hotbed of football talent. Heck, none of IA, IL, or MO are (except maybe Chicagoland, which is no great shakes per capita but has decent talent just due to the sheer number of people). Also, Mizzou actually has an edge on Iowa and Illinois in recruiting in recent years (13-7 & 10-7, respectively). However, they don’t battle over talent much because there’s not much talent to battle over. If you want to see what recruiting battle numbers look like, head down south. Georgia battled with SCarolina, Clemson, and Tenn over 56, 63, and 46 kids, respectively (winning the vast majority of them) from 2007-2011.
No, I’ve heard a former UofI president say the B10 didn’t want Mizzou after considering them years ago, but it was due solely to academics, not recruiting.
LikeLike
I called this.
Notre Dame men’s ice hockey will have its own TV deal with Comcast’s NBC Sports Group for ALL home games.
Comcast SportsNet Chicago will be on board (CSN Chicago is the “regional sports network” serving South Bend.)
Don’t know yet about NBC Sports Network.
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/09/28_notre_dame_decision_not_the.php
Things started to come together once Notre Dame finalized its television deal. It’s not a “Notre Dame Network” that has been rumored — at least not yet (University of Texas starts its own network this fall) — but it’s an agreement with a local Regional Sports Network to televise all home games.
That’s the reason why the NCHC took Western Michigan and St. Cloud.
Hockey East will have to decide whether to take Notre Dame if Hockey East and its TV partner NESN can work out a deal with Notre Dame and Comcast.
If Hockey East says no, then ND will have to go independent.
==
Bowling Green has a 2-week extension from the WCHA. Decision day is now October 7. The WCHA needs Bowling Green in order to keep its NCAA Division I classification.
LikeLike
Didn’t think they’d get a TV deal, good for them. It doesn’t sound like they want to go independent though.
Notre Dame’s hockey program is not as interested in being independent, so it needs to find a conference partner willing to accept its television package
Can you find any support for your claims on the WCHA needing Bowling Green? I’ve looked and have not seen anything that’s said that.
LikeLike
The WCHA will lose its vote in all NCAA Division I matters if the WCHA were not to have a Division I school among its membership, according to the Mankato Free Press>/i>:
http://mankatofreepresshockey.blogspot.com/2011/08/wchas-future-coming-into-focus.html
(A Minnesota State University) official recently told me that it would be nice to have a DI school in the WCHA, as it would give the league a vote during NCAA DI meetings.
==
Bottom line: the WCHA needs Bowling Green more than Bowling Green needs the WCHA.
Bowling Green is still toying with the idea of forming a new league with 4 members of Atlantic Hockey (Canisius, Fairfield, Mercyhurst, Robert Morris) if a 6th school becomes available.
That 6th school might be Buffalo (which has a club team) if a benefactor can be found to bankroll that program.
Those 4 Atlantic Hockey schools do NOT want Alabama-Huntsville in their league due to travel cost.
==
If the WCHA were to lose Division I classification, then the WCHA members will be regarded as “Division I independents” for the purpose of NCAA Tournament selection unless the selection committee were to vote to grandfather the WCHA an automatic bid.
LikeLike
Here is a link to the NCAA handbook
Click to access D111.pdf
Here are the applicable NCAA bylaws. To have a sport classified as Division I (Note: Hockey has no DII championship):
20.4.1.2 Divisions II and III Members—Classification of a Sport in Division I. A member of Division
II or Division III may petition to be classified in Division I in any one men’s sport, other than football or basketball,
and in any one women’s sport, other than basketball, and in any single sport in which the only NCAA
championships opportunity is the National Collegiate Championship. In addition, a member of Division II
may be classified in Division I in a sport in which there is a Division I and a Division III championship, but no
Division II championship. (Revised: 1/11/94 effective 8/1/94)
The nine DII schools of the WCHA in 2013 all have their sports classified as DI per this bylaw. In order to be an auto bid conference this bylaw is applicable:
18.5 AUTOMATIC QUALIFICATION BY CONFERENCE
18.5.1 Division Championship. To be eligible for automatic qualification into any Division I championship,
a conference shall: (Revised: 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06)
(a) Have at least six member institutions classified in Division I in the sport in which automatic qualification is
sought; and
(b) Meet all requirements for conference automatic qualification into any division championship as set forth in
Bylaw 31.3.4. (Revised: 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06)
All nine are classified in Division I in the sport. Based off of this, I don’t think WCHA’s auto bid is in jeopardy with out Bowling Green.
LikeLike
The Mankato Free Press mentioned in its hockey blog about a month ago that the WCHA will need to have at least 1 Division I school in order to maintain its vote in all Division I matters.
http://mankatofreepresshockey.blogspot.com/2011/08/wchas-future-coming-into-focus.html
If the WCHA were to lose its vote at the Division I table, there is no guarantee that the tournament committee will allow the WCHA to keep its automatic bid.
Because Bowling Green knows that the WCHA needs Bowling Green, Bowling Green is posturing.
Bowling Green’s other option is to start a new league with Canisus, Mercyhurst, Niagara, Robert Morris, and one other school. That other school could be Buffalo if a benefactor can be found to bankroll the program’s jump from the club level to Division I varsity.
LikeLike
One major issue with Notre Dame and Comcast vs Hockey East and NESN:
Comcast owns Comcast SportsNet New England, which competes directly against NESN (which is 50% owned by the Boston Bruins and 50% owned by the Boston Red Sox..)
LikeLike
Notre Dame will not go independent, and I have to think they’d give up this deal if it prevented conference affiliation.
They might be able to get preferential independent status in football, where they can still reach BCS bowls and the title game with a good performance, but that will not be the case in hockey. The Big Ten needed 6 teams together to get its one auto-bid into the NCAA’s tournament. Hockey just doesn’t work the same as football in the postseason, and Notre Dame is not the same name in hockey as it is in football either.
LikeLike
That’s as much of a “TV Deal” as the radio broadcasts for the Lansing Lugnuts home games are a “radio deal”.
Also, it amuses me to no end to hear “Notre Dame” and “regional” in the same sentence.
LikeLike
This is nowhere near what you called dude. That said, it’s a deal involving tv so I guess you had something there. Now let’s see what it looks like in conference land bc they cannot go indy.
LikeLike
In a way, this is “Back to the Future” for Notre Dame.
Before Notre Dame joined the Big East in basketball, Notre Dame basketball had a TV deal with SportsChannel America for all home games as an independent.
SportsChannel America was owned by Rainbow Programming Holdings, a subsidiary of Cablevision. The old NBC was a minority partner in SportsChannel America.
The old SportsChannel Chicago (which went out of business a few years after it was renamed FOX Sports Net Chicago) was the SportsChannel America affiliate serving South Bend.
Guess which company now occupies the studio space formerly used by SportsChannel Chicago/FOX Sports Net Chicago?
Comcast SportsNet Chicago.
LikeLike
Interesting news re: ND hockey (including the above posts). We’ll have to see how this shakes out.
In a way, even though we’ve focused mainly on football; the tremors in the football landscape have been nothing like the earthquakes in hockey.
Hockey realignment has largely rewritten the Midwestern half of hockey…
LikeLike
Anyone willing to donate a couple of tickets to me?
@petethamelnyt
Barry Alvarez said that he expects 30,000 Nebraska fans in Madison this weekend. That’s insane.
LikeLike
Test
LikeLike
An SEC Network on the way?
http://outkickthecoverage.com/sec-expansion-to-14-goal-its-own-network.php
LikeLike
I was wondering what Slive was planning on doing with the extra games that adding 2 or 4 teams would provide. Creating a SEC network is really the most logical step. I think there is little doubt that a SEC network shouldn’t have any problems what so ever in getting put on tier 1 (or at worse, tier 2) cable packages in the southern states. It is definitely a revenue plan that the SEC has yet to use.
LikeLike
The ESPN deal with the SEC prevented an SEC network, did it expressly prohibit it?
Does anyone know for sure?
LikeLike
I think the thinking was that they effectively sold all of their inventory minus the 1 school retained game so there was no inventory for a network. Speaking of which I have a hard time believing 1) some of those SEC schools can easily get out of their 3rd tier deals immediately or 2) that they’d want to.
LikeLike
I don’t see UK or FL being especially interested. And there may be others. I think its pretty clear the only way the SEC gets more money/school from Tiers I & II is by doing something like the Pac and Big 12 did, which was going to 9 games and being more flexible. And they could have done that without expanding. The Big 12 did that while contracting.
LikeLike
How would an SEC network fill hours? The ESPN and CBS deals mean they only have one (OOC) game per team per season which amounts to one live football broadcast per week. Plus MBB isn’t all that popular in SEC country.
LikeLike
Isn’t that 12 more games available to an SEC Net than was supposedly going to be on the LHN? Plus the added inventory of games that aTm and possibly mizzo bring probably increase that number to perhaps 3 per week.
LikeLike
Duh… 11 more….
LikeLike
Yeah, my thought process skipped a beat. Since they are already filling their order to ESPN/CBS the added inventory from new additions would belong to the SEC.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t surprise me if several SEC schools would rather continue selling their 3rd tier stuff on their own. It would be intersting to see a fight develop in the SEC after the one that was so public in the Big 12 with Texas A&M coming over. That said, I think the SEC can keep all of that out of the public better than the Big 12 could.
LikeLike
The only school that would even consider making a big issue out of keeping their 3rd tier rights is UF. None of the other schools currently make enough off of those rights to rival what an SEC network would bring to those schools. And once the SEC network would be up and running for a few years, then UF’s wouldn’t come close.
I think that the whole UT/Big 12 saga has proved that allowing a school to get a substantially larger revenue plan at the expense of the other conference schools puts way too much strain on a conference. Even if let’s say UF and Bama decided they didn’t want to go along with giving their 3rd tier rights to the SEC, they would get out voted. Could UF decide to leave at that point, I guess they could. But I doubt very seriously that they would.
LikeLike
Pretty certain UGa can and does make close to what UF makes on their third-tier and media rights.
LikeLike
@Bamatab
Do you think Slive was just doing legal talk saying they were satisfied for now with 13, or are they really looking around seeing who might be available beyond Mizzou and WVU?
LikeLike
It is definitely just legal talk, just like the SEC presidents saying they weren’t interested in adding aTm “at this time”, back when they first met about the Aggies several months back. Now, can the SEC stay at 13 for a year or two…sure. Would they be willing to do that…sure, if it meant getting the right team at 14. But they sure don’t want to stay at 13 for more that a couple of years (and that is only if they absolutely have to). And you can bet they are having informal talks with multiple schools right now, because they would probably prefer to move to 14 ASAP. But since Slive is a lawyer/judge by trade, he runs the SEC as such. So any comments that he makes or that he advises the SEC presidents to make, will be worded in a way that makes it appear that the SEC isn’t actively “recruiting” other schools.
Again, go back to aTm as an example. Even though Slive and Loftin keep hammering home the fact that aTm approached the SEC and the SEC was innocent in all of it, does anyone believe that Slive at least wasn’t complicent in courting aTm last summer when the Big 12 about blew up the first time, and that both he and Loftin haven’t been in mutual contact ever since? And does anyone believe that the SEC presidents actually were not interested in expanding after their first meeting on aTm a few months back?
Everything that comes out of Slive’s mouth about expansion is lawyer talk at this point. But make no mistake, neither he nor the SEC will be satisfied to stay at 13 for very long.
LikeLike
It wasn’t even several months ago. I am pretty sure it was August!
LikeLike
Clay likely knows better than me, but I still think his premise is flawed if the SEC can’t fully reopen existing contracts and there is no evidence yet that it can.
LikeLike
Off topic… Sorry Frank but four more years of Hawk… YES!!!
http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/6342
LikeLike
Off topic: Frank, you’re a White Sox fan. How do you feel about Ozzie’s departure and the strengths of your team going into the future?
LikeLike
David Sandhop who is an A&M twitter affiliated with the Texas A&M scout site says Missouri has been offered by the SEC and has until Wednesday to accept. He says it was originally tomorrow, but Missouri couldn’t get everyone together before then so the SEC relaxed the date. He was pretty good with the A&M stuff concerning the SEC and I give him more credit than a random twitter (at least concerning matters to A&M).
http://twitter.com/#!/HopWebsider
If true, I don’t particularly like the move for the SEC as I think it will kill Tennessee-Alabama (Auburn likely heading east) and Missouri shouldn’t be a big enough prize to warrent that.
LikeLike
Why not just put them in the East? They already border Tennessee and Kentucky and they could give them a crossover against either A&M or Arkansas.
LikeLike
I guess that might work. I assumed they’d be in the west, but I guess east with A&M as a crossover could work.
LikeLike
Arkansas would be the logical crossover for Mizzou.
LikeLike
Mizzou’s Rivals site: “Its time to go”
http://missouri.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1271720
LikeLike
The first Saturday in October is just around the corner with 4 games featuring ranked teams, and 8 games featuring a ranked team against a .500 or better team from an AQ conference.
The top games are:
#3 Alabama at #12 Florida – 7pm CDT on CBS
#8 Nebraska at #7 Wisconsin – 7pm CDT on ABC
#13 Clemson at #11 Virginia Tech – 5pm CDT on ESPN2
#14 Texas A&M v. #18 Arkansas at Cowboys Stadium – 11am CDT on ESPN
It will be interesting to see whether CBS or ABC win the ratings battle in the prime-time slot.
Other interesting games include:
Kentucky (2-2) at #1 LSU – home for a change, but crappy morning TV kick-off
UCLA (2-2) at #6 Stanford
Auburn (3-1) at #10 South Carolina
#15 Baylor at K-State (3-0)
#16 South Florida at Pitt (2-2)
#17 Texas at Iowa State (3-0)
#21 Georgia Tech at NC State (2-2)
Northwestern (2-1) at #24 Illinois Fightin’ Frank-the-Tanks
LikeLike
I think CBS will win that ratings slot. Alabama is ranked higher and as of right now Alabama/Florida has been the marquee rivalry of recent memory given the weight of the past couple of matchups with so many BCS possibilities at stake.
Plus, you have two kings in that one and Alabama is #3 and talked about way more as a national contender than the other 3 in the discussion.
But on the converse side, you’d probably have a lot of people in the Big 12 region more interested to see how Nebraska does in its main Big Ten challenge this year, so who knows.
Most likely it’ll be fairly close overall, but I’d expect the CBS game to have higher ratings given Alabama’s rank and the presence of two kings.
LikeLike
You can pretty much guess which game this guy thinks will get the better ratings:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/paul_finebaum/09/29/big.ten/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a2
Keep in mind that this is a SEC radio host who also now has a weekly article in SI. He is way over the top in this article, but that isn’t to say that there isn’t a lot of SEC fans out there that feel this way (I am not one of them btw).
LikeLike
Finebaum is a blowhard. No one doubts that the SEC is the better football conference right now, but there is no guarantee it will be that way in 10 years. Besides, lets let the season play out before we decide who is the best. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bama or LSU won it all, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Wisconsin, Nebraska, Oklahoma, or Clemson won it either. At the end of the day, what people like Finebaum and the mindless SEC chanters have to really ask themselves, is why they are so worried about the B1G. Everything I hear from them regarding the B1G seems to be the type of little brother crap you would expect from an Auburn fan towards an Alabama fan.
LikeLike
MIKE SLIVE LETS MISSOURI IN ON THE SECRET RITES OF THE SEC…
http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2011/9/28/2455917/mike-slive-lets-missouri-in-on-the-secret-rites-of-the-sec#storyjump
LikeLike
Some commentating about various expansion scenarios seem convinced that the SEC adding Texas A&M and Missouri will automatically open up the CBS/ESPN contracts for renegotiation. I’m a little skeptical, but I honestly have no clue what will happen there. However, if I had to bet, I’d bet CBS/ESPN will only maintain the per school payout and there will be no “full renegotiation” as many have claimed. I’ll throw my hat in the apparent minority.
First, I’m pretty sure there’s no explicit clause to negotiate in good faith in the case of expansion. If there was Silve wouldn’t dance around the question with vague answers referring to dubious “look-ins” and the Big Ten would have gotten a small raise for adding Nebraska. Could the SEC have had the foresight to add an expansion rider while the Big Ten sitting at the super stable number of 11 didn’t? Sure, but Silve surely would have specifically referred to it.
Second, the Pac12 contract was huge beyond everyone’s expectations. If ESPN/FOX think they can make a profit there, imagine what ESPN/CBS is making right now off the SEC and what they’re projecting to make over the next 12 years! I can’t imagine they want to enter good faith negotiations, as the SEC-13 or 14 is probably worth 50% more or even twice as much as the PAC. The networks might be in a bind here, but if there’s any wiggle room, I’d expect them to stand firm. A “criminally” below market contract for the next 12 years is not going to be ripped up without a fight. Some have said that the SEC is the most powerful brand in college sports and you want to maintain a cordial relationship. Utter nonsense. The SEC needs TV as well, they’re not going to poison the well. And the next renegotiation isn’t scheduled for a decade, TV isn’t going to be worried about SEC sour grapes since no one has a clue what the entertainment landscape will be then.
Third, if expanding would guarantee a new contract, the SEC would have announced expansion plans shortly after the Pac12 contract or they would have been the aggressor. I’m sure it’s completely unacceptable to be the third conference in TV revenue when their ratings are first, by a long shot. Regardless, the SEC looks to be caught off guard here, they weren’t planning on 13 and certainly have no plan for 14. But as Frank and others pointed out, Texas A&M was a large enough prize to disrupt previous plans.
Also, it’s been reported that ESPN has already ensured the per school payout would remain the same,… would they have bothered if there’s a new contract coming? Perhaps, perhaps not. I won’t be surprised if #14 is Missouri, FSU or WVU and the SEC has a new $35-$40M/school TV deal; I’ve read enough speculation over the past month to be prepared for that. But there would be a few missing puzzle pieces I’d wonder about, and I’d question the actions of some actors over the past year.
LikeLike
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/09/sec_enters_new_world_with_unan.html
Slive spews off some more, but ESPN flat out says the reviews “don’t reopen the deal and there are no outs.” The reviews are for seeing if they can do things better (i.e. SEC may get more with 9 game schedules, different time slots, etc.).
LikeLike
a la carte Cable pricing.-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/27/us-cable-idUSTRE78Q6EE20110927
If this becomes true, it will destroy the economics conference networks.
LikeLike
All I got out of that is that the average consumer will pay more for less. They’ll still have packages and bundles, of which the BTN would be a rider on a sports package.
Even if it wasn’t, the BTN could weather that storm.
LikeLike
Who wouldn’t want to ditch the 95% of the channels you never watch? Consumer wins? or loses as carriers lose their shorts and only provide those few channels that draw the highest viewership.
LikeLike
Depends on what you want. If you want all the channels you currently have, the status quo will be cheaper.
If you want to drop channels, it could be cheaper.
LikeLike
Cost of all channels goes up then and the channels not being watched are the cheaper ones. Get rid of cable contracts and watch ESPN go to $20 per month by itself.
LikeLike
Timely article with our discussion above and Eric’s prediction that the Pac was going to be the peak contract. I guess I was wrong. I said neither providers nor cable companies would want a la carte.
LikeLike
That hurts ESPN more than any other party. They get more from forced subscription fees than anyone.
LikeLike
It might hurt them more, but demand for ESPN is legitimately high. While they’d lose a lot of forced subscriptions if they charge to a la carte, they’d also be able to charge a lot for everyone who wanted the channel. I could see the prices skyrocketing upward.
LikeLike
If this comes true, brands become even more important and you’ll see an even bigger expansion frenzy. Oh, and the BTN could make even more money, depending on who they add.
LikeLike
Like any good rate case, the distribution company will guarantee themselves a rate of return. Typically, this return is justified by giving their consumers more value. This value is ‘shared’ between the distribution company and the consumer on the distribution company’s terms.
True a la carte will never happen. Not as long as exclusive franchises exist for cable and internet.
LikeLike
Chip Brown’s latest:
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=127176
Again he makes no sense on some things. Time zone is important so TCU has a chance? Has noone figured out Louisville in on Central Time? And BYU and everyone in Eastern time zone are only one hour off?
But it is the first Big 12 source outside Missouri saying Mizzou is seriously considering SEC even after OU gave up on Pac. If OU hadn’t played their 3 week power play, BYU or Louisville would probably be in and Mizzou would also be safely secured.
LikeLike
Here’s another link if bullet’s doesn’t work for you.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1271762
LikeLike
Mizzou chancellor Brady Deaton has just resigned his chair position on the Big 12 expansion committee, says Big 12 commissioner Chuck Neinas. That according to a tweet by Texas stenographer and mouthpiece Chippy Brown. Looks like Mizzou has decided not to wait around
any more for that elusive magical invite for up north…They’ll soon be printing money while acting like an SEC spear tip in Big 10 land. Tuesday looks to be a big day in Columbia, MO. And wondering if any of those Iowa and Illinois kids might want to go to school close to home and play for an AAU university in the SEC?
LikeLike
My understanding is he is still chair of the board of directors, but has resigned as chair of the expansion committee. There could be a conflict of interest on the expansion committee. They might want to grab WVU before SEC and Mizzou might still stay but be talking to SEC.
But it definitely indicates there is no certainty Mizzou is staying. And nothing gets decided before at least Tuesday.
LikeLike
Use Mike’s link.
LikeLike
“Neinas ‘Confident’ Missouri will stay in Big 12”-Title in case I typed the link wrong. Consistent with Brown that no TCU sentiment is not so strong.
Says he expects Mizzou to stay.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpIh46rV8hM9EOmaoFzqq3fsG1WA?docId=1a7cde082dc8406aacc43595bb87f0d4
LikeLike
Why the Ags left according to Sandhop.
http://tamu.scout.com/2/1111631.html
Many in the national media have suggested Texas A&M’s move to the SEC was an emotional decision based on jealousy toward the University of Texas. Some analysts have even suggested that the Aggies “wanted to take their ball and go home”, as if the decision to leave the Big 12 was a spontaneous move born out of anger and frustration toward the Longhorns.
That simply wasn’t the case for the administration and the board of regents tasked to make such decisions impacting the university and its athletic program for the next century. Look at Loftin’s comments made at Monday’s press conference and you see hints at the real reason why Texas A&M is leaving the Big 12.
“The Southeastern Conference provides Texas A&M the national visibility that our great university and our student-athletes deserve,” said Loftin. “Now, we have a venue. The SEC will be our national stage every day, every month, every year, giving extra value to our former students. The brand of Texas A&M is made by you, and it will be seen every day.”
This was a business decision made by the university executives, not an emotional reaction to a third tier rights television network. The issue at hand for Loftin is building Texas A&M’s national brand, which is sorely weak at this point. That may come as a surprise to most Texas A&M former students and supporters, because the Aggie brand is strong within the state’s borders.
Sources have indicated that a study was commissioned last year to evaluate the current value of the Texas A&M brand, and the results were quite startling. Despite a well-recognized brand within the state of Texas, outside the region very little was known about the university’s established research capabilities and scholastic reputation within academia. In fact, the results suggested that few respondents outside the state could differentiate Texas A&M from other Texas institutions, and that Texas A&M needed to find a vehicle to improve visibility across the nation and enhance the value of the university’s brand.
One of those vehicles is the Southeastern Conference with its exclusive national TV contract with CBS. Add in the agreement with ESPN, and over half of the SEC institutions are on national television every week. In 2010, every LSU conference match-up was on national TV. By comparison, only the Thanksgiving date with Texas was a true national broadcast for Texas A&M despite Top 10 games with Nebraska and Oklahoma last year. Texas A&M leadership believes the opportunity to play regularly on the national stage is one of several moves necessary to begin the process of building the Aggie brand across the country.
LikeLike
That is believable. I know until 2 or 3 years ago, I couldn’t have told you there was a difference in statue between Texas A&M and Texas Tech. As someone who loves the history of the sport, I’ve learned a lot since then, but I figured then they were at about the same level historically in an athletic standpoint and had no idea at all about academics.
LikeLike
Agreed. Before all this expansion talk, I thought Texas and TAMU were pretty close in athletics (more of a SCarolina-Clemson type of rivalry than a Michigan-MSU type of rivalry) but thought Texas was far ahead in academics. I wasn’t aware of how much reseach was being done at TAMU.
LikeLike
The double talk from Texas A&M is remarkable:
“as if the decision to leave the Big 12 was a spontaneous move born out of anger and frustration toward the Longhorns.”
Then why did it happen within days of the LHN contract? If that wasn’t the reason, they chose the perfect time to give the opposite impression. Statements like “We’ll go independent if we have to, we just want out of the Big 12” seem a bit incriminating as well.
“very little was known about the university’s established research capabilities and scholastic reputation within academia.”
I distinctly recall the university president saying that conferences are only athletic arrangements. I’m sure that association with Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama and Mississippi State (to name just a few of their division opponents) will improve their scholastic reputation.
“Sources have indicated that a study was commissioned last year to evaluate the current value of the Texas A&M brand, and the results were quite startling.”
I don’t understand this statement. What sources? Was this a clandestine study, commissioned by shadowy, anonymous substate actors? How many Bothan spies died to bring you this information?
“In 2010, every LSU conference match-up was on national TV. By comparison, only the Thanksgiving date with Texas was a true national broadcast for Texas A&M despite Top 10 games with Nebraska and Oklahoma last year.”
Could be the conference network deal. Or it could be that LSU didn’t start the season 3-3 and is the more popular program by almost any measure. One of the two.
“In fact, detractors of Texas A&M’s move to the SEC point to a very small difference in the estimated financial TV package of the Big 12 once it renegotiates its tier one rights deal in three years versus the SEC.”
Haterz gonna hate.
LikeLike
This went a lot longer and ranty so pardon me.
My problem with some of the thinking is as follows:
1. Don’t make a commitment if you were already out the door. TAMU only started bringing this up again after the ESPN / high school games fiasco. TAMU used the episode as a cover to do something they had already been thinking about. Loftin can say 100 year decision, but that didn’t stop him from making a commitment last year and asking for guarantees that he KNEW he wasn’t going to need or honor. If you wanna go to the SEC last year was the year to do it. Now we are back in this mess again because somebody had either 2nd or 3rd wandering thoughts. That’s my problem. Right now since 13 is an odd number it means the SEC is still on the prowl and that still creates problems for the Big East, the ACC, and the Big 12. Thanks, btw – head still in the oven…damn its electric. 🙂
2. As for the LSU comment. LSU was on national television last year for every game because they are good. The Aggies are sub-.500 team in the Big 12 over the last decade. LSU is in the national title hunt every year. Aggies haven’t breathed on it since the last century. This goes back to something that I believe was was commented on many of these posts. Why does the SEC want TAMU? Its a good academic school yes, but ultimately when it comes to football it punches under its weight. It draws near/over 90,000 a game; it has significant alumni presence in Top 10 media markets, it has deep Texas recruiting roots, the school is built on incredible tradition; and yet it cannot manage a winning record in its own conference and its last bowl win was in 2001. TAMU brings a lot of money and prestige to the poker table, but not a lot of skill.
This got posted over at TexAgs
http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=1928518&forum_id=5
TAMU’s Ending Rank in the Big 12 South for the last decade (vs B12 South teams)
2000 – 3 of 6 (3-2)
2001 – 4 of 6 (2-3)
2002 – 5 of 6 (2-3)
2003 – 5 of 6 (1-4)
2004 – 3 of 6 (2-3)
2005 – 4 of 6 (2-3)
2006 – 3 of 6 (3-2)
2007 – 3 (Tied) of 6 (3-2)
2008 – 6 of 6 (0-5)
2009 – 5 of 6 (2-3)
2010 – 3 way tie for 1st (4-1)
That is not a team that’s crushing it – that’s a team which is middle of the pack at best.
3. In 20 years, I wonder if the psyche of TAMU will change especially if the UT game goes away. Without a foil, I imagine that TAMU will change, maybe for the better. The Aggie collective psyche is one of constant paranoia someone is always out to get the school whether it was UT, Baylor, Oklahoma, Arkansas, or TTU. In the SEC, it won’t matter because the blood will not be that deep. The LSU rivalry will rekindle, but the Aggie program is not on par with it and may not be for quite awhile if ever. LSU is to TAMU what TAMU is to Baylor, cannon fodder and not very interesting. Maybe Arkansas can be foil, but again TAMU has to have a hated rival and it just won’t be there or their appointed foil just won’t give a damn.
4. As for its transition to the SEC, I believe it will be very much like Arkansas’s just not nearly as good. Arkansas was THE top dog in the SWC winning everything and had the best winning percentage prior to their leaving the SEC. Now Arkansas is middle of the pack in the SEC West sometimes will reach the top but not very often. Like the post said though this is a business decision and I can respect a business decision. However, when you are not winning, it becomes much more difficult for your organization. So who is TAMU going to jump in the SEC West?
Alabama
LSU
Auburn
Arkansas
MSU
Ole Miss
Probably over MSU and Ole Miss, but if it was hard getting past UT and OU and now oSu – imagine the climb over 3 schools that have won the BCS title over the last four years. How does that play? You can probably pencil in 3-5 losses a year then maybe 1 from the east which means it has to be cupcake city to breath on a bowl game.
Ultimately it may turn out to be a good business decision to move to the SEC for TAMU. In the almost 20 years since it folded, all the SWC schools have moved on some better and some for the worse. However, the tradition that was within the SWC is dead now between the schools that parted ways. The problem for a school like TAMU where tradition is everything, when you remove every vestige of its tradition and identity, what do have left? This may be the biggest killer of all.
LikeLike
In response to your TAMU query above. Back before the june 2010 meltdown I said each of the Big 3 conferences needed different things. I still feel it is true today.
B1G : needed new markets / revenue streams to feed the BTN
PAC : needed new brands, as U$C was their only brand
SEC : needed new academic institutions
So far realignment has headed this way as the B1G added UNL which brought it a new market, and a CCG. The PAC has attempted to land UT and OU which are verified brands. The SEC has just landed TAMU which has brought it academic status up. When you asked why the SEC added TAMU, my theory seems to have proven true. In addition the TAMU fans seem to fit the SEC fan profile. There really is not much the conference can do about the Mississippi schools, and Alabama is already split 3 ways – BAMA = undergrad state school, UAB = medical research, and UAH = technical research – as these schools are grandfathered in. On the flip side you have Vanderbilt, Florida, Georgia, and now TAMU that are strong academic and research schools. Arkansas and Kentucky are small population schools in small states, but both are growing their endowments rapidly and upgrading their research capacity. The rest are not top notch, but not tier 3 either.
On your question about the TAMU delay for a year, I think the administration really had planned to try and hold the B12 together, but after last june felt greater pressure from the alumni and donors. Last june only about 30% wanted to join the SEC, but by this june it was running closer to 90%. That is a BIG shift of opinion, and I think the LHN with its HS game issue just became the fuse that lit the final bomb. Several TAMU blogs blew up, and the rest was a feeding frenzy that would not go back to where it was before. I seriously do not believe it was just about the LHN, but I do feel that UT and ESPN pushed when even the NCAA was sending a strong signal that this was a powder keg issue. I do think if they had not pushed for the HS games, this would not have boiled over. Conversely, it was not just about the HS games. While this is just my opinion, it does tend to offer a reasonable explanation for thing that happened.
I do believe the “traditional rivals” thing is overblown because most people never bothered to really look at TAMU in the first place. First, TAMU was in the old SIAA which became the SoCon, which became the SEC. This was a telling point when Loftin made the “100 year decision” quote because it was just about 100 years ago that UT got TAMU to leave the SIAA. Second, the B12 was 4 old SWC teams and 8 old Big 8 teams. TAMU had little or no history with 2/3 rds of the B12 conference. Third, of the 3 remaining schools only 2 had been there for a long time. Texas Tech was a member of the old Border conference with Arizona and Arizona State before the AZ schools were admitted to the PAC. This left only Baylor and UT with long histories with TAMU. Fourth, the SEC had 2 schools with very long histories with TAMU in Arkansas and LSU. So really TAMU was only giving up two long term schools in BU and UT for two other long term schools with Arkansas and LSU. Since TAMU has since said they will play “anytime, anywhere” to keep UT, they are really only giving up Baylor. UT is the one balking at keeping the game intact and the history of the SEC shows favorable feelings for OOC rival games. Just look at UK vs UL, UGA vs GT, USC vs Clemson, and UF vs FSU.
Say what you will about the 3 SEC adds in Arkansas, South Carolina, and TAMU. Every one of them had extensive histories and leadership interaction. Bear Bryant went from UK, to TAMU, to BAMA. Eddie Sutton was at Arkansas in the SWC days before heading to Kentucky. Fran and Gene rotated between TAMU, BAMA, and MSU. The current coach at TAMU, that has brought T&F champions to College Station came from LSU where he won championships for the Tigers. The WBB coach that won the NCAA this past spring for TAMU came from Arkansas. I feel sure there are many other cross school changes but those just came to me without looking it up. i do feel TAMU will play UT if UT says yes, but it would not surprise me if they kept TT in that slot because it will at least keep that rivalry in place.
I would tend to disagree about comparing TAMU to Arkansas long term due to size, wealth, and academic standing. I see them becoming the western bookend to Florida in the east. Keep in mind that Florida was a good school, but no great football program till Charlie Pell got there and set up the program Spurrier would take all the way. While they will probably never take BAMA from its football slot, it really does look like a Directors Cup school like Florida. Since TAMU has shown the ability to hire away top SEC coaches for their other sports, they should have a competitive advantage in the long term. I do however think they will blossom in a league where they are treated as an equal once the “prison” mentality of the B12 wears off.
LikeLike
Overall nice post but I completely disagree with your comment about TAMU becoming the “western Florida”.
Alabama, Arkansas, and LSU will come into town and beat them on a regular basis during the season then over-sign the hell out of Texas during the off-season. Its what they do and IMO the reason why the SEC loves the TAMU pickup…going to be good enough to not be a bottom feeder, but still not knock off any of the established big dogs while opening a huge new population center which to be brutally honest, the SEC needs.
LikeLike
I’m honestly biased, being an Aggie, but I see the “western Florida” scenario as more likely. I do agree that in the first few years we’re going to get beaten up. However:
A&M is almost exactly the same size as Florida
A&M has the largest fan base in the SEC, a bit ahead of Florida
A&M sits in an extremely fertile recruiting area, much more so than most schools
A&M and Florida are both AAU schools (which matters little for athletics, but it’s another similarity)
A&M is just behind Florida in the Director’s Cup
While A&M’s athletic budget lags, that’s based on Big 12 revenue. Current projections would put A&M’s budget up near Florida’s within a couple years
A&M has extremely strong facilities across all sports, with the partial exception of football; football facilities are slated for a major upgrade
With all that put together, it’s possible that A&M will again chronically underachieve. However, many of the reasons for past underachieving have been 1) that top recruits go to Texas, since there’s no conference differentiation. With the SEC providing markedly more visibility than the Big 12, that changes; and 2) A&M’s athletic budget has lagged somewhat, leading to different decisions on coaching and facilities than are being made now.
LikeLike
Duff, you said
”
B1G : needed new markets / revenue streams to feed the BTN
PAC : needed new brands, as U$C was their only brand
SEC : needed new academic institutions
”
While the SEC did add an academic institution that was better than SEC average, the B10 added a brand that had a far below-average market and the Pac added no brands and actually turned down the opportunity to add a brand in OU.
LikeLike
Those projections are almost as accurate as his projection that the ACC was going under and the BEast would thrive.
LikeLike
Texas A&M left to get away from Texas while getting more $$$ at the same time. They did this after agreeing to stay and taking the exit money from Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas, and Kansas State (Texas and Oklahoma refused this offer). The $20M payout was also to get Texas A&M to stay (as the big dogs TX and OK would not take lower payouts than A&M). All the LHN talk and high school football hyperbole is just political cover. The U(niversity) IL which runs the high playoffs in Texas was founded by the University of Texas in 1910 and the state championship is held on the UT campus (google UIL Texas and you will pull up a website that clearly identifies it as University of Texas). What is a few telecast HS games compared to that?
The move to the SEC is great for A&M. I think this decision was made more than a year ago, but was held up by the A&M president due to political blockage (how do you think Baylor got into the B12?). The Texas legislature meets only the first half of odd years. Once they adjorned in 2011 the path was clear for A&M to be playing in the SEC before the next general session.
Also I saw one post suggest that Texas will pass a law that will force the continuation of the Texas – Texas A&M games. Like Rep and Dems there are a few things the Longhorns and Aggies agree on and keeping the politicians out is one of those. Think of it this way, state law could force this game, or it could force the aggies to resign from the SEC, or elimiinate the athletic department. It is a state school after all. Because all could happen, none will.
LikeLike
Actually its two Aggies trying to force the game. Both of them conservative Republicans.
LikeLike
Anybody notice these flights from Columbia to Chicago the past few days?
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N904RB/history/20110923/2100Z/KCOU/KMDW
Is MU secretly talking to the B1G, and if so, how would you feel if MU became team #13 in the B1G?
LikeLike
I would be ok with it.
LikeLike
But who would be #14? My vote would be Syracuse.
LikeLike
Maryland would make more sense for #14.
Chances are, this is merely someone at MIssouri making one last inquiry/courtesy call to the Big Ten before mulling whether to accept an SEC invite.
LikeLike
More like pleading and begging to be allowed to join B1G as they have done for the past two years.
LikeLike
For the record, I’ve been thinking that a Maryland/Missouri invite would be the strongest two geographically continguous choices if you had to make a move to 14.
LikeLike
The only way I could see that is if Texas has already agreed to join the B1G if the Big 12 breaks up and . . . Notre Dame isn´t ready yet.
In that case, maybe we´re back to Frank´s stalking horse scenario, in which Missouri is, finally, the missing piece that lands the Longhorns.
LikeLike
I’m agin it. We don’t need more questionable academic institutions from the midwest/plains that aren’t named Oklahoma.
LikeLike
If those were talks with the BIG, they might not have liked what they heard. 2 days later they were in Birmingham. Isn’t that where the SEC headquarters are located?
The Smaller 10 is fat and arrogant, like the USA 30 years ago.
The only long-term logical play here is to add Missouri and Rutgers. Texas doesn’t want in the Smaller 10, and ND’s not going to be forced to do anything. They don’t want tot because it’s not on their time and initiative.
LikeLike
Matchups & NYC:
Rutgers v Penn State? Yes.
Anyone v Penn State? Yes.
Rutgers v Ohio State, Michigan or Nebraska? Maybe
Anyone v Ohio State, Michigan or Nebraska? Maybe
Rutgers v Wisconsin, Michigan St. or Iowa? No.
Anyone v Wisconsin, Michigan St. or Iowa? No.
Rutgers v Northwestern, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue or Minnesota? Never.
Anyone v Northwestern, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, or Minnesota? Never.
It’s the right side of the “v” that will determine whether the matchup will carry NYC. If so, what’s the point of adding Rutgers?
LikeLike
Because like most people you aren’t understanding the “NYC” TV market. OK, so let’s assume the worst and say RU brings nothing in the 5 boroughs and Long Island. However, part of the NYC market is northern New jersey, and Rutgers would bring that. Rutgers would also bring central New Jersey and (combined with PSU’s support) southern New Jersey.
So, you get hung up that RU does not guarantee getting the 8 million people in the NYC TV market and overlook the fact that they would guarantee getting the 8 million people in New Jersey.
LikeLike
I forgot that all 8 million people in New Jersey love Rutgers.
LikeLike
I’ve been for it since last year.
LikeLike
I would love to see missouri in the B1G, but I dont ever see it happening with just them as #13
LikeLike
Status:
There’s a lot of talk about done deals. I’ve been trying to figure out what is real. My guess is that noone has any offers and nothing is decided.
I think SEC offered Mizzou if OU left. Now Mizzou is riskier and my guess is that its probable but not certain. At least one article said Missouri had no guarantees. Its been quiet on the SEC side.
I think Missouri Board of Curators doesn’t even know what Missouri is going to do.
This article supports that:
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/28/3173939/big-step-for-mizzous-conference.html
I think BYU has had serious discussions about how their admission would work, but no offers. I don’t think anyone else has gotten that far. Its clear the Big 12 hasn’t decided how many members it wants, so how could it have offered Louisville? There was a comment that the expansion committee was re-activated during the ADs meeting, but they didn’t know when they would meet.
Ft. Worth article talks about the numbers and that various schools have been discussed:
http://www.star-ttelegram.com/2011/09/28/3405086/big-12-needs-to-expand-just-to.html
LikeLike
Correction for Bullet’s link:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09/28/3405086/big-12-needs-to-expand-just-to.html
(You had an extra “t” in “star-telegram.”) 😉
LikeLike
ESP article today states that the interim commish is confident Mizzou will stay, that the league members cannot agree on the number of teams to add, and that there has been a change in heart of adding more texas teams. Looks like maybe TCU/SMU/Houston are in play: Quote
Neinas had said last week that there was “resistance” from some existing members to adding teams from Texas.
“I’d say that’s changed,” he said.
LikeLike
If TCU/SMU/Houston end up in the B12 and Rice is again left out in the cold, I may quit watching football…
LikeLike
Don’t worry Loki. If there is one school Texas would blackball (at least if fans are any indication of how the admin feels), it would be SMU. I think Rice is about a thousand times more likely to get in the Big 12 than SMU. UTEP has a better chance than SMU.
Who gets in is a function of who brings value to ESPN and Fox. I think that’s why Texas schools are back in the mix. BYU is pretty easy. Louisville and WVU add value, but at present TCU is hot and has geographic advantages. Houston probably has more potential than UL or WVU. But if Missouri leaves or WVU joins the SEC, the Texas schools have a much better chance. If WVU isn’t available or is needed to replace Missouri, after BYU and UL you’ve got slim pickings:
Cincinnati
USF
Rutgers
UConn
TCU
Houston
and the really long shots:
Colorado St.
New Mexico
Boise St.
Air Force
TCU and Houston stack up reasonably well against that group considering football strength, potential and geographic sense.
LikeLike
Average attendance last 15 years of candidates (my list-noone has mentioned CSU or UNM):
BYU 62,099 (63,554 last 4 years)
WVU 54,461 (58,032 last 4 years)
UL 39,003 (40,665 last 4 years)
Cincy 25,054 (32,089 last 4 years)
USF 34,897 (49,066 last 4 years)
RU 32,233 (45,337 last 4 years)
UConn 28,673 (38,503 last 4 years)
TCU 30,900 (35,265 last 4 years)
Air Force 40,632(37,988 last 4 years)
Boise 27,738 (32,166 last 4 years)
Houston 20,586 (24,861 last 4 years)
CSU 27,354 (22,211 last 4 years)
UNM 28,728 (26,805 last 4 years)
Big 12-3 average is 53,013 and median is 46,688 with only Baylor below 40k.
LikeLike
Since a lot of those schools have undergone renovations in the past 2-3 years, I’d probably put out a list of the most recent data.
I mean, it’s sensible to think that Louisville is going to be drawing 50k+ for the foreseeable future (and partially why they’ve become a legitimate choice for the Big 12).
LikeLike
I meant 2010 data*…
LikeLike
Loki,
If TAMU could take somebody with them, the boards were happy to take Rice with them as a balance for Vanderbilt in the east.
LikeLike
@Zeek
UL got 50k last year, but only 32k the year before that. I don’t know if that was due to a bad team or construction.
LikeLike
Thanks Michael. Unfortunately, I can’t cut and paste on this forum with my ISP.
LikeLike
bullet,
what about Tulane? their attendance last year(23,000+) was better than UH, they would expand the footprint but have geographic proximity. They have also had some success in football (prior to Katrina) and to a degree in other sports. They have a large stadium to accomadate Texas and OU. Oh and they are AAU if that were to matter to the big 12.
LikeLike
Too many financial difficulties. They had problems before Katrina and Katrina has put them in a worse spot. Plus they haven’t shown any possibility of filling their stadium unless LSU is in it.
LikeLike
Chuck Neinas – if you’re out there somewhere in cyber space reading this, here’s my plan to save the Big XII-2-1-1?.
1. Let Mizzou go to the SEC.
2. Kill off the Big East by taking Louisville and TCU. Now, Notre Dame needs a conference to park its non-football sports, so accept the Irish for all sports other than football. Give them the same bowl deal that they had with the Big East and require the Irish to play 3-4 games per year against Big XII football teams.
3. Take Boise State for football only.
4. Take BYU as a full member. If BYU doesn’t accept, take West Virginia.
I don’t think a North/South divisional set-up would work, so I’ll suggest a Leaders/Legends styled division set-up:
Div A/Div B
Texas/Oklahoma
TxTech/OK State
Baylor/TCU
Kansas/Boise St.
K-State/Iowa State
Louisville/BYU or West Virginia
Each division has 3 teams that have competed in BCS bowl games.
LikeLike
I’ve thought the same way about B12 additions and I agree, especially with the Notre Dame and Boise St. part.
I would break down divisions a little differently though. The B12 needs BYU, TCU and Boise to remain competitive, so I would have them play the old South schools as little as possible. My divisions would be this:
West
Boise St.
BYU
TCU
Kansas
K State
Iowa State
East
Texas
TTU
OK St.
OU
Baylor
Louisville
If BYU says no or B12 doesn’t want Boise, which would be a mistake, add West Virginia to the East and move Baylor to the West to be with TCU.
Also, since the conference is so far-flung I would propose a 7 game conference schedule. It improves the chances of having a highly ranked West division school, allows for more regional OOC games to offset travel, and reduces the chances of a CCG rematch.
LikeLike
The private plane that flew from Columbia, Missouri to Birmingham, Alabama belongs to Coil Construction of Columbia, Missouri. The owner claimed that he made a business trip to Birmingham.
http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/2090
LikeLike
How dare he do business when confrence realignment is happening?
LikeLike
Maybe he’s adding a former Big 12 members room to the SEC offices.
LikeLike
same plane was in B1G airports around Chicago the previous week. Maybe he just does business with the top football conferences? 😉
LikeLike
The owner claimed that he made a business trip to Birmingham.
You’re forgetting the key word!
LikeLike
@greggdoyelcbs
I’m hearing the Big 12 is pushing hard for TCU – and TCU hasn’t said no just yet
And the Big East is looking hard at … wow … East Carolina. What I’m hearing.
LikeLike
Basketball schools seem to be picking the BE football schools-ones who wouldn’t require basketball membership. ECU would be willing to sacrifice everything else for football. They might be sacrificing football too if they aren’t careful.
LikeLike
I hope TCU doesn’t say no. They would be stupid to turn their back on the B12.
LikeLike
I’m fairly confident that won’t happen, although I’m not convinced the Big 12 is seriously considering TCU. But sometimes it’s nice to be wrong.
LikeLike
What won’t happen? B12 inviting TCU or TCU turning down B12?
LikeLike
TCU won’t turn down the Big 12.
This is their chance to get back onto the big table if they get an invite. Plus, the Big East is totally unstable with Pitt/Syracuse out. If that hadn’t happened, then there’d be an issue of TCU staying with the Big East. But after Pitt/Syracuse left, the best option is the Big 12 if they get an invite.
LikeLike
Any writer that suggests a non-AQ would say no to the Big 12 has no clue (and I’ve seen a number who seem to think no is a possible answer). BYU, as long as their beliefs aren’t compromised (no Sunday play) would not say no. Boise certainly would not say no. And right now I can’t imagine any Big East school not jumping with joy for a Big 12 offer assuming the rights assignment goes through and probably even if it doesn’t.
LikeLike
I don’t get these angles that some of these people are pushing; no one outside the ACC/Big Ten/Pac-12/SEC is turning down the Big 12, except for maybe BYU, since they want to be the next ND (even if I think that’s a somewhat delusional kind of premise).
And I’d add that after Pitt/Syracuse left the Big East, the Big 12 became an automatic choice for the rest of the Big East schools unless the ACC, Big Ten, or SEC has an invite ready at the same time.
There’s a legitimate chance that the Big East loses its AQ in 2014. There’s no chance that a Big 12 with Texas/Oklahoma loses its AQ ever. The choice is that simple when combined with the fact that the Big 12 will be making way more money than the Big East.
LikeLike
I’ve said this before, it would be cool to have a league where the Baptists (Baylor), Mormons (BYU), Methodists (SMU), Christians (TCU) and even the Catholics (ND) duke it out each week with the heathens.
Also, with Mizzou to the SEC, three Tigers in one league seems pretty weird too.
LikeLike
Maybe three tigers in the same division….
LikeLike
Personally I’m hoping if they go to 16 they grab Clemson and Mizzou and just rename it the Tiger Conference.
LikeLike
Don’t forget Memphis!
LikeLike
West Viriginia’s realignment history.
http://wvgazette.com/Sports/WVU/201109283378?page=2&build=cache
LikeLike
So, they’ve been in, what, two conferences? Amateurs.
LikeLike
Posting this here because although we don’t usually listen to ADs, Alvarez has seemed to be one of the guys in the know over the past few years (with his comments about a distant school that wanted to join at one point along with the fact that he’s the only AD who really speaks about it; the Nebraska-Wisconsin connections there also indicate that he had some idea of what was going on but who knows).
‘Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez was a guest Wednesday on “SiriusXM Mad Dog Radio” with co-hosts Evan Cohen and Steve Phillips.
Alvarez was asked about the prospect of the Big Ten Conference expanding to keep up with other conferences that are adding schools.
“Can the Big Ten stay as they are and still maintain their status as being one of the elite conferences?” Phillips asked. “If the SEC gets really big and better and if the Pac-12 becomes the Pac-16 it seems to me the Big Ten might be diminished in some way. How do you look at that?”
“Well, I look at it [as] bigger is not always better and just to add teams is not the right answer,” Alvarez said. “I think . . . we feel comfortable where we are. Just because everyone else or the other (conferences) are adding squads, that doesn’t make it necessary for us to add teams. If a team doesn’t add value you’d be foolish to add other teams. So I don’t think there’s anyone out there right now that makes sense for us.”’
That seems to be pretty definitive that the Big Ten is not going anywhere anytime soon…
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/130735633.html#comments
LikeLike
Would have preferred he used the word “schools” instead of “teams” or “squads.”
LikeLike
The UConn governor, whose school has been begging to get in the ACC, saying they weren’t expanding w/o ND is pretty definitive for the ACC. And the Pac turning down OU and not being able to work out a deal with UT means they won’t be adding anyone. So, barring ND doing an about face or the Big 12 going to the edge again (never say never), the Pac is at 12, the opposite coast at 14 and the 10 are at 12 until the 10’s next TV contract renewal.
LikeLike
The Big 12/Big East could throw a monkey wrench into all this if the former takes enough members from the latter to leave its BCS status in jeopardy, and the basketball schools refuse to replenish the league with members who demand all-sports status. Were that to happen, all bets are off.
LikeLike
I agree. I think this all depends on the SEC and Big 12 at this point. If Missouri commits to the Big 12 and the SEC stays at 13 for a year, then we could be at a short-term equilibrium.
The question of the SEC’s 14th is what prevents stability right now given that the ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 seem to have reached long-term equilibrium.
LikeLike
welcome to the Smaller 10………
LikeLike
or maybe, per the sportswriter, “Diminished 10″….that has a nice Rust Belt ring to it…….
LikeLike
BYU and BSU sign a 12 year contract with dates already announced:
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/29/byu-boise-state-series-will-now-run-through-2023/
Seems doubtful to me that BYU would do this unless:
A) They were not planning to join a conference
or
B) Planning on joining a conference with BSU.
LikeLike
Or BYU wants them as an out of conference game when they (BYU) join the Big 12 and that BSU is not invited to the Big 12.
LikeLike
BYU already has a ton of OOC games planned.
LikeLike
I think you missed Frank’s prison point. In the uneven B12 revenue sharing all the revenue winners are leaving and the losers are serving life. This was started by Nebraska and defended by them until they moved to the B1G. Due to lousy TV deals, even with a bigger cut of the revenue, it was not enough to keep Nebraska since they got almost twice as much in the B1G. CO was break even in revenue. Texas A&M was another winner. The big losers have been Baylor, Texas Tech, Iowa State, and Kansas State. Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas are the other winners in the distribution. What has torn the B12 apart is greed by all the top members of the conference. If more of the revenue was given to the top members they would not have had a financial incentive to defect. The truth is that too much revenue went to the have nots in the league for it to survive its richer neighbors raids.
I think just the opposite will happen over the next couple of decades. At some point the CA schools will realize they could make much more by dropping out and forming their own league without WA St, Or. St., Az St, or Utah. That is how the PAC8 was created in 1959. Top to bottom the B1G is closer in revenue and has a lot of non-athletic links, so I do not see any issues arising here.
LikeLike
Don’t do links, but Delaney spoke to the Omaha World-Herald about expansion. I found one comment interseting–“The Big Ten wants its members to have the means to properly fund the teams a school sponsers and to create fair and healthy competition”. This comment would seem applicable to Rutgers and Maryland, both of whom have been running large deficits…would also have applied to Pitt’s situation. It would seem that Missouri has the means, as it has done well in the Director’s Cup standings recently…
Another comment I found interesting was “That doesn’t mean a 16-team model doesn’t fit some. But it’s not our first inclination”. Is it signiificant that he didn’t “rule out” 14 teams? Also, “it’s not our first inclination” is pretty milk toast in its tone…..
LikeLike