Realignment Podcast with Black Heart Gold Pants

On By Frank the TankIn Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, Sports

As actual conference realignment news has taken a breather over the past week (although the speculation runs rampant everywhere), I sat down with Adam Jacobi and Patrick Vint of Black Heart Gold Pants last night for a podcast about what’s happened so far with various leagues and schools and where we’re headed.  While Adam and Patrick are full-blown Iowa Hawkeyes, this Illinois alum definitely respects their unrequited love for all things J Leman.  Enjoy!

(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)

(Image from Bitten Bound)

672 thoughts on “Realignment Podcast with Black Heart Gold Pants”

      2. Alan from Baton Rouge

        M – until the BCS rankings come out, the polls don’t really mean much, if anything, but if some group says your team is #1, then you like it.

        Since the BCS was established, there have been formulas designed to calculate the BCS rankings, and all the AQ conferences approved that formula, including the Pac-10 and USC . In 2003, LSU and Oklahoma were the top two teams in the BCS rankings at the end of the season, so those two teams were chosen to participate in the 2004 Sugar Bowl which hosted the BCS National Championship game. USC finished third in the BCS standings, despite being ranked #1 in the human polls. Nobody of consequence disputed LSU’s place in the BCS NCG, as the Tigers were winners of seven straight, including a win over #5 Georgia in the SEC CG. Oklahoma had just lost the Big XII CG to K-State, but because the 03 Sooners were viewed as the greatest team of all time by some, prior to that setback, they made the BCS NCG.

        After LSU beat Oklahoma and USC defeated Michigan in the Rose Bowl, the AP writers named the Trojans #1. LSU won the BCS NCG and the crystal football. LSU won the national championship according to the rules all the conferences and teams agreed to. The BCS was and still is designed to pit #1 against #2 to determine the national champion. Unless there is an 8 or 16 team playoff, people will almost always disagree about who really was #1 or #2.

        Do I disagree with the AP writers’ conclusion in 2003? Yes. Was there decision irrelevent then? Yes. Am I happymany of those same AP writers are now voting LSU #1? Yes. Am I conflicted? No.

        Like

        Reply
  8. Mike

    Must be a big game.

    @petethamelnyt

    Great stat from Wisconsin SID Brian Lucas: Wisconsin issued 95 media credentials for Nebraska media alone this weekend.

    Like

    Reply
  9. zeek

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7036110/tennessee-ad-dave-hart-says-sec-continue-expand-13-teams

    “KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — Tennessee athletic director Dave Hart says the Southeastern Conference will expand again and officials at each school need to have a number of frank discussions before moving forward.

    Hart says the addition of Texas A&M as the SEC’s 13th team was a good one, but the league’s leaders must take their next steps deliberately because the SEC will expand again. He says those conversations will take place “in short order.”

    The SEC announced Sunday that Texas A&M will join the conference in July after leaving the Big 12. SEC commissioner Mike Slive said later in the week that the league’s presidents and chancellors are not currently considering any other schools for admission and that he anticipates having no additional members for the 2012-13 season.”

    To me, this may tap the breaks on Missouri, but I’m skeptical because Georgia’s? AD already said that the ADs have no idea what’s going on in the SEC because Slive told them to just trust him and the presidents… I’d assume the SEC’s brass are working in secret on Missouri if that’s the path they’ve chosen to 14.

    Like

    Reply
  11. Scarlet_Lutefisk

    —My BS meter is pegged…

    http://www.argus-press.co.cc/

    “SOUTH BEND — With the current landscape of college football in disarray, The University of Notre Dame has decided to end its independence and join the Big Ten Conference. Under condition of anonymity, a high-ranking Big Ten official has confirmed that the Fighting Irish have applied to join the conference, as early as the 2013 football season. “We have been waiting a long time for this,” said the official. …”cont/…”

    Like

    Reply
    1. M

      “Although the Big Ten seemingly is a natural fit for the Irish, it is reported that they had explored joining other conferences such as the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Ivy League. The ACC declined interest in Notre Dame citing geographical concerns. Meanwhile, several sources within the Ivy League have confirmed Notre Dame’s interest, but stated that concerns of competitive balance as well as academic issues were a major roadblock to their joining. “The Ivy League does not allow athletic scholarships,” remarked one source close to the situation, “so Notre Dame would have to basically reconfigure their entire athletic department”.”

      kekekekekekekeke

      Like

      Reply
    3. imho

      That particular story may be BS, but Notre Dame is the closest it has ever been to joining the B1G. They just lost their conference, and the Big East is poised to be raided again. Moreover, as soon as these new larger conferences realign their reserved BCS spots, ND will lose their privileged position. Their leverage will only decrease as their position becomes more and more precarious. The writing is on the wall, they need to act soon while their leverage is still substantial.

      Not to mention the complete and utter silence from both side suggests things could be very serious… no denials, no affirmations of independance… just silence.

      Like

      Reply
    6. Guyasuta Genac

      Everyone, control your b0ners. Look up .cc country of origin. It’s an Australian…territory. No need to read the article.

      I am a super-supporter of ND to ACC but the college football landscape has to have a wholesale change, i.e. no playoffs, MNC, BCS bowls unless a member of one of 4/5 super-conference for my Irish half-brothers to join ANY conference.

      Great win over USF tonight. Hail to PITT!

      Like

      Reply

    1. I’m a mite skeptical the Big 12 would invite West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati, Texas Christian and Brigham Young. (If Missouri did leave for the SEC, who becomes #14 — South Florida?) The only way I see this happening is if the rest of the conference gave Texas a take-it-or-leave=it option regarding expansion, and UT, fearful of independence, gave in. (Which doesn’t seem UT-like at all.)

      If this happened (including USF), Rutgers and Connecticut would really have to beg.

      Like

      Reply
    2. EZCUSE

      Assume Big 12 destroys the Big East. If the remaining three schools drop own to C-USA… and with BYU and TCU in the Big 12… that leaves 5 legit AQs. Now you have one more at-large spt.

      And that spot could be reserved for the non-AQ team with the best BCS standing, provided it is top 10. If such a team qualifies, then no AQ conference can have 3 teams in the BCS. However, if no such team qualifies, then and only then can a 3rd AQ team be in the BCS. Everyone happy?

      Like

      Reply
        1. EZCUSE

          That works too.

          And why not put that in the R&L Carriers Bowl in New Orleans on December 17th? If you ran that bowl, wouldn’t you want that?

          First step towards a merger of bowls and playoffs. 🙂

          Like

          Reply
      2. Jefferson

        Why not the Big East destroying the Big XII?

        EAST
        Cincinnati
        WVU
        Louisville
        Rutgers
        UConn
        USF

        WEST
        TCU
        Kansas
        Texas Tech
        Kansas State
        Iowa State
        Baylor

        I’m assuming Mizzou goes to the SEC, and OU/oSu are paired, and Texas is alone. Where they go is probably Pac 12 and B1G respectively.

        Like

        Reply

        1. A competitive conference on the field, an also-ran at the cash register. Plus, you’re asking the Big East to both be proactive and logical, two words its leadership doesn’t know unless the word “basketball” is involved.

          Like

          Reply
  14. EZCUSE

    Question. IF… and this is a rather large if. But IF… Notre Dame was to think about the ACC… do you think that they would want TCU more than UConn or Rutgers as team #16?

    ND and TCU could agree to play their games in Jerry World or San Antonio or Houston. If so, ND could get even more of a national exposure. Conference game in the NE… conference game in the mid-atlantic… conference game in NC… conference game in Florida…. conference game in Texas… OOC game against Navy… OOC game against USC. That’s a pretty wide scope for just 7 games. Obviously, that’s too many road games for one year, but you get the gist.

    Meanwhile, if you are the ACC, you add a non-basketball school to placate FSU. You add a football giant in Notre Dame. If you are adding ND, what’s the difference in adding TCU geographically? Not that much farther west. TCU is closer to most ACC schools than most Big East schools.

    Figure this divide:

    North-Atlantic: BC, Pitt, Syracuse, ND
    South-Atlantic: Maryland, Virginia, Va Tech, TCU

    North Coastal: North Carolina 4
    South Coastal: Clemson, Ga Tech, FSU, Miami

    Play 1 each team in Atlantic or Coastal, plus one each of other division/pod.

    This is balanced enough that FSU wouldn’t think Va Tech was getting cakewalk to the CCG.

    Like

    Reply
    1. EZCUSE

      OR:

      Atlantic – Coastal

      TCU – ND
      Pitt – Maryland
      Va Tech – Virginia
      Syracuse – BC
      Duke- UNC
      Wake Forest – NC State
      Miami- FSU
      Clemson – Ga Tech

      Would that please FSU?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Michael in Raleigh

        For the ACC championship game, the Atlantic representative would hardly bring any fans unless it’s Va. Tech or Clemson. All the better draws–FSU, NC State, UNC, Notre Dame, probably Virginia and Ga. Tech if the game’s in Charlotte–are in the Coastal.

        Like

        Reply
  16. Michael in Raleigh

    “Eat a poop if you don’t have fun listening. Yes, eat one single poop. I don’t care whose, that’s not the point.” –Black Heart Gold Pants

    Man, what a great line!

    Like

    Reply

    1. We knew this earlier. No real surprise.

      A Missouri-to-SEC move probably boosts the chances of a multiple Big East exodus to the Big 12, especially if one of the goals is to finish off the Big East as a BCS league.

      Like

      Reply
  20. bullet

    @Frank
    I agree with you that there is no news out there. So why are so many boards convinced they have an invitation to one conference or another? People just making stuff up to see how people react? Overzealous fans? People trying to become the next “Chip Brown” by guessing from bits and pieces they do know?

    Stuff like this isn’t unusual, but the sheer volume and duration of it does seem to be.

    Like

    Reply

    1. @bullet – It’s probably because every single school in every AQ conference (outside of the Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12) has talked to every single other AQ conference over the past few weeks. This could often be misinterpreted as something more concrete by people close to various programs (such as large dollar boosters) who hear that these discussions are happening.

      Like

      Reply
  21. Richard

    For those who care about culture when it comes to conference expansion, here’s a good map that delineates where cultures are similar:

    The B10 encompasses 3 cultural regions, 2 of which are fairly similar: “Yankeedom”, “Midlands”, and “Greater Appalachia”, with political power mostly concentrated in the fairly similar first 2.

    It’s instructive to note that the SEC has “the Deep South” at it’s heart (with parts of “Greater Appalachia”, including KY & TN), and, after taking TAMU, has taken one of the only 2 states outside of the SEC that has a significant “Deep South” portion (the other being NC, which is the heart of the ACC so is nearly impossible to pry away).

    In fact, you can see that the B12 was riven culturally, spread over no less than 6 cultural areas, which meant that member schools often had trouble seeing eye to eye. It’s little surprise that CU, being the only “Far West” school, sped away to join the only other BCS conference that had a “Far West” presence, while Nebraska went to join the only other BCS conference that had a “Midlands” presence (and no doubt thoroughly Midlands ISU, KU, & KSU, as well as mostly “Greater Appalachia” Mizzou and completely “Greater Appalachia” OU would join the B10 if they got an invite). Likewise, TAMU, located in “Deep South” East Texas, wanted to join its “Deep South” brethren, while UTexas, located in Austin, on the edge of Greater Appalachia (and in the Germanic Hill Country, which makes it similar to the Germanic Midlands), as well as “Greater Appalachia” OU, are cool about joining that “Deep South” dominated conference.

    We could also see that the “Left Coast” and “Far West” dominated Pac may have made the culturally sound decision of not expanding in to culturally dissimilar “Greater Appalachia”.
    Meanwhile, the B12 may actually be consolidating in to a more cohesive conference if it adds the 2 “Greater Appalachia” schools of WVU and Louisville while the ACC may have the most issues going forward of all the major conferences (I’m not including the BE), being spread over 4 cultural regions, from “Deep South” to “Tidewater” to “Midlands” to “Yankeedom”, with “Deep South” and “Yankeedom” being almost polar opposites in viewpoints about almost everything. It also doesn’t help the ACC that while it’s core is “Tidewater”, the “Tidewater” region only covers parts of VA, NC, and MD.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Richard

      So when considering B10 expansion, culturally, the best fit are “Yankeedom” or “Midlands” schools (though “Greater Appalachia” schools are acceptable culturally). That would include BC, UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt, Maryland, ND, ISU, KU, KSU, Mizzou as well “Greater Appalachia” schools WVU, UK, Tennessee, OU, OK State, and maybe north & west Texas schools like Texas, the Metroplex schools, and TTech (maybe VTech if you consider it “Appalachian”). Maybe Miami, which, with both northern and Cuban influences, belongs in no major North American “nation”.

      Of these, only Rutgers, Pitt, Maryland, & Texas fit the academic and research profile of the B10 well. BC, Syracuse, ND, and Miami are at least good in undergrad rankings (and Miami is close to AAU in research as well). ISU, KU, Mizzou, UK, Tennessee, and VTech are barely on the edge (similar to Nebraska, which means they’re added likely only if they’re a “king”). OU may be on the other side of that edge.

      In terms of desirability (“kingness” and footprint) which may be most important of all, there’s Texas & ND, then VTech & Miami. Pitt, unfortunately, is really hurt by being in the B10 footprint. Maryland (followed by Rutgers) are really the only non-kings that fit well both academically and geographically (and are outside the footprint).

      The B10 already added the 2 kings who were slam-dunk cultural fits and wanted to join (who knows if/when ND would want to join). It’s great that PSU was a terrific academic fit as well. All the other kings/somewhat-kings are on the edge culturally, and of those, only Texas is a great fit academically as well.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        Maryland and Rutgers are really the only non-kings that fit well academically and geographically and culturally (and are outside the footprint), I should say

        Like

        Reply

    2. @Richard – Really interesting map. What probably helps the cohesiveness of the ACC is that a lot of its schools that are located in regions outside of Yankeedom (UNC, UVA, Duke, Miami, GT, etc.) still attract a lot of Yankee students, so I think it softens the cultural differences a bit. In contrast, most of the SEC schools are both located in the Deep South and have predominantly Deep South student populations and alumni bases. Florida State and Clemson are really the two schools in the ACC that look like true Deep South institutions, so it’s no surprise that a lot of people think that they’d be good fits in the SEC.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Further to this, I see the ACC as a whole as showing a gradual change across the cultural spectrum as you move from BC down southward. There might be large differences between BC and Clemson when you put them side-by-side. However, going from BC to Syracuse isn’t necessarily a massive leap, and then going from Syracuse to Maryland isn’t culturally crazy, and then Maryland to UVA is fairly natural, and as you move on to UNC and then Clemson thereafter, the ACC is at least a culturally connected chain after this latest expansion. (Interestingly enough, I’ve seen a whole lot of BC fans say that Clemson has emerged as one of their biggest rivals in the ACC.) In contrast, you’re correct that Colorado stuck out like a massive sore thumb in the Big 12. Even its geographic neighbor to the east (Nebraska) really had very little in common culturally with the Buffs.

        Like

        Reply
    3. Richard

      BTW, politically, this country has historically been contested between Yankeedom (and its allied Midlands) and the Deep South (and its allied Tidewater) ever since the beginning, with Greater Appalachia (if it votes as a bloc) often deciding the winner.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        You can see some of these characteristics even during expansion. For instance, of Yankeedom, he says “From the outset, there was emphasis on education . . . and the pursuit of the greater good, even if it required individual self-denial.” which we see as the B10 is the conference that insists the most that any addition meets the cut academically and first major conference to pool third-tier rights to form a conference network. No coincidence that it is the only conference with all members being in states that contain at least a portion of Yankeedom.

        Likewise, in Greater Appalachia, there’s “a deep commitment to individual liberty and personal sovereignty” (as well as “a warrior ethic”), so Texas likely thought that creating the LHN (and keeping the money) was it’s God-given right and shouldn’t offend anybody.

        It’s probably no surprise that the Deep South SEC, which doesn’t hold equality to be as great in importance, allows members to do whatever they want with their third-tier rights (and why TAMU, the most “Deep South” school in the B12, insisted on its unequal revenue guarantee after very “Greater Appalachia” OU and somewhat “Greater Appalachia” Texas were willing to give that up and refused the shares of the CU & UNL payouts the northern schools offered them).*

        * Greater Appalachians believe in the philosophy of “eat what you kill”, but just as they don’t like to be coerced, they’re uncomfortable unfairly coercing others**, which is why they mostly supported the Union and were anti-slavery during the Civil War even though they were mostly in southern states.

        ** Caveat: A heck of a lot is considered fair to those believers of “natural law”.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          BTW, a lot of this isn’t new, and was covered in “Albion’s Seed”:

          , where David Hackett Fischer talked about how the US was shaped by 4 of the major groups of settlers who came from different parts of Britain (with distinctly different religions, social statuses, and overall worldviews): New England/Yankeedom, Quaker (which Woodard expands to include Germanic “Midlands”), Cavalier Tidewater, and the Backcountry/Greater Appalachia.

          Like

          Reply
        2. glenn

          very interesting.  thank you for making us aware of this series.  i eagerly await the rest of the installments.

          you make very interesting observations regarding realignment issues and the various attitudes and world views among the eleven regional cultures.  the natures and behaviors of the elements in play seem to fall right along the lines developed in this series of articles.

          the difference a few miles can make is astonishing.  my line of work had me living extended periods in many parts of the country, so i got to know peoples of very different regions pretty well.

          a product of a tiny west texas town, i was perfectly at ease the times i lived on long island.  you can come from anywhere in the world — even rural west texas — and be accepted in greater nyc, but less than thirty miles away, as the crow supposedly flies, in connecticut, i was a fish out of water.  i worked two somewhat different places in connecticut for most of a decade and felt no more comfortable there the last day than i did the first day.  maybe less so.

          the fort worth star-telegram has forever had in its masthead the statement ‘where the west begins’, and that is absolutely the truth.  those who say that dallas is a deep south city by nature are pretty much right by my observation.  fort worth is cowtown.  when my mother’s family settled in that area, fort worth was a major place and dallas was a little crossroads community thirty miles away.  oil, bankers, and attornies made dallas.  many of us, when we heard that dallas was going to field a football team called ‘the cowboys’, chuckled and opined they should call them ‘the investment bankers’.  dallas is deep south, and thirty miles of that tired crow’s flight distant, fort worth is old west.

          similarly, texas and texas a&m as well, less than a hundred miles apart, might as well be on separate continents.  a&m is going where it spiritually belongs, and i’m delighted to see them go.  for them and for us.

          the observation that west texas and the university of texas are appalachian in nature certainly makes a lot of sense to me.  the frontier individualist spirit of boone — no, not that boone — and crockett is alive and well in texas.  what that means in terms of where texas can reasonably coexist i don’t begin to know.  but explain to me why the only two schools that really seem to understand texas are notre dame and byu.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Richard

            Hi Glenn,

            Glad you liked my links.

            To add to your observations, the stereotype is that New Englanders are definitely “good fences make good neigbors” types (I hear that back in Old England, it’s even harder for an outsider to break in to social circles there, though since so many expats live in London now, virtually everyone is able to find a tribe they’re comfortable with).

            Very true about NYC. No one gives 2 sh*ts where anyone comes from; mostly, they just care if you can make money (and status).

            Like

  22. Something I learned long ago…when its quiet that means people are talking and negotiating. The fact that we haven’t heard anything means wheels are still in motion and nothing is set.

    I don’t think the Big 12 knows if its going to be 10, 12, or 14.
    I don’t think Nieas has any clue or input on what the Big 12 is going to do. This is completely being driven by the presidents at this point.
    I don’t think Mizzou knows if its going to stay, go, or if it even has an offer someplace else.
    I don’t think the SEC knows who is there 14th.
    I don’t think the Big East knows who to add or if it will survive.
    and
    I still don’t trust Swofford. I got a real sneaky feeling he is up to something. He made the best move so far, while doing so quietly and unexpectedly and he still has cards to play. I would watch him closely.

    Given all this quiet since Sunday it means people are talking. When we start hearing things floated is when people have made a decision and sending up trial balloons. My guess is David Boren got calls from other university presidents on Friday morning telling him to shut his trap because everything he has done has damaged the league up to this point including his me-too press conference. The Big 12 presidents are making a last ditch effort to keep the conference together, the question is will it be enough. If Mizzou wants 10,12, or 14 they will dictate the terms. Also, I do believe the 6 year media rights commitment will be put into place regardless of if Mizzou leaves or not if for anything just to keep the chances of another school getting picked off at zero.

    So now we play the waiting game. Next up is vote by the curators to empower the university president to look for other leagues followed closely by either an invitation or a denial by the SEC. From there, who knows what happens. So long as the SEC is at 13 this thing can change at a moment’s notice.

    Like

    Reply

      1. The one piece on the board that’s worth something versus being conference filler, Notre Dame.

        Walk with me for a moment. Assume that Mizzou goes to the SEC. That means the entire BE is in play at that point, because the Big 12 will need at least 2 schools and maybe more. Louisville, TCU, and WVU would be natural fits with BYU in bouncing back to 12 schools. That puts the Big East out of business, but where does ND go? Does it stay with the BE B-Ball schools, go to the Big 10, or does it go to the ACC. We know UConn and Rutgers would need to find homes in the case of BE implosion. With the SEC safely at 14 the ACC could troll the lake for the 15 (ND) and 16 (Rutgers).

        Bringing ND on would have the effect of strengthening football and make FSU happy. As for money, we know ND doesn’t care a lick about it. I would almost bet ND would join the ACC out of spite just to say they didn’t join the Big 10. I would call this a very long shot, but if you are giving me 10-1, I’m definitely laying money down.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Chris

          So effectively the options presented to the SEC are these:

          1) stick with 13 teams and see how well that works
          2) drop back to 12 teams
          3a) expand via ACC
          3b) expand with non-aq team
          3c) expand with big east and hope it doesn’t decimate the league such that it merges with big 12 remnants
          3d) the inverse of 3c.

          2 and 3b are absolute blows to the collective SEC ego. The first presents all kinds of difficulties, the second is embarrassing and almost certainly lowers the academic standing.

          3c and 3d are likely to push notre dame to either the acc or the big ten, as they won’t want any part of the big 12, and the big east will not be there.

          So, it seems that swafford has to have his teams hold their line, so 3a is out.

          If that happens, in this expansion, the acc has not only grabbed two schools that fit the conferences image, but also increased the only chance at a big team joining, while also weakening the SEC. Jim delaney ought to buy swofford some drinks before the ND situation is resolved.

          Like

          Reply
    2. bullet

      I think it was interesting the SEC AD (I think it was UGA) saying the ADs were completely in the dark. The SEC expansion is being completely driven by Slive and the Presidents. Slive told him to “just trust us.” So I wouldn’t take the Tennessee AD’s comments to mean a whole lot. It might even be frustration from being forced to deal with 13 for an undefined period of time.

      Like

      Reply
  23. duffman

    Going into the weekend….

    WEEK 4 summary – Top 25 and conference alignment – teams with loss in [bracket]

    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

    Like

    Reply
      1. duffman

        15 undefeated teams left, 14 max by end of week:
        B12 33% = Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, KSU, TT
        Oklahoma vs Texas in week 6
        B1G 20% = Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois
        SEC 13% = LSU, Alabama
        ACC 13% = Clemson, Georgia Tech
        PAC 7% = Stanford
        MWC 7% = Boise State
        CUSA 7% = Houston

        Like

        Reply
    2. drwillini

      Hey Duffman,
      My son was was just accepted to IU. What’s a Illinois/Purdue alumni Dad to do? The poor kid thinks he is going to see a final four and motor city bowl while he is there.

      Like

      Reply
      1. duffman

        My great grandfather was an Illinois grad and I have many Purdue cousins so I take it your kid is not going to study engineering 😉 If the Tan One can turn the corner then I think a Final Four may be in the realm!

        (insert shameless plug here)

        😉

        On the football front, I fear the Motor City may be reaching 😦 However, he may find a nice young lass while there, so all will not be lost.

        Was he early admit, or will he start fall of 2012 ?

        Like

        Reply
        1. drwillini

          Thanks guys, he is starting next fall, most likely a History/Econ/PolySci major. I’m just thrilled he’s going to a B1G school. Bringing this back a bit to our topic at hand, the respect and collaborative nature of our schools is unique among BCS conferences. We take if for granted, and other conferences (my wife is from the Big12) think its fake.

          Like

          Reply
      2. mushroomgod

        FF is no big deal to Hoosier fans. Now an NCAA championship, that’s another matter……….oops, I forgot you guys don’t know about that………

        Like

        Reply
        1. Jake

          @Frank – I have twice in my life been told that I sound like I’m from Minnesota, a state I’ve never even been to. I just hear a general sort of Midwestern accent from you. Nothing I would tie to a particular city/region.

          Like

          Reply
        2. duffman

          shroom,

          Say what you will, but I want more distance from UNC or Duke, and less distance from UK right now when it comes to THE banner hanging from the rafter. Butler and UL in the neighborhood at least gets it closer, but as they say “close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades”.

          Like

          Reply
      3. Purduemoe

        Even though I went to Purdue for undergrad, I went to law school at IU. Really great campus, fun town. He will enjoy it quite a bit. I don’t see them making any final fours with clappy, but who knows. I think the football coach actually has the right idea, not playing kids who aren’t buying into the system/aren’t willing to put in the work. I mean one of those kids was in a pro-wrestling match instead of playing in the North Texas game. If Wilson sticks to his guns IU could improve in a few years.

        Like

        Reply
    3. Richard

      Duff:

      Maybe only 10% of the people in Chicagoland actually have a Chicago accent. Most Chicagoans carry a neutral (to my ears) north inlands or north midlands accent. BTW, the reason Frank sounds like a Wisconsinite to you (if you’re in southern Indiana, you’d be in midlands territory, often hearing a south midlands accent), it’s because most Wisconsinites also have a north inlands accent.

      Like

      Reply
        1. Brian

          Bull. Northern (especially northwestern) Ohio and southern Michigan sound very different. 100 miles makes a huge impact there. LP and UP Michigan are very different, too.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Richard

            Well, that’s what the map says. They do have UP Michigan in another accent area (same one as northern Minnesota and North Dakota).

            Like

          3. Brian

            Rural Ohio and urban Ohio sound very different. That’s true for many states (Atlanta vs Georgia, for example). Rural Ohio sounds more southern than one would expect. Lower Michigan is much more nasal. The UP may as well be Canada.

            I wonder how much of an accent is based on location and how much is based on population density (rural, exurban, suburban, urban).

            Like

          4. bullet

            Cincy, Columbus and Cleveland are very different sounding. And from Cincy, you cross the Ohio River into Kentucky and it changes dramatically even though you are in the same metro area. Another 70 miles down I-75 to Lexington and it changes again.

            Like

          5. Richard

            Rural accents virtually never change. Maybe if there is a lot of traffic in a rural stretch between 2 cities with the same accent, the communities there may adopt the accent of the 2 cities (for instance, while I’d read that St. Louis was an island of Northern Inlands dialect in a sea of Midlands, possibly due to the heavy German concentration, evidently, a string of small towns between Chicago and St. Louis exhibit Northern Inlands now as well), but in general, accents change very slowly in the countryside. They change much faster in cosmopolitan cities that have a lot of contact with people with non-native accents. That how Boston and NYC became (different types) of non-rhotic after southern England (London) started dropping their R’s.

            In fact, the Northern Cities Vowel Shift is changing the accents of many folks who live around the Great Lakes (and cities there) as we speak. So while in ’30’s Chicago, what you’d hear is the “accentless” standard American that we all tend to hear on radio and TV news broadcasts (thanks to the powerful wattage of WGN, the Chicago dialect of the ’30’s because the radio and then TV standard), current Chicagoese is quite different. You’d hear dialectal differences across generations. This is especially noticeable in Shanghai, where ’30’s Shanghainese is much closer to Ningbo dialect (because in the ’30’s, half the city could trace their ancestry to in or around Ningbo; now, it’s more like 10%; yes, Shanghai has had a massive influx of people), the Shanghainese of people my age is noticeably different from the Shanghainese of my grandparents.

            Like

  26. duffman

    I put up the three posts in the last thread, the one about the saturday flight from columbus to college station was never answered, but the other two seem to have caught an eye or two somewhere!

    http://tigersports.columbiamissourian.com/2011/09/28/the-curious-case-of-the-plane-that-went-to-birmingham/

    Looks like somebody is reporting about the third link and has identified that the planes owner is not as distanced from MU as earlier reported. The owner said he had no ties to MU and now this article says:

    “The plane, tail number N904RB, is registered to a group called Columbia Flight Group LLC. That corporation’s listed address is 209 E. Broadway, Columbia, Missouri, which also happens to be the offices of Coil Construction Co., a Columbia-based contractor. Coil Construction was a Tiger Level (the second-highest) donor to the Tiger Scholarship Fund in 2010.”

    What I find most interesting in the article is the reporting on the trip to Birmingham was the total glossing over of several trips just before to small airports near B1G headquarters in the Chicago area. Why make a big deal about the Birmingham trip, and than make no mention of the multiple trips near chicago? Is the MU administration stirring the SEC pot for a back door deal into the B1G?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Sportsman

      I’d guess that it was either actual business in Chicago or they were checking the odds for MU to the B1G. If the latter is the case, then the fact that they went on to Birmingham is pretty much all we need to know.

      Like

      Reply

    2. The proper link:

      http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09/29/3408229/expanding-east-or-west-big-12.html

      Because of TCU’s location and its ties to the Big East, the conference the Horned Frogs are scheduled to join next year, the school remains an option for Big 12 expansion in either direction. Neinas said expansion discussions are preliminary, with no majority opinion on an ideal configuration for an expanded league.

      “There’s not even a plurality,” Neinas said.

      Iowa State athletic director Jamie Pollard floated models that included up to 16 teams after a Tuesday meeting of Big 12 athletic directors.

      I don’t envision 16, but wouldn’t rule out 14 — adding Brigham Young, Cincinnati, Louisville, South Florida, Texas Christian and West Virginia if Missouri leaves (which looks increasingly likely).

      Like

      Reply
    3. Mike

      On TCU

      http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2011/09/big_12_trying_to_take_tcu_befo.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed


      What it means is that TCU could be out of the Big East before it ever officially joins. According to two college officials, it would be an easy departure for the Horned Frogs, since they would only have to pay a $5 million exit fee and aren’t bound by the 27-month waiting period penalty unless they are Big East members as of July 1.

      [snip]

      If Missouri stays, TCU could be the only target of the Big 12, further crippling the Big East, which is still trying to figure out how to deal with the announced defections of Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Scarlet_Lutefisk

        “They say Texas overflows with the milk of human kindness in conference talks, compared to dealing with BYU.”

        —That is one of the singular funniest quotes I’ve seen during the whole expansion carousel.

        Like

        Reply
        1. M

          My favorite is
          “”We’re good people. And we do it the right way. And we’ve got 550 kids that we love, and we treat them the way they’re supposed to be treated. And we’re in it for kids. We didn’t do the Pac-12 (because of) the kids. It wasn’t money, it wasn’t anything else. We don’t want to put our kids in airplanes and have them in airplanes half their life going back and forth. ”

          Than why did you twice seriously negotiate with the Pac-12 only to pull out when they wouldn’t let you keep your network? Were you expecting them to give in to your demand to move their schools closer to Texas?

          Like

          Reply
        1. zeek

          Cutthroat has been ACC/Big East and definitely the MWC split from the WAC. You want plans being drawn up in the middle of night, that’s where the really sharp-knifed business has been.

          Like

          Reply
  28. Mike

    Really

    http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/32384521


    The Big 12 should not expand in order to maximize its earning power, a source intimately involved in the conference’s TV negotiations told CBSSports.com on Thursday.

    “If it were me I’d try to stay where I am,” said the source. “Nine months ago they had the same money for 10 teams. Is anything going to change if they have nine?”

    Texas A&M’s formal departure to the SEC this week reduced the Big 12 to nine teams. Missouri is still contemplating whether also to pursue membership in the SEC. With nine teams, the source said, not only would the conference get an expected windfall for its primary rights fees following the 2015 season, it would provide nine more non-conference games as inventory.

    “That’s more attractive to the networks than BYU-Iowa State,” said source who did not want to be identified because of his relationship with the league.

    Like

    Reply
    1. zeek

      Might as well rename it the SWC if they really want to stick at 9. Heck, if Missouri leaves, it’d basically be the SWC all over again with Oklahoma as Arkansas and Kansas/Kansas State/Iowa State/Oklahoma State instead of the 4 Texas schools that got left behind…

      Like

      Reply
  29. Mike

    Everyone may want to take a peek over at Mr SEC. He’s doing a multi-part series on expansion.

    http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/expansion-by-the-numbers-1-grading-potential-sec-partner/


    So we’re going to try and put some hard and fast data together to help explain why School A is probably more attractive to SEC presidents than School B… even though School B might be able to whip School A’s rump on a football field. We want to take all of those variables that are floating around out there and condense them into one, simple, quick series of posts. A series of posts that you can use to draw your own conclusions.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Mike


      In Part 2 of our series on SEC expansion, we begin to break down the numbers for 35 different schools. The schools we’ve included (and, no, not all of these are realistic) are: Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, Miami, North Carolina, NC State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech and Wake Forest (from the ACC); Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Rutgers, South Florida and West Virginia (from the Big East); Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech (from the Big 12); as well as wild cards East Carolina, Navy, Notre Dame, Penn State and TCU.

      http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/expansion-by-the-numbers-2-television-markets/

      Like

      Reply

    7. Dammit! Mr. SEC’s work – and the baseball playoffs – may be the final straw in convincing me to moth ball my attempt to index all schools’ expansion appeal, relative to all of the other AQ conferences. Mine is based on the 20-to-80 scale, which is used in baseball scouting [and invented by Branch Rickey?], where 50 is average, 60 is one standard deviation better than average, 70 is two standard deviations, etc. Here are the preliminary results, from the B1G’s perspective, with all schools considered “free agents” and the factors weighted as follows: 80% football brand name, 9% territorial expansion, 9% academics, and 2% basketball.

      Texas – 60.8
      Notre Dame – 58.6
      Florida – 58.2
      A&M – 56.4
      USC – 55.9
      Alabama – 55.1
      Miami – 55.0
      GA Tech – 53.4
      Auburn – 52.9
      UCLA – 52.2
      Clemson – 52.0
      Oklahoma – 50.1

      [Preliminary!] Conclusions:

      (1) These are the only schools that are better than the average B1G school, when considering the *17 subfactors that I selected. Obviously, some of these might fail to pass the smell test…or Richard’s cultural considerations posts! I had been contemplating how to include “cultural fit,” as a factor, and Richard’s posts have showed me the way.

      (2) All but one school is <1 standard deviation more appealing than the average B1G school. In other words, there are no Willie Mays's on the free agent market. Of course, these ratings are indexed to B1G-average and not to the average FBS school or AQ school. So, the bar is set relatively high. In other words, the average hitter on the Yankees is better than the average hitter in MLB, and Willie Mays might not look so extraordinary, if your frame of reference is the Yankees lineup and not the entire MLB player universe.

      (3) Most of the presumptive B1G candidates would bring down the mean:

      VA Tech – 49.1
      Florida St – 48.3
      Mizzou – 46.4
      Syracuse – 46.1
      Rutgers – 45.5
      Pitt – 45.2
      BC – 45.0
      Kansas – 43.8
      Maryland – 43.6

      * The factors/subfactors:

      FOOTBALL BRAND NAME (80%)
      – # of fans (from Nate Silver's work) [75%…of the "Football Brand Name" factor]
      – Win%, 1965-2010 [10%]
      – Win%, 1990-2010 [5%]
      – National championships index (weighted to favor more recent championships) [10%]

      TERRITORIAL EXPANSION (9%)
      – State population, 2010 [30%]
      – % change in state population, 1980 to 2010 [15%]
      – Salience (# of fans / state population) [15%]
      – New state? [20%]
      – Distance from Chicago (nearer is better) [20%]

      ACADEMICS (9%)
      – % applicants admitted [20%]
      – Student enrollment [5%]
      – Endowment per student [10%]
      – Research spending / student [20%]
      – AAU member [20%]
      – US News ranking [25%]

      BASKETBALL (2%)
      – NCAA tourney appearances [50%]
      – National championships index [50%]

      Thoughts, comments, suggestions, or words of encouragement/discouragement???

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        Hey mstinebrink:

        Thanks for the work! What if it is weighted the following way:
        25% football brand
        25% culture
        25% academics
        15% territorial expansion
        10% bball
        ?

        I think that’s closer to the weighting of the B10 presidents. To them, football brand is important, but I feel that culture and academics are as important to them. Both PSU and UNL fit the first 2 very well, and PSU actually fit the top 4 very well.

        It’d be interesting to see how well the current 12 members do in with these criteria as well. I’d quibble a bit with the academic categories, bu they’re just quibbles.

        BTW, to the SEC, it’s probably
        35% football brand
        35% culture
        20% territorial expansion
        5% academics
        5% bball

        Would be cool to see how the list of candidates looks for them as well.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Thanks for the feedback, guys! My intent was(/is?) to get my spreadsheet up on Google Documents, so that others could tweak the weighting of the factors as they see fit. The spreadsheet would also be formatted so that it would be very simple to change the weighting of the factors to reflect what might be the priorities of a given conference. To do so will require a couple-three hours of Excel time, as the data needs to be checked for errors and updated, in the case of some of the academic data, in particular. The spreadsheet is also pretty rough around the edges and not easily understood, since it wasn’t originally designed for outside consumption.

          Here’s to hoping that the Brewers clinch, tonight, so that I have a free night or two, this week!

          Like

          Reply
      2. M

        One of the reasons I keep subscribing to the comments is all the crazy people (in a good way).

        My suggestions:
        Football brand is the largest consideration, but I don’t think it’s 9 times more important than academics and territory or 40 times more important than basketball. I would probably go more like a 60-10-20-10 or 60-15-15-10.

        Under football brand, I would de-emphasize or remove completely the Silver data as it has too many flaws to be very useful. Instead, I would go with attendance and television ratings, preferably over a 5 year time period.

        Under territory, I would include fans of all Big Ten schools in your “salience” rating. The idea is that you want to reach that tipping point where BTN has to go on basic cable.

        Under academics, I would increase the research percentage and remove the per student component. I would remove the endowment part as that doesn’t effectively measure anything for state schools. I also would lower the percentage on undergraduate measures. The end result would be 40% research, 30% AAU, 10% acceptance rate, 10% USNews Rankings, 10% enrollment.

        For basketball, I might substitute “Total tournament games played” instead of appearances. This would reward teams that consistently make deeper tournament runs, even if they don’t quite get over the hump.

        Like

        Reply

        1. I agree with you on the Silver data. There are flaws, but I think that it’s the best that we have. I also think that it might’ve better passed the smell test, if the numbers were rounded to the nearest hundred-thousand fans, so as not to appear as exact as they do.

          Like

          Reply
      4. Brian

        mstinebrink,

        I think an interesting addition would be showing how all the current B10 schools would rank if they were no longer in the B10. It might also provide a sanity check on your results as many of us are more familiar with the B10 schools and you can get a gut reaction to the results.

        Like

        Reply
    9. Mike

      Part 9: Academic Fit


      To find the academic fits out there, we first had to identify the SEC’s profile. And here’s what that profile is (not counting soon-to-be-member Texas A&M):

      * A public institution. Vanderbilt is the SEC’s only private school.

      * A school with an average total enrollment of about 27,000 students (typically with a lesser emphasis on post-graduate studies and research).

      * A school ranked somewhere between #58 (Florida) and #157 (Mississippi State). Vanderbilt ranks #17, but it’s certainly not the norm in the SEC. Note also that while presidents would love to nab a school ranked highly (meaning a school with a superb reputation), those schools aren’t likely to jump to Slive’s league. Call it the “halo effect.” School presidents want to associate with other top-name institutions in order to improve their own school’s reputation (and donations).

      * A school with no religious affiliation. Not a single SEC school is tied to a church.

      * A school in a somewhat rural area. With the exception of Vanderbilt, no SEC school is located in a city with more than 300,000 inhabitants. This “one-horse town” factor is one reason SEC fans are so passionate about their schools’ athletic exploits. With the exception of Nashville, there are no SEC towns featuring major league teams. There are no “commuter” schools.

      http://www.mrsec.com/2011/10/expansion-by-the-numbers-9-academic-fit/

      Like

      Reply
  30. Mike

    Delany: Big Ten’s content for now

    http://www.omaha.com/article/20110929/BIGRED/709299779/1001#delany-big-ten-s-content-for-now


    To expand, we must make a compelling case for it,” Delany told The World-Herald. “Right now, we can’t make a compelling case for it.

    “We looked around with interest, and we looked around to analyze. We try not to over-react, and I don’t expect that we will.”

    [snip]

    “We really did a lot of modeling on 14 and 16 teams,” Delany said. “We just felt like we couldn’t maintain the essentials of who we are.”

    The Big Ten already is in 30 percent of the country, and impacts adjacent markets.

    “So size and scope is important,” he said. “But it’s not the driving force. The driving forces are ‘What is our DNA?'”

    [snip]

    “That doesn’t mean a 16-team model doesn’t fit some,” Delany said. “But it’s not our first inclination. We’ll try to figure out other ways to increase value, whether it is competitive value or television value.

    “You have to look at expansion, television and other things you read so much about as a means to an end and not an end in itself.”

    Delany said the Big Ten wants its members to have the means to properly fund the teams a school sponsors and to create fair and healthy competition.

    “But it will be done in the context of who we are,” he said. “If an opportunity arises to do that with a larger number or schools, maybe some day we will.

    Like

    Reply
    1. footballnut

      Latest article on expansion in Columbia paper states the Govenor, the AD, and the football coach all want to move to the SEC. The decision rests with the curators, though. The last four curators were appointed by the present govenor. If politics have any influence on this whole deal, I’d put my money on Mizzou joining the SEC, if that door is available. We’ll find out next Tuesday when they take a vote on what they’re going to do.

      Meanwhile, can’t wait to see Nebraska/Wisconsin play. I’m an Illinois homer, so go Illini…beat NU for #5 in a row!!

      Like

      Reply
    2. Purduemoe

      Delaney keeps saying the same thing, we are happy at 12 and don’t want 16. I think it might be time to start believing him. Everyone knows that if Notre Dame calls B1G isn’t going to say no. Without ND, I would guess we are set.

      Like

      Reply
      1. gas1958

        I agree. I no longer think ND will ever join the B1G, or any conference. The dance that would be required, and the spin that would ensue make it prohibitive. ND: “They begged us to join!”
        B1G: “We did them a service by taking them in!” We’d never sort out who asked whom to do what. More than that, I don’t care anymore. As Chevy Chase said in an old SNL skit re: the USSR boycotting the ’80 Olympics: “The Russians? [insert ND] Screw ’em!!”

        Like

        Reply
      2. Eric

        If they are serious about staying at 12, I’m happy. At least our conference still feels half like it’s the same conference it’s always been (even if the divisions and CCG are going to take some getting used to). At 16, the conference wouldn’t have even felt like the Big Ten anymore.

        Like

        Reply
      3. Richard

        Well, mushroom, you’re one of those people who doesn’t want to add a school that isn’t a cultural fit. Here’s the thing: 2 of the 3 kings originally outside the B10 who fit the B10’s Yankee/Midlands culture perfectly have already been added, and the third is Notre Dame. Even if you look at non-kings, only Rutgers, Pitt, & Maryland fit both the culture and academics/research perfectly, and none of them are even at the level of MSU (which is probably perfectly at the median of the conference) in support or money. Pitt is closest, but they’re geographically hindered by bringing in no new market (if they were located in NJ, they may already have been added). If you expand the list to schools to those who are well regarded for undergrad education but not in to research (like ND), you’d have BC & Syracuse, both of which also are non-kings below MSU’s level in support or money. Expand the academic criteria (to say, around Nebraska’s level), and you’d have UConn, ISU, KSU, KU, and Mizzou, all of which would be near the bottom of the B10 in support and money if they joined (except maybe Mizzou and KU basketball; maybe UConn bball, though that didn’t get them in to the ACC). Regardless, I don’t see the B10 letting academic standards slide (remember that Yankees care more about education than any other cultural group) like they did with Nebraska to let in a non-king (unless they’re potentially paired with someone else).

        The B10 also includes parts of the Backcountry/Greater Appalachia (though 8 of the 12 schools are in states with no Backcountry presence, and of IL, IN, and OH, Yankee/Midlands Chicagoland dominates the state, so only tOSU is partially Backcountry and IU is fully in Backcountry territory), so maybe we could look at schools located in the Backcountry/Greater Appalachia. The only problem there is that the Appalachian/Backcountry ethos of “eat what you kill” is quite different from the Yankee ethos of supporting the greater good even if it means individual sacrifice. Still, let’s look at the Backcountry schools:
        WVU, UK, Tennessee, OU, OK State, maybe Texas, maybe TTech, and maybe VTech.

        None except Texas make the grade academically. UK and Tennessee won’t leave the SEC anyway. OU and (less so) VTech are kings, but while VTech may be able to look like Nebraska academically, OU’s a little worse.

        There’s also Miami, which is a mix of northern and Cuban, so is on the edge culturally and on the edge academically (like BC and Syracuse, a well regard undergrad school, though also almost AAU, unlike those 2) as well as on the edge in “kingness”.

        So who do you want to add, Mushroom? Schools that dilute the academic reputation of the conference without boosting the conference’s athletics reputation, schools that would do nothing to enhance the conference (or even make it more money) but just make it bigger, or schools that are barely a fit (or aren’t a fit) culturally? Maybe you want a school that’s all 3?

        The fact of the matter is, without ND coming in (or maybe Texas, which passes the academic and brand/money tests with flying colors and may be a fit culturally, it’s hard for the B10 to justify expansion. If there existed a school that fit culturally well, passed the academics/research hurdle with no problems, and had as much fan support as MSU, they’d probably already be added, but while one of Pitt/Rutgers/Maryland/Syracuse/BC (and maybe even UConn) maybe perfectly OK as #14 to come in with ND, 2 of them (or one of them + Mizzou) just doesn’t make a lot of sense. I can’t for the life of me understand why you want to expand just so that the B10 average athletic reputation, or average academic reputation, or per school payout (or all 3) are lowered.

        Like

        Reply
          1. mushroomgod

            I don’t see how the BIG gets more visibility, and is more relevant, when the main competitors are both at 14 teams. Seems to me clearly it is quite the opposite.

            MO is a state flagship school with 34000 enrollment from a state with a population of 6M or so. There is no #2 school in MO of note. It has good support in both basketball and football. It is ranked #90 in US News academically, and is AAU.

            Rutgers ia s flagship state school with 38000 enrollment on its main campus, rated 68 in US News.
            Again, it is the onlly large state school of note, in a state with 9M population.

            Rutgers is easily the #1 BT potential target in the East…same is true of MO in the MW. I’m not counting TX and ND as they are currently pipe dreams. I’m not counting Maryland as 60-75% of the Maryland fans don’t want to be in the Diminished 10…

            Problem is, if Rut and MO go bye bye, and ND and TX don’t ever join (which looks likely at this point), the Smaller 10 is stuck at 12 indefinately….there are no other logical prospects for 13 and 14.

            Like

          2. joe4psu

            mg,

            I’m fall for RU and Mizzou, well RU anyway, for all the reasons that you’ve listed but ND as a non-fb member? Let’s not make that mistake. Add RU and Mizzou and wait for UT and ND to play out their hands.

            Like

          3. duffman

            Richard,

            I see shrooms point. Looking at ARWU for 2011:

            #29 MD – for future ACC ads (think of “insurance plan”)
            #30 UNC – will need ACC destruction to join
            #38 Pitt – I still think the best add, but understand the overlap argument
            #39 RU – NJ and Philly footprint

            since next group is range, I am using the lowest number

            #54 Ga Tech
            #54 UVA

            note: Georgia and Iowa are #54’s

            #69 VT
            #69 Miami (for Frank)

            note: FSU, LSU, NCST, KU, UT, and Nebraska are in this group

            #90 Uconn (a dark horse B1G possible)
            #90 UC – tOSU overlap
            #90 Kentucky (like MD the boundary school for another conference)
            #90 Missouri
            #90 Notre Dame

            If the BTN “needs to feed” then getting MD and RU make the most sense while waiting for UT and ND, as Pitt and UNC have other issues. Next in line would be UVA in my opinion as adding MD as #13 and UVA as #14 would insure UNC & Duke to round out 16 if ND and TX stay independent. The point I think shroom is trying to make is at least lock down 1 school now to ensure it does not fall behind in the future. Any school on the list above should easily be an upper quartile school long term, so it is not like you are adding a directional school sitting in the 300 – 500 range!

            Missouri and Maryland are both AAU schools, and adding both gives you a east and west expansion while holding the last spots for UT and ND as last east and west expansion. If you are looking at ND, then by default you should at least analyze the state schools in the same range or lower, because the state schools can build alumni by volume, and they have the state coffers in addition to their endowments!

            Like

          4. I’m not counting Maryland as 60-75% of the Maryland fans don’t want to be in the Diminished 10…

            A year ago, you’d probably have the same percentage of Missouri fans oppose a move to the SEC. That has certainly changed, and so it has in College Park. The only Terrapin fans who would be actively opposed are those very casual fans who only care about basketball games vs. UNC and Duke and nothing else. The change in mindset is a gradual one.

            And if the Maryland administration didn’t think it has a shot for the Big Ten (and state support to do it), it wouldn’t have lobbied so intensively to whittle the proposed new ACC exit fee from $34M to $20M.

            I’m not saying Maryland to the Big Ten is a fait accompli, merely noting that if Mizzou heads to the SEC, which looks more and more likely, UMd joins Rutgers at the clear head of the class of candidates who don’t bring baggage or a sense of self-entitlement to the party. (In other words, ideal fits for the Big Ten philosophy.)

            Like

          5. Richard

            I value athletic brands and academics, so my list of non-ND/Texas schools that the B10 should consider who are still in the B10 range culturally are
            1. VTech (partially Appalachian culture, but they likely won’t look to throw their weight around like Texas (or maybe even ND).
            2. Miami
            3. Maryland
            4. Rutgers
            5. Pitt (yes, they’re in the footprint, but are also really the only contender that wouldn’t be at the bottom of the B10 in one of academics/athletic fan interest. If games are streamed online in the future, cable footprint wouldn’t matter so much).
            6. UVa (the Tidewater is shrinking as midlands cultural norms are pushing in to VA).

            Like

      4. 50 year decision? Seriously? Between state budget cuts (and they’re structural, not cyclical), the bursting of the federal loan bubble (look for a massive default explosion in the next 3-5 years), and the adoption of online/distance education models (why have 10 state campuses replicating courses/physical plants, when 1 central server center will do?), the higher education industrial complex and attendant big-time college sports programs have about 10-15 years–maybe 20 at best–before they begin an inexorable decline. The smart folks are going to take all the money they can before they run for the exits.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          1. Leading research universities (including public ones) depend more on research grants than state funding these days. Universities like PSU (and I believe UVa and Michigan as well) get something like 3% of their operating budget from their state.

          2. Students with federal loans with insane default rates are largely at for-profit diploma mills. Students who graduate from the top 100 or so in the USN&WR rankings have enough earning power after graduation that private institutions will still lend them money. Not to mention that the top privates now are so rich that they can offer most students with financial need financial aid packages that include no loans.

          3. Delivery may be done more online, but if that proves profitable, you don’t think traditional brick&mortar universities would move more heavily in to that space? Tell me, would you regard a degree from the University of Phoenix to be the same as one from the University of Michigan, even if both were completely online? If you look at history, you’ll notice that university reputations are very, very, very slow to change. It is almost impossible for a university to move up the ranks extremely quickly (or to fall extremely quickly).

          4. People in Alabama will stop caring about the Tide and Tigers if online education takes off? Sorry, that logic doesn’t flow.

          Like

          Reply
          1. bullet

            And universities are slow to change. I think a lot more students will be at on-line universities. So the FCS schools will have a shrinking proportion of the population. That will have unpredictable impacts on college sports. And if the existing universities do more on-line, that will weaken the alumni/university link.

            And since you are right about it being slow to change, the 10-15 year estimate is way too quick. But I do think by mid-century college education will look a lot different than it does now. By that time, most of the people running universities will be those who are HS and elementary students now.

            Like

      5. Scarlet_Lutefisk

        As opposed to reactionary moves that are nothing more than growth for growth’s sake?

        Please save us from that sort of brilliance.

        Like

        Reply
  32. Mike

    Clay Travis of Out Kick the Coverage: Mizzou is free and clear to leave.

    http://outkickthecoverage.com/reality-there-are-no-barriers-to-missouri-in-sec.php


    Let’s dive in and consider the situation that Missouri faces so you guys have better information to combat those who would argue that Missouri’s fate is hemmed in by the buyout that would be owed under the Big 12 bylaws, by lawsuit threats, or by other nonexistent issues. Missouri factions that don’t want to leave are saying the cost would be $40 million and that a lawsuit would ensue that could cost even more. Please. That’s not the case. The actual cost to Missouri for jumping to the SEC would be in the neighborhood of $12 million. And if the school really fought it could end up being nothing at all.

    On the buyout:


    Look back at the liquidated damages provision of the bylaw for the true ticking time bomb: “each Member Institution agrees that the amount of revenue that would have been otherwise distributable to a Withdrawing Member pursuant to Section 2 herein for the final two (2) years of the Current Term or the then current Additional Term, as the case may be, shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%).”

    Okay, that means the payment amount is actually going to come from 2015 and 2016, the final two years of the “Additional Term.”

    Only, you guessed it, A&M and Missouri would be gone by then so neither school will receive a dime of revenue from the Big 12 in 2015 or 2016.

    So if you apply the above language, 90% x 0 = 0.

    Uh oh.

    Now, I don’t think the legal argument would win — most judges would probably apply the intended liquidated damages clause holding that the purpose of a liquidated damages clause is actually to have a liquidated damages clause — but it’s definitely yet another flaw in a tremendously flawed Big 12. And could a judge be unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt to a huge entity like the Big 12 that made this drafting mistake? Of course.

    This is a flaw that’s so gigantic the Big 12 might not want to sue under the contract for fear of losing and providing notice to all members that the exit fee for the next couple of years is $0.

    Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman said lat year he believed he had a strong argument against giving up any money.

    ‘I’m also cognizant of the risks associated with litigation,” Perlman said last year. “What I think is the law may not turn out to be the law. I’m disappointed, as an academic, that my curiosity about the legal claims won’t be resolved. But when you look at everything, I think it made sense in this setting to get this behind us and avoid the risks of litigation.'”

    Certainly the Big 12 believes this is a litigation risk as well, it’s why the league ultimately settled with Nebraska for $9.25 million and with Colorado for $6.86 million.

    That settlement represented 47.6% of the payout that both schools would have owed under the bylaws. If A&M and Missouri did the same with its projected $26.1 million that would come to $12.4 million.

    That, my friends, is no penalty at all.

    Like

    Reply
    1. redwood86

      Totally valid article. When ALL of the so-called Bigger-10 contenders start playing and beating OOC big boys (sorry but Oregon St., Miami, Colorado, Fresno St., Washington, and San Diego St. don’t count) we can start to take the Bigger 10 seriously. But when the conference leaders’ marquee OOC games are a home blow-out loss to Alabama, loss at Notre Dame, and miracle win at home against Notre Dame the conference deserves to be dissed.

      The SEC schedules lots of OOC patsies too, BUT their contenders (Alabama, LSU, Florida, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia) all play at least 1 pretty tough OOC game every year. LSU took on Oregon and West Virginia, Florida plays a rivalry game v. Miami and/or Florida St., Arkansas plays Texas A&M, South Carolina plays a rivalry game v. Clemson, and Georgia has both Boise St. and a rivalry game against Georgia Tech. AND the SEC doesn’t lose many OOC non-rivalry games against contenders.

      Like

      Reply
      1. greg

        Alabama, Pitt, Oregon St., Arizona St., Miami, Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Colorado, and Washington don’t count, but Oregon, WVU, Miami (interesting that this is on both lists), Texas A&M, Clemson and GA Tech do count?

        SEC has had more success, but their OOC scheduling is hardly any tougher than the B10.

        Rivalry losses don’t count? I guess that ISU loss isn’t half bad.

        Like

        Reply
      2. duffman

        The “validity” argument is the nature of SEC football’s in state OOC game

        UK vs UL = SEC + BE viewers
        UGA vs GT = SEC + ACC viewers
        UF vs FSU = SEC + ACC viewers
        UF vs Miami = SEC + ACC viewers
        USC vs Clemson = SEC + ACC viewers

        Contrasted by:

        UM vs MSU = B1G vs B1G
        IU vs PU = B1G vs B1G
        Illinois vs NU = B1G vs B1G

        Iowa vs ISU is interconference, but imbalanced

        I have mentioned before the loss of the IU vs UK game, but the teams were matched well enough to make a decent game and created a border state / border conference matchup. If UL can get a national feed game playing UK, so could IU. UC vs tOSU might be imbalanced, but PSU vs Pitt, or PSU vs WVU would offer a broader appeal than tOSU vs Akron.

        Like

        Reply
      3. GreatLakeState

        And yet the B1G still has more viewers, more money and more fans.
        The idea that the B1G is ‘totally irrelevant’ as he claims is pure homerism.
        Oh, by way, the Michigan/Notre Dame night game this year had more viewers
        than any of the last three National Championship games staring the relevant SEC
        (Auburn, Alabama, Florida). The B1G ten is down, no doubt about it, but if anything
        it proves how resilient the conference is. Even when were in the pits we still
        fill the stadiums. By the time your ESPN contract is up in fifteen years, every B1G
        team will be making 40-50 million apiece. That buys a lot of Urban Meyers and Nick
        Sabans. The B1G will be back.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Ross

          I’m a Michigan fan, but where in the world did you get that the game under the lights had more viewers than the last three MNC games? Those games all pulled in the low-mid teens of television ratings, UM-ND got a 4.9 (I believe) on ESPN.

          Like

          Reply
      4. bullet

        Here’s an interesting fact. 22 unbeatens, 18 ranked along with 6 1 loss teams and 1 2 loss team.

        The 4 unbeatens not ranked-Iowa St.-Big 12, Texas Tech-Big 12, Kansas St.-Big 12, Houston-CUSA former SWC, something of a pattern. Yet South Carolina is #9, South Florida is #14, Illinois is #22. South Carolina could easily finish 6-6 (they won’t lose to UK or Citadel, but could lose all the rest).

        Like

        Reply
      5. cutter

        Are any of these games played outside of the southeast portion of the country? Perhaps the only ones listed I can think of was LSU at West Virginia and Alabama at Penn State. Georgia had to travel all the way from Athens to Atlanta to lose to Boise State. A number of the other games you mention are ACC-SEC matchups with teams within the same state–that’s hardly a long geographic reach.

        I get that Finebaum’s schtick is to be provactive and provide a forum for his carney radio show so that the Alabama and Auburn fans in the state can get on the phone, call into his program and become bad stereotypes of Southern football fans.

        But I think we’re all mindful that these things are all cyclical and individuals teams and conferences go up and down. You don’t have to go too far back to remember the Ron Zook Florida teams or when David Shula was HC at Alabama. Before Nick Saban got to LSU, that program was an afterthought in terms of the national dialogue. Does anyone right now think Tennessee is the same program it was in the late 90s and early 00s right now?

        My advice to Finebaum and the SEC fans is to enjoy the ride because it’ll end in due course. Someone in that conference will have a major violation that will cripple their program or now that the oversigning has been somewhat curbed, teams in that conference may not be able to stockpile defensive linemen to the same degree they recently enjoyed.

        As far as the Big Ten is concerned, the conference has been plagued with instability amongst its major programs. Penn State won’t really get back on track consistently until Paterno leaves, Michigan is slowly working its way out of programs that started during the end of Carr’s tenure there and Ohio State is dealing with its own major problems right now post-Tressel. Once those “traditional” powers get back on line along with Wisconsin and Nebraska, the B10 will be back to its normal competitive level.

        Like

        Reply
    2. zeek

      The funniest thing is that his article sort of disproves itself prima facie.

      Here we are on the weekend of the biggest possible matchup of SEC brands (Alabama/Florida; excluding LSU even though it is probably a bigger draw right now than Florida as a stronger contender), and what is Paul Finebaum writing about? Nebraska/Wisconsin.

      Just think about that for a second. Look at the front pages of ESPN, Yahoo’s Rivals, USA Today, Washington Post, NYT/P, etc.

      What’s the college football game of the week? It’s not Alabama/Florida according to any of the major media, instead it’s Nebraska/Wisconsin.

      Could you have imagined that just 2-3 years ago when Alabama/Florida were locking up NCs?

      Like

      Reply
    3. Bamatab

      I think from an “outsider” perspective, the real issue that a lot of non B1G folks have with the B1G schedule is that the vast majority of the first 3 or 4 weeks of the schedule is not really relevant. Sure a couple of teams like Penn St and Michigan will play a good out of conference game, but the vast majority of the games are against MAC schools. By starting so late with the conference schedules, there is a 3 to 4 week period throughout the whole B1G that just seems to be basically a bunch of preseason games.

      The preception of the B1G being “irrelevant” from the 1st day of December through the bowl games has now been fixed by the addition of a conference championship game. It may be time to fix that same perception that the B1G faces at the beginning of the season now. The national media has been talking a lot about Bama, LSU, and OU, yet not much is being said about Wisky or Nebraska until this week. I think the main reason for that is because Wisky and Nebraska hasn’t really played in games yet that are of any true relevance.

      Again I’m an SEC guy, so I realize that my viewpoint is scewed, but I don’t think it is only a SEC view, but a national media viewpoint to some extent as well.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        I expect B10 conference games to start moving up earlier soon. This would definitely be true if the B10 ever expands again. Even if they don’t, however, conference games likely will start by week 3 (or 4 at the latest) when the conference slate expands to 9 games.

        BTW, it’s Michigan (against ND) and tOSU that pretty much always play a big name opponent every year. PSU and Nebraska some times do (PSU more often), but not every year.

        Like

        Reply
        1. joe4psu

          PSU always plays atleast 1 OOC BCS school. Games against BC, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt or UVA may not reach your level of expectation, or mine, but these schools are on the schedule for a reason. They are in PSU’s recruiting ground. Heck, even when PSU played Syracuse (scheduled atleast 10 years earlier when Syracuse was coming off back to back 10 win seasons) and Oregon State in the same year they got no recognition. That was the same Oregon State team that beat USC.

          The biggest problem with the scheduling is that 7 home games are necessary (so they say) to pay the bills of the athletic department. When BCS schools will start giving PSU one offs, like Oregon State did, then they can upgrade their schedule. Unfortunately, with 9 conference games the situation becomes worse.

          Like

          Reply
        2. Bo Darville

          Purdue – Notre Dame, Minnesota – USC, Northwestern – Boston College, Virginia – Indiana, Iowa – Pitt, Nebraska – Washington …. WHAT?

          Like

          Reply
        1. jj

          agree. many of the OOC schedules are a total, complete joke. no more AAs should be allowed. you should have to have an OOC road game. Start conference play in at least the third week.

          Like

          Reply
  39. bullet

    Let’s see if I get this right. Looks like noone is talking about 14 team models, which I think make some sense from the stability standpoint. The question would be whether RU/UConn or 2 of USF/TCU/Cincy get left out in a 14 team model.

    http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09/30/3410263/big-12-realignment-scenarios.html

    If the Big 12 can decide on 12 (and it should decide immediately on at least 12), it probably should consider locking up WVU before Missouri makes its decision. If Missouri stayed, the Big 12 would get a better team and the SEC would have to choose USF, Cincinnati or TCU for #14. I don’t see the SEC taking Louisville. Cincy and TCU would be stretches as well. And USF would be unpalatable to Florida. Waiting for the SEC is a Beebe like move.

    The Big 12 needs to get its act together and start acting.

    Like

    Reply
    1. zeek

      Agreed. What I don’t understand, is how OU could have misplayed this whole thing so thoroughly. I get that they wanted to beat on their chests, but they’ve seriously weakened the Big 12’s hand in all of this.

      There was a much stronger chance that the SEC would have taken #13 and waited if OU hadn’t tried to break up the whole Big 12 yet again. Getting Missouri locked in for 6 years and possibly WVU would have been a strong statement, and they probably would have had a better chance at locking in BYU.

      It’s definitely time to do something to strengthen the Big 12. If the SEC doesn’t take a #14, then the Big 12 has to lock in both Missouri and WVU for the next 6 years if they can…

      Like

      Reply
        1. M

          One of my favorite hobbies is cutting through lawyery pablum:

          “7. What role, if any, did the Longhorn Network play in this process?

          From the beginning, the process was driven by what best serves the long-term interests of Texas A&M and its student-athletes. Institutional visibility, conference stability and equality among conference members were the most important considerations.”

          This reads like it was a response to a different question.

          “President Loftin resumed internal discussions about conference alignment that led to a telephone call on July 21 to SEC Commissioner Slive to initiative the conversation about joining the SEC.”

          So within days (hours?) of LHN floating the idea of showing high school games, Texas A&M decided to call Slive about leaving the conference. However, this decision was not a hissy fit and they aren’t leaving to get away from Texas.

          “2. What was the process for making the decision to join the SEC?

          The process began in late spring 2010, when the departure of the University of Nebraska for the Big Ten and the University of Colorado to the PAC-10 made the Big 12 Conference considerably less stable.

          At that time, Texas A&M began a strategic and comprehensive analysis of the different conference options, and determined that the SEC provided the best long-term fit in terms of athletics and institutional history and culture, as well as future stability.”

          “8. What about the future of the Big 12?

          President Loftin has said that he believes the Big 12 “has every opportunity to try to move in a direction that will give it stability and a great, bright future.” Texas A&M is working diligently to exit the Big 12 as quickly and amicably as possible, which will allow the Big 12 to recruit a replacement member.”

          So A&M left the Big 12 because of lack of stability, and thinks that the Big 12 has a stable and bright future.

          “like Texas A&M, SEC members have achieved national and international prominence. For example, two universities – Vanderbilt University and the University of Florida – are members, with Texas A&M, in the elite Association of American Universities, which has just 61 members in the United States and Canada.”

          So you’re glad to be among those two AAU members in the SEC and you’re leaving 4 AAU members in the Big 12 to do it.

          “Competing in the nation’s premiere athletic conference will strengthen all intercollegiate sports at Texas A&M, as reflected in the Learfield Sports Directors Cup standings, which are based on a university’s overall athletic program”

          In the Director’s Cup standings from last year, the Pac-10 has 5 schools higher than the SEC’s second place team, including the overall champion. The Big Ten has all schools in the top 50 (only 9 for the SEC). Pro tip: don’t make a claim and then cite something that proves you wrong.

          “Many institutions that are ranked higher than Texas A&M academically compete in smaller athletic conferences. For example, Rice University, one of the country’s most prestigious private institutions, competes in Conference USA.”

          I don’t have any idea what this statement intends to suggest. Many institutions that are ranked higher than A&M are located in major conferences (by AWRU, 11 in the Big Ten, 9 in the Pac-12, 3 in the ACC, 2 in the Big East, 1 in Big 12, and 2 in the SEC). By that measure, more of the institutions ranked higher than A&M are in BCS conferences than compete in smaller conferences. Conversely, many institutions that are ranked lower than A&M compete in the SEC.

          “15. LSU is the only SEC school within 500 miles of College Station.”
          Apparently geography isn’t a strong subject at A&M. Fayetteville, AR is 481 miles away according to Google maps.

          Like

          Reply
        2. curious2

          Re dentists and auto dealers and Fans (bullet)

          If current board members are appointed to decide on university issues, then it’s obvious that includes athletic conference membership.

          Real question is why is an auto dealer appointed to make decisions affecting a university? I really have no knowledge of specifics but it seems questionable to raise the issue primarily in the context of deciding on an athletic conference.

          Are you an A&M or Missouri student or member of their community? If not, then not sure what makes you second guess their decision.

          Like

          Reply
          1. bullet

            Everyone on this board second guesses everyone’s decisions.

            And its clear egos played a large role is some of the decisions, especially OU’s. The boards were getting pressure not to be a Texas lackey (i.e. make a different decision from Texas to show you are independent even if that decision isn’t necessarily in your university’s best interest). A&M made its decision while its AD was in Europe. From prior statements, Byrne and Castiglione likely favored staying in the Big 12.

            Like

          2. Gopher86

            I’d rather have auto dealers and dentists on my board than give conference alignment decisions to the athletic department. Can you imagine if each school could move without some sort of oversight?

            Like

      2. frug

        What I don’t understand, is how OU could have misplayed this whole thing so thoroughly.

        What happened was Larry Scott. It is pretty clear from both Scott’s and (especially) Boren’s statements that Scott assured Boren he could get the votes to admit OU and OSU without Texas but when it came time he couldn’t whip the presidents into line.

        (Which by the way is the second year in row Scott got burned after badly overestimating his own leverage)

        Like

        Reply
        1. zeek

          That’s an entirely fair reading of the situation.

          My problem is that the result so thoroughly screwed over the Big 12 if it ends up sending Missouri to the SEC.

          There was a much better chance of keeping Missouri in the Big 12 if none of these OU-Pac-12 shenanigans had occurred…

          Like

          Reply
          1. Nostradamus

            Really there wasn’t. Despite whatever public comments that have been made to the contrary, the SEC needs/wants to go to 14. If they choose Missouri, it is because they wanted Missouri. If Missouri goes, they likely would’ve gone in either situation.

            Like

          2. frug

            I agree they would have had a better chance of keeping Mizzou, but I’m not sure it would have been “much” better. The Big XII was never going to have much leverage regardless of the OU-PAC debacle.

            Like

          3. bullet

            Missouri had no options at the time and was very nervous. The SEC was exploring other schools and was at the time a little nervous about the lawsuit issue. The SEC option came up during the wait for OU. If the conference stabilization had come up earlier, that SEC/Missouri connection may never have occurred.

            Like

          4. zeek

            I have to agree with bullet here though.

            I don’t think the SEC would have had nearly as good a shot at Missouri without the OU to the Pac-12 stuff.

            If OU and Texas had committed to the Big 12 instead of OU making loud noises about the Pac-12, then there’s a far smaller likelihood that Missouri would have shopped itself around.

            As it is, Missouri probably called every conference in the country to gauge interest because of the OU-Pac-12 discussions. That’s what I’m referring to…

            Like

        2. curious2

          Re: OK fiasco and assumptions about Boren and Scott (frug)

          The problem as I see it, as a total outsider, is that IF OK and OSU truly wanted into the PAC 12,
          then they should have asked Scott on that basis to give them a heads-up whether they would truly be welcome as schools 13 and 14.

          And Scott should have made clear to OK and OSU that yes: they should apply or they needed to work with UT as a package, without special LHN conditions.

          Somehow, at some point, the whole thing turned into a PR game by OK to use as leverage, and somehow the UT discussions with the PAC about their special LHN concerns got entangled as a package, where OK and OSU’s conference fate was no longer in their hands.

          At that point, the PAC Presidents and Scott said no thanks.

          I do agree with you in that I don’t understand what happened either.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Bob in Houston

            The Pac didn’t want to cut up the pie for OU and Ok State — they were net takers. They only wanted Texas on their terms because they’d already given up Tier 3 rights to the league.

            Texas would have increased the pie for everybody, but Texas didn’t want to give up the LHN. And, Texas’s preferred league right now is the B12. It was easy for them to say no, as it was easy for the Pac to say no.

            Like

  40. Eric

    Does anyone think the Big 12 will look at UConn and Rutgers themselves. I feel like I’ve heard the Big 12 looking at every other member of the Big East and a lot of western teams. Some of those teams are kind of far out and if they are going far out, it seems they’d at least examine a presence in the northeast (not saying they should take it, just odd that we have rumors with Air Force and Cincinnati, but not the remaining northeastern schools).

    Like

    Reply
    1. bullet

      The only thing I’ve read that considers them is the remote possibility 16 team model which basically absorbs the whole Big East. I would think a 14 team with BYU/UL/WVU/RU/UConn would be worth looking at, but I haven’t seen any thoughts of that. It may be that they don’t want another Missouri, always longing to be somewhere else (UConn and RU would jump at ACC/B1G invitations).

      Like

      Reply

      1. The only thing I’ve read that considers them is the remote possibility 16-team model which basically absorbs the whole Big East. I would think a 14-team with BYU/UL/WVU/RU/UConn would be worth looking at, but I haven’t seen any thoughts of that.

        Substitute Cincinnati and South Florida for Connecticut and Rutgers, and you might have something. Adding USF puts you in Florida, a recruiting stronghold, and Cincy complements UL and WVU (and it can move some of its bigger conference games to Paul Brown Stadium).

        Like

        Reply
    2. Richard

      Yes, if you’re a big proponent of caring about culture (and it seems that as someone who doesn’t want the B10 to expand, you would be), I can’t see how a conference that is now primarily Backcountry with some Midlands schools (stuck in the wintry north with no influence) adding a very Yankee school and a Yankee/Midlands school could possibly be a good idea.

      If the B12 cares about culture, WVU, Louisville, Cincy, and TCU would fit in better than the other alternatives out there.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Eric

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m not actually arguing it should happen. Just kind of surprised given all the other scenarios out there this hasn’t really been brought up.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bullet

          I don’t think academics matters much now for the Big 12. The list of “good” academic schools from a research perspective they could obtain is probably limited to Hawaii, UC-Davis, New Mexico, Colorado State, Rutgers, Rice and Tulane. Rutgers is the only one who would have any chance.

          I am surprised that they would look at 16, but apparently are not looking at 14. I doubt 14 pays as much as 12, given the school options, but it would be worth looking at.

          Like

          Reply
    1. zeek

      Promoting Temple to the Big East makes more sense than having Villanova try to lift its football program from D-2.

      Temple has the student base (and now more and more are non-commuter) and everything already up and running with its stadium deal, etc. It just makes a lot more sense than trying to lift Villanova where you’re not so sure they’ll be able to get the requisite fan support.

      And Temple’s football team has finally started to look more legitimate these past couple of years as they’ve put more effort into fielding a legitimate team.

      Like

      Reply
    2. joe4psu

      Good for Temple. That would bring the # of bb schools to 16 if TCU honors their commitment. Will the BE bb schools accept any other full members? The rumors I’ve heard are that the bb schools don’t want more full members. Does this have anything to do with more BE schools leaving the conference, or TCU joining the B12 instead? What does this mean for Nova fb?

      Like

      Reply
    3. Quiet Storm

      Philly.com is reporting that admitting Temple to BE is not the topic for the Sunday meeting. The purpose is to discuss various scenarios involving Air Force and Navy. Navy and Air Force played today in Annapolis and the BE meeting is in Washington so it makes you wonder if officials from both academies are meeting with the presidents this weekend as well. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/owlsinq/Sources-Air-Force-Navy-will-be-hot-topic-over-Temple.html?ref=twitter.com&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

      Like

      Reply
  42. Quiet Storm

    I know the BE is not in a position to be picky at this time but I wonder how the folks on the Blue Line (Villanova) feel about inviting Temple as a full member. Talk about taking on for the team.
    It’s going to take a lot more than Temple to make UConn and Rutgers want to commit. Until the Big 12 and the SEC resolve their membership questions the BE is going to be in limbo.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Eric

      This is going to kind of hurt the MAC too. The whole basis of adding UMass was to be #14. Is there someone else in the east looking to move up who could take Temple’s football only place?

      Like

      Reply
      1. bullet

        Appalachian State is talking. Illinois State has talked about it forever, but don’t know if they could right now. WKU might move from the Sun Belt. Of course, UMass may end up in Big East.

        The Big East is in a position where being proactive doesn’t help. There’s a good chance UL, WVU and TCU are leaving. Then they may have a different idea of what they want to be. The basketball schools could probably care less about Cincinnati and they definitely don’t want USF and TCU. Temple will always be there. The ACC and B1G won’t come calling. The football schools may find a better place depending on how many are left. And for them, Temple will always be there.

        Your comment about the MAC brings up the following article. It seems BU is nervous-not Baylor, Bradley. Apparently all down the line all the schools are nervous about the impact on their conferences of what the Big 5 or 6 are doing.
        http://www.pjstar.com/sports/x149331439/Wessler-BU-wants-a-chair-when-music-stops

        Like

        Reply
  43. Eric

    I was definitely kind of surprised hear that bigger than 12 team leagues have any support in the Big 12 at all (even if it probably is just 1 or 2 schools). I was trying to think how that might be able to work and maybe it could be done kind of like the proposed Mountain West-Conference USA football merger. You could have 8 (assuming Missouri leaves) Big 12 teams keeping their own contract and mostly playing each other (maybe 1 or 2 out of division games). Then you could have a second division (football only, mostly Big East teams), that maintains its own football contract and only plays a couple of games against the 8 Big 12 teams. They’d obviously share the CCG money.

    Don’t see that happening, but I think it’s about the only way bigger than 12 works financially.

    Like

    Reply
  44. duffman

    By the numbers

    B1G @ 12 members

    IL = 12.8 (Illinois + Northwestern)
    PA = 6.4 (Penn State – Pitt, etc)
    OH = 11.5 (Ohio State)
    MI = 9.9 (Michigan + Michigan State)
    IN = 6.5 (Indiana + Purdue)
    WI = 5.7 (Wisconsin)
    MN = 5.3 (Minnesota)
    IA = 3.0 (Iowa, sure ISU is there, but not much)
    NE = 1.8 (Nebraska)

    63 million / 12 schools = ~ 5.25 million people per school

    PAC @ 12 members

    CA = 37.3 (USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford)
    WA = 6.7 (Washington + Washington State)
    AZ = 6.4 (AZ + ASU)
    CU = 2.5 (Colorado – AF, CSU, etc)
    OR = 3.8 (Oregon + Oregon State)
    UT = 1.4 (Utah – BYU, etc)

    58 million / 12 schools = ~ 4.83 million people per school

    SEC @ 12 members

    FL = 9.4 (Florida – FSU, Miami, etc)
    GA = 9.7 (UGA – GT??)
    TN = 6.3 (Tennessee + Vandy??)
    AL = 4.8 (Alabama + Auburn)
    SC = 2.3 (South Carolina – Clemson)
    LA = 4.5 (LSU)
    KY = 4.3 (Kentucky – UL??)
    MS = 3.0 (Mississippi + MSU)
    AR = 2.9 (Arkansas)

    47 million / 12 schools = ~ 3.92 million people per school

    ACC @ 12 members

    FL = 9.4 (FSU, Miami – Florida)
    NC = 9.5 (UNC + NCST + Duke + WF)
    VA = 8.0 (VT + UVA)
    MD = 5.8 (Maryland)
    SC = 2.3 (Clemson – South Carolina)
    GA = ?? (GT?? – Georgia)
    MA = 6.5 (Boston College – ??, see note below)

    41 million / 12 schools = ~ 3.42 million people per school

    NOTE: Overweighted Boston College to compensate underweight ACC schools like GT that add value, but are dominated by another school in state)

    Now for the Delany should do nothing group look at the following:

    If SEC adds TAMU and MU
    TAMU = @ 33% of 25.1 M = 8.3 M (double current SEC average)
    TAMU = @ 50% of 25.1 M = 12.5 M (triple current SEC average)
    MO = 6.0 as single school in state (1.5 times current SEC average)

    If PAC adds OU + oSu + UT + TT
    OK = 3.8 (OU + oSu) close to CU and UT numbers, but gets OU “brand”
    TX = (UT + TT) @ 50% = 12.5M (above current PAC average)
    TX = (UT + TT) @ 67% = 16.8M (well above current PAC average)

    If Delany adds MU at 13 and stops, then he has ended the western expansion (UT will not go to the SEC and the SEC will not take oSu) of the SEC, but more importantly he has taken away a state that can actually raise the SEC population significantly. Like it or not, the realignment game is about adding markets and very few are a net gain for the B1G while still maintaining AAU membership. Care to address this Frank?

    Like

    Reply
    1. wmtiger

      You missed Syracuse for ACC but they really only deliver a fraction of NY, fan support needs to be taken into consideration… Fan support = higher ratings = higher advertising = higher carriage rates…

      Fan support in the SEC, Big XII & B10 are much stronger than the Pacific & Big East. ACC is a lot of smaller private so I’d assume fan support isn’t near as high.

      Like

      Reply
      1. bullet

        Based on 2012 lineups-4 year attendance average
        SEC 76,294
        B1G 71,692
        Big 12 58,329 (after losing #2,#4,#6 in attendance to others)
        Pac 12 54,306
        ACC 52,075
        BE 42,627 (includes Pitt and SU)
        MWC 28,288
        CUSA 27,466
        SB 17,198
        MAC 16,289
        WAC 16,035

        Like

        Reply
    2. Richard

      Uh, Duff, adding Mizzou would raise the SEC average by 0.14M (assuming TAMU brings 12.5M). Not sure what you consider significant, but that doesn’t seem that significant to me.

      Like

      Reply
      1. duffman

        richard, the number for the SEC was about 3.9 million per school, so if MU was around 6 million as a single state school form a high population state (by SEC standards) it would be at the upper end of the spectrum. Tennessee was about the same size as Missouri, and only GA / FL were larger. That meant that 9 schools were smaller, and some by quite a large number. The issue is why let the SEC add a big state if it was a school that fit the B1G profile? If you have already let your competition add TAMU which adds many eyeballs, why let them have mu when you can get MU, and leave the SEC with WVU (much smaller school without AAU status)?

        If media / population matters you want to add schools above your average to your group, and force the other guy to add schools below their average.

        MU > 5.2
        MU > 3.9

        WVU < 5.2
        WVU < 3.9

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          Well, I consider FSU an option for the SEC as well. If you take MU off the table, it’s most likely that the SEC will wait out the ACC for FSU rather than settle for WVU. Lots can change in 2 years.

          Like

          Reply

  45. Anyone watch the Arizona-USC game at all today? I caught a bit of it today and was shocked at the number of empty seats at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Huge sections with not one fan in the seats. I noticed the same thing a few weeks ago when USC played Utah at home. I find it astonishing that the “King” in the Pac-12 can not even draw anything approaching a sell out, even for conference games. There just doesn’t seem to be the same passion for college football in the Pac-12 as there is in the Big Ten and SEC.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Richard

      They’re passionate about college football in the Pacific Northwest (where the Ducks make their small stadium sound much louder and Huskies fans still show up despite their team being down right bad for most of the past decade. In Cali, they just don’t care that much.

      Like

      Reply
  47. Richard

    You know, I’d really like to see ‘Bama’s or LSU’s defense vs. Wisconsin’s offense (and O-line) or Boise’s offense (with Kellen Moore). (SEC) Speed vs. (Upper Midwest) Brawn and (SEC) Speed vs. Speed (of thought by Kellen Moore).

    Kellen Moore already anticipates and is as accurate as well as an NFL QB. I’d really like to see him play vs. an NFL-quality defense.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Richard

      Both Wisconsin and Boise look very likely to go undefeated. Let’s hope that ND also wins out (they’d have to beat Stanford @ Stanford). Then the Fiesta bowl hopefully takes ND (after the Rose likely picks Michigan or another B10 team to replace Wiscy & the Sugar takes the LSU/’Bama loser) to match up against the B12 winner.

      That would leave the Sugar to pair Boise against the LSU/’Bama loser while the LSU/’Bama winner faces Wisconsin. It’d be a bit unfair (as both games would be in ‘Nawlins), but the matchups would be mouth-watering.

      Like

      Reply

    1. @jj – Badgers absolutely steamrolled the Huskers. Wisky has as good of an offense as I’ve seen in the Big Ten in probably a decade. The only ranked team on the rest of their schedule is Illinois (who I have to admit could easily be 2-3 instead of 5-0 at this point).

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        Frank, 11/19 in Champaign could be a battle of unbeatens (and determine the divisional title). Heck, 11/12 in Champaign could very well be a battle of unbeatens (biggest obstacle before then is probably PSU at Happy Valley).

        I also noticed that the Illini will be playing in a “Memorial Stadium” in their first 7 games (too bad Nebraska isn’t on the schedule) or else the Illini could very well play their first 2/3rds of the season in a “Memorial Stadium”).

        Then Illinois goes almost a month before playing at home again.

        Like

        Reply
        1. duffman

          richard,

          nov 12 Illinois vs Michigan – if both are still undefeated by then

          nov 19 Illinois vs Wisconsin – if both are still undefeated by then

          If Michigan and Wisconsin both beat Illinois, and win the rest, the B1G would have 2 undefeated at seasons end. Since LSU plays Alabama on November 5th, the best the SEC can hope for is 1 undefeated team at seasons end. Since the BCS will be in play at that time you could have 2 undefeated B1G face each other in the B1G CCG, while the best the SEC could do is to put 1 undefeated team in the SEC CCG.

          Not a favorable outcome for Frank and the Illinois, but is this the best outcome for the B1G and their first CCG?

          Like

          Reply
          1. zeek

            Yeah, the best outcome from Delany’s perspective would be a #6 Michigan against a #2 Wisconsin (or something like that) with both undefeated.

            But, as long as Wisconsin is undefeated and in the national title hunt (#3 or better by that point), the Big Ten CCG will be a big deal…

            Like

          2. Richard

            Well, if Michigan is still undefeated at that point, I’d expect them to be higher than #6 (the B12 will have at most 1 unbeaten by then, as will the ACC). Of course, I expect Michigan and all the B12 unbeatens to lose at least one game this year. The GTech/Clemson winner may go undefeated over 12 games, though.

            Like

          3. wmtiger

            TV people want 1 of Ohio State, Penn State vs 1 of Michigan, Nebraska in CCG. Wisky/Illini likely #5 & #6 and MSU/Iowa #7/#8 in terms of ‘ratings’ draws for the conference…

            Wisky looks like a level or two above everyone in the B10 ‘East’, if they can run the table (both OOC & conference slate is pathetic), them being undefeated would be a decent enough of a draw. I could see any of MSU, M or Nebraska winning the B10 ‘West.’ I like MSU there, they don’t play Wisky and got OSU without 4 of their best players.

            Wisky vs MSU? Not what the B10 hoped for.

            Like

          4. Richard

            wmtiger:

            If Bucky is undefeated and challenging for a national title, as you said, it would be a big enough draw (plenty of folks outside B10 country would be watching). Also don’t underestimate the drawing power of either Illinois or MSU. Though neither are brands, they’re both in big population states and would draw a bunch of neutral eyeballs from their respective states.

            Like

  49. GreatLakeState

    Unlike the Buckeye teams of recent years, this Wisconsin team actually instills confidence that they can take on anybody and win -including the ESPN-twins, Alabama and LSU.
    The poise Russell Wilson displayed tonight was simply amazing.

    Like

    Reply
    2. cutter

      As a Michigan fan, I’ll say take it with a grain of salt because it’s a reflection not only on their record, but the fact that teams ranked ahead of them lost.

      If the Wolverines win the next two games (on the road at Northwestern and at Michigan State), their next opponent after a bye week is Purdue. At 8-0, I’d say UM would have at least earned the #12 ranking because to date, the only opponent of note Michigan has played was Notre Dame.

      Michigan’s final four games include two on the road (at Iowa, at Illinois) and two at home (Nebraska, Ohio State). There’ll certainly be a lot of buzz around UM going into those games, and given what’s happened in the Big Ten, they have a puncher’s shot at winning their divison.

      Like

      Reply
  51. duffman

    From the weekend….

    WEEK 5 summary – Top 25 and conference alignment – teams with loss in [bracket]

    B1G 5/25 = 20% : Wisconsin, [Nebraska], Michigan, Illinois, Michigan State
    5 wins vs 6 losses = 45% : losses to B1G schools = 5 : OOC losses = 1

    SEC 5/25 = 20% : Alabama, LSU, [South Carolina], [Florida], Arkansas
    7 wins vs 4 losses = 64% : losses to SEC schools = 4 : OOC losses = 0

    B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, [TAMU], [Baylor], Texas
    4 wins vs 4 losses = 50% : losses to B12 schools = 3 : OOC losses = 1

    ACC 4/25 = 16% : [Virginia Tech], Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech
    8 wins vs 3 losses = 73% : losses to ACC schools = 3 : OOC losses = 0

    PAC 2/25 = 8% : Stanford, Oregon
    5 wins vs 5 losses = 50% : losses to PAC schools = 5 : OOC losses = 0

    MWC 2/25 = 8% : Boise State, [TCU]
    2 wins vs 3 losses = 40% : losses to MWC schools = 0 : OOC losses = 3

    BE 2/25 = 8% : [USF], West Virginia
    4 wins vs 4 losses = 50% : losses to BE schools = 2 : OOC losses = 2

    .
    .
    .
    .

    WEEK 6 beginning – Top 25 and conference alignment – Conference and OOC

    SEC 6/25 = 24% : Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, *South Carolina, *Florida, Auburn
    11 teams : 5 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 1 OTR
    OFF : Mississippi

    B1G 5/25 = 20% : Wisconsin, Michigan, *Nebraska, Illinois, Michigan State
    10 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 5 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 0 OTR
    OFF : Wisconsin, Michigan State

    B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, Texas, KSU, *TAMU
    10 teams : 0 SEC : 5 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 5 OTR
    OFF : NONE

    ACC 4/25 = 16% : Clemson, Georgia Tech, *Va Tech, FSU
    10 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 4 ACC : 0 MWC : 1 BE : 0 IND : 1 OTR
    OFF : Duke, Virginia

    PAC 3/25 = 12% : Stanford, Oregon, Arizona State
    10 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 5 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 0 OTR
    OFF : USC, Washington

    MWC 1/25 = 4% : Boise State
    6 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 1 MWC : 0 BE : 1 IND : 3 OTR
    OFF : Colorado State, New Mexico

    BE 1/25 = 4% : West Virginia
    6 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 1 ACC : 0 MWC : 2 BE : 0 IND : 1 OTR
    OFF : Cincinnati, USF

    moved in : Auburn, Kansas State, Arizona State
    dropped out : USF, Baylor, TCU
    * teams losing in previous week

    .
    .
    .
    .

    15 undefeated teams left, 14 max by end of week:

    B12 33% = Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, KSU, TT
    Oklahoma vs Texas in week 6
    B1G 20% = Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois
    SEC 13% = LSU, Alabama
    ACC 13% = Clemson, Georgia Tech
    PAC 7% = Stanford
    MWC 7% = Boise State
    CUSA 7% = Houston

    Like

    Reply
  52. M

    Awhile I go I started keeping track of predictions and assertions by this blog and keeping track of whether they turn out to be right or wrong (or still questionable). I posted a list a few months ago, but it needed updating. If I missed anything, let me know so I can add it to my list.

    Right:
    Instability of Big 12
    Desirability of Texas
    Jim Boeheim wasn’t be able to keep Syracuse in the Big East
    Travel doesn’t matter
    Texas A&M was not tied to Texas
    Nebraska is more valuable than Missouri
    Texas has no particularly strong attachment to the Big 12
    strength of the ACC
    Pac-10 schools really want games in LA area
    Pac-10 will not consider BYU
    Pitt is not joining the Big Ten
    The Big Ten had discussions with Texas
    Texas will have trouble getting carriage for LHN
    The Big Ten considered 16
    The Big Ten taking Nebraska would cause the Texas schools to consider leaving
    Nebraska is the one school other than Texas and ND that would be a single addition
    Nothing is more important to realignment than the LHN
    The Big Ten will definitely expand to 12
    The Big East can/should/will add TCU
    Texas A&M did take initiative to leave the Big 12
    There will be a Big Ten hockey conference
    Every member of the Big East would jump to the ACC or Big Ten
    OU and OKST are tied together
    OU was not getting a Pac-X offer without Texas
    By getting all the Pac-12 to put their rights together, Larry Scott stopped a Texas with the LHN from entering
    OU will try to leave the Big 12
    The ACC wil not bring in an unequal revenue sharing plan

    Wrong:
    Conferences did go bigger than 12
    Texas does have an insatiable desire to run their own conference
    Texas really does control the Big 12
    Pac-10 was willing to compromise academically if necessary
    Pac-10 did not do nothing
    Texas threatened to leave the Big 12 in part for leverage
    The Big 12 did sign a very lucrative television contract
    The Pac-10 did consider Texas Tech
    The SEC expanded to take Texas A&M after the Big Ten took Nebraska
    Texas can’t abandon Tech
    Texas A&M never seriously considered joining the Big Ten
    The Pac-12 received a top notch television deal
    Basketball does matter to the ACC at least
    The Big Ten didn’t go east/west with divisions
    The SEC added Texas A&M without other Texas schools
    The Big East did expand and add TCU instead of doing nothing
    BYU did not receive preferential treatment from the BCS
    The expansion landscape did not settle down after summer of ’10
    Texas did attempt to get more games on LHN
    The LHN did have as large of impact as predicted (or more)
    The ACC did expand beyond 12
    TCU did not agree to a football only invite
    The Big 12 is stable (12/07)
    A&M was not bound to Texas by politicians
    Oklahoma did want to be in a different conference than Texas
    The SEC raided the Big 12, instead of being reactive
    ESPN did make a major offer to the Pac-X
    Angry Aggies were enough to let them leave the Big 12
    Oklahoma and OkSt would join the Pac-12, with or without Texas

    ?:
    Big Ten not going bigger than 12
    Rutgers doesn’t deliver New Jersey
    Big 12 would replace schools with BYU, not TCU
    Recruiting is not a major factor in decisions
    Notre Dame would not sacrifice its athletic department for football independence
    Notre Dame would have to react to “seismic” changes
    Notre Dame would prefer Boston College in any conference
    A conference could get a rule change to play a CCG without 12 teams
    The Big Ten was never seriously interested in Missouri
    The Big Ten won’t kill any conferences
    Rutgers and Syracuse are locks for a 16 team Big Ten scenario
    Big Ten might do a multi-stage expansion, starting with Nebraska
    Taking Syracuse would cause the Big East to break up
    Big Ten presidents prefer Rutgers to Syracuse
    16 team Big Ten would be ND, Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers, ?
    14 team Big Ten would be Nebraska, Rutgers, Missouri
    The Big East will be a hybrid forever
    Texas and UNC will not join the SEC
    The Big Ten heavily discussed Texas A&M, Maryland, Virginia and Vanderbilt
    Missouri is school 14 if ND is school 13
    The SEC will be a more lucrative conference than the Pac-X
    If two football members leave the Big East, the basketball members will split
    Notre Dame will not put their non-football sports in an all-Catholic league
    Texas will not make more money with the LHN than they would with the BTN
    The Pac-X will survive longer than the Big 12
    The Big Ten is done expanding until Notre Dame changes its mind
    Entrenched interests don’t want super conferences
    At some point, the leaders of ND will care more about its academic reputation than its football team
    The SEC can’t and doesn’t want to tear apart the Big 12
    The Big East won’t kick out ND
    Texas will rue the day it spurned the Texas/Tech/OK/OKSt offer
    Rejecting the Pac-16 offer makes it politically impossible for Texas to leave Tech and Baylor
    The NCAA tournament will expand because it’s overpaid now and wants to keep that level of revenue
    TCU will never get a Big 12 invite
    If BYU doesn’t receive preferential treatment from the BCS, Orrin Hatch will put the BCS in danger
    In consecutive Michigan-OSU games, the first one won’t be NFL style
    Illinois makes it to consecutive bowl games within the next 4 decades
    Texas politicians will keep the Big 12 alive in perpetuity
    The Big East will add TCU and Villanova/Temple
    A Big East network would not get on cable systems
    The MWC will not become an AQ conference
    UCF is the next school in the Big East if Villanova rejects the invite
    The Big East will not add Big 12 remnants
    The Big 12’s treatment of Texas would entice ND to join (network)
    ND will start its own network
    The LHN will save the Big 12
    NBC/Comcast will not become a major sports network
    Comcast will make a bid for the Big East
    BYU should join the Big East
    No professional league will contract
    The SEC can’t rip up its contracts simply because it expands
    BYU would accept a Big 12 invite
    SMU and Rice will not join the Big 12
    VT will not be able to abandon UVA
    NC State/UNC/Duke/ACC school X will not join the SEC, except possibly FSU
    SEC will choose between Missouri and WVU, but Missouri might not leave the Big 12
    If the Big Ten adds ND, they will go to 14 with Rutgers
    A merger preserves all tournament credits, and so is more likely
    The Big East can/should/will invite the service academies for football only

    Like

    Reply
    1. Eric

      Nice list. Interesting going back to all the things and how quickly things have changed. I know I was shocked the PAC-10 ever got the a unanimous vote expansion.

      Like

      Reply
    2. Eric

      Temple wasn’t actually a full member of the Big East ever. They were invited to play in the football conference, but were never, strictly speaking, a full member of the Big East. That made it much easier to kick out. It would be similar to the ACC or Big 12 inviting someone in for lacrosse so they could have enough members, but without really letting the team in the conference in every other sense. Kicking out a team like that is usually a lot easier.

      Kicking out a full member (as all current 16 team Big East members are), would be much, much more difficult and it would depend on the contracts, but I’d guess would be very expensive or only be possible with massive violations.

      Like

      Reply
  54. hagenr

    Which will fall first? Big East, Big 12, or the Eurozone? Two months ago, even money would have been on the Big 12. However, the events of the past two weeks could indicated it may be the last one standing.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Eric

      It’s hard to kill conferences as even 1 member being around lets them survive. The Big East will at least survive as a basketball conference. It’s already going to be down to only 2 of its original football members (at most, Rutgers and West Virginia). The Big 12, worse case scenario would probably survive as a the new Mountain West.

      I’m actually guessing Eurozone.

      Like

      Reply
    2. Jake

      You’re going to have to fill me in, as grad school and expansion scuttlebutt don’t leave me with much room for actual news. Did someone else default? Portugal? Italy?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Eric

        Not yet, but it’s costing them all more to borrow and so many banks are all tied together (and with far less value than they claim) that it’s difficult to avoid a chain reaction at some point.

        Like

        Reply

  55. Some updates:

    Big East (ESPN): Expansion candidates discussed by the BE presidents include Navy, Army, Air Force, Temple, Central Florida, and the kicker… SMU.

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7051020/presidents-chancellors-give-commissioner-ok-expand-big-east-conference

    Chip Brown on Orangebloods also said that the Big 12 presidents focused almost entirely on Missouri in their meeting today and says that they’re “optimistic” that Mizzou will stay. The interim commissioner will have a statement tomorrow morning.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Wow! The Big East actually doing something smart. Love the academies, but the interesting is the kicker one, SMU. If you pull SMU and TCU – you have a pretty good hold on the DFW TV market plus give TCU a travel partner. I lived in Dallas for 2 years and in Texas most of my life; yes there a ton college alums who move to DFW but SMU and TCU alums typically don’t leave. They are very concentrated and you can sell the two as a pair helping tie up the DFW market. Don’t know if anyone saw the game on Saturday, but that is a huge rivalry game like OSU – Michigan, UT – TAMU, and OU – oSu, just throw all the records out. If I was looking to build an insurgency into the Texas market as a part of the Big East you could do far worse. I will very curious if it goes any further then just talk.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Southern Methodist could also be a Big East insurance policy for the Metroplex if Texas Christian leaves (though one wonders whether the conference had SMU on its radar before its upset of TCU). If Missouri leaves, the Big 12 will likely be more willing to raid the Big East on a larger scale.

        Like

        Reply
      2. Bob in Houston

        Sorry, can’t go with you on SMU and TCU making the Big East relevant in DFW. It’s not the worst idea I’ve ever read, but it’s not going to be that effective, either.

        Like

        Reply
      1. bullet

        The Lions have the curse of Bobby Layne. They traded him in the 50s and were never the same. It was noted in the Atlanta papers that the Braves were originally in Boston. Maybe the curse of the Bambino was contagious throughout the city of Boston and a little stuck with the Braves when they moved on to Milwaukee and Atlanta.

        Like

        Reply
  58. bullet

    http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/02/3181207/secs-stability-beckons-mizzou.html

    KC article on Missouri’s decision. Talks about various issues, but not the financial ones. For Missouri, if leaving, the financial risk would be paying a big exit fee, earning slightly more for 4 years and earning less for the 8 after that in order to go someplace they don’t want to go. The financial risk of staying is that if at some point in 10 years or so Texas and OU leave and Missouri doesn’t have a different landing spot available, the Big 12 sinks to a Big East level league in football.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Read The D

      If Missouri leaves is it time to pull the plug on the Big12? If Mizzou leaves, according to that flawed but helpful NY Times fan breakdown: http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/ the B12 will have lost 3 of its top 5 fan bases in the last year and a half.

      The only schools left that Texas would really want to play are OU and Tech. OU would only be excited about playing Texas and OK State. Is it too far fetched to think that Texas and OU would bring their little brothers and form their own quasi-independent/quasi-conference with schools that will actually draw some national interest?

      Maybe BYU, Notre Dame, Miami, Florida St., TCU, Boise St…

      I would think it would be a scheduling agreement more than anything as ND would really have no interest in playing Tech or Okie Lite or even Boise St. But they could band together and sell some TV rights and make each other some money. Plus some combination of those programs would demand an automatic BCS bid.

      Like

      Reply
        1. Read The D

          The article shows Colorado at about 494k fans which would make them 10 out of the old 12, sandwiched between Iowa State and Kansas State. You could argue the loss of the Denver market makes up for the lower “fan” numbers though.

          Like

          Reply
  59. bullet

    I saw a claim that the SEC was holding a meeting on Wednesday. Anyone have any verification of that? If true (and I’m not saying it is-I don’t remember the source, but the comment was almost an afterthought in the article), that would indicate that they were going to make a decision about something. That would most likely mean either they are sure they have Missouri or they are going to pick #14 regardless of Missouri’s decision.

    Like

    Reply
  60. Mike

    Key phrase “This action becomes effective after each member institution commits a grant of rights to the Conference for its Tier I and II television rights for at least six years.”

    http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10410&ATCLID=205307786

    Big 12 Board of Directors Action

    The Big 12 Conference Board of Directors announced adoption of a position to equally distribute all conference related distributable revenue to include Tier I and II football television, men’s basketball television and NCAA men’s basketball tournament revenues. This action becomes effective after each member institution commits a grant of rights to the Conference for its Tier I and II television rights for at least six years.

    It is recognized by the Board that each member is directed by institutional policy relative to pursuing its grant of rights and that process will commence expeditiously at the institutional level.

    The Board is encouraged by the number of institutions indicating interest in the Big 12, which reflects positively on the standing of the Conference within intercollegiate athletics. The Board also looks forward to considering the recommendation of the expansion committee regarding future membership options.

    Like

    Reply
      1. duffman

        Vincent,

        What if Missouri is in play to cover Slive going after Maryland? I saw the Terps had 4 competitive cheer titles to go with 2 CFB championships and 2 CBB championships (1 M + 1 W). Yes I kid a bit about cheer, but the general question is serious.

        Like

        Reply

        1. If Slive is going after Maryland (as a cultural match for the SEC, it’s essentially UNC without southern accents, and isn’t contiguous with any SEC state), all I can say is that he must really be desperate. WVU may not bring many eyeballs, but it’s so much better a fit for the SEC than Maryland would be (especially since many Terrapin teams — men’s soccer, men’s and women’s lacrosse, wrestling to name a few — would have to find indy conference homes because the SEC doesn’t sponsor such sports).

          Like

          Reply
          1. duffman

            Vincent,

            I was asking because the Terps specifically wanted the lower exit cap, which would indicate they are at least pondering a jump. The only places to land are the B1G and SEC, and Delany has said they were done (save ND) at 12. You and I have debated MD to the B1G since the beginning, but if Delany spurns them, Slive would pick up Maryland eyeballs and east coast recruiting pipeline.

            I agree about the secondary sports, but MD is AAU, and has a long history with KY in terms of coaches and AD’s. In short, if the B1G did not act now, would it regret it later?

            Like

          4. duffman

            Bob in Houston,

            I am aware of FSU, but the Terps and the “school not named” may be the bigger indicator if the ACC becomes the prey. While the media has given plenty of ink to FSU, I would prefer they give some ink to the other 2!

            Like

          5. Another thing to keep in mind — Delany has said he doesn’t want to “raid” a conference. What if the Big East diminished to a point where it was no longer a viable football conference and Rutgers thus became available? Delany could pick it up, note it needs a partner, and since Connecticut isn’t AAU, work an agreement with the ACC to take Maryland, with UConn taking the Terrapins’ place as ACC #14. The Big Ten gets its two land-grant prizes on the eastern seaboard to complement Penn State, while the ACC gets a basketball “name” to replace Maryland and boost its northeast clout.

            Like

  61. Mike

    Wilner (@Wilnerhotline) on Boise


    Sources: Boise State prez Bob Kustra working behind scenes to get BSU into Big 12

    Boise State needs Mizzou to join the SEC and the Big East to remain intact, thus leaving the B12 with more needs and fewer options.

    Like

    Reply
      1. Bob in Houston

        The B12’s issue is needing a 10th right away for TV purposes. They can bring in all the BE schools they like, but they won’t be playing right away. That’s why Missouri has to leave for BSU to be a possibility.

        I think it would be a huge mistake to take BSU.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Richard

          I don’t. Even without much of a recruiting homeland (besides maybe beefy linemen), Boise could very well become another WVU, if not Nebraska. Idaho has fewer people than NE or WV, but Idaho + Montana has more.

          Like

          Reply
      1. Richard

        Louisville seems to want to keep the BE together (probably because bball actually brings in significantly more money that football there).

        Like

        Reply
  62. Phil

    Anyone else having trouble understanding why the Big East is now willing to travel to Colorado to play Air Force, but isn’t looking to add Boise St which (if they keep their further defections to a minimum) would solidify their BCS bid?

    Like

    Reply

    1. I’m having trouble understanding why Air Force, which is in a fine all-sports conference close to its home (the Mountain West), would jeopardize that by leaving for the most vulnerable and poorly-run BCS league as a football-only member.

      Like

      Reply

        1. You’re probably right that it’s likely so much Big East (oops, BIG EAST) bluster. I could see Navy joining that conference, but as far as BCS for Air Force, it’s at best a dark horse, fallback candidate for the Big 12.

          Like

          Reply
          1. bullet

            Maybe the Missouri Valley is interested in Air Force. Then they could be with Navy and possibly Army in their conference, giving them more scheduling flexibility.

            Like

    3. wmtiger

      Yes about Boise but the academies are going to be invited together and Army/Navy might want Air Force to come with them if they join a BCS league…

      Boise (being in Idaho) maybe a Pacific time zone instead of Mountain, time zones are a major factor in realignment and much of the Big East is eastern. Boise State would only get offered football only status.

      Like

      Reply
  63. mushroomgod

    I’m calling it here first…………Wisky and Alabama will play for the NC…OK will lose to either TX or OK State…..Bama will knock off LSU…..Stanford will either lose to Oregon, or Wisky will pass them in the polls…

    So….can Wisky hold up?

    I would have some concerns about Bama’s OL v. Wisky’s DL and LBs…..but I don’t see it as a Florida-OSU style mismatch…

    Like

    Reply
    1. bullet

      I didn’t see anything but a few plays of UNL/UW, but I remember UNL talking about re-tooling their defense for the B1G. With the high flying Big 12 offenses you need faster, lighter players. Big 12 defenses don’t do as well against power teams like Wisconsin usually is. I think that’s why Wisconsin has done better vs. SEC than Ohio State. Ohio State has been kind of a hybrid-speed and power so they are quicker than other B1G schools, but don’t get pushed around. When they play SEC schools, they are an SEC-lite and get crushed. Wisconsin uses their strength against speed and has a balance, where they have one type of advantage and the SEC school has different advantages.

      Now Alabama does have more of a power type offense than most of the SEC.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        Well, in the game, it was the Husker secondary looking like crap. Russell Wilson can fling it, and Nick Toon is an NFL-level WR, but can the rest of the UW receiving corp shake free from the Tide secondary, or will Bucky have to grind for scores after each ‘Bama touchdown?

        Like

        Reply
    2. zeek

      Wisconsin’s offense looks vastly superior to either of Ohio State’s title losing teams. The question as you point out is whether Wisconsin’s defense would be able to match up…

      Like

      Reply
    3. duffman

      shroom,

      I can see Wisky but not sure I see Bama on the other side. As Alan is aware I have been on the side of the Tigers from the beginning. I can see your matchup, but would not eliminate LSU in the process. I might think of it as Wisky vs winner of BAMA vs LSU. I think Stanford could go undefeated but Wisky would get in before them. OU still has to play 4 undefeated teams in the B12, and I am betting one of them gets the win. The oSu game is @ Stillwater, so I am saying that is where OU stumbles.

      Win or lose, I think the Badgers hold up better against BAMA or LSU than some of the past B1G vs SEC games. If Wisconsin and Michigan meet undefeated in the CCG it might give enough a boost in EoY polls to put the Badgers #1 and BAMA/LSU winner #2. if such a situation plays out the bigger question would be where would the game rank in viewers in all BCS games? You want at least a 15 rating, and closer to 20 would benefit the B1G the most.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Peter

        I wouldn’t rule out that LSU slips up somewhere or the LSU/Alabama winner loses the CCG to an East team. Wisconsin has a more favorable schedule (benefiting hugely from the mess in Columbus) and stands a good chance of going undefeated. They destroyed this Michigan team last year @ Ann Arbor and destroyed Nebraska on Saturday, so would be a heavy favorite over either in their CCG.

        The SEC would have to fratricide massively to not have one side of the MNC game. Like LSU/Alabama both bring a loss into that game and then the winner somehow loses in the CCG. The SEC East is BAD this year and South Carolina losing was the last straw for any hopes there.

        I don’t think either Texas or Oklahoma State is MNC material but odds are one of them will beat Oklahoma. I think both will lose somewhere else.

        Stanford and Boise are both invisible and pretty much need to hope that they are the last undefeateds left standing. Boise due to being Boise and Stanford due to playing in what is really a quite bad & anonymous Pac-12 this year. Oregon losing to LSU while USC is on its semi-death-penalty tour was BAD.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bullet

          I thought noone would go undefeated, but the SEC and B1G are weaker in the middle than anticipated. Wisconsin and LSU/Alabama have a chance. Clemson has also faced their two biggest challenges but may have to face Georgia Tech twice, who hasn’t faced the meat of their schedule yet. The 5 Big 12 unbeatens have a lot of challenges ahead. MI, IL, UH will probably drop a game or games along the way. I don’t see Boise being high enough in the polls unless UGA goes 10-2. Stanford will stumble somewhere-there always seem to be some Pac upsets.

          Like

          Reply
          1. zeek

            I originally thought that there’d only be one undefeated this year; LSU or Alabama. Wisconsin has always historically dropped a game or two that they shouldn’t (even the Wisconsin Rose Bowl winners the past few decades are guilty of this; last year’s loss to Michigan State is the same).

            But this Wisconsin team looks different. They’re that much more talented than most in the past and that ’99 Wisconsin team got 2 losses in its first 4 games. This one has the momentum to just wreck everyone in the Big Ten, especially with the bad taste of last year’s Rose Bowl loss and with Russell Wilson looking determined to make the most of his 13-14 games there and with Ohio State having its worst year in over a decade.

            The Big 12 looks too deep for anyone to go undefeated. OU faces at least 3 teams that have a good shot of beating them even though they’re favored in every game.

            Stanford is a good team, but as you said there’s always upsets in the Pac-12. Hard to believe that they beat Oregon and everyone else left on the schedule. Pac-12 South winner if it’s ASU might get them as well if they fix their mistakes.

            You never know, but at this point it looks like we’re not going to have one of those crazy years like the 2-loss LSU year. The SEC East and Big Ten have too little depth for that to happen (SEC East is having another one of its worst years and Big Ten outside of Wisconsin is shaky).

            Like

        2. Richard

          Bucky still has to play Sparty @ MSU. Likely their biggest challenge of the year and a significantly bigger test than the Huskers @ Madison.

          Like

          Reply
    4. Richard

      Yeah, I’d definitely be concerned about Wiscy’s defense vs. Nick Saban with time to gameplan and his stable of athletes. Bucky will score, but can they score enough?

      Like

      Reply
  64. bullet

    Saw this article linked on hornfans from a Texan going to school at Alabama. Also explains some of the UT and state of Texas motivation for protecting Tech-a lot of Texans are going to SEC schools-LSU, Alabama and Georgia are on a lot of lists for kids in Texas. Aggies will also have to learn that SEC fans don’t consider Texas part of the south.

    http://cw.ua.edu/2011/10/03/sweet-home-ala-texas/

    Like

    Reply
  66. EZCUSE

    For all the talk of money, most of the conference switches lately have been about stability. So, regardless of whether Missouri thinks it makes more sense in the Big XII or suspects it to be slightly more stable than it was…. Missouri should move to the SEC.

    And that will be that. Only with the Big XII on firmer ground, it will not be leaving any school behind. Anyone jumping to the Big XII will be making a reasonable decision.

    Like

    Reply
  67. zeek

    RT @ClayTravisBGID SEC ADs meet Wednesday. RT @GabeDeArmond: Missouri has announced a Board of Curators meeting for Tuesday 2 hours ago

    I wouldn’t put quite as much stock into this though with respect to the SEC ADs. They’ve made it fairly clear in the past that the SEC is running this entirely through Slive and the Presidents. Other than some idle speculation from coaches and ADs, I don’t think a meeting of ADs means anything.

    The SEC has been extremely quiet about all of this; unless we see the SEC presidents converge on Birmingham or Atlanta, there’s nothing doing… (of course, we’ll find that out in hindsight).

    Like

    Reply
    1. bullet

      And everything indicates that nothing will happen on Tuesday or Wednesday on expansion. Missouri will either commit to the Big 12 and the 12-3 will have to get all their paperwork together before doing anything else, or Missouri will announce they are exploring their options. Then it will be a while until Missouri joins the SEC or re-commits to Big 12. And that would further delay Big 12 expansion. The Big East can’t really do anything until the candidates have some idea what they are joining.

      WVU fans seem to still be convinced an SEC invite is imminent, but I doubt that is true.

      Like

      Reply
      1. zeek

        Right now, I’m more convinced than anything that the SEC will just play with 13 next year (and figure out what to do for 2013 in the offseason).

        Like

        Reply
  68. Mike

    Opinion: Oklahoma and the SEC

    http://blog.newsok.com/ou/2011/10/03/ou-and-sec-why-not-again/


    I never heard anyone openly campaign for the Pac-12. I’ve heard very few happy with the current Big 12 (9) structure. Some like the Big Ten, but that doesn’t seem even remotely reasonable. Neither party has discussed that, to my knowledge.

    David Boren has said repeatedly the SEC invited OU last summer, during the first shifting of conference tectonic plates. And I still do not really understand why that invite wasn’t accepted. Yeah, yeah … I know … lower academics and higher competition were frowned upon. We’ll get to that soon enough.

    If Boren had it over again, would he take it? I guess not, considering he probably could have had it in the past couple of weeks, as well.

    What I’m saying is, pretty much everyone I know or have heard from here – whether it be reporters or fans – is interested in OU in the SEC.

    [snip]

    It’s admirable that Boren wants to get OU in the Pac-12, to boost its academic reputation. But it’s also sort of like me presuming I could date and/or marry a Hollywood starlet like Minka Kelly. Those gals go for Derek Jeter or Ryan Gosling, not Travis Haney. You’ve got to punch your weight in life. Boren keeps trying to fight up a class or three. Keeps getting knocked on his tail, too.

    If Missouri goes to the SEC – and that’s seriously 50-50 right now from those I’ve spoken with – that would give the SEC three AAU schools (MU, Florida, Vandy). If OU (and Oklahoma State) went, it would be about seventh or eighth in the 16-team league in terms of academics. Middle of the road. That’s what OU is, academically. Nothing wrong with it. Very good school. Just not great. That’s the story, generally, for a lot of the others in the SEC. OU is no different than Arkansas or Auburn or South Carolina or Tennessee, in my mind. And there is nothing wrong with that.

    [snip]

    We heard from enough sources through the Pac-12 flirtation this fall to know the league wasn’t exactly going out of its way to welcome OU, academically. That’s because it isn’t as good of a fit as, say, the SEC would be. It’s a good fit both ways, whether Boren would choose to admit that or not. The SEC is already better academically than the remaining nine Big 12 schools – and it’s not close. Adding Louisville or West Virginia is going to help that? Please.

    I guess I’m still waiting for the first compelling reason why OU’s fans won’t get what they want, by going to the SEC. I haven’t heard it yet, and I’m not holding my breath. Boren doesn’t seem like the kind of guy to change his platform midstream. It’s Pac-12 or bust, and OU is currently lingering in bust territory. His failure to seriously consider the SEC will probably cost OU money (the new TV deal would result in a loss, something he calls a “donation for stability”) and the school will find itself in a weaker Big 12, both athletically and academically.

    Why, is my question, when there’s a better option available?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Richard

      I’m pretty certain that the SEC wouldn’t want OK State tagging along with OU, and OU likely would be under tremendous pressure to not sell out their little brother so long as both could reside in a BCS conference, and the B12 will remain a BCS conference so long as OU and Texas (or just OU, IMHO) remain. So, in short, it’s not completely OU’s decision.

      Like

      Reply
  70. PSUGuy

    I’m sorry, but no mater how many AAU schools the SEC gets it simply will never be considered an “academic” conference.

    Much has been made about stability in the conference realignment discussions (and be honest, stability is really what drove PSU to the B1G, Miami and FSU to the ACC, and the Big8/SWC to merge in the first place) and part of stability is “institutional fit”. Schools that think alike and act accordingly being in the same conference builds and maintains stability.

    The SEC is, and has always been, an athletics conference where off the field association is largely irrelevant. It gets together to play the same schools, make some money for its athletic departments then goes back to (for the most part) being middling universities (which still puts them decently ranked in the grand scheme of things) once the games are over.

    Oklahoma, right or wrong, does not see itself as that and obviously wants to associate itself with a conference that see’s iteself as more than an athletic conference…and I think Oklahoma’s continued interest in the Pac, and barring that a Big12 with changed rules, shows that more than not.

    Like

    Reply
  72. GreatLakeState

    I’m really pessimistic (and growing increasingly apathetic) about ND joining the B1G, which makes not grabbing OU insane. Yes, I know, they won’t go anywhere without OSU. I just don’t buy it.
    If it came down to going to the SEC with State or the B1G without them, I believe they would choose the B1G. Even if OU doesn’t deliver TX, it would give the B1G one last football powerhouse the school needs to compete with the SEC. OU/Missouri or OU/Maryland.
    Leaving two spots open until ND and TX choose. If neither comes, throw the AAU groupies a bone with Rutgers.

    Like

    Reply
    1. zeek

      The problem is that Oklahoma isn’t like Nebraska. They’re built entirely on their connection to Texas through UT (tradition, recruiting, etc.). They probably want to be in the same conference as Texas or Oklahoma State so as not to have to schedule both in the non-conference annually. And the little brother thing is probably real for them. I don’t think they want to leave OSU in a bad spot if something goes wrong…

      Like

      Reply
    2. Richard

      I’m pretty certain the SEC doesn’t want OK State either. OU’s choice is the B12 with OkSt (& Texas) or going to either the B10 or SEC by themselves. It seems likely that the first option is their preferred choice.

      Like

      Reply
      1. allthatyoucantleavebehind

        If the SEC adds 4 old “Big 12” teams, then they simply move Alabama and Auburn to the eastern division and call it a day. I’m not sure they wouldn’t take OU and OkSt if you put a gun to their head.

        That’s the thing though. No one is putting a gun to anybody’s head. The “move to 16-team super conferences” is optional.

        Like

        Reply
    3. mushroomgod

      I just don’t see football as the be all and end all for the BIG. I think the presidents think the same way.

      The BIG already has 4 of the top 10 football schools…..the problem with the BIG is not that there aren’t enough tier 1 schools—the problem is that IU, Purdue, and Minnehaha suck so bad…that there’s not enough middle of the road schools and too many dead weights…and that’s coming from an IU fan.

      MO is a better fit and better addition than OK, even setting aside the OSU issue. Bigger and better school, gepgraphically better, more instant rivalries, better culturally. And the BIG preisidents won’t take BOTH OK and MO, because of academic dilution. Heck, they won’t even take MO because of academic dilution (although that’s pure stupidity on their part).

      Add MO and Rutgers, two middle of the road football schools. Add ND for everything but football. It’s a no-brainer………..

      Like

      Reply
      1. Michael in Raleigh

        Gonna have to disagree with your notion about the Big Ten being really top heavy and really bottom heavy. This year? Yes, that’s the case. It’s a pretty down year. Most years, though, it has a solid middle class.

        Pick a year, any year, over the past 10-15. It is very common to see Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Northwestern in the Top 25. Even Illinois and Purdue have won the conference in the past decade, and the Illini have a fair chance of doing it again this year.

        The real problem is that the SEC’s unprecedented run of championships makes every other league look much worse than they really are. We hear all the time that the Big East stinks for many reasons, the most significant yet most understated reason (by the media, at least) being that it lacks any true national powers. We hear exaggerations about horrible the ACC is because of its BCS bowl record and lack of national title contenders. We hear how bad the Big Ten is based largely on its bowl record vs. the SEC (whom the Big Ten plays more than any other league). We hear how much the Pac-12 stinks because USC is down, because one of its best teams (Oregon) loses to SEC opponents, and because tradition over the past 40 years says Stanford is supposed to play more like Duke & therefore the whole league must not be very good. We hear how much the Big 12 stinks because the only teams who are supposed to play well are Texas and Oklahoma, and when other B12 teams beat SEC teams, it’s because those SEC teams are “down.”

        Like

        Reply
        1. greg

          @Michael

          I think the B12 is the only conference that I haven’t heard as “down” this year. Everyone just likes to talk negatively. College football performance gets better every year, which seems to be why so few teams now stand out. I think the real reason is that lower tier FBS and the top FCS teams continue to creep closer to the AQ leagues.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Michael in Raleigh

            @Greg,

            I agree that the lower tier FBS and top FCS teams have been creeping closer to the AQ leagues over the past several years, but the AQ leagues’ acquisition of Utah and TCU, combined with what I’ll call, for lack of a better term, the “semi-AQ” status of BYU, have allowed the AQ leagues to reassert some considerable distance. Boise State will soon be the only program outside the AQ leagues that routinely makes appearances in the Top 25. For programs like Houston, SMU, UCF, ECU, Hawaii, Fresno, Nevada, and Navy, it is still an enormous cause for celebration if they get into the Top 25. Contrast that with any AQ school other besides traditional cupcakes (like Duke, Indiana, Vandy), and it’s easy to see how much distance there is between the AQ’s and non-AQ’s both on the field and financially.

            For further illustration, take a look at this week’s standings for each non-AQ conference. After five weeks of football, most teams’ wins have required defeats over other leagues’ teams, meaning that non-AQ teams haven’t yet been able to turn a 1-3 record into an 8-4 season by beating up weak conference opponents.

            The Mountain West is pulling its own weight. Out of 8 teams, 6 have a record of 3-2 or better. One (TCU) will leave next year, but 5 of 7 with winning records is still pretty good. No one is .500. Granted, New Mexico has last 85 of its past 10 games, but they’re an anomaly.

            The MAC is doing all right. 6 of 13 teams have winning records. 7 have losing records, including one winless team. None are .500.

            Then there’s a major dropoff. The Sun Belt has 3 teams out of 10 with a winning record, one at .500, and not just 1, but 2 teams who are winless.

            C-USA has 3 teams out of 12 with a winning record and only one at .500. One team is 0-for-4.

            And then there’s the WAC. Everyone has won a game, but Hawaii’s the only team which has won more than it’s lost so far, and even they are just 3-2. The MWC’s other new 2012 members, Fresno and Nevada, are a combined 3-6.
            ———————————————————–
            I agree with your other points. Everyone likes to talk negatively, which is just sad. Just look at Paul Finebaum’s unsolicited bashing of the Big Ten in si.com. College football performance overall is much better than it used to be, but closer results and upsets make it easy for people to conclude that it’s worse.

            I haven’t heard anyone say the Big 12 is weak this particular year, but it’s still regarded as a weak league. Most people presume K-State, Iowa State, and Baylor won’t be able to be a consistent winner and that they’ll eventually become cellar dwellars just like Kansas. It’s as though their success will prove to be a short-lived fluke in the long run.

            It all goes back to the overhype of the SEC. Announcers say things like, “Alabama is basically an NFL team,” and viewers believe it. The mantra from ESPN and CBS has gotten old, so old in fact that I find myself rooting for the SEC to lose every non-conference matchup just because I want the announcers and the “we’re-God’s-gift-to-college-football” SEC fans to shut the blank up.

            Like

  73. Richard

    There are now 7 B10 schools in the top 25 of women’s volleyball (compared to 6 Pac12 schools).

    PSU and Nebraska have always been volleyball powers, but how much is the elevation of programs like Illinois (currently #1 in the country and undefeated) and Purdue (the only other undefeated team before they were beaten by the Illini this weekend) due to the BTN?

    From 2004-2007 (2004 being the first year I can get poll data), the Illini never finished in the top 25 at season’s end.

    Like

    Reply
    1. zeek

      I would say a part of it though is just due to the overall push by schools to emphasize success in athletics. i.e. Director’s Cup competitiveness.

      I mean, it’s somewhat like Northwestern Women’s Lacrosse. Could anyone have predicted that becoming one of the two greatest programs in a sport dominated by East Coast powers in just a decade?

      Other schools are following suit like Florida and Michigan but coaching is always going to play a big part in that.

      I just think that schools realize more now than ever how important overall athletics success is for revenue and non-revenue sports and for the brands of the schools themselves. Not that they didn’t realize that before, but schools are always looking to build their brand and now trying to craft national powers out of nothing in sports other than football/basketball.

      The Pac-10/12 was always out in front of this and the Director’s Cup top 10s from the 90s would typically feature at least a half of the Pac-10 at the time.

      Now, everyone’s chasing it. Alumni like when their schools win NCs, regardless of the sport (of course football NCs are always way bigger than anything else but still), so all schools are trying to actually compete in a lot of sports that they weren’t trying anywhere near as hard in just a decade or so ago…

      Like

      Reply

    2. @Richard – I definitely think we’re starting to see the positive recruiting effects of the BTN for Olympic sports. Last year, I saw a number of quotes from Pac-12 coaches bemoaning how much Big Ten schools were getting recruiting traction on the West Coast because of the TV coverage on the BTN. I just hope it eventually carries over to improving Big Ten baseball over the coming years.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        Much tougher, most likely. The PTN starting doesn’t help (and would hurt in West-Coast-dominated Olympic sports as well . . .like volleyball).

        The biggest thing, though, is that baseball players can realistically dream of making a career out playing baseball, so I expect the schools where that is more conductive (which would still be warm weather schools) to keep their edge (so Coastal Carolina likely would still do better than any B10 school even though no one sees them play in the regular season). In the Olympic sports, almost all student-athletes will be doing something else after graduation, so a stage with more exposure is more enticing.

        Like

        Reply
      2. Mike

        If the Big Ten gets their baseball rules aligned with the rest of DI baseball then I think we’ll see an improvement. Schools like Costal Carolina may have the weather, but I have to imagine that the strength training, nutrition, and overall facilities advantage of the Big Ten could win out given the proper commitment.

        Like

        Reply
      3. mushroomgod

        The BIG is just at such a huge disadvantage when it comes to the warm weather sports like baseball, softball, track, soccer et al…..The emphasis is going to the “gym sports” that the BIG can dominate such as wrestling, volleyball. swimming. The BIG ought to dominate in bball but there are other factors involved there…..

        Like

        Reply
          1. Richard

            . . . and yes, IU is a traditional soccer power, while currently, UConn is the only undefeated, untied team in the country (and also #1) and Akron (located in balmy NE Ohio) had only 2 losses all of last season on their way to winning the NCAA title (not an abberation either; in 2009, the Zips were undefeated the whole year but lost in the national title game on penalty kicks).

            Of the current top 25 soccer teams, 9 schools are above the Mason-Dixon line & Ohio river, 6 are in MD-DC-VA-NC, and 2 of them are in SEC territory (and one of the 2 is Louisville).

            Like

          2. Scarlet_Lutefisk

            To add to Richard’s comments…the other soccer power house (besides Indiana) is the warm weather bastion of…Saint Louis.

            Like

        2. Richard

          Soccer is as much a warm-weather sport as football. Just ask the Europeans. At least the Germans take a long winter break; the Brits keep playing through snow and sleet with no winter break.

          Like

          Reply
  74. XOVERX

    The key to realignment continues to be Missouri.

    If Missouri leaves the B12, will Texas and OU simply add BYU and (eventually) 3 other mid-majors, and act like nothing really happened at all?

    Or will Texas exit the B12, with or without OU (which seems to be glued to OSU)?

    If Texas exits it would likely be to the B1G or, a distant second, the SEC.

    I think the PAC move is dead, due to the B1G apparently being the most flexible regarding the LHN, but who knows?

    Like

    Reply

  77. More on the Big East from the Boston Globe: SMU, UCF, Navy and Temple are primary targets, with Air Force still being discussed but looking less likely:

    http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/extras/colleges_blog/2011/10/_a_day_after_ho.html

    My semi-educated opinion: Air Force is the Big 12’s #2 target after BYU.

    It’s also interesting to see two separate reports referring to SMU but nothing about the BE being interested in Houston at all.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bullet

      Air Force is valuable, has good fan support and is elite academically, but is it a BCS caliber football program (at least if the BCS conference is something other than a stripped down Big East)? And would that be good for Air Force? As bad as CSU has been in football lately, I would go for them over Air Force if I HAD to have a Colorado school for the Big 12. CSU would get better in a BCS conference. Air Force recruits are not determined by their conference affiliation.

      You hear enough now how “weak” the Big 12 is when it isn’t based on fact (not so much on this board as you have a lot of informed people). Can you imagine if the Big 12 invited service academies?

      SMU is interesting. Private basketball schools picking other privates? Simply wanting minimal travel for minor sports? Thinking you can add the 5th and 6th schools in a market and get a critical mass? TCU still mad about UH ignoring the other 3 and going off to CUSA? Its odd.

      Like

      Reply

      1. @bullet – The two things that I see with SMU are that it’s highly rated academically (consistently in the top 60 or so in the US News rankings) and the BE might be better off doubling up on the DFW area than having more dispersed interest in separate markets. I’m not saying that’s wise (as I see Houston as pretty similar to Louisville and Cincinnati from an institutional standpoint), but that could be what the BE is thinking.

        Like

        Reply
        1. zeek

          Wouldn’t you take ECU and UCF before SMU?

          I mean, you’d get more traction from USF-UCF in central Florida (Tampa v. Orlando) with their huge class sizes eventually becoming sizeable alumni bases going forward and pretty good attendance numbers as well that should help.

          As for ECU, I think the upside to having a football-crazy program in a basketball state as important as NC is interesting. ECU seems like it could become a decently big time program if it was in the BIg East. Maybe like a Virginia Tech someday; you might scoff at that, but I think the potential is really there.

          Like

          Reply
  78. Penn State Danny

    I am trying to follow Frank’s maxim about thinking like a conference commisioner and/or a university president.

    If the Big 12 has indeed locked in the tier 1/tier 2 TV deals and upped the exit fees, then Missouri has to stay.

    If Missouri stays, the SEC has to ask WVU to join. Maybe “has to” is too strong of a phrase but the SEC isn’t going to stay at 13 and if the exit fees of the ACC and Big 12 are too high for teams to leave, WVU is the only choice left.

    If this happens, then the BE is basically dead. Louisville and Cincy (and TCU) can wait for the Big 12 and Rutgers and UConn can wait for the ACC but those conferences have the “pull” in this situation.

    All the speculation about who the BE will add is fun but ultimately irrelevant: it just doesn’t matter. The conference will continue to be 6 out of 6 and still keep it’s BCS bid because a) no one wants to give it to the MWC and b) no one wants the SEC to get 3 bids on an annual basis

    Like

    Reply
    1. duffman

      PSD,

      ACC only has a 20 million exit fee. which is only 4 million more than it is now. 3 schools kept this low including Maryland, Florida State, and and “school not named”. Just as the B1G would not take MU or wVU, I have a feeling the SEC will not as well. I still feel the adds in SU and Pitt were just to replace a team or 2 the ACC feels it will lose. The B1G, PAC, and SEC all have full fledged brands, and the ACC does not. At best FSU / VT / Clemson may stay in a position of power long enough to wind up with firm football roots, but it is hard to assure now.

      Franks maxim or not, I still say if you want something, chances are an evenly matched opponent will want the same thing. If the B1G wants ND, then the SEC will not want WVU, even if the fans of the B1G wish it so. I said on here early on the SEC would go for a serious academic add, and they got it in TAMU. Why would Slive land an academic gem to turn around and accept one who is not. This seems counter intuitive, and not in the long term best interest of the SEC. If the B1G stayed at 11 for as long as it did, why would we assume the SEC could not do the very same?

      Like

      Reply
    2. cutter

      PSD:

      There’s already discussion taking place about adding another BCS bowl (Cotton) and allowing conferences to have three BCS bowl participants instead of the maiximum of two that are now allowed. While the SEC and Big Ten might be the biggest beneficiaries of that deal, I could also see the Big XII benefitting from such a change as well.

      When you look at major conference realighment over the last two decades, you see anywhere from one to four teams moving from one location to another. The biggest movers have been the ACC (from 9 to 12 in 2003 and from 12 to 14 this year) and the Big XII when it incorporated four teams to go from 8 to 12 conference members in 1996. The Big East had to restock in 2003 and could well be facing te same situation this year.

      On the other end of the spectrum, the Big Ten has added one team each of the two occasions it’s expanded. Until the addition of Texas A&M, the SEC has had only one expansion in the last 20 years when it added South Carolina and Arkansas to become the first 12-team conference.

      What will be interesting to see is once Missouri does make a decision (and they appear to be the current lynchpin regarding this issue) is what the Big XII does afterward. The conference will have either eight or nine members, so the minimum move would be either one or two additional members to get to ten. If their conference expansion committee thinks its opportune to go to 12 or even 16 members, we’ll go from a minor conference change to one of the major ones spanning 3 to even 8 additional teams. To be frank, I don’t think the latter course is very likely. In the end, and depending on what Mizzou plans on doing, the Big XII will probably be adding 1 to 4 teams.

      If it’s the latter case and 3 or 4 teams are added, the decision has to be made not only which teams but where they come from. Brigham Young seems an obvious choice at this point, but would the Big XII then look at the state of Texas (TCU, SMU, Houston) or the Mountain West (AFA, Boise State) or the Big East? Recent history has shown that the MWC, C-USA, the Big East and the Big XII have been “feeder” conferences for the others.

      The SEC will have an interesting situation on their hands if Missouri opts to stay in the Big XII. The ACC hasn’t played the role of “feeder” conference over the last 20 years, although it seems fairly clear that the additions of Pittsburgh and Syracuse were preemptive actions on their part in case the SEC came sniffing around their neighborhood. As you point out, West Virginia would be a possible choice for #14, but for all the reasons that have been mentioned before (small population, etc.), I don’t know if WVU would be ideal (or even as good as Missouri).

      The SEC could stay at 13 for awhile, but with the two division setup, I have to imagine the scheduling would be difficult (unlike the Big Ten when it had eleven teams and no divisions prior to the addition of Nebraska). I have to imagined they’d need to make a move to 14 teams.

      We’ll see. Twenty years ago before the Big East got into football and not counting the Southwest Conference, the major college football conferences had 47 teams in them (ACC with 9, Big 8, Big Ten, SEC with 10, Pac 10). With the dissolution of the SWC and with the BE bcoming the sixth major/BCS conference, there are now around 67 teams in those six conference with perhaps upwards to 72 in them when the latest round of realigment is completed.

      ACC: 14
      Big Ten: 12
      Pac 12: 12
      SEC: 13 (Likely to become 14)
      Big XII: 9 (Likely to become at least 10)
      Big East: 7 (Likely to become at least 10)

      Total: 67 (Likely to become at least 72)

      That’s quite a change in two decades. It also makes me wonder why people get into such an uproar regarding conference expansion. A number of programs that were on no one’s radar as football teams (such as Utah, Texas Christian, Louisville, USF, Cincinnati, Baylor, Texas Tech) have been “moved up” over the last twenty years into stronger conferenes (although one can make an argument about the relative strength of the Big East). Even the move of Boise State from the WAC to the Mountain West could be seen as a move up. By and large, I’d say conference expansion along with the growth of the sport on television has benefitted a lot more teams than not.

      Like

      Reply
      1. joe4psu

        I keep wondering when the brilliant minds in the press will pick up on this. Instead they report, over and over, that the world is coming to an end with 4 conferences made up of 64 schools. Facts be danged. Add to this the fact that much of the leading edge realignment news has come from blogs or Scout and Rivals type websites and I have come to the conclusion that reporters want to cover games and nothing else. Anything that requires more effort than watching games is too much trouble.

        Expansion? They don’t seem to see it as important until some major news broken elsewhere forces them to write something. Oversigning? They seem happy to let someone else do the investigative work while they watch the games. NCAA infractions? Outside of Yahoo!, and I don’t consider them the traditional press, who has been breaking stories?

        I started to notice the lack of effort shortly after the whole expansion topic blew up last year and when I broke down and started following some twitter accounts I was shocked. The sports writers from major outlets seem very shallow, self congratulatory and way too much like sheep to me. I have whittled together a short list of accounts to try and catch any actual news that comes out but it is painful to wallow through. I guess I should just wait for the stories to come out, regardless of who publishes them.

        Rant over. Just wanted to say I agree with cutter. (sheepishly looks at screen and debates clicking “Post Comment”. What the heck. I’m as self-absorbed and arrogant as any sportswriter.)

        Like

        Reply

        1. I fully agree with your comments. As someone who used to be a sportswriter (but am now on the news/copy desk side of the business), it amazes me how shallow and ignorant so many of my one-time cohorts are, mistakenly believing the many facets that go into conference membership and now differently each conference perceives itself.

          Like

          Reply
    3. Jefferson

      If Mizzou doesn’t leave for the SEC, I agree with you that WVU is left as the most probable choice. This leaves the Big East dead. This most likely causes Notre Dame to look elsewhere, and there are two choices, ACC and B1G. I see ND to the B1G, but this creates a large incentive for Texas to join the B1G as well. Hence, the breakup of the Big XII.

      Ergo, Mizzou should join the SEC if invited.

      Like

      Reply
  79. Mike

    On Mizzou

    http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/03/3185178/whether-to-trust-big-12-is-at.html

    John Kadlec has spent most of the past 64 years earning his nickname of Mr. Mizzou.

    You will not find a man more steeped in the school’s athletic history, and his love of it, nor one more appreciative of the people he has met along a path traced from the Big Six to the Big Seven to the Big Eight, and finally, the Big 12 Conference.

    On Monday, Kadlec sat in an auditorium preparing to listen to Missouri football coach Gary Pinkel. But the ever-present smile fell from Kadlec’s face when he was asked if he trusted the people managing the future of the fractured Big 12, either in the league office or at the individual schools.

    “Not any more, not any more,” Kadlec said with a mournful shake of his head. “I don’t even trust us.”

    [snip]

    Missouri chancellor Brady Deaton, a member of the Big 12’s expansion committee as well as chairman of the conference’s Board of Directors, has walked a tightrope along a path defined by the uneven ground between what is good for the Big 12 and what is best for Mizzou.

    Neinas said Monday that Deaton recused himself, on the advice of a university attorney, from part of Sunday’s discussions. But when asked to identify what those discussions were, Neinas declined.

    There appear to be three possible decisions that could come out of the curators meeting:

    •Deaton and other MU officials become officially empowered to take part in negotiations with other conferences, which would seem to indicate Mizzou is serious about leaving the Big 12.

    •Withholding that power, which would seem to indicate the curators are serious about staying in the Big 12.

    •Or Missouri decides to fast-track the process with an announcement that it has received interest in joining another league — most likely the SEC — and decides to withdraw from the Big 12.

    The third option seems the most unlikely at this point.

    Like

    Reply
    1. footballnut

      Deaton recused himself from certain portions of the meeting last Sunday that covered certain TV revenue sharing decisions, according to Columbia Tribune sources. As for the meeting today, 5 curators were apointed by the govenor, who is proc SEC move. BUT, the chairman of the board is from KC, and he has concerns about KC losing the Big 12 basketball tourney and other MU/KU games. Most give the move a 50-50 chance. Football coack Pinkle and AD Mike Alden want to move. MU president Deaton? Hard to read, but a good, fair man, and a well respected academic in Missouri, in the Big 12, and in the AAU. I give it 50-50 chance also. What’s the tipping point? Money is my guess. Can they afford the move, and will it be truley advantagoeus in the long run? Run the numbers and vote… news @ 6!

      Like

      Reply
  80. Mike

    Mr SEC: Missouri or WVU

    http://www.mrsec.com/2011/10/mizzouri-meets-rumors-swirl-about-wvu/


    Speaking to a well-positioned source inside an SEC institution today, we have been told — again — that the SEC did not deny WVU’s entry into the league when the school reached out to conference brass last month. But they weren’t bearhugged as Texas A&M was, either.

    WVU remains a fallback choice due to the small population and small number of cable households inside its state borders. Academics are also an issue with some presidents in the league.

    However, if Missouri stays in the Big 12, the rest of the landscape stabilizes, and the SEC faces multiple years as a 13-school league… then WVU might become a lot more attractive.

    If that occurs, expect the SEC to tout WVU’s fan passion, similar culture, and its close proximity to Pittsburgh and other major metro areas as part of its spin.

    For now — from what we’re hearing — it’s Missouri or bust. And the SEC isn’t sweating Mizzou’s decision. West Virginia remains a deep fallback option. The only other school that our sources continue to mention as a possibility is Florida State.

    Like

    Reply
    1. zeek

      My question would be, what happens if Missouri stays in the Big 12 and the Big 12 goes after WVU?

      Would the SEC be forced to move then? I mean, yes they could go 6+ years at 13 members, but if both Missouri and WVU are locked into the Big 12 with the rights agreement and FSU isn’t budging that’ll be an uncomfortable scenario for them…

      Like

      Reply
  81. Penn State Danny

    I agree with Mike. I don’t see any way that Missouri and WVU both end up in the same conference.

    From Mr. SEC regarding WVU:

    If that occurs, expect the SEC to tout WVU’s fan passion, similar culture, and its close proximity to Pittsburgh and other major metro areas as part of its spin.

    This spin has the added benefit of being true. I still think WVU is a good fit for the SEC and I didn’t believe the rumors of outright rejection that occurred last month.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Eric

      Only way I could see it is if the SEC makes a serious play for Florida State, which I agree is unlikely, but not impossible.

      The Big 12 schools are going to sign away their rights if Missouri stays and West Virginia isn’t going to turn down a Big 12 invite if the SEC hasn’t invited them and I don’t see the Big 12 ignoring West Virginia if they are open. That means if the SEC were actually going for Florida State, it would have to do it soon to be sure Missouri or West Virginia was still open later.

      Like

      Reply
  82. Hank

    http://www.wsbt.com/sports/wsbt-notre-dame-hockey-irish-appear-headed-to-hockey-east-20111002,0,556063.story

    Notre Dame hockey: Irish appear headed to Hockey East

    SOUTH BEND – Expect a formal announcement of Notre Dame’s hockey affiliation this Wednesday.

    Irish coach Jeff Jackson said on Media Day last week that Notre Dame was essentially down to two choices — Hockey East or the National Collegiate Hockey Conference – and it appears the Irish are headed to Hockey East.

    Topics
    Notre Dame Fighting Irish
    The options shrunk after the National Collegiate Hockey Conference announced Sunday that it will launch its inaugural season in 2013-14 as an eight-team conference.

    Currently in Hockey East are Boston College, Boston University, Providence, University of Massachusetts, U-Mass-Lowell, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Northeastern and Merrimack.

    The eight institutions in the new Division I men’s National Collegiate Hockey Conference are Colorado College, University of Denver, Miami University, University of Minnesota Duluth, University of Nebraska Omaha, University of North Dakota, St. Cloud State University and Western Michigan University. St. Cloud State and Western Michigan accepted invitations to join the Conference on Sept. 22 with the others joining last summer.

    Tom Nevala, Notre Dame’s senior associate athletic director in charge of hockey, said Notre Dame would likely have an announcement Wednesday considering its future conference affiliation.

    “At this point we have finished our investigation as to what our future affiliation is going to be,” Nevala said prior to Notre Dame’s exhibition game Sunday evening at the Joyce Center. “I think it’s prudent at this point to wait until we have all the parties involved together, all the formalities out of the way and then the appropriate announcement will be made. I look for that probably Wednesday of this week.”

    Last week, Jackson said the Irish could not go wrong with either conference and that television would be a key factor.

    Like

    Reply
    1. FLP_NDRox

      ND has a press conference scheduled this afternoon where it is expected to announce it is joining Hockey East. Bowling Green has accepted their WCHA invite per http://www.bgsufalcons.com/news/2011/10/4/HOCKEY_1004112909.aspx

      Hockey East is expected to be in the market for team #12. This should bring the western shake-up to a full-blown conference Armageddon when Hockey East will raid either the AHA (for UConn) or more likely the ECHA (for RPI). It still seems unlikely that UAH will find a home in all this, but I am always hopeful.

      Like

      Reply
  83. Mike

    The start? via Clay Travis @claytravisbgid

    PowerMizzou’s @GabeDeArmond tells @3hl1045 he expects Missouri board to give authority to Pres. to explore conference affiliation today.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Eric

      Unlike most, I don’t think it would be a bad move to stay in the Big 12 at all. I don’t see dying and if it does, doubt Missouri would be left out of all alternatives. That said, things have come too far and if an offer is made and the president has the authority, Missouri will move as the fans would revolt like A&M fans did when they didn’t get into the SEC last year.

      Like

      Reply

    1. I always viewed SMU as a Big East Metroplex replacement policy if TCU headed to the Big 12 (I didn’t say it was a good idea, just stating that thought). Don’t see them in a conference together.

      Like

      Reply
  90. bobo the feted

    Can’t blame Mizzou, the Big12 stuff was becoming rediculous. So far UT has given up only one concession – the axing of Dan Beebe, and has basically give up nothing. The tier1 and tier2 equal sharing was already agreed upon before this summer. Everything else is still there – UT will still enjoy inordinate influence and exposure. Now the Big12 (8) conference schedule will look like this TX/TTU/OU/oSu/KU/KSt/ISU/Baylor. No matter how you slice it that sucks aside from the Red River Rivalry. If I was the Big East I would take the time Mizzou is spending on “exploring their conference affiliation” to lock down their schools and to take as many legitimate C-USA teams as possible, hell I would agree to BYU and Boise State as football only at this point. It’s now an official death match between the Big East and the Big12.

    Like

    Reply

    1. The Big 12 still has one clear advantage — no Providence or Seton Hall to get in the way of sane decision-making. It still makes more sense, economically and competitively, for West Virginia, Louisville, et al to go to the Big 12 than for Iowa State and Kansas to go to the Big East.

      Like

      Reply
      1. joe4psu

        I agree, the Big 12 still has the advantage over BE. Any BE school, or any non-AQ school, offered a Big 12 invite would be hard pressed to pass it up.

        Like

        Reply
    2. Eric

      Tier 1 and 2 was going to be shared more equally, but not completely equally. Texas has also gotten ESPN to lay off airing high school games (not highlights, but the games themselves). The only things they haven’t given in on are a) 3rd tier rights (something SEC teams hold onto anyway) and b) the one conference game. B is a bit of an issue, but the school it’s against has to sign off on it (getting extra money) and the rest of the Big 12 isn’t losing out money because of it (since ESPN is buying games Fox already purchased).

      I’m not saying they necessarily shouldn’t go to the SEC, but that’s because the SEC is desirable, not because of anything Texas has or hasn’t done.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        Also, his fans don’t want to play academic peers or a top brand like tOSU (even if it is away)? They’d rather play MTSU? Huh? I just can’t imagine an NU fan wanting to try to get out of a game @ the Swamp vs. Florida or not excited about playing Stanford (or even BC) and wanting to play NIU instead.

        Like

        Reply
  92. bobo the feted

    @eric it was my understanding that the University Presidents had voted and agreed on 75% equal/ 25% appearance based split, but in the last meeting before the realignment polooza the AD’s had agreed on 100% equal tier 1 and tier 2 rights, however that motion was never voted on by the Presidents.

    I’m a UT alum so I’m glad they’re getting LHN, but you have to admit that LHN powered by ESPN and potentially nationally aired as a Tier 3 agreement is very different from the SEC – where the Tier 3 rights (while substantial and are in the 5-7 million range) are all produced by regional sports networks and are meant to target specific fanbases. Also I have a strong feeling that after going to 14 the SEC will likely pool all tier 3 rights and use extra TV inventory and start their own real SEC Network.

    The wave of the future in CFB is clearly larger super conferences with 14 or more schools, equal distribution of tier1,2,3 and a conference network. Don’t know what Deloss is thinking, I’m pretty sure a PAC-16 Texas network will eventually make more money and have easier carriage than the LHN will.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Eric

      You are probably right. I knew about the 75%/25%, but never heard of the 100% until it recently passed.

      I actually don’t really think the LHN is that different than the SEC regional deals. If Texas was in the SEC, it would have been created and no one would have complained. It only became a big issue in my opinion because it arrived at the same time schools were looking to leave the Big 12. A&M fans wanted to leave last year and that wouldn’t have changed if the LHN hadn’t existed. Missouri is leaving for stability more than anything. The LHN is a convenient excuse, but I think it’s more of a red hearing than anything that is actually causing instability.

      For the future, we’ll see. The present trend is toward conference networks for sure.

      Like

      Reply
      1. ccrider55

        If the LHN was actually tier 3 with a single nonconference FB game and a few MBB there would not be a problem with it within the Big 12. As bobo said I really don’t see a long term upside to it (other than the claim to have their own network). It will be as big an impediment to joining the B1G as it was for the Pac. Meanwhile it is helping turn the Big 12 into the Big WAC.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Eric

          I agree it’s coverage is limited, but that’s also why I think it’s more of a red hearing than an actual cause of teams moving. Maybe the presidents care more about it than I suspect though.

          Like

          Reply
      1. Richard

        Texas isn’t the only state in the Sun Belt.

        It also didn’t set its economy on a Ponzi housing economic model. Don’t worry, though. Energy is a notorious boom-bust industry.

        Like

        Reply

      3. The addition of four members of Congress was based on Census 2010 population counts, so I don’t know why you’d think that the current slowing of migration to the South would affect this.

        Like

        Reply
  94. Eric

    So lets say Missouri leaves for the SEC. That leaves 8 in the Big 12. Where does it go? 8? 9? 10? 12? West Virginia is now definitely open and they are probably the best open team besides maybe BYU, but they are also pretty far east of the rest. I think West Virginia might be taken with Louisville as 9 and 10 or as part of a 12 team conference, but it’s hard to picture them by themselves without anyone else from the east.

    Like

    Reply
    1. zeek

      Definitely back up to 10; probably less likely to go to 12 since it’d mean adding 4 instead of 3 (if Mizzou stayed).

      They’ll probably target BYU and Louisville. If BYU says no, probably Louisville and WVU.

      Like

      Reply
  95. Mike

    Gabe DeArmond: Mizzou not long for the Big 12.

    http://missouri.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1274465

    That’s a long-winded way of saying that Missouri doesn’t get this far down this road without knowing there is a place to land. Some will insist that place is a last-minute back-door deal with the Big Ten. I don’t buy that. I believe Missouri has had for some time in its hip pocket a handshake deal that if they chose to leave the Big 12, they would be welcomed with open arms in the SEC. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice and I’d better start looking for employment.

    Like

    Reply
  96. duffman

    Poll for Frank the Tank readers, should Missouri?

    a) Stay in the B12
    b) Move to the B1G
    c) Move to the SEC
    d) Move to the PAC
    e) Who cares, just not the B1G

    Like

    Reply
    1. zeek

      Go to the SEC. Both sides should want it.

      Big Ten wants to wait at 12 for ND.

      SEC needs a #14 and there’s no indication that FSU or Va Tech is or wants to be available. Missouri is the best school on the block; gets them good sized markets and presence in the Midwest. Better than being 3rd in Pittsburgh with WVU, and better academics with Mizzou.

      Pac makes no sense for either side. Only a Pac-16 with Texas + 3 is going to happen if it ever does.

      Like

      Reply
      1. zeek

        One other thing, this is Missouri’s best chance right now to get a spot at the one of the 3 most stable conferences.

        If they don’t take this, and the SEC goes to WVU. Then there’s no guarantee that they ever get a spot in the Big Ten or SEC later down the road. Big Ten could wait decades on ND. SEC might not go to 16 if it wants to keep 2 divisions and can’t get an ACC school. Pac-16 might happen with OU/OSU/Texas/Tech.

        If you’re Missouri, you’re making a 100 year decision to make sure you don’t get left behind later on…

        Like

        Reply
        1. zeek

          Just recall that over the past 2 years, all the talk has been about Missouri getting stuck in the Big East or Big 12 remnants or MWC or whatever.

          If they look at this as a 100 year decision, it’s obvious that the only choice is the SEC.

          Like

          Reply
    2. ccrider55

      B1G shows little interest.
      Unknown Pac interest, little MO interest in Pac
      SEC and MO seem to have mutual interest. That seems the best move.

      Or…you could pull an OU and try to leverage that interest…oh wait, never mind.

      Like

      Reply
    3. M

      I don’t think b or d are actually options. If Missouri goes to the SEC, it would be for stability and money. The SEC is definitely more stable, but I think that the money could go either way. In terms of attendance, I don’t know whether their fan(s?) would prefer lower profile games against nearby rivals or higher profile games against random SEC teams. For television money, the Big 12 has the advantage of a sooner contract expiration and fewer teams to split, but it has fewer ratings driving programs. Once the exit penalty is figured in, I’m guessing that the Big 12 would be more lucrative for the next 5-10 years.

      I think stability probably carries the day. The Big 12 is one Texas decision to give up the LHN from breaking up entirely. Also, that Vanderbilt guy said that if anyone wants to leave the SEC they’re free to do so. If the B1G comes calling in couple years, they won’t have suffered anything.

      Like

      Reply
      1. bobo the feted

        The real question now is with the SEC at 14, ACC is at 14, would this reopen a PAC invite for OU/oSu? A

        And what happens to the Big East and does a Big12(now at 8) stay together, fall apart and expand to 10,12, 16?

        Like

        Reply
        1. zeek

          It doesn’t change anything though right?

          The Pac-12 knew that the SEC was at 13 with A&M and looking for 14 in either Missouri or WVU. Wilner’s best sources (mostly from the Pac-12) were saying that Missouri was a lock to be the SEC’s #14; thus, this scenario has been at the forefront of the Pac-12’s strategic planning. The Pac-12 also knew that the ACC was at 14 before making its decision.

          Nothing here changes the Pac-12’s decision to wait for Texas +3 in a move to a Pac-16 if Texas is ever willing to give up the LHN. I think the academics and even the media market people in the Pac-12 were hesitant to invite OU/OSU. OU easily pays for itself, but it’d have to pay for both OU/OSU in terms of 1/7th of the overall revenue; the academics are a whole different animal…

          And let’s not forget the South California exposure problem. Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Washington, etc. want as many games in South California as they can get; games in Oklahoma don’t do anything for them…

          Like

          Reply

    4. SEC for Missouri; iIt’s the only option that makes sense for long-term stability. In the Big 12, you’re still a Texas vassal; even if the Big Ten was expanding, there’s no assurance it wants Mizzou. (And the Pac is no longer a factor.)

      The question is now, what does the Big 12 do once Missouri leaves? Does it only grow to 10 to accede to Texas’ desire to have no title game (and perhaps so UT can placate Notre Dame by “saving” the Big East, though it’s sort of ironic ND would want to protect a football conference it has no desire to join)? Or do the other conference schools overrule Texas, for once, and expand to 12, 14 or even 16 members (the last option is not likely) by raiding the Big East and possibly causing its demise as a BCS league? (For Big East schools, becoming a Texas vassal is better than being a Providence vassal.) And if the Big East dies as a BCS conference (it would still exist for basketball and other sports), what happens to its automatic berth?

      This multi-player chess game begins to get interesting.

      Like

      Reply

      1. @vp19 – I think “less is more” will end up being the mantra for the Big 12. I’d be extremely surprised if they go beyond 10 members. Outside of maybe BYU, none of the realistic expansion candidates really add enough revenue (or else they would’ve been snapped up by the Big Ten, SEC or ACC by now). My feeling is that BYU is effectively the one lock for the Big 12 with a tossup between Louisville or TCU being school #10. I felt a year ago that TCU had no chance of ever getting into the Big 12, but the circumstances have changed so much that the brand equity that the school offers at this point may override its duplicative Texas market location.

        Like

        Reply

    5. @duffman – If Mizzou has a B1G invite, then it should go to the B1G. Assuming that’s not the case, though, Missouri’s president should accept an SEC invite even if he has to walk from Columbia to Birmingham to seal the deal.

      Like

      Reply
    1. zeek

      Demographics problems are well overrated especially when you consider that the housing bust’s repercussions with respect to population migration will probably be around for at least 10 years considering that we’re likely to have another recession well before we hit full employment again and another housing boom cycle can’t really start until housing debt is brought back down again (a lot of predictions put California/Florida housing prices not reaching the 2005-2006 peaks until 2030 or later). Considering that all these things are also tied in with the Boomers and how they’re reaching the end of their working timespans, we’re going to see big changes in the demographics outlooks for the country.

      Obviously, the southwest will still have the Latino immigration/higher birth rate to count on, but among whites/blacks, relatively the different parts of the country will be more stable compared to one another than they were the past 2-3 decades.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Brian

        That Latino demographic will continue to be less important per capita for football than other demographics for a while, though. It takes time to assimilate the immigrants to the point that they choose football over soccer or baseball.

        Like

        Reply
    2. bobo the feted

      Mizzou is kinda in a weird spot, they’re Midwestern in North and towards the Illinois border but Southern the closer you get to Arkansas and Tennessee. Besides StL and KC are still decent TV markets, just as Detroit, Cincinatti Pittsburgh are despite the population shift to the South.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Michael in Raleigh

        By far, most Missouri residents live in the more “Midwestern” portion of the state, in greater Kansas City or greater St. Louis. Those in the rural southern third/half of the state don’t add up to any people. Besides, everything I’ve ever heard about the University of Missouri, including the opinion of a friend who graduated from Mizzou, is that the school is basically every bit as Midwestern in culture as Purdue or U of Illinois.

        It would be a weird fit for them. If they’ve felt odd among Texas schools’ fans, just imagine what it will be like around rabid Alabama, Florida, and LSU fans.

        Like

        Reply
    3. allthatyoucantleavebehind

      No, ESPN can spin it anyway they want…they have the monopoly.

      “The state of Missouri announced to Joe Schad that they are no longer a midwestern state…they are now a southeastern state. Rumors of them being northern were lies put out by DeLoss Dodds and Chip Brown.”

      Like

      Reply

  98. *slamming my head against the wall*

    So let’s see – the only four schools that have yet to go sneaking around the damn conference are:
    KU, KSU, Baylor,and ISU. Personally I would just assume the four (my Baylor included) just leave this stain and head for the Big East. Yea, they are morons over there – but damn its better then facing the guillotine every year based on whether or not OU and UT want to be in the conference that year. Every other school has sought leverage, left, or flirted – heavy petting with another conference. Take the four out and you kinda blow the thing up. No more BCS credits as the conference goes below 6. Just absolutely sick of this.

    Like

    Reply
    1. M

      Strictly speaking, Baylor tried to wheedle a Pac-12 invitation last summer and the forgotten four had at least preliminary talks with the Big East.

      The problem with the Big East is that it’s not particularly distinguishable from the Big 12 without Texas and OU.

      Like

      Reply
    2. Brian

      I seem to recall Baylor looking to be part of the original P16 plan, and certainly Starr has tried to use political leverage. The other 3 have had talks with the BE. There are no clean hands left.

      Like

      Reply
      1. zeek

        To the both of you, I wouldn’t really hold talks with the Big East against those schools. Honestly, that’s just making sure you have a contingency plan if you’re entirely screwed over.

        Heck, TCU has talked with the MWC (initiated by the MWC, but still worth pointing out)…

        Not really sure it’s dirtying their hands to be making sure they have a conference if the Big 12 goes belly up; it’s not as if they’re looking to trade up like OU and Missouri are/were…

        Like

        Reply
        1. Brian

          Based on Hangtime saying he’d rather they just up and leave for the BE, I don’t think you can discount talks with the BE. The talks may have started as a fallback plan, but it more and more looks like a sideways move trading money for stability.

          Plus, there were rumors of KU talking with the P12.

          Everyone in the B12 has talked to other AQ conferences. The bottom 4 just don’t have the desirability to sustain talks with the ACC, SEC, B10 or P12. They would if they could.

          Like

          Reply
          1. zeek

            He’s a fan though.

            No school is going to choose a Big East (especially after just having lost Syracuse/Pitt) over a Big 12 with Texas/OU.

            There’s no chance a conference with Texas/OU doesn’t have BCS or some road to a playoff or whatever in the future. That conference will always be an AQ conference with 2 of the top 10 brands. The Big East on the other hand…

            Like

          2. Everyone wants “stability” yet its everyone of the schools with the wandering eye that seems to be generating the instability versus who just wants to not be left holding the bag.

            Trade-Up (Wandering eye):
            Nebraska – Big 10
            Mizzou – Big 10, SEC
            Colorado – Pac 12
            TTU – Pac 12 (2x)
            TAMU – Pac 12, SEC (2x)
            oSu – Pac 12 (2x)
            OU – Pac 12 (2x)
            UT – Pac 12

            Survival:
            Baylor
            ISU
            KU
            KSU

            This is what frustrates me the most. The 8 above can do whatever they want, but the four below are just cannon fodder (including Baylor). Do you honestly believe any of those four schools wants the Big 12 to blow up. Heck no. Do we have any choice in the matter. Heck no, because only those above the line have any say.

            Like

          3. Brian

            You are assuming UT and OU are guaranteed to stay in the B12 longterm. I wouldn’t bet my future on that.

            I’m not saying the BE is a step up, or even an equal right now, but stability has value and the BE may actually be more stable right now.

            Like

          4. zeek

            The Big East just lost Syracuse and Pitt and the football schools might split off.

            Furthermore, I’d bet that the Big 12 is much more likely to have an AQ in the next contract than the Big East.

            If the Big East loses its AQ, it’s no different from C-USA or MWC; then again, most of the schools in the Big East were in C-USA at some point in the past couple of years…

            Like

          5. Brian

            Hangtime,

            You conveniently forgot to mention Baylor looking to join the P16 before CO got the spot, and KU potentially looking to join it this time around.

            ISU has nobody but the BE and non-AQs to talk with since the B10 doesn’t want them. KSU would only get to ride KU’s coattails. KU has to hope decent academics and a great MBB program opens a slot somewhere (BE is a safe bet, but they had P16 hopes and maybe B10 dreams). Baylor is clinging to UT like a barnacle.

            Like

          6. M

            I would put Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in the “survival” camp. They’re in a better position than the other 4, but they’re not driving any of the action.

            Like

    3. zeek

      I think the blame lies with OU and Missouri equally. Attempting to blow up the conference just 12 months after Texas tried to blow up the conference is a big part of why Missouri is likely on its way out (fool me once, fool me twice, etc.), but of course, we can’t forget Missouri’s attempts to get the Big Ten’s 12th spot that helped launch this whole mess.

      Regardless, I still maintain that if OU hadn’t gone on its Pac-14 attempt last month, the Big 12 would have been much more likely to keep Missouri.

      The fact that the Big 12 has proven continuously to be so fragile is why Missouri’s on its way to the SEC. OU proved that by showing that it and Texas (the previous year) have landing spots elsewhere (Pac-16) and aren’t afraid to blow up the conference to get their way.

      Missouri doesn’t want to be left behind like Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, and Iowa State, so they’re going to grab a spot on the train as they can.

      It’s hard not to sympathize though with the 4 other schools though, since they’ve done nothing but sit there and offer concessions to Texas/OU/A&M for the most part and try to protect the conference.

      I just don’t see how the conference survives in the longer term though as an equal to the others without Missouri. Not that it’s that important, but media markets wise, all that’s going to be left is Texas and Oklahoma… In the long run, the T1/T2 deals will probably get blown away by the other conferences…

      Like

      Reply

        2. We may live in the Baylor bubble, but its not the anti-reality field that surrounds B/CS. As you may recall TAMU signed on for a 15 year commitment last year, which Lofitin has been back-pedaling and changing the narrative on for the last two weeks so fast he could be up 45 in Dallas by now. Let’s be real honest. Aggieland didn’t want to get the legislature involved last year so it punted. When it saw the LHN as a possible reason to break it bolted. Loftin had no intention of staying in the conference and told a reporter for national television as such. The LHN was never the problem, it was timing. So no Baylor stab did not stab TAMU in the back. TAMU has never been able to handle being the little brother to UT and is now going to try to make it in the Big City. Of course, the SEC will now get to experience what we all have had to deal with for the last 100 years, the whining and conspiracy theories to keep poor TAMU down. Gag me.

          Like

          Reply

        3. As for TCU and we have had discussions about this in the past Loki. TCU hadn’t won a damn thing in the SWC. Was the Big 8 going to take the entire SWC, no. It would have probably been only two if they had had their way, but it was four. Got a problem with it – deal with UT and TAMU. Of course now if the Big 12 doesn’t blow up and the Big East gets raided, where do you think TCU is going to end up? Hopefully its the Big 12, but if its not its back to the MWC.

          Like

          Reply
        4. Playoffs Now

          It’s easy for some of us to have no sympathy for Baylor. They stabbed us in the back last round.

          No they didn’t. Baylor wasn’t in a position to demand that other schools be added to the B12, they were lucky just to get in themselves. Sorry that the B8 didn’t offer Rice, but it is ridiculous to blame Baylor for doing what any other school would have in that position.

          Like

          Reply
      2. Brian

        P16 talks -> CO leaving -> loyalty demands -> NE leaving -> LHN -> TAMU leaving -> P16 talks again -> P14 talks -> MO possibly leaving

        There were also several side branches, like various schools talking with B10, SEC, ACC, etc, but I stuck to the main line leading to MO possibly leaving.

        UT has been an integral part of this from the start. If they had said from the start that they had no interest in anything but the B12 (and meant it) this would have stopped long ago. Instead, they have talked to everybody. Since UT is the linchpin for the B12, everybody else had to respond by seeking stability elsewhere if possible. The constant power games haven’t helped either.

        Like

        Reply
        1. zeek

          That’s entirely fair. I don’t disagree with that timeline at all. And there are no heroes in all of this. Just a lot of people looking out for what they think is their self-interest.

          And a lot of the people who are looking out for the self-interest of these institutions probably have little clue what’s actually best for these institutions and the athletes involved; there’s also the panic element. Everyone’s thinking 4×16 “must get a spot” mentality because that’s what the media has been shoving down our throats for 2 years.

          This is entirely despite the fact that the Big Ten looks extremely unlikely to budge off 12 and the Pac-12 only wants to go to 16 with Texas (but Texas wants the LHN over a Pac-16 Texas) so the 4×16 is pretty much highly improbable.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Brian

            Nobody really knows what is best for these schools. The BE could grow and become a true power conference in football in 30 years or it could disappear. The B12 could supplant the SEC as the top dog or disintegrate when UT goes independent.

            Who knows what the money will be like for different schools in 50 years?

            Like

          2. Richard

            I have to quibble with that logic, Brian. Otherwise, you’d go down the path of saying “Nobody really knows what is best for these schools. The CUSA could grow and become a true power conference in football in 30 years or it could disappear, so TAMU should have spurned the SEC for CUSA.”

            We know the drawing power, brands, and budgets of the schools in the various conferences, and in college football, the hierarchy changes very, very slowly. Almost all the power programs that were considered kings in the early ’70’s are still considered kings (all except Washington and maybe Tennessee) + a few FL schools got added to the club.

            Like

          1. Brian

            You could make that argument, but I don’t believe they are connected. I think Larry Scott would have done the exact same thing without Delany saying a word.

            I don’t think MO’s dalliance with the B10 had much impact either. The blogs ate it up, but I don’t think it meant much to the powers beyond the MO governor. I don’t see how it would influence the P10 to do something, especially since the P16 offer never included MO.

            Like

          2. Eric

            I think Missouri talking to the Big Ten was a big deal. With both Missouri and Colorado wanting out, the rest of the conference had to worry about their TV deals (biggest markets outside of Texas) and that lead to thinking about the PAC-16 and for Nebraska, about joining the Big Ten.

            Like

        3. Playoffs Now

          Your analysis may conclude that the world is flat, but it isn’t. UTx didn’t start the looking at other conferences, but when MO, CO, and NE did, UTx responded by saying they preferred to keep the B12 but would explore all options. (Ever heard of due diligence?) In the end UTx decided to keep the B12.

          A year later aTm decided to leave, and in response UTx said they’d prefer to keep the B12 but would explore all options. Then OU threatened to leave. UTx again responded with “We prefer to keep the B12, but will continue to explore our options. Ultimately UTx decided to try and keep the B12 and the P12 blew off the Okie schools.

          A school acts, UTx then responds and evaluates the changing landscape. See a pattern yet?

          And each time, the school who could kill the B12 with ease and choose any conference it wants, has chosen to keep the B12 and rebuild it. Yet somehow you conclude it is UTx that is killing the B12?

          Like

          Reply
          2. M

            No conference will take Texas and everyone in their conference that has had any option has left. The remainder have tried to leave but been unsuccessful.

            Texas has chosen to keep the Big 12 alive because it’s the only conference whose members (at least those who have no place to go) will tolerate Texas. Texas set the building on fire; they get no credit for staying in it.

            Like

          3. Playoffs Now

            Kirk Bohls is not a legitimate source. This is the guy who voted Ohio State higher than Miami the day AFTER Miami thoroughly whipped the Buckeyes.

            Like

          4. Brian

            Playoffs Now,

            I didn’t say UT started anything. I said they have been integral to this all along.

            And your facts are just plain wrong.UT was looking at other conferences before NE and MO. CO has been looking at the P10 for years, so that was nothing new, and that interest only became possible with UT being in talks with them.

            You should note that every school explores their options and does their due diligence regularly. They don’t all feel the need to have press conferences about it, or seek a pat on the back for not leaving.

            I should point out that I don’t “blame” UT. Blame implies there being something wrong. It may be unsightly, but every school has the right to pursue their best interests within the rules. My problem with UT has been how disingenuous some of their statements (and fans) have been. I wish they would be honest about their intentions and actions rather than trying to shift responsibility to others.

            Like

          5. zeek

            @Playoffs Now

            Stallings over at A&M confirmed that Texas hatched up a Pac-16 years ago: the original plan was Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M to the Pac-16.

            Like

      3. just 12 months after Texas tried to blow up the conference

        Ummmm….

        Come on zeek, you’re usually better than this. Nebraska left. Colorado left. Texas didn’t. Texas stayed for its own selfish reasons, I’ll grant, but I don’t think you can say Texas “tried to blow up the conference” last year.

        Like

        Reply
  99. Richard

    You know, I just had a thought (not sure if it’s been voiced since I’m still reading today’s comments), but. . .

    Say that Mizzou reaches out to both the B10 and SEC. The B10 likely wouldn’t add 2 nonfootball powers, but if the B10 does take Mizzou, for the SEC, it would be FSU or bust (well, FSU or WVU, so really, FSU or bust). FSU to the SEC would send Miami straight to B10 headquarters in Chicagoland. Actually, Miami likely would accept a B10 offer right now if they got one, as they are scared stiff about FSU potentially leaving.

    I know some folks here see Miami’s poor fan support and don’t consider them attractive, but adding Miami would make adding Mizzou palatable to me. Academically, Mizzou is similar to Nebraska (AAU, but close to losing it), while Miami is on the upswing and already close to AAU membership. Culturally, Mizzou fits, and Miami is as northern a school as you’ll find in the south. Furthermore, there are a ton of B10 alums and fans from Tampa on south in FL. You’d also get access to the most fertile recruiting grounds (per capita) in the country, not to mention make the B10 schools visible to high schoolers in an area that really doesn’t offer much in the way of top-notch higher education choices (Miami’s pretty good, but still a relatively small private school). Ironically, Miami may actually have a greater chance at challenging for national titles again as a member of the B10. Back when they were winning national titles, Miami played a fair number of northern teams and recruited the north well. Of the 15 All-Americans Miami lists for the ’80’s, 6 were northerners, including Vinny Testaverde and Steve Walsh:
    http://hurricanesports.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/072811aan.html

    Like

    Reply

    1. @Richard – I feel like we’re the only ones that have really advocated Miami to the Big Ten here. If the Big Ten wants a Sun Belt presence, I don’t see how they’re not next on the list after Texas.

      Like

      Reply
      2. Brian

        Maybe that’s because the rest of us see big problems with adding Miami.

        In no particular order:
        1. The B10 is too conservative to extend the footprint that way.
        2. Most fans want to play local schools, not travel 1500 miles.
        3. They aren’t a cultural fit.
        4. They lack fan support.
        5. They aren’t AAU.

        If it wasn’t for the distance, and the cultural differences that come with it, Miami would be a much better choice. They are a lesser version of ND and not local.

        Like

        Reply
        1. mushroomgod

          Don’t forget a long history of the most serious types of NCAA violations, and a pro football-like mentality/approach…..

          The Smaller 10 is fat and arrogant, not crazy.

          Like

          Reply
        2. mike in st louis

          And prior to Howard Scnellenberger, they weren’t a national program. And still haven’t been able to maintain a national profile.

          I’m mystified by Frank’s continued advocacy for Miami.

          Like

          Reply
          1. greg

            The Miami talk is so crazy, I haven’t bothered to respond. B10 has added Nebraska and PSU (home runs) in last 50 years, but now they’ll decide to add a tiny private school a million miles away that can barely outdraw Indiana? please.

            Even IF there was a smidgen of a chance, the recent NCAA issues have killed it.

            Like

          2. Jefferson

            I wouldn’t be upset with Miami in the B1G, and here’s why:
            1. Gets good TV ratings.
            2. Provides a good rival/travel partner with either FSU or Ga Tech.
            3. Have already come back from sanctions.
            4. Give access to Florida as recruiting grounds.

            Like

    2. M

      I see Miami’s poor fan support and don’t consider them attractive. I also see their atrocious facilities, their low attendance (would be 8th in the Big Ten), their low AD revenue (12th), their mediocre overall sports (13th in the Director’s Cup), their 55-69 ranking in the ARWU (T11th), their general propensity for rule-breaking, and the fact that they have one more win than Northwestern over the last 5ish years and don’t appear to be improving any time soon. Their only appealing quality is that they are located in a good recruiting location. Why not Tulane? Rice? USF? TCU? Baylor?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        They’d bring in fans to the home games of existing B10 schools and TV viewers. There’s a reason why tOSU scheduled Miami to a home-and-home (and why both Nebraska and MSU have lined up home-and-homes in the future with the ‘Canes) despite their low home attendance. Tulane/Rice/TCU/ USF/Baylor? Not so much.

        Like

        Reply
        1. M

          Missouri would be would be within a place or two from Miami in nearly all those categories, except that Missouri has 14 wins more than Northwestern over that period and I cannot seem to find evidence of a single hooker filled boat trip.

          However, the Big Ten isn’t adding Missouri either.

          Like

          Reply
      2. Richard

        Also, the B10 doesn’t care about the Director’s Cup. Delany has said that he’d like to get rid of it (because it pressures AD’s to engage in arms races in sports that don’t make money). Now, in the secondary sports that _are_ a bit of a ratings draw, Miami’s baseball is quite good and volleyball is none too shabby as well (top 25).

        BTW, how would Mizzou stack up in those criteria? I know that they’re below average in attendance and dead-last in ARWU.

        Like

        Reply
        1. mushroomgod

          Can’t give you #s off hand on MO’s attendance, but it’s certainly more than Miami’s.

          In basketball, Missouri is a serious program, with serious support. Not so for Miami. Missouri has a legit wrestling program. In the DC’s 2011 final standings MO was #41, Miami #51.

          Academically, MO is rated #90. It is a large, flagship state u with over twice the # of students as Miami.

          Over the next 20 years, Miami will become even less relevant, given the growth and increased
          asperations of UCF and USF.

          Miami is an insane suggestion.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Richard

            Less relevant in football? Academically, Miami is on the up and up, and is making the same transition from “rich kid reject school” to “elite private school” that USC & NYU (and even longer before them, Stanford) has made in the past.

            Regardless, I don’t think Miami will become less relevant in our generation. They have the most fertile recruiting area (per capita) in the country in their backyard, and even if they’re a private school, they draw ratings and opposing fan interest. tOSU and Nebraska don’t schedule home-and-homes with Wake, Vandy, or even Stanford; they do with Miami. That’s what winning multiple national titles does to your reputation.

            Like

        2. mushroomgod

          He may not favor the DC, but you can be sure he wants the BIG to be competitive in the minor sports. He made a point of a school’s ability to fund it’s athletic dept as an issue in his latest head-in-the-sand expansion comments…….he was probably thinking of Rutgers, maybe also MD, in that regard.

          Like

          Reply
    3. joe4psu

      I’ve been higher on Miami, GT and even FSU than most since last year. I include all three because I think that the B1G would want to, or should, add one of GT or FSU if they add Miami. GT finally gained AAU status a couple of years ago and even though they are a distant second to UGA in GA they would add alot of tv sets for the BTN. I think it is also important that GA is a large fast growing state with their place in recruiting growing accordingly. They passed PA some time ago and I believe that they are now ahead of OH as a producer of recruits.

      Like

      Reply
  100. zeek

    GottliebShow Doug Gottlieb
    Just so you know, Mizzou still badly wants BiG,SEC is negotiating tool they may feel compelled to go,no coach/AD in programs wants it
    23 minutes ago

    Saw you retweet this Frank. Definitely worth posting considering it’s probably how all of the power players in Missouri feel right now.

    Fans (and governor?) are on board with SEC, but coaches/ADs probably want to stay in the Big 12 or move to Big Ten for competitiveness reasons, and the academics/curators would probably prefer the Big Ten.

    Of course if Deaton and Alden think that the SEC is their only choice for long term stability (and it may very well be), they might feel they have no choice but to commit. I don’t know how they’ll be competitive there though in football; they seem like they’d do worse than Arkansas has the past 2 decades. Only one game every other year in Texas; even Arkansas is likely to have that A&M game annually? That’s going to hurt their recruiting severely compared to how they built their teams the past 15+ years…

    Like

    Reply

    2. @zeek – Unless Jim Delany hands Missouri a Big Ten invite within the next week, I just don’t see how Missouri could possibly do anything other than move to the SEC. Even if the Big Ten wanted Missouri down the road and vice versa, I don’t see how Mizzou being in the SEC really precludes that. If anything, Missouri might actually become more attractive. I think the recruiting angle is overstated – they’ll still get exposure in Texas with A&M.

      Like

      Reply
      1. zeek

        Yeah I agree. As long as there’s even a chance of a Pac-16 happening in the future (and there certainly is), Missouri has to take the #14 spot in the SEC.

        If the SEC goes to 14 with WVU for the long term (with no ACC options available) and the Big Ten stays at 12 because ND is independent, then Missouri would get entirely left behind if the Pac-16 ever happens (say the Pac-12 Networks and its main media deal are such an overwhelming success that Texas feels like it can make the jump, or whatever).

        Like

        Reply
      2. Playoffs Now

        Even if the Big Ten wanted Missouri down the road and vice versa, I don’t see how Mizzou being in the SEC really precludes that.

        Exactly. Scarlett O’Mizzou can marry Rhett SEC Butler and still pine for The Big Ashley, Ashley.

        Like

        Reply
        1. vandiver49

          This is why I’m not a fan of Mizzou. While the Tigers beat WVU as an expansion candidate in a whole host of areas, nothing convinces me that they actually WANT to be in the SEC like the Mountaineers do. Conference loyalty is the foundation upon which conference stability is laid. If the B1G decides to expand 5-10 years down the road and extends an invite to Mizzou, they’d leave the SEC in a heartbeat. That attitude is why they aren’t the slam dunk everyone believes they are IMO.

          Like

          Reply
          1. mushroomgod

            Their fans certainly do…….I suspect the administrators and profs would prefer the BIG.

            I don’t buy the MO to BIG in 10 years argument. If MO is successful in SEC football, they won’t leave. If they tank, the BIG won’t want them enough to get in a war with the SEC.

            Like

      1. greg

        If MO had a B1G offer, they’d already be in the conference. The way Mizzou behaves, there would be a press conference within 10 minutes of the offer.

        Like

        Reply
        1. mushroomgod

          It’s possible that they have an offer that is not financially acceptable to them (ie…time, amount of ‘buy-in”)….I’ve seen hints to that effect over the last few months.

          Like

          Reply
  101. zeek

    ChipBrownOB Chip Brown
    Sources tell Orangebloods.com Big 12 schools were in talks starting last night to grant rights for Tier 1 & 2 TV for closer to 13 yrs.
    1 hour ago

    Wow if this is true; that would actually make this a long term commitment…

    Like

    Reply
    1. zeek

      “One source said the granting of rights would have been closer to the length of time left on the Big 12’s Tier 2 TV deal with Fox, which has 13 years remaining.

      But as part of the agreement, there were restrictions proposed on Tier 3 content, and Texas balked, the source said. The restrictions had to do with any and all high school content, the source said. ”

      From his article on OB: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1274491

      Like

      Reply
    1. zeek

      Depends on BYU. If BYU takes the #9 spot, then the Big 12 is likely to only take one other.

      Harder to see the Big 12 going to 12 from 8 than from 9. Too many mouths to feed on mainly Texas/OU’s value…

      Like

      Reply

      1. I’ve long stated that BYU is really the only attractive and realistic school on the table, but I’m beginning to look at this through a different prism. If the primary goal for Texas is cobbling together a conference which can last for a few years while the school determines whether the LHN is long-term viable, perhaps there’s some safety in numbers. Also, with A&M gone, the idea of replacing A&M with another Texas school isn’t as redundant as it was before, which makes TCU (and even, yes, UH) at least plausible.

        Yeah, going to 12 instead of 10 might mean a few more mouths to feed, but if it helps keep the conference alive, so be it.

        My main concern is that BYU makes sense in this scenario, and Louisville makes sense, but I’m not sure both at the same time (particularly if the conference only goes to 10) makes as much sense, as we’d be picking up two geographic outliers in entirely different directions.

        As a Texas fan, I also kind of like seeing BYU out there as the canary in the non-ND independence coal mine.

        I’ll take (sigh) TCU/Louisville (for 10) or TCU/Louisville/UC/WVU (for 12) and hold my nose for a few years. I almost prefer the 12-team scenario since it prevents any school being a geographic outlier.

        Like

        Reply
    2. allthatyoucantleavebehind

      Mizzou is out…Big 12 will expand for sure. Louisville is first…TCU might be a candidate…even WVU or Cincy might warrant invites.

      Like

      Reply
  103. Tom Smith

    I still don’t like the idea of the SEC moving into the Midwest to snatch Mizzou. Doesn’t feel right. I know Mizzou is not the home run the B1G is looking for, but does geography make a difference to the B1G.? Does the B1G have any resentment about the SEC coming into our neighborhood?

    Like

    Reply
    2. Peter

      The B1G had first dibs on Missouri and turned them down last year. They just don’t see Missouri in their model, not unless they are #14 or #16.

      I suppose the B1G could grab Missouri and Rutgers and thus destroy the Big East when the Big 12 raids them for Louisville+. That would leave ND homeless and force them to join the B1G. It doesn’t make much financial sense on its own, but both Rutgers & Missouri fit the B1G academically & culturally and so might be palatable to the B1G CEO’s as a strategy. Those presidents & chancellors run the show, far more than any other conference.

      Maryland would probably be #16 in that case, since it sure as hell looks like that’s what they’re trying to pull off on their end. They’re a B1G-ish school and they stiff-armed a loyalty pledge to the ACC despite being a founding member of the conference. They have ~$500 million in research funding, so they are probably thinking all about the CIC.

      Like

      Reply
  104. drwillini

    I don’t think anhybody would be too dissappointed with Rutgers/Maryland/ND/Missouri if we are going to B16. The problems are: Mizzou would be the last piece and not the first, and this foursome leaves no room for UT. Substitute UT and you have what many people would consider to be the ideal B16.

    Like

    Reply

    2. Then why not make Rutgers and Maryland #13-14, since both qualify in academics/athletics/research/population (for BTN subscriptions) and actually want to be in the Big Ten without making any demands the conference would deem a dealbreaker? Given the increasingly close Notre Dame and Texas ties, they likely would want to go in as a tandem, and you can always leave #15-16 open for them.

      Like

      Reply
      1. zeek

        But as others have said of Rutgers, if it delivered NYC or even just NJ, it’d have been added already.

        So what about Maryland/Missouri? Those two probably deliver their states with assists from Nebraska/Illinois in STL/KC and from Penn State in Maryland/DC?

        For some reason Maryland/Missouri has become the most logical move if the Big Ten ever felt it needed to go to 14 without ND. Of course, the Big Ten doesn’t really feel that way, so it’s probably a moot point.

        Regardless, in terms of culture/fit, are there two better fits than Maryland/Missouri right now?

        Like

        Reply
          1. mushroomgod

            There is the issue of Maryland fan’s level of support of a move to the BIG. And also, a much bigger issue…..that being, that the BIG presidents have very little appetite for a conference expansion that would so dramatically alter the landscape. It’s one thing to take a Rutgers team from a Big Least that no longer has a real reason to exist—quite another to raid the ACC. Raiding the ACC has very serious political overtones……….

            Like

          2. zeek

            Yeah, I don’t think there’s anything on either side to suggest that there’s any interest in a Maryland to the Big Ten scenario.

            It’s just that I think the only viable expansion scenario (i.e. one that works for BTN/money) is Maryland/Missouri if ND is totally off the table… but that doesn’t mean it would ever happen.

            Like

          3. Richard

            mushroom:

            More serious political overtones that taking Nebraska from the B12? It’s not like taking UMD would kill off the ACC (while taking Rutgers actually may); the ACC would just replenish from the BE.

            Like

        2. Phil

          I have no doubt that adding Rutgers would bring the fan interest that SHOULD get you at least the NJ TVs (which would pay their way by itself) . I think, however, the Big Ten’s doubt has to do with the cable landscape in this area.

          A good portion of NJ and NYC is serviced by Cablevision. They fight every new channel. Even the Yankees YES network and the NFL network had delays before Cablevision would carry them.

          I would guess the Cablevision problem is why Rutgers isn’t at the top of the list and why they only get lumped in as an add-on with ND.

          Like

          Reply
          1. zeek

            Agreed on all points; that’s the only reason why I’m suggesting Maryland/Missouri.

            I think those are the only two schools near the Big Ten that would actually bring value to the BTN in and of themselves.

            Each is like a 13.5; probably covers its share pro-rata although not like a king or a school like Texas A&M that justifies itself as #13 outright…

            Like

        3. joe4psu

          When you have proof about RU I’ll buy it. Until then I’m not convinced by your statement that if RU could deliver NJ they would already be in the B1G. The same argument should apply to schools like Mizzou and UMD.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Richard

            Mizzou doesn’t really meet the B10’s academic standards. UMD is roughly the same as Rutgers (better academics; less people), but maybe they haven’t wanted to leave the ACC up to now (while we know Rutgers, or any sane school, would jump at the chance to join another AQ conference).

            Like

      2. mushroomgod

        TX and ND’s mutual attraction is based on independence. If they give up independence to go to a conference, they have very little in common. Therefore, it is doubtful to me they have any particular ambition to be in the same conference, unless of course, it’s one they can mutually rape and pillage.

        Like

        Reply
    3. mushroomgod

      Of those 4, ND is #1 and the other three are 2a, 2b, and 2c.

      MO is the best run institution of the 3. MO and Rutgers athletics have been deeply in debt. Advantage MO.

      MO has the most instant rivalries. Advantage MO.

      MO is acceptable in academics and research, but advantage to MD (#1) and Rutgers (#2).

      MO and MD are far better than Rutgers as a total athletic dept. MD was #17 in the DC, MO #41, Rutgers #158. One would have to ask where the $ would come form to improve Rut’s facilities.

      Rutgers has the NY/NJ market…..setting aside the issue of their attractiveness in that market, it is much more populous, and playing in NJ/NY would be attractive to all the other BIG teams.

      Taking MD would be much more difficult and disruptive to CF. Advantage MO and Rut.

      Like

      Reply
  105. Hopkins Horn

    PS: mcdunnski is me, if the snark didn’t give it away.

    I created a new admin username for my own WP blog for my business, and now it’s wiped out my cookies. I have to post this from my phone and figure out how to log in on my computer again.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Ah, there was go. My login was saved as cookies under “guest”.

      BTW, does anyone else ever post comments here from a Droid? It’s one of the more painful things I have to do – something about typing in the comment field on a WP site from a Droid just slows the performance down incredibly — about one character every five seconds or so can be entered on my phone.

      Like

      Reply
      2. mike in st louis

        @HH – I have the same problem with my iPhone 3Gs, so I don’t think it’s a Droid issue. And please don’t tell me anything bad about Droid, because I’m about to buy a Samsung Galaxy S II. 😉

        Like

        Reply
          1. Richard

            Hopkins:

            I notice that this site (I assume any WordPress site) slows down considerably on my Droid phone after several hundred comments have been added. When the number of comments is low, it’s pretty fast.

            Like

  106. EZCUSE

    Is there any chance of the SEC taking Mizzou, Louisville, and West Virginia?

    Just thinking out loud here… but the SEC doesn’t need any more power football schools. Do they? At some point, you just start diminishing the importance of games. There is only so much that can be watched.

    Meanwhile, the SEC basketball is an afterthought, especially compared to the ACC. They are somewhere between the Big 10 of old (Ohio State, Michigan, and nobody else)… and the Big East (nobody else) in football. Adding 3 basketball schools suddenly helps make the SEC a year-round conference, rather than one that disappears from December to April. Anyone watching Florida-LSU in February? No. But someone will watch Florida-Louisville–Donovan v Pitino. Huggins v Calipari in Kentucky v Louisville. Meanwhile… with more good basketball schools… there are more opportunities for the other SEC schools to prove themselves worthy. More tourney teams. More P.R. More inventory someday when the ESPN deal runs out.

    In any event, football drives the bus.. but Louisville and WVU are hardly pushovers. Charlie Strong will either lead Louisville to the promised land or get grabbed by an SEC school before he can complete it. You get a lot of geographic continuity with those adds too.

    I get that the SEC could take Florida St., etc. But when you are the best football conference, there is no more room to go up. And nobody is touching the SEC on football any time soon.

    Not saying it is likely, but I see a lot of logic in these three teams to get to #16.

    Like

    Reply
        1. greg

          Well, you asked. There is zero incentive for the SEC to take 3 teams, particularly those three. WVU is in a tiny state, LVL is a second banana (and would break the supposed SEC gentlemen’s agreement about adding from an existing state), and MO is MO. They may take one of the three to get to 14, but that is it. Why would they fill out at 16 with “middling” options? If FSU was on board, some 16 scenario could happen.

          Like

          Reply
          1. EZCUSE

            #1. I am going off the rumor that WVU and Missouri are not mutually exclusive.

            #2. What makes them a middling option? The SEC is already #1 in football. And these schools would not make it worse. If anything, it would make it better. An Ole Miss team destined for 6-6, would now have one or two more winnable games to get to 8-4. That makes the 10-2 South Carolina team look that much better. That makes the 12-0 Alabama team that much better yet.

            Look at the Big East in basketball. They added a bunch of fodder, but got 11 teams in the Big Dance. The fodder created a bunch of teams that were tourney eligible. Meanwhile, a positively mediocre UConn team was so battle-tested that it was able to win it all. The 9th best Big East team won it. But for the fodder, they would have been 5 and 11 and missed out entirely.

            #3. If you are Kentucky or Tennessee, do you want Oklahoma added to the conference? If you are Ole Miss or Arkansas, do you need Florida State? Too many schools already have a problem in getting to the top of the mountain. Only room for so many Kings in one conference.

            However, if you add schools that are relevant in both football and basketball… you suddenly juice up that equation. How important is that for Kentucky basketball? And if the NCAA implodes under the weight of 5 mega conferences, suddenly basketball becomes a bigger issue.

            #4. If FSU was on board, why add any of the middling options? Just go to 14 and be done with it. But my guess is that FSU is not at all on board. Why have any discussions with anyone else at all? You’ve got A&M. Be done with it. I think we can assume that Mizzou is talking to the SEC. Otherwise, yesterday’s exercise was pointless.

            #5. I have never heard of a gentleman’s agreement involving Kentucky. My understanding was that it was between Georgia, SC, and Florida. Those schools have always had a potential add that makes sense (GT, Clemson, FSU). Louisville hasn’t made football sense. But it is getting there. First under Petrino and soon under Strong.

            Not a Lville fan at all. Just pointing out that if these decisions are made on a 100-year basis… maybe it makes some sense to project out scenarios at least 10-15 years. What schools are today is not determinative of what they are in the future.

            Like

          2. greg

            You still haven’t listed an incentive for the SEC. It will reduce their per-school payout, most likely. All current SEC schools would play each other less often. Adding those schools doesn’t magically give the existing schools two more wins a year, that is crazy talk. The gentlemen’s agreement rumors never mentioned LVL because LVL isn’t remotely a candidate, other than in the media.

            100 year basis? So they should add a school (WVU) in a tiny state with poor academic chops because they have decent football and basketball teams at the moment? Or the commuter school second banana (LVL)?

            Like

          3. Mike

            @greg

            Here’s a quote from the Kentucky AD on Louisville. Louisville has been discussed.


            I’m not gonna say one way or the other (that UK wouldn’t veto Louisville), I’m gonna do what’s best for our league and if Mike Slive says he thinks this is best for our league I’ll look at it and say, ‘This is what I think this means for Kentucky.’ But that is not something he has crossed that bridge with us yet.”

            http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/uks-barnhart-talks-acc-and-louisville/

            Like

          4. Mike

            … has been discussed In the media, but I don’t think it changes that Lousiville is way down the list after Missouri and WV.

            Like

          6. There’s no reason for the SEC to go to 16 with Miz, LVille and WV. The only reason these schools are being discussed now is because the bar is much lower for a “complimentary” addition to get to 14. If the B10 added a bigger fish like the SEC added TAMU, then schools like Mizzou would be in the mix for 14. But there’s no reason to go to 15 or 16 from an even 14 unless theres a home run to be had.

            Like

          7. The “gentlemen’s agreement” was never a factor for Louisville because no one ever considered Louisville a viable SEC candidate. It’s a city-oriented, largely commuter institution, not truly a statewide one (unlike Clemson, Georgia Tech and Florida State). Its athletic prowess might make it a worthy Big 12 candidate, especially if it has no other viable option (the same applies for West Virginia), but whereas WVU, as a statewide flagship, might still be a darkhorse SEC candidate, Louisville has about as much chance as Cincinnati, which is in a state with no SEC competition.

            If the Big 12 decides to live up to its name and expand to 12 members, the newcomers (assuming MIssouri leaves) will probably be Brigham Young, Texas Christian, Louisville and West Virginia, with BYU, UL and WVU joining Iowa State, Kansas State and Kansas in the North and TCU joining the Oklahoma and Texas members in the South.

            Like

    3. Peter

      Louisville is pure dead weight financially and, as ridiculous as this would normally sound, academically. The SEC, believe it or not, is mostly like the B1G in school profile – a bunch of big state universities with one small private school. All of these are residential, historic campuses. Louisville is a third-tier commuter school. That’s an issue because a lot of people believe that the SEC CEO’s wanted Texas A&M for its academic profile as much as the football & recruiting value. They are believed to be tired of jokes & insults about how the SEC can’t read, let alone research.

      West Virginia apparently has the same problem. Culturally, they fit great but they bring no financial value and would be at the bottom of the SEC in academics.

      The SEC doesn’t want ONE of those schools, let alone both.

      Like

      Reply
      1. mushroomgod

        Along those lines, you don’t see schools named after cities in the SEC or Smaller 10.

        No Louisville or Pittsburgh or Syracuse…….

        One directional school NW and one named after a rich white guy Vandy….

        In the BIG and SEC, it’s all State U or State State U, except for Purdue, which should be Indiana State. John Purdue wanted the school named after him and all red brick buildings, and that’s what he got.

        Like

        Reply
        1. drwillini

          For the record, NW is not directional in the sense that it was NW Illinois. It was established as the college of the Northwestern Territory. I think maybe they should call themselves The Northwestern University to get their proper due.

          Like

          Reply
    4. zeek

      Hard to see why they’d take Louisville and WVU though?

      I mean if you get A&M and Missouri to 14, you’ve got an expansion that easily pays for itself and is valuable going forward in terms of TV markets, etc.

      Not really sure Louisville and WVU pay for themselves though (neither is a good #15 although WVU could function as a #14 if Missouri said no).

      To me, the important thing is to find the #13 and #15 schools; if you do that, you can get tag-alongs for #14 and #16.

      Like

      Reply
      1. EZCUSE

        So who is #15? Florida State? What market does that add? What does that add academically? How does that do anything other than hurt Georgia, SC, and Florida?

        Florida has enough of its own problems right now. And that is with FSU being merely “good” for the past decade and Miami being a shell of itself. How can Florida ever go for that?

        If the SEC goes to 14, I agree Mizzou and be done with it.

        But if the rumors are Mizzou and WVU and a 16… then who is #16?

        Like

        Reply
        1. zeek

          Florida State’s market is the country. No different from Nebraska…

          Florida State is a viable expansion candidate in an of itself as a national brand. Which of these teams would be on the most CBS games in the next decade: Florida State, Texas A&M, Missouri, West Virginia, Louisville. It’s not even close that Florida State would be the best choice.

          The SEC doesn’t even have a third tier network to monetize those rights anyways; the schools all have their own deals that would need to be concluded or closed in order to start one.

          For all the talk of markets, the main money maker for conferences if 1st/2nd tier rights. Florida State is as big as anyone that doesn’t bring a big market in that category (i.e. Nebraska).

          Like

          Reply
    5. mushroomgod

      No chance. #1 Other than UK and ARK, they don’t care about basketball. Basketball is #3 behind spring football.
      #2 UK would do everything it could to block UL. They really don’t like each other, and UL has always been little brother.
      #3 No one really wants the couch burners.

      Like

      Reply
      1. gas1958

        The talk of going past 14 for either the SEC or the B1G seems mostly theoretical now (but still fun to speculate about). The SEC just has to figure out the best/most logical mate for A&M and they are done. The B1G has no urgency whatsoever. Although I agree that Mizzou and Maryland are interesting options for the reasons Zeek outlined, let’s try to imagine the press conference at which Delany announces their addition to the B1G. Huge. Yawn. He would end up fielding more questions about ND.

        Ain’t gonna happen guys.

        Like

        Reply
        1. zeek

          Agreed.

          I just bring up Maryland/Missouri as two schools that bring their states of 6M each with solid media markets in DC/STL/KC that can probably achieve carriage for the BTN and pay for themselves.

          But as you point out, it’s just not going to happen because the Big Ten is waiting on ND and happy at 12 for now.

          Like

          Reply
        1. zeek

          Oklahoma has no options; they’re tied to Oklahoma State, which the Big Ten/SEC don’t want, and unless Texas changes its mind about giving up the LHN, there’s no Pac-16.

          Like

          Reply
  107. hagenr

    Please don’t beat me up to bad for this post. I had a moment of creative mediocrity for which I had to find an outlet. Of course all respect and inspiration goes out to Simon and Garfunkel.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Hello realignment, my old friend
    I’ve come to speculate again
    Because a vision softly creeping
    Like fake Dan Beebe seething
    And the vision of Notre Dame in the big ten
    Still remains
    Within the sound of silence

    High school highlights the longhorn network shone
    Would A&M leave alone?
    ‘Neath the cover of a headlamp
    Pitt & Cuse jumped to the ACC camp
    Marinatto’s back was stabbed by the flash of a single light
    That split the night
    And touched the sound of silence

    And in the single light I saw
    Ten thousand people, maybe more
    David Boren talking without thinking
    People tweeting without reading
    People writing blogs that every voice shared
    And only Purple Book Cat dared
    Disturb the sound of silence

    “Fools”, said I, “Delany knows
    The Big Ten will surely grow
    Hear my words good Mizzou
    The SEC will be calling you
    But my words, like Baylor’s lawsuit fell
    And echoed
    In the wells of silence

    And the people bowed and prayed
    To the realignment gods they made
    ESPN flashed out its warning
    Yes to the ACC super conference forming
    And the sign said, “The Big East’s fate is written on the walls
    And academia halls”
    And whispered in the sounds of silence

    Like

    Reply
    2. M

      Some minor fixes:
      High school games the longhorn network shone
      -fits meter better and we know it’s only a matter of time

      Would A&M leave it alone?
      -meter

      But PBC dared

      To the expansion gods they made
      -seems to flow better

      To the ACC super conference forming
      or
      Yes to the ACC 14 forming

      Like

      Reply
    3. M

      Also,

      And the sign said, “The Big East’s fate is on the walls”

      If you’re trying to match the “and the words of a prophet were written on the subway wall” I would go “and the fate of the Big East was written on the forum wall”.

      Like

      Reply
    1. zeek

      Pretty sure we’ve gotten it several times out of Delany in his lawyerly “we are content with where we are and cannot make a case for expansion right now” jargon; you’re never going to get it that straight from him. That article from Mike above from the day of the Wisconsin-Nebraska game. Alvarez’s statements as well confirm that the Big Ten is going nowhere.

      Like

      Reply
    2. mushroomgod

      Actually it would read: “We remain fat and arrogant. We refuse to consider any options that don’t fit our time table. After all, we are the Smaller 10”

      Like

      Reply
      2. zeek

        Look, I know that a lot of people would prefer the conference to go to 14 with some combination of Maryland, Missouri, and/or Rutgers.

        But it’s hard to fault the decision makers for not acting. I mean every school or expansion option has its own flaws.

        I personally think that Maryland/Missouri would be a slam dunk if you’re thinking out 25-50 or more years into the future. Those are markets that the schools largely control, and for BTN carriage, they’re a much safer bet than Rutgers without ND. And they’re solid growth/population markets with large state schools that have strong comprehensive athletics departments.

        The problem is that they’d prefer to just stay at 12 with 9 conference games so that everyone plays each other more because it’d be less mouths to feed (although I’d maintain that those two probably pay for themselves), and more marquee matchups, etc.

        If you’re a school like Northwestern or Indiana or Illinois or Purdue, you want more marquee teams visiting, not less. If you’re the bigger name schools, you’d prefer to just have 12 schools feeding off a trough that is largely being financed (value-wise) by the bigger brand name schools…

        Like

        Reply
          1. Scarlet_Lutefisk

            Just because they don’t make decisions that match your desires does not mean they are not thinking long term.

            Of course they likely aren’t blessed with the broad range of data available to you personally, but such is life.

            Like

  109. Read The D

    I fail to see how the Big 12, after losing 4 flagship state schools and #10 options of TCU, Louisville, Air Force, Cincinnati, etc. is palatable to Texas and Oklahoma.

    The only way this is possible is that it gives Texas time to incubate the LHN and gives Oklahoma time to consumate Sooner TV. How can Oklahoma go from wanting to be associated with Standford and Cal to wanting to be associated with TCU and West Virginia?

    Like

    Reply
      1. footballnut

        Interesting quote form Bill Self, BB coach at Kansas:

        I’ll dictate who we play as long as I’m coaching here,” Self said. “I have no ill will toward Missouri at all, but to do something at a time that could be so damaging and hurtful to a group, I can’t see us just taking it and forgetting. I think that would be something that’d be talked about with our administration and we’d make a decision that’s best for our place. They are making a decision that’s best for theirs. We’ll make a decision on a schedule that’s best for us. “I am not going to schedule Missouri just to schedule Missouri. I’m going to schedule what’s best for us, period. That’s how it’s going to be.”

        Both the Sprint Center and Arrowhead Stadium are in Kansas City, MISSOURI. Doubt Big 12 would hold its BB tourney in a state not included in the conference, or football, for that mater. KC stands to lose a great deal if Mizzou leaves for the SEC, so Missouri is hurting itself in a big way.

        Like

        Reply
    2. zeek

      Because that’s how important the LHN is to Texas from the perspective of controlling the content and using it to help their brand in Texas.

      That’s what they care about…

      They can’t do that in the Pac-16 since they’d be sharing it with Tech as part of a Pac-16 Texas Network.

      Texas just really cares about having OU in the conference and making sure it’s a strong and stable enough conference. If Missouri leaves, then the other 7 schools are locked in to Texas. That means that they probably would never go through this again. From Texas’ perspective, that’s not that bad an outcome…

      Like

      Reply
      1. Read The D

        That is exactly why I think this is only a short term fix for something greater down the road. Only Longhorn alumni will turn on the TV to watch Texas beat the mess out of Kansas, K State, Iowa St and to some extent Baylor. I think the same can be said for the Big East schools.

        Right now Texas only has 3 games on it’s schedule with broad appeal: Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. Compare that to Notre Dame’s schedule or Florida’s or Ohio State’s.

        Long term I don’t see how a 12 team conference filled with schools nobody in Texas cares about is good for Texas’ or Oklahoma’s “brand”.

        At the same time if Texas does want to leave down the road, they would be wise to make the Big 12 as large and strong as possible, including more of a Texas presence.

        Like

        Reply
        1. mushroomgod

          Their reluctance to go independent must be due to the difficulties in scheduling all sports other than football…….they don’t have the Big East to kick around ala ND. OK is the ONLY school remaining in that league that they’d give $.2 for…..and they could schedule OK as an independent if they wanted to…………

          Like

          Reply
        2. cutter

          Notre Dame doesn’t have that many games with broad appeal either. Here’s their schedule:

          South Florida 23 ND 20
          Michigan 35 ND 31
          ND 31 Michigan State 13
          ND 15 Pittsburgh 12
          ND 38 Purdue 10
          O08 AIR FORCE 3:30pm NBC
          O22 SOUTHERN CAL 7:30pm NBC
          O29 NAVY 3:30pm NBC
          N05 @ Wake Forest TBA
          N12 MARYLAND (FedEx) 7:30pm NBC
          N19 BOSTON COLLEGE 4pm NBC
          N26 @ Stanford 8pm ABC/ESPN

          You could probably pont to Michigan, USC and perhaps Stanford as being teams with broad appeal, but after that there’s not that much that’s exciting to the schedule.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Read The D

            @cutter

            I’ve never realized how average ND’s schedule is. At the same time that sort of illustrates my point. How long can Texas or Oklahoma realistically keep up their National Title contender status with a mediocre schedule? It has been 20 years of no titles for Notre Dame. Lack of high quality competition is killing the Big East and raising questions about the quality of teams in the ACC.

            Dodds and Castiglione have to understand that and must be working towards something bigger behind the scenes.

            Like

    1. Read The D

      Funniest part of the interview:

      Q: What about Texas A&M? Do you see a way that game can be saved?

      A: “Well, they’re out of the conference and we’re scheduled up for 10 years. So I think it’s different.”

      Q: Isn’t that game as important to Texas, too?

      A: “That game – the rivalry game for us has always been Oklahoma. The A&M game’s been a great game and all of that. And we may play ’em. But it’s not something that we have to do. I think the Oklahoma game is something we have to do.”

      Typical Longhorn needling of the Aggies. Hilarious.

      Like

      Reply
      1. PSUGuy

        The thing is, where Austin and College Station are located he’s right. They don’t need to play TAMU to maintain a visible prescence in the area.

        What they may need to start doing is scheduling some of the SEC West teams (specifically Arkansas, Kentucky, & the Mississippi’s) to ensure those schools aren’t able to start poaching recruits (ie: beat those teams yearly and Texas kids won’t be as likely to go play for them).

        Like

        Reply
        1. gas1958

          This isn’t about presence. “D” is right to point out that this is Dodds poking a thumb in the eyes of the Aggies. Look, when you grow up in Texas, you basically gravitate toward one school or the other (there are exceptions, of course, its a big state). I knew no one growing up who rooted for both schools. I knew people who went to Sam Houston or UH or Stephen F. Austin, or even TTech, and they all either hated UT or A&M depending on where their uncle or father went to school. Texas is/was very polarized in that regard. For Dodds to suggest that the A&M rivalry is unimportant to UT (which he knows is pure bull) is just another way of insulting the Aggies. They don’t play each other because of presence or recruiting or anything else. They play each other because they want to stomp each other’s guts out.

          Like

          Reply
  112. Mike

    Wilner

    http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/10/05/bcs-football-the-latest-on-realignment-2/


    *** Missouri would be the SEC’s 14th team, joining Texas A&M to give the conference two more AAU schools and about 11 million new TV homes to dangle in front of CBS, ESPN and any other network that wants a piece of the SEC’s TV rights.

    Make no mistake, folks: The SEC’s desire to sign a new TV deal — and its frustration that the little old Pac-12 has a better deal — is driving the realignment.

    There wouldn’t be anyplace for A&M and Mizzou to go without the SEC opening its doors.

    Now … with two new schools that bring 11 million TV homes … and the sizzling market for televised sports … and the intense demand for football within its massive footprint … the SEC stands to sign media deals that will likely zoom past the Pac-12′s average of $20.8 million per school per year.

    We’re talking $25-30 million school/yr for the SEC.

    And don’t be surprised if SEC commish Mike Slive attempts to form his own TV network — just as the Big Ten and Pac-12 have.

    The only reason he won’t is if ESPN and CBS pay him not to.

    [snip]

    *** Missouri’s decision is good news for Boise State, whose president, Bob Kustra, has been working aggressively behind the scenes to get the Broncos into the Big 12, according to multiple sources.

    The more slots available in the Big 12, the better chance BSU has to claim one of them.

    ** One major impediment for BSU is a poor academic reputation.

    (A 26% Federal Graduation Rate for all students will do that. For comparative purposes: Texas Tech’s is 61% and Kansas State’s is 63%.)

    [snip]

    Again, there’s so much chatter that the league’s true intentions are difficult to discern, and the conference is exploring multiple options.

    But sources have told the Hotline that Louisville, WVU and TCU are, indeed, very real candidates.

    Like

    Reply
    1. zeek

      I think he’s 100% right on BYU.

      BYU’s motivation for independence was because it couldn’t get into the Pac-12/14/16 scenario, and it wanted to be the equal of Utah. The only way to accomplish that was to go the “we’re going to be the next ND route”… Obviously, TV-wise it was a no brainer from the point of view of exposure on ESPN and BYU’s TV Network, but this whole thing was mainly driven by the Pac-10’s invite to Utah.

      BYU couldn’t be the equal of Utah from a stature perspective in the MWC but it could be in the Big 12, so if it thinks that the Big 12 is stable, it’ll likely take an invite there.

      One other thing: BYU probably wants a Big 12 with 12 teams. That’s one thing worth watching in all of this. BYU would probably much prefer to have a Big 12 North which it could win fairly often (say 4+ in 10 years) as opposed to a 10 team conference, which it might win 1 in 10 years. Getting into a lot of Big 12 CCGs opposite Texas/OU would probably do a lot for BYU’s brand…

      Like

      Reply

      1. Brigham Young may want a 12-member Big 12, but the question is, does Texas? And does Texas still have enough clout with its in-conference lackeys to get them to limit membership to 10? (And what could the burnt orange bullies do if they don’t get their way?)

        Like

        Reply
    2. PSUGuy

      I don’t see how those two schools change the fundamental dynamic…

      -The SEC is locked into a long term contract with ESPN.
      -The SEC is not adding anyone of “national brand”.
      -Those additions bring a mildly populous state (Missouri) and a portion of a highly fractured populous state into a conferenc that (by all accounts) didn’t have enough population in its footprint to start its own network in the first place (admittedly, probably quite a few SEC state ex-pats living in Texas nowadays).

      IMO, it’d be poaching some viewership money from the Big12, but I simply can’t see it completely rewriting the record books for how much a conference gets paid. More than the Pac? Sure. But truth be told, the SEC isn’t exactly all that far behind them now (if at all) as it is.

      Like

      Reply
      1. bobo the feted

        Depends on if the ESPN contract says anything about allowing or prohibiting the development of a conference network. With the additional teams the SEC will have excess TV inventory (at least one extra football game on most days and alot of excess basketball/baseball games) and those games will likely be shown on this SEC channel. If the SEC can get it on the basic cable tier like BTN/PAC/LHN, those millions of TVsets in Texas and Mizzou could mean alot.

        The SEC didn’t add a UT/OU/ND but they got two very good regional powers and the #3 and #4 teams in the Big12, both of which were much better options than any BE school.

        If this reopens media negotiations for tier1 and tier2 thats an even bigger plus.

        Once the SEC went to 13 (and there were many reasons why they took A&M besides money – cultural fit, recruitting etc) they had to go to 14. Of the schools available (PAC is too far, ACC is too stable, B1G too stable) Mizzou was by far the best candidate.

        Like

        Reply
        1. PSUGuy

          Buts that my point…

          From what I’ve read online…ESPN does not, nor will it, renegotiate on the SEC contract any time soon unless something earth shattering happens. Adding two regional teams in moderate markets (to me) does not warrant a Tier 1/2 renegotiation.

          What I’ve read the SEC looked into its own conference channel when the BTN became viable. They supposedly found they didn’t have enough tv sets to make the channel profitable. Adding Missouri and a highly fractured market in Texas make it all of a sudden viable? I seriously doubt that.

          I mean, I like both schools (and think Mizzou would fit well in the B1G), but I just don’t see how either of those additions warrants any, let alone all, of the options mentioned in the article.

          Maintain the same per school payout? Sure. Increase it a couple million because of increased markets? Ok I see that. But I just can’t see a complete renegotiation / dedicated TV channel being stood up because of these addtions.

          As a totally related aside…does the expansion to 14 by the SEC strike anyone else as a “look at me” move? I mean i’m not seeing any easy or obvious reasons for that conference to expand (no dedicated tv channel, already established long term big time tv contract, questionable immediate payoff, etc) and yet they are pushing it like it is the best thing that could happen since the championship game being initiated.

          Like

          Reply
          1. bobo the feted

            Well since no one really knows what the CBS and ESPN contracts say regarding TV deals and contract expansion and contraction or the development of a dedicated SEC channel – its hard, looking from the outside, to say if expansion was worth it or not. The contracts could say just a few million more, a pro-rata increase or even SEC rights go back to the open market. I’m guessing Slive thinks it ultimately will be very viable to add two more teams. If the worst case scenario is just a pro-rata increase and no SEC channel, then adding Mizzou and A&M still has alot of benefits. It gets the leagues brand into more states and it increased the academic profile by doubling the number of AAU schools – thats still pretty good.

            I don’t think the SEC ever wanted to expand this time around, it’s pretty clear the reason A&M applied is because they wanted to leave not because the SEC was too enticing (it was enticing last year as well). The only thing was once A&M applied, the SEC had to accept, or else it was risking never getting A&M ever again. A rejection would have been a huge stain on Aggie honor and ego. That school and fan base is particularly vindictive and always remembers past slights. It’s not like Syracuse – which did get stood up by the ACC in 2003 – and was still willing to join the ACC 8 years later. I think the SEC presidents understand this, which was why had Mizzou stayed they were willing to accept playing a 13 team unbalanced schedule. If you wanted a shot at the state of Texas, it was take A&M now, or have the state closed off forever.

            Like

    3. Purduemoe

      If WVU and Louisville leave the Big East, then not only is Big East Football dead, but Big East basketball is also a shell of its former self. It is still strong with UConn, Georgetown, ND, and Nova, but you just lost four teams that seem to make the tournament almost every year. They would definately be behind the ACC then, and maybe behind some other conferences as well. This doesn’t even consider what happens if UConn leaves.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Penn State Danny

        How much “pressure” or “concern” is there for the Big 12 to be numerically correct?

        People understood when they went from 12 to 10 but now that they are (apparently) down to 8, if and when they do expand, do they HAVE to go back to 12?

        I “get” that the Big Ten brand is more important than the # of teams in the conference but is this a factor for the Big 12???

        Like

        Reply
  114. wmtiger

    B10’s only expansion candidate is ND. Along with ND, they’ll take most any large state school with AAU status to get to 14: Rutgers, Missouri, Maryland… Connecticut could get AAU status by the time ND is available…

    Until Big East football dies (loses BCS status, they retain it through the 2013 season), ND is off the table imo. Irish value their independence above all, it is their identity. Every ND’s alum worst fear is just being another midwest school and that is a very real possibility if they join the B10…

    The problem with the B10 and expansion is that to add somebody, you need to add a real strong program for them to pay their way. In the B10 that is more difficult to do than in the ACC or Pac 12. In the B10 the ‘kings’ [Michigan, Ohio, Penn State, Nebraska] generate ~67% of the TV revenue and the other eight make money off the kings…

    Any expansion candidate that adds real value to the B10 needs to be the level of say Wisconsin minimum, there aren’t any of those available… Rutgers, no. Missouri, no. Maryland, no. Pitt, no. B10 needs a ‘king’ to add significant value and pay its own way and none of those are available until ND becomes available.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bobo the feted

      Great point, if you really look at the economics, even Nebraska (a King) didn’t pay their own way to get into the BigTen. NU by itself did not generate enough money via TV dollars to earn a pro-rata increase. However by adding NU the BigTen got to put on a conference championship game and that does pay for NU’s entry (and then some). This is why I think NU won’t be getting a full share in the BigTen right away but rather their cut is gradually brought up to even over the course of a few years.

      Like

      Reply
      1. zeek

        That’s partially though because Nebraska brings a very small state though.

        Nebraska’s value is in the T1/T2 contracts and BTN advertising $ as opposed to being in the BTN’s footprint value.

        If you were to add Missouri or Maryland or Rutgers and get direct BTN carriage, those three would be much more likely to immediately pay for themselves.

        Nebraska won’t pay for itself until 2016 when the negotiations get redone on T1+…

        Like

        Reply
      2. Mike

        If Nebraska didn’t generate enough revenue to be added to the Big Ten they wouldn’t be added. The biggest reason they are not receiving a full share is that they have to buy into equity of the Big Ten Network.

        Like

        Reply
    2. EZCUSE

      Same with the ACC, re no more expansion until ND.

      Although part of me thinks that the ACC should seriously look at Oklahoma and Oklahoma St…. to keep the FSU/Clemson guys happy. The latter are less than thrilled with the SU/Pitt adds. If the NC folks are interested in keeping the football side relevant, they need a splash.

      A conference with Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, FSU. Va Tech, and Clemson should leapfrog the Pac-12 and make the ACC the 3rd best football conference.

      Even before making those adds, the rumor of same might be enough to kick ND off the fence.

      If Maryland wants to drift off to the B1G, the ACC could then add UConn or Rutgers (or ND at that point, I suppose).

      Like

      Reply
    3. zeek

      Maryland, Missouri, and Rutgers are different from Pitt. And the Big Ten is different from the rest of the conferences (although Pac-12 will be more similar soon).

      If you get basic carriage in their states for the BTN, then they’ll pay for themselves if you include renegotiations on the T1/T2 rights by 2016.

      Let’s not forget that Nebraska isn’t getting a full share until 2017. The earliest we really get the full value for them is in the new negotiations.

      Maryland (6M), Missouri (6M+), Rutgers (9M), would all pay for themselves if they get BTN carriage and generally somewhere around a 1/15th-1/20th expansion in the T1/T2 contract. Obviously, given the dynamics of the NYC/NJ markets and how difficult it is to get carriage for a network there, that’s a concern.

      Unlike the SEC, the Big Ten doesn’t need a pro-rata increase in its T1/T2 contract to justify expansion because of the way the BTN works.

      The only loss in value would be the loss from having less games between the big brands, but they mostly already play each other. I mean you’d have less Nebraska/Wisconsin or Nebraska/Ohio State over time than if you stayed at 12 with 9 conference games, but that loss in value is hard to calculate.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Agreed — that’s the ace in the hole for Maryland and Rutgers where Big Ten membership is concerned (along with the academics and research). Maryland is a proven big-time athletic program (a consistent top-30 finisher in the Director’s Cup), whereas Rutgers is still finding its way where athletics are concerned, some 30 years after playing its final football game against an Ivy League opponent. If Notre Dame joined at #13 and the Big Ten sought a partner, Maryland would probably rank ahead of Rutgers.

        Like

        Reply

      2. “If you get basic carriage in their states for the BTN, then they’ll pay for themselves”

        This is where I disagree, Missouri, Rutgers, Maryland likely pay their way of the BTN but to move the bar for 1st/2nd tier rights (which is ~67% of the B10’s tv revenue) you need kings; not schools that can’t fill a sub 55k stadium…

        ABC/ESPN (1st/2nd tier) won’t pay big money for Rutgers, Maryland or Missouri. They will for schools like Michigan, OSU, Penn State, Nebraska and Notre Dame. Those are the universities that are always on ABC/ESPN not Purdue, Indiana, Iowa, NW, MSU, Illinois, etc.

        Like

        Reply
        1. PSUGuy

          Here’s my problem with that line of thinking…

          …while true, its the same thought process ESPN had circa 2005 and what drove the creation of the BTN.

          Everyone wants “the kings” and the huge tv dollars they bring, but the facts are they are few and typically well entrenched in their repective conferences. Once those are out of play its all about maximizing revenue for those that typically don’t bring as much from the ESPN’s of the world. Now I’m not saying the B1G should max out by inviting the Marylands and Rutgers, but to discount them because they don’t bring top notch football to the table is a little short sighted.

          Truth be told though, I have a feeling for the next 20 years we’re going to have a psuedo equilibrium like we did after the early 90’s. Texas / Oklahoma will sit at home in the reconstituted “BigWhatever” comprising a smattering of schools from across the nation with an emphasis on the SouthWest. The SEC/ACC sitting at 14. The BigEast basically gone or perhaps relegated to a MAC level football conference with good bball through the smaller colleges. And the B1G/Pac still sitting at 12.

          Like

          Reply
          1. cutter

            Keep in mind that a little over twenty years ago before the Big East decided to become a football conference that the other five BCS confernces and 47 members. Now that there are six BCS conferences, the current membership is 67 teams and depending on how conference expansion shakes out in the near term, that number could easily go to over 70:

            Big Ten – 12
            ACC – 14 (includes Syracuse and Pittsburgh)
            Pac 12 – 12
            SEC – 13 (likely to 14)
            Big East – 7 (likely to go to at least 10)
            Big XII – 9 (likely to go at least 10, but will go to 8 if Missouri leaves)

            You could be correct on your analysis and there might be a long period of time between conference expansions. The Big Ten took the better part of two decades to get from 11 to 12, but it wasn’t for want of trying since we know the conference approached Notre Dame in 1999 and probably again in 2003 when Miami-FL, Boston College and Virginia Tech moved to the ACC and the Big East was thought to be in peril. The SEC went from 10 to 12 in the early 90s, and again, that conference took a long time to get to 13 with Texas A&M and will likely get to 14 in short order.

            I think we’re largely agreed that the Big Ten and the ACC are quite willing to wait Notre Dame out in terms of where they’ll go for conference expansion. But in the former’s case, the conference is looking at renegotiating its television deals with the networks in a few years, so there may be more of emphasis for the conference to grow within that time period. In the latter’s case, they have to worry about possibly being poached by the SEC in order to move the needle enough on any new television deal–will the additions of Texas A&M and possibly Missouri be enough?

            It’ll be interesting to see what the Big XII does post-Missouri in its conference expansion efforts. If the conference is down to eight members, do they opt to get back to 10 or 12 or even more? How do the conference members value money towards stability–we saw what the ACC did with its move to add Syracuse and Pitt. Will there be another schism within the conference because the members can’t agree on the final number or where those teams will come from? I get the inkling that Texas’ desires on these issues (10 teams only, no conference championship game, no teams from the state of Texas) may not mesh with what the other members of the conference may desire. The old Big 8 has had one of the singlest largest major conference expansions on record when it went to 12 members–it may have to do that again.

            In the meantime, the Big East might eventually be removed as a BCS conference if it loses additional members such as TCU, Louisville, West Virginia and/or Cincinnati. A conference that has as its core Rutgers, Connectiut and South Florida is not going to be a BCS conference with the additions they’re contemplating–Central Florida, East Carolina, Army, Navy, Houston, SMU, Memphis, Villanova.

            If that’s the case and the BCS conferences want to have majority membership in terms of represenatives within Division 1-A, then further expansion might be necessary. With the four most recent members currently transitioning in, the total within the division will be 124 by 2013. Drop the Big East from the current tally and the remaining five BCS conferences would have just 60 members (doesn’t include current independents Notre Dame, BYU, Army and Navy).

            If the SEC does go to 14 and the Big XII stays at 10, then the total number of Division 1-A members within the BCS conferences outside of the Big East is now 62 or half the total division membership. Notre Dame would make 63 and BYU (if its still independent) would likely make that 64–a bare majority.

            All this means is that the major conferences may have a larger interest in how this works out. Who know? Maybe the Mountain West may become a BCS Conference or perhaps the BCS Conferences will be able to keep the Big East (whatever its final form) in the BCS as well. Of course, if the MWC had the prospect of becoming a BCS conference, what would the fall out be on conference expansion? Would this be something that the Pac 12 or the Big XII would like to see or endorse?

            Like

        2. zeek

          I’m not sure it’s that simple though. You expand the coverage footprint (especially for a network like ABC/ESPN that does regional coverage) and they don’t need to bring a pro-rata share of T1/T2 if they’re pulling their weight more heavily in the BTN category.

          It comes down to whether you would rather have a 12 team conference in 2017 (after renegotiations) earning $33M per team or a 14 team conference in 2017 earning $31-32M per team.

          Considering inventory, advertising and all of that, I think it’s a “sacrifice” worth making. I mean the SEC is taking Texas A&M and Missouri. Neither of those is going to be appearing on CBS that often, and they probably don’t really increase the value of the T1/T2 rights. But they’ll probably get a pro-rata increase for adding them if that does go through.

          Like

          Reply

          1. There’s also the effect of rebranding a particular school. Two decades ago, many questioned inviting South Carolina — a so-so program that to that point had never won a bowl game — to the SEC. But look what the SEC brand has done for the Gamecocks — a far larger stadium, a division title, regular CBS-ESPN appearances. (It’s also boosted the rest of its program, as two College World Series triumphs make evident.) I foresee SEC membership will do likewise for Missouri, a better program to begin with. For Maryland to swap the virtually nonexistent ACC football brand for the definite value of the Big Ten would soon pay off — maybe not making the Terrapins perennial Big Ten contenders or returning to the glories of the Jim Tatum era, but boosting their worth and ability to recruit, increasing Byrd Stadium’s capacity, and so on.

            Like

          2. EZCUSE

            If Rutgers, Missouri, and Maryland are such easy money-makers, why hasn’t the B1G added them already?

            I think that the rabidity of the fan bases has something to do with it. A market is nice… but a unified market–see Penn State and Nebraska–is even better. There are not many schools that can match those two.

            It’s ND or bust for the B1G. One of the above three schools may be team #14. But that’s it.

            Like

          3. zeek

            Because Delany only wants to add football kings; we already discussed this many times.

            That doesn’t mean that other schools wouldn’t add value.

            Syracuse as well would probably more than offset its cost in terms of an addition. But they just want football powers. I get that.

            Like

          4. PSUGuy

            You know there’s one thing I do have to admit I think we are all ignoring (or at least heavily discounting)…the tv companies.

            Facts are it took years to get the BTN on basic carriage in the states in its footprint and quite simply they may been tired of dealing with that particular aspect of the conference. When they were looking to expand, they may have done “due diligence” in looking at a much larger expansion (ie 14 or 16 teams), but I really think they had their eyes on adding exactly one school and preferred it to be to the west of the conference.

            Getting Nebraska was huge because it was national sure, but more importantly its rabid fanbase made getting the BTN on in its home state would most likely be a breeze (hell, it might be easy to get it on basic in surrounding non-Nebraska states -Wyoming, Dakotas, Montana, etc). Adding even a Rutgers might “fit”, but its lack of “rabidity” might well make the cable tv fight too much effort for the conference to stomach at this time.

            Another interesting wrinkle I was unaware of…Fox took ownership of the BTN in 2010 by exercising a clause in its contract which gave it a 51% share of the network…which aligns very well with the announcement the B1G was looking into expansion. Just as ESPN was accused of trying to push Texas certain ways during this last round of conference realignment, perhaps Fox was trying to “urge” the conference toward 14 or 16 teams and the B1G only even agreed to 12 because of a championship game and that it was Nebraska.

            Like

          5. duffman

            EZCUSE,

            I think that is what was lost on South Carolina. They actually had fans to follow them pretty much no matter what happened. Not sure the Terps, Tigers, and Knights have the same loyalty with so many pro teams in their spheres of influence. MU has St. Louis and KC, MD has Baltimore and DC, and Rutgers has NYC and Philly.

            Like

          6. EZCUSE

            All the more reason for the B1G to continue waiting. Unless there is a rule that conferences must have 14 or 16 teams, there is no reason for them to move at all.

            Like

  115. M_in_PHX

    Maybe Missouri leaving the Big12 makes it more stable.

    With the Big12 at 8 teams, the likely invitees to the conference have leverage because the 8 teams need to expand to remain a viable conference.

    If I’m BYU, I work with Oklahoma to put together a “voluntary” Big12 Network.
    -BYU should make having a Big12 Network with OU and two texas schools as participants be a condition for joining the conference. (am assuming the other invitee would be TCU)
    -Rules for the schools participating in the network could include the following
    – not allowing games in which the schools to be televised on networks that also televise high school sports. (effectively preventing LHN from televising HS sports if they want conference games)
    – only allow a hosting school (away game) to televise a game on their contracted network if the hosting school reciprocates. (ensure UT away games are on the big12 Network)
    – allow rebroadcast rights to individual schools a week following the event. (maybe this would benefit byuTV)

    Now is the time that OU, BYU, and others have leverage to create a Big12 network, even if UT doesn’t participate. The Big12 Network will always have about the same amount of UT content as the longhornNetwork. The Big12Network would still have leverage to get carried in texas without UT participating.

    This would do a lot to cement the stability of the big12.
    Teams wouldn’t have had this leverage if Missouri stayed.

    Like

    Reply
    1. zeek

      Shaq is probably the most prominent NBA-er to speak about the uselessness of the NBA’s regular season more than any other sport.

      Only the most hardcore of NBA fans really care about each and every NBA game before Christmas.

      The Christmas games tend to start to get the general fanbase (and more general sports fans) to care more about which teams are good and which aren’t (which is really all that matters in a sport that gives 16 out of 30 teams playoff spots), but it’s not until after the Super Bowl that the rest of the sports world focuses on the NBA. By the ASG it starts to heat up, but really most of the season is worthless.

      A lot of fans wouldn’t really care if they just instituted a 50 game season starting in January… (less random injury opportunities I suppose).

      Like

      Reply
      1. EZCUSE

        One way to fix the NBA is to make college basketball relevant again. Once upon a time, you had 4 years (occasionally 3) to get to know a college player before he went pro. Now… if a guy lasts 4 years in college, he must have serious deficiencies in his game. So the guys that college fans like me get to “know” best, never end up playing in the NBA.

        Instead, NBA teams draft guys from Europe who mean nothing to Americans. They draft kids with one year of college based on potential (and nothing else). It would be like MLB team never bothering to promote guys from A through AAA. There is something special about following a MLB legend before he is a legend. How many people “saw” Strasburg pitch before he debuted for the Nationals? How many will see Harper and others? The NBA misses this.

        The NBA had that with college basketball. But they have alienated college basketball fans.
        I am a guy that followed the NBA in the 1980’s. They lost me in the 1990s when they started drafting high schoolers.

        The real simple solution is for the NBA and NCAA to get together on who moves up to the NBA. No more of this “hire an agent” and lose your eligibility. The NCAA should allow any kid who doesn’t SIGN with an NBA team to go back to college. The NBA should allow its teams to keep a players rights for 2 years after drafting–let the kid go back to college and work on his skills before signing. And then have a rule that no signing can take place after a certain date–preventing kids from quitting school early.

        Expand draft to 3 rounds. 3rd round is guaranteed salary @ 1/2 league minimum. The 3rd round picks are not tradeable. And a team must select a college graduate. The 30 best college graduates that were not drafted earlier get selected and make the team. Maybe some of these seniors show that 4 years of college was not because they stunk, but because they were late bloomers. Plus, their college experience makes them good role models for the younger kids that are drafted in 1st and 2nd round.

        Or some other ideas. I don’t know.

        Like

        Reply
        1. EZCUSE

          Re: college graduates.

          In many careers, a degree is not only desirable but mandatory. While you don’t need a degree to play in the NBA, I tend to think that having a degree in the NBA allows you to be better prepared for the rigors of NBA life. A variety of courses along the way to broaden the knowledge base. The life experience of 4 years at ANY campus. Plus, the achievement of completing the degree.

          If necessary, give these players a coaching or admin role too. Groom them to be the ADs and coaches of the future. And so on.

          Like

          Reply

        2. @EZCUSE – I think simply changing NBA draft eligibility rules to require that players are two years out of high school (as opposed to the 1 year out of HS/19-years old rule in place now) would help a lot by providing some continuity to college programs without locking in players that are truly ready to go to the pros for too long. As someone that considers himself to be fairly libertarian, I believe in theory that any player that’s ready for the NBA ought to be able to play no matter what his age. However, the problem was that in practice, NBA teams took too many high school prospects that had lots of raw talent but no polished skills at the expense of experienced college players, which dropped down the quality of play of the league overall in the early 2000s. For every LeBron or Dwight Howard, there were 10 Darkos. The NBA is really a league where you want rookies to be able to step to contribute valuable minutes immediately. If I had faith that NBA teams would only take high school players with LeBron-like talent, then I wouldn’t be worried about age restrictions, but I think rules need to be put into place to save dumb GMs from themselves.

          Like

          Reply
          1. EZCUSE

            That’s why I think an incentive of some sort to give NCAA Seniors jobs is the way to go. Don’t keep out the Carmelo Anthony’s… but do find a way for the 4-year seniors to land jobs.

            Like

          2. Sportsman

            Four-year seniors do have a way to land a job… it’s called a degree. Isn’t that the point of collegiate athletics, anyway?

            Like

    2. @M – As someone that’s a huge Bulls fan that will doesn’t want to miss a moment of Derrick Rose’s career, this saddens me. I think it will hit more people if/when it gets to the point where games are actually canceled. The NBA had a massive season last year in terms of ratings and interest (clearly ahead of MLB).

      Like

      Reply
      1. zeek

        It’s really a travesty that after the most successful season since the late Bulls era/early Shaq-Kobe years, the NBA is still as dysfuncational as ever.

        Especially when the talent levels on top teams (and the biggest brands) is as high as its ever been. Can’t believe they’re going to screw up a product that’s 1st in terms of % of younger fans and second only to NFL in terms of growth among females (fastest growing sports viewing demographic)…

        Like

        Reply
  117. Alan from Baton Rouge

    Tulane to the Big XII-2-1-1?

    “The source said that the top choices remain BYU, Louisville, West Virginia and TCU, but a new school was discussed recently that hasn’t been mentioned publicly: Tulane out of Conference USA. The source said the Big 12 has been contacted by a number of other schools about possible inclusion, as well.

    The source said that Tulane would become a viable option for the Big 12 if it were to grab four schools to beef up the membership to 12, in a situation where BYU decides it doesn’t want to leave its football independence or its new tie to the WCC in all other sports. Tulane is interesting to the Big 12 because of its location in New Orleans and in a state, Louisiana, where the Big 12 is absent, as well as the school’s renewed commitment to sports and facilities after Hurricane Katrina.

    A source with knowledge of Tulane’s situation told ESPN.com that the Green Wave have privately been making overtures to the Big East and Big 12 about possible membership but didn’t want to upset Conference USA as that league looks to form a partnership with the Mountain West.

    Tulane is also a member of the Association of American Universities — the only AAU member listed as a possible addition. The prestigious AAU tag is something that the SEC has looked at as an important criterion for expansion as evidenced by the league promoting Texas A&M as one of three AAU members in the SEC in a news release announcing the Aggies’ addition. Florida and Vanderbilt are the other two in the SEC.”

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7063633/missouri-tigers-hope-join-sec-had-wanted-big-ten-invite-most

    Like

    Reply
    1. zeek

      I mean, if you’re really talking about Tulane, why not Rice? Same thing except it gives you a game in Houston (impt for non-Texas based schools) in an area that Big 12 still has somewhat sewn up other than A&M.

      Not really sure you get anything out of Tulane that you wouldn’t get from Rice. Not like New Orleans or Louisiana recruits are going to care about the Big 12. Might as well just get an extra game in Houston for a part of the conference instead…

      Heck, it’d free up a slot on Texas’ schedule if you do that; it’s a win for everyone…

      Like

      Reply
      2. Richard

        A visit to New Orleans is likely more attractive than a visit to Houston for the Longhorns because they’d be able to allow Texas to give it’s alums in LA/MS/south ‘Bama/FL panhandle a chance to see their team, while grads in Houston can easily make the trip to Austin.

        Plus, it does open up a new recruiting ground for Texas. The Horns already get virtually any recruit in Texas they want (they win almost all head-to-heads vs. TAMU & OU per M’s data).

        Finally, it’s kind of a middle finger to the SEC (well, a raised pinky, anyway), taking a school in their footprint since they’re taking a school in Texas.

        Like

        Reply

    2. @Alan – I saw this and was a bit perplexed (although I’m sure you’re happy as Tulane Law grad). Of course, Tulane was robbed out of a 1998 BCS bowl spot, so it’s not like they’ve been in the athletic dark ages completely forever. It also goes to show that the conferences do want to look for academic upgrades where possible.

      This also confirms to Loki that Texas is hellbent on screwing over Rice again.

      Like

      Reply
      1. zeek

        Might be a compromise between the academics (Powers/Boren) and the athletics (Dodds/Castiglione). After all a part of the Pac-16 approach was the opportunity to hobnob with Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC/Washington academic types.

        Tulane’s academic prestige would partially offset the loss of AAUs in A&M/Missouri as well as the addition of West Virginia.

        Of course, this is all so far out in left field that I’m just trying to think of justifications…

        Like

        Reply
    3. M

      Tulane is the stupidest idea ever suggested in a major publication.

      The new top 5:

      1. Tulane to the Big 12
      2. Penn State to the ACC
      3. BYU to the Pac-12
      4. Baylor to the Pac-12
      5. Arkansas to the Big 12

      I would feel great for Tulane (which is good school that’s suffered a lot), but is this serious?

      Like

      Reply
  118. CarnegieNitt

    Didn’t find “leatherhelmet” on here when I searched for it, so here is a link to consider:

    http://leatherhelmetblog.com/2011-articles/october/another-wvu-report.html

    “The truth is that had Missouri announced plans to look around two weeks ago I would have joined my fellow Mountaineers in shared panic. But something changed last week. The SEC began an earnest dialog with WVU impendent of Missouri’s B12 decision.

    How do I know? Is this just another baseless rumor? I know because a high-placed official at WVU recognized the need for a well-placed leak.

    Here’s what I learned.

    WVU and the SEC had a conditional agreement based on Missouri’s decision to stay in the B12.

    SEC officials believed that Missouri would stay in the B12 and began serious talks with WVU.

    The SEC requested and received a detailed plan from WVU regarding facilities upgrades and the addition of men’s track, women’s softball, men’s golf and other sports.

    WVU’s plan was reviewed and accepted.

    SEC officals were on campus both Monday and Tuesday.

    The SEC was very impressed with WVU’s leadership and financial standing. They were also very impressed that WVU is committed to winning National Championships in both football and basketball.

    Based on discussions with the SEC, WVU approached the Big East and began talks geared towards leaving the conference and buying out the 27-month waiting period. Those discussions are ongoing.”

    “But more than likely it was the fact that Missouri clearly demonstrated they didn’t really want to be a part of the SEC. They worked behind the scenes to save the B12 when they could have easily shared TAMU’s SEC lust. Instead they flirted with the SEC and wished upon a star for what they really wanted – an invite to the Big 10.

    Whatever reason the SEC and WVU are too far down the road together to turn back now. Promises have been made – checks have been written, and WVU has burned some bridges – all based on what they were told by the SEC last week.

    WVU continues to work through the legal and technical minutiae that will lead them to the SEC with confidence they will be accepted when they do finally apply.

    Is there danger? Yes. Many I talk to are fearful that the SEC will not be able to resist the lure of Missouri’s television sets. They have the same fear as we do and many think its best to keep quiet.

    The solution – for the SEC, WVU and Missouri – to get what they want is for the SEC to go to 16.

    The ACC will make the first move. As the weakest conference it has to act fast.”

    This may all just be fantasizing and wishful blogging. Reading the whole thing, there’s nothing from or about officials from other SEC schools, except what might be implied in WVU people fearing, “the SEC will not be able to resist the lure of Missouri’s television sets.” What interested me was the assertion that WVU was able to impress SEC officials and that they were apparently on campus. Also, the idea of Missouri holding out for a B1G invitation given the possibility of another preemptive ACC raid that causes a Big East implosion makes me wonder who the ACC is also looking at secretly again.

    Like

    Reply

    1. West Virginia as part of an SEC #15-16 certainly makes sense if #16 is an ACC program, thus avoiding an Auburn/Alabama east-west split. Could the SEC put the squeeze on Virginia Tech, whose fans might fear WVU could gain an upper hand in recruiting with SEC membership? The North Carolina four are probably off limits (though it would be perversely delicious to see Wake Forest break off from its Triangle brethren) and other candidates have that nagging “gentlemen’s agreement” problem (I’m assuming that Maryland simply has even less SEC interest than UNC does), so look for the SEC to try to persuade Blacksburg to follow College Station’s lead.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Richard

        Vincent,

        I’m quite certain that no “gentlemen’s agreement” exists. For one thing, there’s virtually no risk of other SEC schools desiring Louisville, Clemson, or GTech to join. It would be insane for a 16-school SEC to not invite FSU.

        Like

        Reply
        1. frug

          Kentucky athletic director Mitch Barnhart told Kentucky Sports Radio that the Wildcats “would not rule out a veto” of Louisville.

          Even if the other schools weren’t really interested in Louisville, et all, it certainly sounds like UK believes they have the authority to block an in state rival regardless of what the rest of the league wants. Tough to imagine UK would not have the same power.

          Like

          Reply

    2. When I read Clay Travis’s “Anti-WVU” blog a few weeks ago…I thought about Nebraska to the Big Ten immediately. Nobody thought Nebraska would get the nod…but ultimately their football brand won the day. WVU is the same boat. They lack a ton of criteria for the SEC…but they have a strong football program that enlarges its footprint.

      Makes sense…especially if the B1G is interested long-term in Missouri.

      Like

      Reply
      1. mushroomgod

        Makes no sense because SEC commish is interested in attractive academic schools, at least more attractive than WVU. Won’t happen

        Like

        Reply
    3. Josh

      I can’t believe that two weeks of promises in Morgantown would make the SEC think West Virginia is the perfect match. What I can believe is that all this Mizzou drama complete with “I guess we’ll join the SEC since the Big Ten won’t have us” stuff would sour them on Missouri. Why would you want to invite Missouri if they’re going to be looking north all the time and wishing they were here? In that case, West Virginia becomes the second best candidate.

      Missouri has not played the expansion game well. They’ve shot themselves in the foot repeatedly. It was their flirting with the Big Ten that made Nebraska reconsider their commitment to the Big 12. The only good idea I’ve heard out of Missouri came from a poster on “Rock M Nation” who wrote that the plan should be 1. Build a Time Machine. 2. Go back in time and kill Baby Nebraska. 3. Return to the Present. 4. Join the Big Ten.

      Of course, the way Mizzou has been doing this they’d probably return to the present just in time to see Jim Delany announce Rutgers as the 12th member of the Big Ten.

      Like

      Reply
      1. FLP_NDRox

        Well, it *is* Versus, so as long as it can outdraw hunting re-runs it’s a win. 😉

        I’m just hopeful I can catch all those Friday home games that I have no chance of attending. Notre Dame’s happy the check is clearing and we have teams to play.

        Like

        Reply

  120. http://www.nittanylionsden.com/2011-articles/october/the-missouri-compromise.html

    Blog…the Missouri Compromise.

    …If you’re wondering what’s next for Big Ten expansion, I suggest you follow the situation with Missouri very, very closely. If Missouri casually walks into the SEC without even a wistful goodbye from the Big Ten, then the Big Ten might be truly sitting on the sidelines of the expansion derby. But if you start to hear murmurings of Mizzou-to-the-B1G, don’t forget about the bigger fish that the Big Ten would like to fry on their way to 16. The first step might be the Missouri Compromise…

    Like

    Reply
    1. drwillini

      Agree if Mizzou balks at the SEC it suggests a B1G expansion. But don’t agree it works the other way, and if they join the SEC there will not be a B1G expansion. Mizzou is clearly a good coplementary addition, but in that same category are: Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, VaTech, GaTech and perhaps others are a bit more of stretch. I think Mizzou’s attractiveness as a complementary add is less than some of the above, simply because the B1G needs to add at least one eastern team to leverage the PennSt brand on all those eastern TV sets. To me, the only thing that puts Mizzou ahead of the rest is if somehow UT thinks they need the geographic proximity. What the article misses is a sense of strategy behind the expansion, and the only strategy that supports Mizzou is a UT add.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Read The D

        “To me, the only thing that puts Mizzou ahead of the rest is if somehow UT thinks they need the geographic proximity.”

        I’ve seen this mentioned before on this board so I’ve got to put my two cents in. The states of Missouri and Texas are relatively close in proximity, but Austin to Columbia is something like a 14 hour drive. That doesn’t really add geographic proximity for Texas. Now, if the play was to add Mizzou, then OU and Texas, I could follow that logic.

        Like

        Reply
        1. allthatyoucantleavebehind

          You’re right. But nobody drives anymore. The extra 14 hours doesn’t matter to PSU…they’ll fly to Columbia and Austin.

          Geography comes in by way of perception. If a Texas recruit (assuming Texas and Mizzou were in the Big Ten) is wavering between Texas and TAMU, having the closest rival school as LSU/Arkansas is pretty attractive. Still some distance, but it’s not bad. Now, if the closest rival school is Iowa or Illinois if he chooses the Horns, that’s quite a bit farther. Missouri at least stretches the Big Ten’s geography south-ward.

          It also works for recruits of non-Texas schools. Alabama can snag a Texas recruit and tell him he’ll play at TAMU and LSU a few times and those games are close for friends/family to attend. Ohio State can snag a Texas recruit and tell him he’ll play in Austin and Missouri…which is two closer destinations than Austin and Champaign or Austin and Iowa City.

          It’s a perception thing as much as an actual travel thing.

          Like

          Reply
  121. Mapsgl

    I know it can’t happen now because of Okie Lite and other issues.

    But if I am JD OU and Mizzou to the B1G would be a strong move to 14.

    In addition I can see a number of scenarios where the B1G would have great options for the final two on the way to 16.

    If he could pull it off the reactions from Silve, ESPN, Texas T Boone and others would be interesting

    -Mapsgl

    Like

    Reply
    1. mushroomgod

      The Smaller 10 would not add schools that would be academic #s 12 and 13 in a 14 team league. If MO were added, you’d need some academic cover in the form of ND, MD, Rutgers et al

      Like

      Reply
  122. jtorre

    IF the BIG would add 0u and Mizzou/KU I imagingethe reaction would be for Dodds to call ND and figure how to fold their networks into the BTN2. No georgraphy program and rivalry preserved. Done and Done.
    It would sure box the PAC in (Tech, BYU, oSu???)

    Like

    Reply
      1. jtorre

        I agree – BIG won’t do it. It would add 2 AAUs and ND and it’s not like 0U is that far behind Nebraska, but I just can’t give up on a a geographic solution for Texas getting into the BIG.

        Like

        Reply
  123. Read The D

    Kicking around the Tulane to the Big12…

    What if the Big12 goes with an all private expansion:

    BYU for obvious reasons
    TCU as another football addition
    Rice for academics/Houston
    Tulane for academics/ New Orleans

    I know Rice and Tulane don’t really deliver those markets but they do provide a trip to those cities for visiting teams, which helps with alumni and recruiting.

    Divisions could look like this:
    North
    Oklahoma
    OK St.
    BYU
    Kansas
    K State
    Iowa St.

    South
    Texas
    Texas Tech
    TCU
    Baylor
    Rice
    Tulane

    Protect OU-Texas, Tech-OK St, BYU-TCU

    You get two fairly balanced divisions, cupcakes galore, new attractive destinations, CCG, etc. The major problem is diluted TV money. However, I bet you could get Rice and Tulane to agree to a smaller share for a while.

    Like

    Reply
  124. Mike

    Mizzou gets the Boren treatment?


    Majority of SEC presidents favor Missouri, but not yet enough

    BIRMINGHAM, Alabama — Missouri demonstrated it’s ready to publicly dance with the SEC. But will enough SEC presidents agree to the overture?

    Two sources familiar with the SEC’s discussions about Missouri told The Birmingham News Wednesday that as of now it appears that a majority of SEC presidents and chancellors would support Missouri’s application. But the sources said that majority falls just short of the nine votes required to add a new member.

    Like

    Reply

      1. A Missouri rejection would not only embarrass Mizzou (again), but leave Slive in a bind. It would be shocking to see SEC presidents spurn Missouri and back West Virginia, which wouldn’t make sense economically or athletically.

        The only reason I could see for rejecting Missouri is that SEC presidents don’t like their conference being used as a “backup,” as the Big Ten is clearly the desired preference of the school community (even though the Big Ten apparently isn’t returning the favor).

        Like

        Reply
        2. Alan from Baton Rouge

          Vincent – I think the only way the SEC doesn’t take Mizzou at this point is if Slive has received assurances from either VA Tech or Florida State that they are coming in 2013.

          Like

          Reply
        3. mushroomgod

          I see it as internal negotiating about who goes to what division and what not and not a fundamental rejection of the idea itself, as in the OK/OK ST case.

          Like

          Reply
        4. PSUGuy

          TBH…choosing WVU makes a lot of sense from a “SEC culture” standpoint. State school with undergraduate focus in a rural area where the school is the focus of the state. A focus on the “big” college sports, sometimes to the exclusion of academics.

          IMO, Mizzou is a better “get” now, but I have to believe WVU is a more successful “USC” like addition.

          Like

          Reply
  125. duffman

    I still do not understand why not get MU and MD now?

    UT can still come less the LHN and TT (solving the tech problem)
    TT, OU, oSu all have academic issues
    ISU,KU,KSU, BU all have market issues

    ND can still come

    This move gets two solid adds in single state schools that extent the BTN

    If UT and ND never come it still leaves 2 slots for UNC / Duke / UVA / RU / Pitt / UCONN / GT

    If you know the B1G is not going to take numerous schools like UL or WVU it is not like there are tons of possible schools out there that will fit the B1G profile. What I keep looking at is how limited Larry Scotts options are. Unless someone can show me better alternatives, it looks like the PAC has 6 total choices, and would need to pick 4:

    UT / TT / OU / oSu / MU / KU

    of these the B1G would probably only consider UT and MU so Delany would be getting 1 of 2 locked down before the PAC could take it. The bigger issue is something we have not discussed in awhile, and that is making sure that OU and UT do not wind up in the SEC (we have already failed with TAMU). If Delany takes MU now, and agrees with Scott that the PAC takes OU and oSu you have pretty much assured that UT will wind up the PAC or B1G at some point (but more importantly means UT will never wind up in the SEC). Am I the only one that sees this? Can anybody shed light on what the downside of such a plan is?

    Like

    Reply
    1. GreatLakeState

      It seems so obvious. Taking Oklahoma is the key to B1G’s expansion. Cancels PAC expansion, eliminates SEC and ACC threat, makes it far more likely that Texas joins. And somehow this is all for naught because, even though it’s one of only 4 remaining ‘Kings’, its academics are not bad, but suspect. It’s ‘classic’ rivalry with Nebraska, entry into Texas and national brand alone should make it a no-brainer. After being snubbed by the PAC I don’t believe the OSU situation is insurmountable. I think there’s an interesting behind the scenes story here, but we’ll never know what it is.

      Like

      Reply
        1. GreatLakeState

          Here’s a question for you. If Nebraska had lost their AAU membership prior to acceptance would they be in the B1G today? Michigan, who voted against their AAU membership voted for their acceptance. So that criteria is not set in stone. The B1G clearly knew the tenuous nature of their membership before inviting them. Knowing these things, how is Nebraska acceptable and Oklahoma not? I think their loyalty to OSU is more likely a factor, but it still seems an obvious target.

          Like

          Reply
          1. greg

            Nebraska is contiguous to the footprint. Nebraska has a better academic reputation than Oklahoma. Nebraska didn’t have a little brother required to admit. The Nebraska addition had a conference title game addition at the same time.

            Adding Oklahoma at 13 is way different than Nebraska at 12.

            Like

          2. Brian

            Yes, NE would still have been admitted after losing their AAU status. But that’s largely because they used to have AAU status. OU has never sniffed the AAU and isn’t likely to anytime soon.

            Like

      2. Brian

        GLS,

        I don’t think OU was ever going to be a factor for the B10.

        First, I’m not convinced the B10 wants to expand at all outside of always being willing to accept ND or UT (and another school to keep even numbers).

        You say their academics are suspect, not bad, but they are certainly bad for the B10. OU would be #13 by a sizable margin in most measures (they share a USNWR ranking with #12 NE, but the B10 values research and grad school more than undergrad). NE was AAU and barely lost it. OU has never sniffed AAU status and seems unlikely to get there, especially with the AAU seemingly capping their numbers. That’s a far cry from the status of PSU and NE when they were added. The closest match would be adding MSU in the 50s, and I think we can all agree the world has changed some since then.

        The brand name and the rivalry with NE are certainly big pluses for OU, as is the pathway to adding UT. On the downside, more westward expansion leaves PSU on an island unless you add an eastern companion (RU for academics and research probably, maybe MD). That means MO is out in the cold again, but I think people are OK with that. OK is another small plains state, meaning the BTN wouldn’t get to add a bunch of TV’s again. OU is also much more southern than NE. That may make it a poor fit for the other schools.

        The other major problem is OkSU. You can dismiss that as an issue if you want, but I don’t believe OU can leave them unless the B12 falls apart first and OU can’t leverage OkSU into any AQ conference with them (BE doesn’t count). Then and only then do I believe OU would be free to go solo and leave OkSU to the BE.

        My biggest issue is that you see this as a no brainer. No conference expansion decision should ever be made without a lot of thought about all facets of the deal. Is it worth

        Like

        Reply
    2. mushroomgod

      I think the basic problem is that the BIG presidents are “expansioned out”. It’s been years since the SEC last expanded, so they are more psychologically prepared for change. The BIG’s presidents took NEB and assumed they were all done for 5r-6 yrs…..

      Like

      Reply
    3. drwillini

      Hey Duffman,
      I think your argument depends on three assumptions:
      1.) B1G is going to B16,
      2.) There are only two grand prizes to save seats for (UT and ND), and
      3.) There is no demographically driven eastern or southern strategy.

      Personally I think all three assumptions are in doubt. You do raise a point that I have found fascinating: Are Slive, Scott and Delany (and perhaps Swafford as well) in competition or collusion? I think these guys have far more to gain by colluding to make the realignment process orderly, particularly in the armegeddon scencario of 4×16 superconferences. Even absent the complete argmegeddon scenario, I can imagine Scott and Delany have much common ground.

      Nothing has occured that to me contradicts the PBC scenario, and I would admit your logic is consistent with that. Nothing is going to happen with B1G expansion until we get closer to the network renegotiation window. I can imagine that Mizzou has been told that. I can imagine that prior to that, Delany is going to have a “$hit or get off the pot and stay off for a hundred years” discussion with ND and UT, and based on that outcome expand if/where it immediately adds value to the upcomig contract.

      Like

      Reply
    4. Brian

      duffman,

      I still do not understand why not get MU and MD now?

      Because the COPC doesn’t believe they make the conference better in any way (financially, athletically, academically), and they would rather keep a close knit conference and play the other conference schools more often than expand just to expand.

      UT can still come less the LHN and TT (solving the tech problem)
      TT, OU, oSu all have academic issues
      ISU,KU,KSU, BU all have market issues

      ND can still come

      You are assuming the COPC wants to reach 16 teams. Have you seen any evidence to support that?

      This move gets two solid adds in single state schools that extent the BTN

      The COPC has access to more relevant TV data than we do in terms of what a school would add to the BTN and the main TV contract. Perhaps based on fan support and other factors, MO and MD aren’t as advantageous as you think.

      Should the B10 agree to take a per school pay cut to add MO and MD (if adding them would lead to a cut)?

      If UT and ND never come it still leaves 2 slots for UNC / Duke / UVA / RU / Pitt / UCONN / GT

      If you know the B1G is not going to take numerous schools like UL or WVU it is not like there are tons of possible schools out there that will fit the B1G profile. What I keep looking at is how limited Larry Scotts options are. Unless someone can show me better alternatives, it looks like the PAC has 6 total choices, and would need to pick 4:

      UT / TT / OU / oSu / MU / KU

      of these the B1G would probably only consider UT and MU so Delany would be getting 1 of 2 locked down before the PAC could take it. The bigger issue is something we have not discussed in awhile, and that is making sure that OU and UT do not wind up in the SEC (we have already failed with TAMU). If Delany takes MU now, and agrees with Scott that the PAC takes OU and oSu you have pretty much assured that UT will wind up the PAC or B1G at some point (but more importantly means UT will never wind up in the SEC).

      Again, where did you get the idea that the COPC wants to expand? They’d certainly accept ND or UT, and presumably an acceptable companion school to keep the numbers even, but I’ve seen no evidence that the COPC wants to expand. Your whole argument is based on the assumption that the B10 will expand no matter what. While it is fun to think about, I don’t believe Delany puts any thought to blocking the P12 or SEC from doing much of anything in expansion. He only wants good fits for the B10, and he has been the loudest proponent of only adding brands. Based on the importance of academics and fit, and the stability of each conference, that essentially limits the list to ND and UT. OU fails on academics (for now, at least), the SEC and P12 are untouchable and the ACC appears untouchable too.

      UT will keep UT out of the SEC. They wouldn’t follow TAMU there if their lives depended on it.

      Am I the only one that sees this? Can anybody shed light on what the downside of such a plan is?

      Well on top of potential financial losses, lowering the academic and athletic reputations of the B10 and losing the sense of community in the B10, you’d also have huge legal troubles if Delany and Scott collude. Maybe the B10 doesn’t want to deal with a lawsuit from Baylor. Maybe MD can’t afford the $20M ACC exit fee, especially with having to buy into the BTN, and the B10 doesn’t want to cover it for them. Maybe the B10 doesn’t want to expand until right before the TV contract is due to be renegotiated (perhaps based on discussions with ABC/ESPN after adding NE).

      Just because the B10 isn’t doing what you or mushroomgod wants doesn’t mean they are a bunch of imbeciles blatantly ignoring a great opportunity. They have more data than you on the value of each school, and the COPC has told Delany under what conditions they will consider further expansion. Perhaps this just isn’t the right place and time for adding MO and MD. I’ve seen others just as upset that the B10 isn’t adding OU, but you take that as a given. The desires of fans rarely consider all the factors, or fail to weight them the same as the COPC does.

      Like

      Reply
      1. drwillini

        Brian I have question. What are the huge legal issues Scott and Delany would face if they collude on expansion. I understand collusion in terms of price fixing, but I’m not sure I understand how it wold be illegal if Scott says you take UT and I’ll take OU. Its an honest question – I’m no lawyer.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Brian

          I’m not a lawyer either, so take this with a grain of salt. I think there would be potential antitrust issues in colluding to drive expansion in a specific direction like that, as well as potential damages for a school that was “assigned” to a conference paying less money.

          Besides that, why would Scott agree to give UT to the B10 and take OU instead? Why would UT go north if OU went west (and TAMU went east)? The scenario doesn’t make sense to me, but any time “collusion” describes your actions, you are probably on the verge of trouble.

          Like

          Reply
    1. Kevin

      Not totally unexpected given that Alabama and Florida are probably the SEC’s two best brands.

      I would be interested to see what the ratings would look like if Mich and Penn State played in prime time when both programs were highly ranked.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Purduemoe

        It doesn’t hurt that the population of Florida is bigger than Wisconsin and Nebraska combined. Also, in all fairness, the SEC has been the dominant conference for the last five years.

        Like

        Reply

    3. For a fair comparison you’d have to have the two compare ratings between any two of these three universities when they were both highly ranked: Penn State, Ohio State & Michigan.

      Like

      Reply
  127. Mike

    TCU to Big 12

    http://brett-mcmurphy.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/29532522/32536916


    TCU has been invited to join the Big 12 Conference and is expected to accept the offer for the 2012-13 school year, college football industry sources told CBSSports.com.

    TCU was scheduled to join the Big East on July 1, 2012, but instead will join the Big 12. By leaving the Big East before it officially became a member, the Horned Frogs will have to pay a $5 million exit fee but is not bound by the Big East’s 27 month requirement for notification.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Ross

      Interesting that they have to pay an exit fee for a conference that they are not officially a member of. I understand the reason, but it’s a bit odd that they probably had comparatively little say in the Big East’s expansion agenda and are stuck with a bill for ultimately leaving because of that agenda.

      Like

      Reply
      1. cutter

        What exactly would Temple, East Carolina and Central Florida be joining?

        If that CBS report is correct and Missouri finally does join the SEC, then three more members from the Big East (Louisville, Cincinnati and West Virginia) might well be getting invitations to the Big XII.

        That would leave Rutgers, Connecticut and South Florida as the only footbal members left now that TCU is going to the Big XII and Syracuse and Pittsburgh are scheduled to head to the ACC in 2014.

        Even if Missouri doesn’t leave and the Big XII stays at ten teams, then the SEC is still going to look for a 14th program. It could be West Virginia, but it could also be a program from the ACC–most likely Florida State. And that assumes the SEC doesn’t decide 16 would be even better.

        But let’s say just FSU goes to the SEC from the ACC. That leaves the ACC with 13 teams and they’re invariably looking for at least one team from the Big East.

        So that means the Big East could lose one to three more teams depending on how things shake out. At the minimum, that has to put their BCS affiliation into question going forward.

        Like

        Reply
  128. jokewood

    Permitting TCU to join the conference sounds like a long-term commitment to the Big XII by Texas. They just gave themselves another Baylor problem.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Brian

      Well, we know 2 things based on TCU’s history:

      1. The BE is doomed.
      2. The B12 is also doomed, but not for a little while (BE has to die first).

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment