TCU Invited to the Big 12: Open Thread

Posted: October 6, 2011 in Big East, College Basketball, College Football, Sports
Tags: , ,

According to Brett McMurphy of CBS Sports (and now corroborated by numerous other reports), TCU has been invited to the Big 12.  There’s also speculation that there will be another announcement from the Big 12 today.  My guess is that it would have to do with also adding BYU or maybe DeLoss Dodds has hoodwinked Missouri into staying.  I’ll have more thoughts later, but you can use this post as a new open thread to discuss the latest news.

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

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Michael in Raleigh says:

    First!

    Like

  2. herbiehusker says:

    add

    Like

  3. EZCUSE says:

    TCU and the Big East. Lasted about as long as a George Steinbrenner managerial hire in 1979….

    Like

  4. Christian says:

    add

    Like

  5. M says:

    Congrats to the Big 12. Any conference with TCU in it is clearly safe from raiding.

    Like

  6. vp19 says:

    More bad news for the Big East, and good news for the folks in Fort Worth.

    One wonders whether Texas backed this move, or if for once UT was overruled by the vassals.

    Like

  7. EZCUSE says:

    BTW… how does THAT email work?

    From: TCU President and A.D.
    To:Various Big East officials
    CC: Various TCU officials and lawyers
    Subject: Bad News 😦

    Dear John and Co.,

    Unfortunately, the Big XII went ahead and offered us membership. Who knew? Anyhoo, as you might imagine, we really have to go ahead and take it. Can your people let my people know what to do to get this wrapped up? Do we make the check out to “The Big East”?

    Thanks again for the nice dinner last weekend. Good luck on the Temple/Villanova pickle. 😉

    Sincerely,
    TCU

    P.S. How do you spell that Italian dessert that we liked? I need to look it up…

    Like

  8. Hopkins Horn says:

    What does that tweet about the additional announcement say? The link won’t open on my phone.

    I’m completely fine with adding TCU in the post-A&M environment, FWIW.

    Like

  9. M says:

    Seriously though, here’s TCU conference history the last 15 years:

    Pre 1994: TCU a member of the Southwest Conference
    1994-5: 6 schools leave the SWC and end up in a different conference than TCU due to Big 8 raid
    1996: TCU joins WAC
    1999: 8 members (including 4 remaining founding members) leave the WAC
    2001: TCU joins CUSA
    2003-5: 8 members of CUSA decide to leave to Big East raid
    2005: TCU joins Mountain West
    2010: The two conference pillars, Utah (Pac-12 raid) and BYU decide to leave rather than spend another year with TCU
    2011: TCU announces that it’s joining the Big East
    2011: Pitt and Syracuse (the two remaining Big East members who were all sports since they add football) leave for the ACC
    2011: TCU joins the Big 12

    What the hell is wrong with your school Jake?

    (I’m mostly joking, but why does TCU always seem to be involved? In every major conference move, TCU was in the raided conference, joined the conference that was raided, or both.)

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      That’s more conference changes than Virginia Tech (Metro, to Atlantic 10, to Big East, to ACC), especially since football was involved for all of them, unlike the case of the Gobblers.

      Like

    • Mike Sanders says:

      You know Utah and BYU leaving the Mountain West has nothing to do with TCU. It’s all about straight cash, homey.

      I’d suggest that this suggests the end of the Big East as a conference, but now that Notre Dame is moving its hockey to the America Eastit’s just going to die as a viable football conference.

      Like

    • Craig Z says:

      That means now Texas will leave and join the Big Ten.

      Like

  10. greg says:

    Man, everyone is fast today. Go Hawks in Happy Valley this weekend.

    Like

    • footballnut says:

      WOW. Mizzou doesn’t have enough votes to get into the SEC…BUT, if L-vill, BYU, and WV go to big 12 along with TCU now, then maybe THAT changes the votes needed to get Mizzou in the SEC. BUT, will Mizzou go ahead with moving o the SEC or stay with a newly reconfigured Big12. This is so much fun…

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        If Missouri chooses to stay in the Big 12 (no matter how it’s reconfigured) if it has a legit chance to join the SEC, it clearly has the most masochistic administration in higher education.

        Like

        • GreatLakeState says:

          Over on the WildCat Report, two commenters have similar conflicting dream scenarios.

          OSU-NYC writes:
          In another thread, I read where the Ohio State plane was in the Maryland area over the weekend. This is the same plane that was tied to the conference re-alignment madness of 2010. Also, this plane was in College Station the weekend before A&M went to the SEC; and apparently it has been in Austin 2 times recently.
          I don’t put too much credence in it since it could be completely un-related to conference realignment. However, you have to think that the Big 10 and Maryland have had discussions considering Maryland was one of the 3 teams in the ACC (FSU, and one other) that lobbied against raising the exit fee. Now, maybe they’re solid in the ACC … who knows. However, if the ACC doesn’t get that contract re-negotiated, in a few years, Big 10 teams are going to be pulling in double the money of Maryland (and MD is a school facing big money issues).
          Just as a hypothetical, let’s say Maryland is in play. Who ya got? Maryland or Missouri? I think I would give the edge to Maryland in 1.) Markets/Demographics 2.) Academics 3.) Basketball. Missouri would have a slight edge in football historically (i think).

          XOVERX writes:
          Even if we assume Texas/ND has some say so, MO is an excellent school that UT/ND ought to approve in a heartbeat.
          Add MO, and if Texas could later sweet-talk OU in, then the B1G would hem in the SEC to the west with some powerful, name state schools. Plus the B1G would be contiguous.
          Texas draws over 100,000 per game. +AAU +Massive TV +Top-drawer sports brand
          Oklahoma draws over 85,000 per game. +Excellent sports brand
          Missouri draws over 61,000 per game. +AAU +Significant TV
          You keep TX/OU, plus you reinstate OU/NU and TX/NU. This is some powerful football. The linchpin is Missouri, oddly enough.
          Over the years, you bring up NU and OU to academic standards.
          There’s a real opportunity here for the B1G. Hope some thought is given to this opportunity because MU is leaving the B12. If it’s not to the B1G, then it’s to the SEC.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            Just as a hypothetical, let’s say Maryland is in play. Who ya got? Maryland or Missouri? I think I would give the edge to Maryland in 1.) Markets/Demographics 2.) Academics 3.) Basketball. Missouri would have a slight edge in football historically (i think).

            Actually, I’m pretty sure Missouri has never beaten Maryland in football; they met several times in the late ’40s and early ’50s, when Jim Tatum was coaching the Terrapins and Don Faurot the Tigers. I believe the final of one of those games (1954?) was 74-13.

            Like

          • Bamatab says:

            I still can’t believe that the name of the 3rd school that voted against the further raising of the ACC exit fees hasn’t been leaked yet. I’d love to know who that was.

            Like

          • largeR says:

            Wake Forest?

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Wake Forest?

            That would truly be weird, to see the Deacons go to the SEC — though it might be brilliant counterbranding by Wake officials. While the Triangle schools emphasize ACC tradition and East Carolina tries to become the state’s football school without the necessary BCS membership to do it, putting Wake in the SEC would effectively make it North Carolina’s version of Vanderbilt without a U. of Tennessee to get in the way. It’d be a gamble for the SEC to take Wake, but if it wants the North Carolina market so badly, it might just work — especially since Jim Grobe arguably gets more out of less than any coach in the country. Give him SEC-level talent, and he might upset a few of the big boys.

            If UNC, State and Duke are secure in the ACC, Wake might be a left-field option. If it succeeded, it would be the ultimate testimony to the power of the SEC brand.

            Like

          • Other Mike says:

            Anybody lend any credence to the idea that the B1G wouldn’t want to take more than 2 schools from the Big Xii, for the sake of branding purposes? That is, perhaps they wouldn’t want this to appear like a merger between themselves and half the Big Xii (Nebraska + Mizzou and/or Oklahoma and/or Texas). I feel like I remember a rumor from last year that the COPC nixed the idea of adding more than 2 Big Xii schools; maybe that’s why.

            Like

          • largeR says:

            @vp19
            WF was tongue in cheek, but I like your reply.

            Like

          • metatron5369 says:

            @Other Mike

            For “branding” purposes? No. But there’s definitely a worry about the identity and cohesion of the conference, something that can be threatened by adding several teams as a bloc.

            It all depends on the schools really. The bigger the school, the bigger the headache.

            Like

  11. Michael in Raleigh says:

    Great move by the Big 12. Next questions:

    1) Can it convince Mizzou to stay?
    Arguments for staying in the Big 12 include retaining regional, historic rivalries with former Big Eight teams; retention of access to Texas recruiting, rather than having to build relationships with high school coaches in the SEC states from scratch; granting of rights eliminates worries that others will defect B12 in the future; arguably more financially appealing since B12’s 1st tier rights are up for renewal much sooner than the SEC, and staying means Mizzou avoids exit fee.

    2) What is BYU’s leadership really thinking?
    Repeating what many others have stated, BYU is hard to get a read on because its leadership isn’t simply a chancellor and a board of directors; it’s the LDS church itself. The opportunity to join the only BCS league it will ever have a chance to join, with marquee members Texas and Oklahoma in the league, and with the opportunity to use BYUtv in the same way it would as an independent, should be enough of a sales pitch in and of itself. But BYU leadership may care more about independence than most of us understand.

    3) Will Texas politicians be able to twist the Big 12’s arms into taking other Texas schools like SMU, Rice, or, most likely, Houston?
    Watching a Texas school that does NOT get state funding get admitted into the league may give pro-Houston politicians the proper ammunition to get the Cougars in the league. Their argument, “If you’re letting TCU in, you have to let a public school in.” (Don’t mistake this as my own suggestion that Houston should be invited.)

    4) What are the contingency plans?
    If Mizzou stays and BYU joins, is #12 going to be Boise, Air Force, or Louisville?
    If Mizzou stays and BYU doesn’t join, does the Big 12 simply add TCU and call it a day?
    If Mizzou leaves and BYU joins, does the Big 12 stop there at 10? Does it add Louisville and either Cincinnati or West Virginia to get to 12?
    If Mizzou leaves and BYU doesn’t join, does that take Boise, as a far-away school in a tiny market with lowly-regarded academics and no travel partner, off the table? Is Air Force as a singular addition to get to 10 the best move? Is Louisville a better addition? Would killing the Big East by adding three Big East teams be sensible?
    And, to reiterate, what role will Texas politics play in all this?

    Regardless of the answers, there’s no question in my mind that adding TCU is a very, very good move.

    Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      Maybe Moronatto will schedule another meeting to set out the to-be-ignored rules of how his conference should be pillaged.

      Like

    • Purduemoe says:

      I don’t see how it is a great move. TCU has had a great run in football the last decade, but they don’t add a new market, they will probably hurt the Texas recruiting for all the schools other than Texas and Oklahoma, and they don’t bring stability (though I don’t think anyone would). They are a nice add, maybe a single or a double, but definitely not a home run, and with only a six year grant of rights, they shouldn’t get too comfortable.

      Like

    • Mack says:

      1) No. If Missouri stays its is because it cannot get a SEC invite. If LSU and Auburn think there are enough Tigers in the SEC you may have the Missouri Mules (MO official state animal). That is how much Mizzou wants to leave.
      2) Do not have a clue.
      3) This was the political move. SMU and Houston are out.
      4) Doubt if there are any.
      Texas believes in addition (more money) by subtraction (fewer weak teams that do not generate above average TV$). Therefore, any move to 12 members is against what Texas wants.

      Like

  12. Josh says:

    This puts the Big East on life-support. West Virginia leaving would be pulling the plug. That puts Notre Dame in a tough position. This could lead to Notre Dame and a 14th (Rutgers?) joining the Big Ten.

    Add BYU and BSU to the Big 12 and all of a sudden, that’s a really good conference.

    Like

    • greg says:

      Big East football falling apart doesn’t really cause ND to do anything. The basketball schools aren’t going anywhere, so ND can just stay in whatever comes out of the BEAST.

      Like

      • footballnut says:

        I’m reading that Texas is nixing all the high school content on the LHN and will agree to a 13 year committment for sharing TV funds..two thinkgs Mizzou pushed for. Maybe that’s enought o keep the Tigers in the league. I’m also reading that there may be a surprise (better) candidate option for the SEC. I’m thinking FLorida State or Virginia Tech. L-ville looks like a lock for the Big 12 too. BYU?
        Only God knows right now…

        Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        The Big XII-2-1-1+1 ought to take Boise State as a football-only member and extend an offer to Notre Dame for all sports but football.

        Like

      • cutter says:

        Two problems for Notre Dame on the near horizon though:

        First off, ND has tie ins with the Big East on its non BCS bowl games. If that conference loses its BCS status and/or essentially becomes another version of C-USA, then the Notre Dame’s present bowl line up becomes even worse. And by worse, I mean the current highest ranked non-BCS bowl that has Big East ties is the Champs Sports Bowl. In fact, the last two bowl games ND attended (Hawaii, Sun) become available because the conferences with tie-ins to those bowls didn’t have enough teams to fill them.

        The second is football scheduling for the latter two months of the season. Outside of its annual games with USC and Navy ND’s depended on the Big East and the ACC to provide most of the teams on its schedules in October and November with the Pac 12 providing another program (Stanford). With Pittsburgh and Syracuse now going to the ACC by 2014, it’s very possible that the conference could go to a nine-game conference schedule. The ACC would join the Pac 12, Big XII (as presently constituted) and Big Ten (by 2017) as conferences with nine game conference schedules. Depending on how the SEC finally sets itself up when it has 14 teams, they could also go to a nine-game conference schedule (that said, it’s been awhile since any SEC team played Notre Dame and there aren’t any of ND’s future schedules).

        What does that mean for Notre Dame football? It means putting together a football schedule could get much more difficult–even a bit more so if independent BYU joins the Big XII (along with Louisville, West Virginia and Cincinnati from the Big East. It’s not impossible and the Pac 12 has cooperated with USC and Stanford by giving them a waiver to play ND in the latter parts of the season. But it does mean there’s a potential there for Notre Dame to have to go thru major hoops to put together a really good football schedule.

        There’s a reason why ND had Western Michigan, Army and Tulsa on last year’s schedule. Now unless Notre Dame has a burning desire to play Rutgers, South Florida, UConn, East Carolina, Villanova, Memphis, Temple, Rice, SMU and Houston on a regular basis (if Louisville, West Virginia and Cincinnati leave for the Big XII), they’re going to have a potential scramble on their hands. This is essentially the same situation BYU is facing now–they’re schedule is toploaded and then ends up with a bunch of WAC teams.

        I do agree with you that Notre Dame could put its non-football teams in most any other conference and ND’s officials will have to figure out what they want to do. A Big East without a lot of its better basketball schools could be on destination, but that’s a pale imitation of what the BE used to be if WVU, UL, Cincy, SU and Pitt are gone (and that doesn’t include UConn which wants to get into the ACC pretty badly).

        Like

        • greg says:

          cutter, you make excellent arguments as to how the BEAST decline negatively impacts ND. But as long as their independence and National Title Game invite possibilities are there (even if they can’t put together a team good enough to be invited), they don’t have a need to move. Everything else is window dressing for them.

          Like

        • Richard says:

          cutter:

          You’ve been trotting this argument out for months now, but unless ACC schools refuse to adjust their schedules to play ND late in the season (and I don’t see that happening, no matter how many league games they play), ND doesn’t face any “difficulty” with late-season scheduling (BTW, their schedules for the next 6 years or so are already almost all set). I don’t think that ND has any problems with playing 4-5 ACC teams a year (they play BC & Pitt pretty much annually, have a rivalry with GTech, play Syracuse to get exposure in NYC, aren’t averse to playing academically good publics like UMD, UVa, & UNC as well as privates like Wake and Duke, and probably occasionally would revive rivalries with Miami & FSU). Add in the Navy game, B10 triplet, and USC/Stanford, and you’re almost at 12 games already.

          Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      Missouri is still on the table too. If you get ND, you don’t need Rutgers. Grab ND and MO and call it a day.

      Like

      • SideshowBob says:

        It would be beyond stupid to get Notre Dame and not bring in an Eastern school to leverage the Irish popularity in the northeast. If ND is coming, you add Maryland or Rutgers.

        Like

        • EZCUSE says:

          Huh? What? Why? The B1G already has Penn State. Sorry.

          Like

          • joe4psu says:

            You’re kidding right?!?

            Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            All we have heard is that the only school worth bothering for to get NYC is Notre Dame. In fact, PSU was constantly being touted as worth more than Rutgers, Syracuse, or UConn in that market.

            Meanwhile, the talk is still that ND is the final King. Kings don’t need to be accompanied by anyone to be worthwhile. Texas doesn’t need “Texas Tech” to leverage Texas. Nebraska didn’t need Oklahoma to leverage the Midwest. Penn State didn’t need Pitt to leverage Pennsylvania. And so on.

            Now i see the genius of JD. It’s keeping people from wanting expansion for expansion’s sake.

            If you can get MD, you get them because they are Maryland. It is what it is. But you don’t need Maryland to leverage ND. And you don’t need a NE team to leverage Notre Dame.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I’ve got to side with SideshowBob and joe4psu on this one. If you add ND, you definitely expand to the east for #14 (unless it’s UT). The B10 has never gotten the full value out of PSU in the east. ND would help a lot, but I think you have to add Rutgers at that point. That gets you the NJ TV’s (non-NYC ones, at least), ND and PSU games near NYC and better Philly penetration, too (BTN is not on basic cable in Philly).

            MD would be my second choice, since it doesn’t help leverage NYC with ND, but it still adds TVs and gets extra value from PSU.

            MO would be my third choice, since they have TVs and built in rivalries, because they don’t leverage ND at all.

            I’d be OK with adding MO, but only if RU and MD said no first.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Brian, in a Rutgers vs. Maryland battle for #14 with Notre Dame, Maryland — a big-time program for several generations — is more of a sure bet to deliver the Washington-Baltimore market than Rutgers, a relatively young big-time program, is for New Jersey and New York.

            Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            Ah well… I wouldn’t worry about who the B1G needs to add to ND to get full value just yet. A lot of obstacles to be cleared long before then. Even so… ND to the ACC makes more sense anyway. Away games all along the East Coast… from Boston to Miami. Throw in Syracuse games played in NYC 2 out of every 4 years and you are talking extreme exposure. Games in DC. They can still play USC. They can play Navy in San Diego in the years where they are home for USC.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            vp19,

            Brian, in a Rutgers vs. Maryland battle for #14 with Notre Dame, Maryland — a big-time program for several generations — is more of a sure bet to deliver the Washington-Baltimore market than Rutgers, a relatively young big-time program, is for New Jersey and New York.

            That’s all true. However, MD gets you a bigger piece of a smaller market while RU gets you a smaller piece of a bigger market. Add to that the popularity of ND in NYC versus DC, and the proximity of Philly to NJ (having PSU, ND and RU, would the BTN make basic cable in Philly finally?). Plus, the BE is much weaker than the ACC so RU may be an easier get.

            I’m not saying MD would be a bad choice, I just think RU would work a little better with ND.

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            In these discussions of relative value between Rutgers / MD remeber its not just ND and PSU that helps penetration in those markets. UoM and tOSU are routinely touted as favorite college sports teams in the NYC and mid-Atlantic regions.

            Point being, ND really helps more for NYC and north into New England. Rutgers / MD would be more “amplifying” for PSU/tOSU/UoM.

            Like

          • metatron5369 says:

            Leverage the Midwest? We already are the Midwest!

            Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      It’s already a really good conference. Excluding Texas A&M, the league already has #3 Oklahoma, #6 Oklahoma State, #11 Texas, #20 Kansas State, and #25 Baylor. Missouri has turned into a pretty good program over the past 7 or 8 years, which is to the B12’s credit if it stays.

      The league is really strong almost every year. For all the lumps it gets for Iowa State (which is vastly better than it used to be), Baylor (ditto), Texas Tech (bowl appearance for, what, 20 straight years?), and Kansas (even they made the Orange Bowl a few years ago), it’s a solid league on the field.

      The problems have always been cohesion and collegiality among the members. Really, it’s kind of the opposite of the ACC. The ACC has had enormous trouble earning football credibility, but ACC schools get along very well. Sure, FSU and Clemson may wish the focus on basketball compared to football was more like the SEC than the ACC, but they still have great relationships with the conference comrades.

      Like

    • vandiver49 says:

      The question, can anyone afford to pull the plug on the BEast? As Josh stated, doing so would finally force ND hand. And chances are they lean more heavily to the ACC than any other conference.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        The reality is the plug should be pulled on the Big East. First off without TCU, they will likely lose their BCS Bowl slot to the Mountain West. Next, they know that there is no unity within the Conference, because schools like UConn, West Virginia & Louisville would leave in a nano-second. The question is when does it happen? If Missouri goes to the SEC (If I was them I would), then Louisville leaves and it will sooner rather than later.
        It goes without saying the TCU is a huge winner in all of this. Not only can they play regional teams like Baylor,Texas Tech, and of course, UT in football, but they bring their excellent baseball team to a better Conference. Baylor also is a huge winner, keeping their place in a BCS Conference alive, and bringing back their biggest rival (TCU into the fold). However, the fox that is lurking in the woods is Delaney. Think about it, the Pac added fair (At best) schools in Colorado and Utah, the ACC added Pitt & Syracuse, the SEC added A&M, and maybe Missouri (A school the Big 10 rejected), the Big XII lost schools and added TCU & maybe Louisville, and the Big 10 added an elite school in Nebraska. This means that while the other Conferences fill up their slots, with schools that fall below Oklahoma State on the quality level, the Big 10 can simply bide its time until schools like UT, OU and Notre Dame eventually have enough of playing the garbage that ends up on their schedule (For example: See Texas/Rice or Tulsa on ND’s schedule last year, and OU this year). Keep in mind, the Big 10 has proven it can afford to wait (Adding only Michigan State, Penn State & Nebraska since World War II). In addition, UT no longer has an A&M problem, since they are in the SEC, so they only have a Tech problem left (They could easily schedule them as a non-Conference game, if they left the Conference). If and when OU gets their Academic act together, the Big 10 (Even if they have to wait 10 years), can add UT & OU, and really be the ultimate winner in the Conference reallignment game.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          I don’t think the B10 adds OU, because both Texas and OU going could very well make the B12 collapse, and that just isn’t politically acceptable in TX or OK. However, if the B10 adds only Texas, I think a B12 with OU + middle-of-the-road programs like TTech, Boone Pickens State, WVU, and BYU with TCU still being strong would still be a decent BCS conference on par with the ACC. With OU having likely no where to go, the best scenario possible for the B10 (adding Texas with the B12 surviving, so not suffering political blowback) is possible. Heck, the TX politicos may even like it if it means Houston or SMU get promoted to the big leagues if Texas leaves.

          Like

  13. laxtonto says:

    Is this the possible worst case scenario for A&M recruiting?

    Think about what just happened. The rest of the Big 12 will be heavily opposed to scheduling A&M after all of this. TCU most likely will follow suit. As it is, A&M has to fight and fight hard against the OKSt and the other middle of the pack schools in the Big 12 and could always hold the BCS/close to home tag over TCU recruits. Not only is that argument gone, but instead of having 8 games a year in Texas, A&M will most likely have 6 at most.

    Unless A&M can replace “away” games of either Baylor, TT, or UT ( or approximately 11/2 a year) with other instate opponents, they begin to lose the local exposure and travel factor among Tex HS kids. It will be a slow erosion that can be held off by winning, but with A&M expected to have an EXTREMELY weak squad next year they may build a hole they cannot escape from.

    Less games in Texas and now a new name that will have essentially the same name and brand power as A&M. As huge of a state as Texas, there is still only so much to go around. The question will be will the additional influence of other SEC schools in Texas further erode the A&M recruiting base.

    Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      That is what I have thought all along. Texas can just play Tech or TCU on Thanksgiving too.

      Be careful what you wish for….

      Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      “The rest of the Big 12 will be heavily opposed to scheduling A&M after all of this.”

      That’s insane. If Bill Byrne calls Texas Tech, Baylor, or TCU and says A&M wants to schedule a home-and-home with their school, they would try and get A&M to fax the contract with his signature before the phone call ended just in case he was drunk and would change his mind once he sobered up.

      Just this weekend the Tech head coach was saying they would like to keep the A&M series going as a non-conference rivalry but doubted A&M would find the space.

      I’m not sure why OU or OSU would have any hard feelings about A&M. An occasional series with one of those schools might be possible and desirable.

      I won’t even speculate on Kansas, KSU or ISU turning down an A&M offer for a football series. I’m not sure what scenario would have to happen for A&M to offer. Maybe an exchange for Kansas basketball visits?

      The only school that might turn down A&M would be the Longhorns, even though (despite their protestations) losing the series hurts them at least as much as it does A&M.

      Other than the Longhorns, I don’t see A&M setting up an annual home and home series with any of those schools, though occasional home and homes with OU, OSU, and/or TT might happen. Any other school would likely only be added as a 2/1 type deal.

      Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      How few games do you think A&M will play in Texas?

      If SEC goes to 9 games that’s 5 games in Texas (4 home, 4 away, 1 Arlington vs. Arkansas)

      If A&M then schedules 1 home and home out of state + 2 games in state (either buy games or some type of series with the numerous FBS schools in Texas) that’s 2.5 games in Texas.

      So, “worst case scenario”*, A&M will alternate 7 and 8 games a year in Texas.

      On top of that, A&M will still be covered by the state media, even when they play in such far off locales as Louisiana and Mississippi.

      *I think ‘worst case scenario’ is a silly thing to call a school playing a less parochial schedule, but since you think it implies doom and gloom, I’ll go with that.

      If the Big 12 was really trying to hit A&M’s recruiting they’d probably try UH; Houston now has an SEC school on either side of it (A&M and LSU). But I don’t think adding either school will really affect A&M recruiting.

      Like

  14. EZCUSE says:

    If Texas wants 10 teams, rather than 12…. what are the odds that dropping any opposition to TCU was contingent on TCU agreeing to join Texas in not wanting 12 teams?

    As it stands:

    Texas, TCU, TTech, Baylor
    Oklahoma, Okie State, Kansas, KSU, Iowa St.

    If Missouri leaves… maybe stay at 9?

    if BYU? How do you do divisions? Hard to make that make sense. So maybe you just stay a 10-team, no division conference with 9 conference games. Why not?

    Either way, that keeps the Big East “alive” (with WVU, Lville, and Cincy being rejected).

    Like

  15. zeek says:

    Great addition for the Big 12.

    Clearly the best football addition by far. Markets are less relevant for the Big 12. Not like they’re going to sew up Kentucky or Ohio or Pittsburgh with the other available choices.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I also do think that this will be a good way to “replace” A&M’s presence in Texas. Yeah, it won’t fix things entirely but with every team in the conference having 2 games in Texas, the recruiting impact of A&M’s departure on schools outside of Texas will be nullified.

      Like

      • laxtonto says:

        A&M does not really have a “presence”. That is the entire problem with a lot of this. They have been heavily eroding their fan base for the last 10 years due to poor choices on and off the field and are just now starting to pull out of their tailspin.

        All this does is effectively limit the options A&M has for more in state games and recruiting while continue to damage the BE. The SEC has effective killed the BE one way or the other now. Either Missouri goes to the SEC and the Big 12 takes WV/Louisville or they stay and the SEC takes WV. Either way, the loss of 4 football members is going to be a huge blow that should kill of the BE.The real prize in all of this is ND. If ND becomes in play then we will begin to see the real fireworks.

        The only way I can see that ND does not come into play is if you see a raid on the MWC/CUSA. The problem is that with the loss of TCU there is going to be problems trying to keep the criteria for the BCS with any of the other potential choices.

        Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        So, at the end of the day, the Big 12 loses a big state school (A&M) to a stronger conference, replaces it with a smaller private school from a weaker conference, yet might get a football upgrade in the process.

        Like

  16. joe4psu says:

    add

    Like

  17. zeek says:

    Dodds statement:

    “We’re proud that TCU has been invited to join the Big 12,” Dodds said in the statement. “Their commitment to academics and success on the field make them an excellent fit. With a solid budget and strong financial support, they have been proactive at improving facilities. Their close proximity to all conference institutions makes for a comfortable travel situation.”

    Like

  18. Kevin says:

    GO BLUE

    Like

  19. Sam B. says:

    This has been irritating me since I started reading this blog last summer… what does “add” mean?

    Like

    • greg says:

      Sam B., a lot of us follow this blog by subscribing to the comments. But you have to subscribe to each blog post individually. So when a new post gets posted, you get all these folks posting just get subscribe, so a lot say “Add”. I usually post how awesome the Hawks are….

      Like

  20. zeek says:

    Now the question is whether BYU would be a replacement for Missouri or an addition on the road to 12.

    I still think BYU to the Big 12 makes too much sense for both sides to be left alone. BYU gets to keep their network and all of that and they get the coveted road to the BCS. As I mentioned in the previous thread, there’s a lot for BYU to like about being the anchor of a Big 12 North that gets to do battle with OU/Texas in a Big 12 CCG.

    Like

  21. Mike says:

    Other Info. Texas get more football games, no high school.

    http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/bohls/entries/2011/10/06/big_12_invites.html


    Texas has agreed to equal revenue sharing of Tier I and II television rights to football and men’s basketball games and has agreed to forego its desire to show any high school football games or even highlights on its new Longhorn Network. In exchange, the league will allow Texas to show two or three football games on the network.

    Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione told me his school hopes to launch its network as early as next fall. He called it “very likely” its unnamed network would be up and running by then and has already shown up to 30-plus softball and baseball games on Cox cable in cities like Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

    Like

    • laxtonto says:

      That will eventually change when the NCAA makes their ruling and OU and Missouri gets their networks up and going. This is just a PR move. The real problem is that now the 2 to 3 games is in stone and UT will never budge from that. The HS content will eventually happen. There is too much money to be made by the NCAA member schools for it not to happen.

      Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      So if Cox will be Oklahoma’s TV partner in a Sooner (or Later) Network, I wonder if LSU and Arkansas get their own networks, as well.

      Like

  22. zeek says:

    kbohls kbohls
    Big 12 is not considering any other Texas schools.
    1 hour ago
    kbohls
    kbohls kbohls
    Big 12 will still consider inviting BYU, Louisville, West Virginia no matter what Missouri does; Dodds, Castiglione prefer 10 team-league.
    1 hour ago

    Stuff from Bohls.

    Like

  23. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Geaux #1 LSU Fightin’ Tigers!

    Like

  24. zeek says:

    If, and it’s a big if, they can keep Missouri, they should add BYU and Louisville. Those seem like the two strongest choices.

    If Missouri leaves for the SEC, then they might just invite BYU as a replacement. Either way, TCU as a replacement for A&M is sensible.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      zeek:

      However, I think WVU is more likely to leave than Louisville. At L’Ville, bball actually brings in more money that football, which is why Pitino has such a big influence on keeping Louisville in a conference where he can use his East Coast connections.

      Like

  25. Boomershine says:

    And here I thought Texas was “booming” and Michigan was “dying”:

    Texas experiences high-tech job losses

    Texas lost some 11,800 jobs in the high-tech sector between 2009 and 2010…

    Only California saw a higher number of total high-tech jobs disappear, losing 18,100 between 2009 and 2010. Michigan had the most job growth, adding 2,700 jobs, followed by the District of Columbia, which gained 1,400.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2011/10/05/texas-experiences-high-tech-job-losses.html

    Like

  26. For my part, I’m hoping this hastens Pitt’s departure to the ACC.

    I don’t wish football limbo on the other schools but if the Big XII puts the final nail in Big East football’s coffin, there’s nothing to keep us from joining even just next year. Plus if WVU lands in a (less unstable) major conference like the Big XII, maybe they’ll be amenable to keeping the Backyard Brawl on an OOC basis. Wait till y’all get a load of the hicks who call themselves Mountaineers!

    Like

  27. Mike says:

    Update from Mizzou. Greg Swaim says Chip Brown is a sabateur. DeArmond says no. (only one link per post. Greg Swaim’s twitter is @gswaim)

    http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/2109

    1. An MU administrator is anonymously the source of an AP report that Missouri would prefer the Big Ten over the SEC. Last year’s news. There is no credible indication the Big Ten is courting Missouri or that Missouri is playing the Big Ten off against the SEC. And whether you believe that or not, the only perception that counts is among SEC presidents and commissioner Mike Slive.

    2. A self-proclaimed Big 12 insider out of Oklahoma this morning has tweeted that Chip Brown, last year’s media star from Orangebloods.com during the first round of Big 12 movement, is actually the AP’s MU administrator. Chip says it is hilarious and a lie. And you should believe Chip. He’s a polarizing figure, but Chip Brown is not nor would he claim to be an MU administrator, professor or janitor.

    3. A columnist in the Birmingham News has written that Missouri does not yet have the votes to be welcomed into the SEC. The number noted in that column that favor MU inclusion was seven. Since then, I am told by a person I trust in SEC country, that favorable vote total has risen to eight. Nine votes are needed. And that person I trust in the SEC said this morning that he anticipates Slive will ultimately get the minimum nine votes needed to sweep Mizzou into the SEC.

    Read more: http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/2109#ixzz1a1U3b27m

    Like

  28. Mike says:

    Update from Mizzou. Greg Swaim says Chip Brown is a sabateur. DeArmond says no. (only one link per post. Greg Swaim’s twitter is @gswaim)

    http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/2109

    1. An MU administrator is anonymously the source of an AP report that Missouri would prefer the Big Ten over the SEC. Last year’s news. There is no credible indication the Big Ten is courting Missouri or that Missouri is playing the Big Ten off against the SEC. And whether you believe that or not, the only perception that counts is among SEC presidents and commissioner Mike Slive.

    2. A self-proclaimed Big 12 insider out of Oklahoma this morning has tweeted that Chip Brown, last year’s media star from Orangebloods.com during the first round of Big 12 movement, is actually the AP’s MU administrator. Chip says it is hilarious and a lie. And you should believe Chip. He’s a polarizing figure, but Chip Brown is not nor would he claim to be an MU administrator, professor or janitor.

    3. A columnist in the Birmingham News has written that Missouri does not yet have the votes to be welcomed into the SEC. The number noted in that column that favor MU inclusion was seven. Since then, I am told by a person I trust in SEC country, that favorable vote total has risen to eight. Nine votes are needed. And that person I trust in the SEC said this morning that he anticipates Slive will ultimately get the minimum nine votes needed to sweep Mizzou into the SEC.

    Like

    • M says:

      Of course if it ever happens, it will be announced as unanimous.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Precisely. There was no Pac-12 vote on OU/OSU.

        We live in a new media age vastly different from the pre-1995 mentality. None of these conference are going to air out disagreements.

        The vote that goes to the record is going to be unanimous in either direction, but it won’t tell you what the principals actually thought…

        Like

  29. zeek says:

    “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.

    One source said there’s a group of presidents that wants to sit tight, believing the SEC can do better than Missouri and that No. 14 should come from the East. According to both sources, Alabama wants to look East and not risk losing its annual game against Tennessee, while Auburn favors adding Missouri and moving to the Eastern Division.”

    From Solomon over at http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/10/majority_of_sec_presidents_fav.html

    I have no idea whether any of this is in fact the case but it would make a great deal of sense. We do know that Auburn’s president (I think it was president) said that they’d be willing to go to the East. We also know that Alabama doesn’t want to lose the Alabama-Tennessee game and Tennessee probably feels the same way given that Tennessee has more to lose from losing it than Alabama (in terms of losing a top tier rivalry).

    Like

    • Richard says:

      So who’s against? Alabama & Tennessee? Almost certainly UF and UGa. Vandy? USC?

      Of course, they could just stick Mizzou in the East . . .

      Like

  30. frug says:

    Is this the other “big announcement”?

    According to multiple sources, Texas, after talking to ESPN, has agreed not to air any content involving high school athletics, not even the news-style highlights that had been approved by the NCAA, sources told Orangebloods.com Wednesday night.

    http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1275023

    Like

  31. Michael in Raleigh says:

    Best case scenario for the Big East:
    1) SEC takes Mizzou and stops at 14.
    2) Big 12 takes BYU and stops at 10.

    Still, the Big East would look an awful lot closer in quality to C-USA and the MWC than it would even to the ACC.

    Like

  32. Mike says:

    I’m just wondering what the Big East reaction will be to this. Losing TCU and possibly Louisville and WVU along with Syracuse and Pitt is going to force some major decision.

    I really like the idea of adding Army/Navy/Air Force to the Big East so they’ll be politically covered and adding entire sports programs (no football or olympic sport only schools).

    I also think the Big East needs to let Notre Dame (and the rest of the Catholic schools) go. The only value ND provides is with their basketball program. And the number of national marquee matchups between Notre Dame and other Big East opponents dwindled considerably with the departure of Syracuse and Pitt. With ND and the catholic schools gone, the “fat” will be trimmed from the conference and the Big East can in earnest build a real conference and not a hybrid basketball-football conference.

    Like

    • charlie says:

      they can’t, though – in any BEast TV network deal PowerPoint presentation, slide 1 will be all of the major markets they’re in, regardless if it’s BB only. besides, ND’s affiliate with the BEast gives some assistance with scheduling bowl games

      Like

    • vp19 says:

      I also think the Big East needs to let Notre Dame (and the rest of the Catholic schools) go.

      Given that four of those “Catholic schools” (Providence, Seton Hall, St. John’s, Georgetown) were among the Big East’s seven original members in 1979, I don’t see that happening. What the rest of the country views as “fat,” the Big East views as a cornerstone. I don’t think it has any desire to build a “real” conference, one of its inherent problems.

      Like

    • Dave says:

      I’m kind of thinking the BE is going to end up giving up on sponsoring football. Pitt and SU are gone. TCU isn’t coming. Louisville and WVU are very likely gone. ND to the ACC or Big Ten probably drags along Rutgers or UConn (and even if that doesn’t happen, Rutgers + UConn to the ACC is still in play). Cinci to the Big 12 is definitely in play if Mizzou is gone. If there are only one or two of the projected 2012 football members left, doesn’t make more sense for USF to go back to CUSA or for Rutgers/UConn to just play football in the MAC rather than scrounge up MAC and CUSA schools and just maybe the service academies for a CUSA-level football conference?

      Like

  33. hey diddle diddle says:

    “Is this the possible worst case scenario for A&M recruiting?

    Think about what just happened. The rest of the Big 12 will be heavily opposed to scheduling A&M after all of this. TCU most likely will follow suit. As it is, A&M has to fight and fight hard against the OKSt and the other middle of the pack schools in the Big 12 and could always hold the BCS/close to home tag over TCU recruits. Not only is that argument gone, but instead of having 8 games a year in Texas, A&M will most likely have 6 at most. ”

    yeah, UTSA, Houston, SMU, Texas State, UNT, UTEP, Rice would never schedule A&M, because they are so incensed by A&M’s defection to the SEC.

    there goes A&M’s recruiting. must be hard for Alabama and Auburn to recruit in Alabama because they only have 1 game with in state rivals.

    Like

    • laxtonto says:

      So A&M gets to go on the road to play those teams… Which will be an OCC game and not televised. That is going to offset going to UT,TT and Baylor every 2 years?

      It is a simple numbers game. AS it is A&M plays their OCC games at home most of the time with the occasional road game. On top of that they play their entire home schedule and then 11/2 more games a year in conference in the state of Texas and then 1 more in OK.

      Your new scenario: Play ALL OCC games at home or have to pick an away game against UH, SMU,UNT,UTSA,UTEP,RICE,TSU or UTSA. Play the full conference home schedule and then no away games in the state of Texas, but closer trips to Ark and LSU.

      That is the problem. There is no longer the built in advantage of having 3 other teams within the state and now the one lone other potential BCS, which would have been a great match up for A&M is now in the Big 12 (and most likely will be frown upon for playing A&M). Now the exposure away game within Texas is essentially UH or SMU, with neither being a huge media draw. That us a major issue that people continue to gloss over.

      Unless A&M wins in a hurry in the SEC the recruit advantage they think the move will give them will never materialize. As it is, TCU is the recruiting rival with A&M, not UT. Further increasing the TCU presence within Texas at the same time as A&M reduction in exposure can lead to some serious issues for A&M.

      Be careful what you wish for.

      Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        I maintain this is the reason why the SEC loves the TAMU addition. Mediocre team that will allow the “big boys” of the SEC exposure to Texas and over-sign the hell out of the locals.

        Like

      • swesleyh says:

        A&M will play seven games at home every year, same as Texas.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Texas generally plays 6 (with the neutral site game in the Metroplex). TAMU may do the same with the Arkansas game always in the Metroplex.

          Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          TAMU will play 6-7 games at home in eastern Texas. Which will be heavily recruited by the SEC west.

          TAMU will lose all its games (mostly) against the rest of Texas (and the exposure it will have there).

          …speaking as someone who watched this largely happen to my alma mater.

          Like

    • bobo the feted says:

      Not really, A&M will still play second fiddle to UT in most head to head recruiting matches – that isn’t a result of Big12 vs SEC, it’s a result of Texas vs A&M.

      I think the SEC still plans to keep playing an 8 or 9 game conference schedule – so plenty of room to schedule SMU, UH (DFW/Houston) and the Arkansas game will stay at Cowboys stadium. Between those games and the A&M home games in College Station there will be plenty of exposure in Texas.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        A&M never scheduled those teams when in the Big 12. Maybe that changes, but I suspect not.

        Like

        • m (Ag) says:

          A&M has a series going with SMU right now. According to future schedule websites, its actually a home and home series, which seems unnecessary with the Arkansas games at Jerryworld. I’ve read a few rumors that say that it’s not really a home and home series, but I really don’t know.

          Like

  34. Mike says:

    Via Dave Sitter (@davesittler)


    Big 12 sourche: “We need an answer from Missouri ASAP.”

    Big 12 source: “I think for now we’ll stay at 10. If Missouri leaves we have several candidates.”

    Bi 12 source: “Louisville next in line.”

    Bi 12 source: “BYU, West Virginia and Tulane also on list.”

    Bi 12 [snicker]

    Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      Rick Pitino is not going to like that…

      Like

    • Mike says:

      More


      Bi 12: source: “Could stay at nine for a year if Missouri leave.”

      Bi 12: source: “Could stay at nine for a year if Missouri leave.”

      Big 12 source: “TCU’s revenue sharing will be phased in over two or three years.”

      Big 12 source: “BYU still on list, but there are some complications.”

      Like

      • Mike says:

        that second “could stay at nine” should be

        Big 12 source: “Tulane very strong academically. In important media market.”

        Like

        • Gopher86 says:

          “In important media market … that it doesn’t deliver”

          Rice is in a more important market to the Big 12 than Tulane. It also has a good college football stadium and better academics.

          Like

        • Dave says:

          New Orleans is not a large media market, in any case. The New Orleans metro area is less populous than Louisville.

          Like

  35. Larry says:

    I can only see this as a move to stem the bleeding or, perhaps, as a Machiavellian move to get more BE teams. TCU does nothing for the B12 in terms of markets. They have a good football program today, but who has faith that will last?

    The B12 strategy is probably to grab TCU now, find out what Missouri and BYU are going to do, and then fill out to 12 with other BE teams. Actually this is a pretty good strategy considering the dire straights the B12 is in.

    The B12 staying at 10 is just PR. They will go to 12 provided they can do two things:
    1. Expand their media markets.
    2. Get a program with a pulse (i.e. non-BCS other than BYU need not apply)
    If they can’t get to 12, well, “We think 10 is the optimal number.”

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Big 12 doesn’t need markets. They’re getting decent money for first/second tier rights (mainly for Texas-OU and their home games along with anyone else ranked), and the third tier rights are in school networks or whatever setup.

      TCU brings them a good football school. That’s all they really needed.

      Does anyone think that Cincinnati is going to deliver Ohio or WVU will deliver Pittsburgh? Even if they do, it’s not like there’s a Big 12 Network to take advantage of it.

      This was a solid replacement for A&M.

      Like

      • Gopher86 says:

        ‘Solid’ is a stretch. A&M’s alumni base dwarfs TCU’s. The Houston market is a huge casuality for the Big 12.

        The only thing I like about this move is from a game theory perspective. It keeps another AQ league out of Texas and it cripples the Big East further. Probably not the best mechanism for adding schools.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          Getting this could lead to West Virginia and Louisville joining Brigham Young in a Big 12 North with Iowa State, Kansas State and Kansas, with the six Oklahoma and Texas members in the South. With the Big East decimated, Dodds could persuade Notre Dame to move its non-football sports to the Big 12.

          Like

        • Houston Guy says:

          How did the Big 12 lose the Houston market? The Houston market is owned lock, stock and barrel by the University of Texas. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

          Like

          • kmp59 says:

            Afraid someone (who has lived in Houston more than 20 years and didn’t attend either UT or A&M) is going to tell him otherwise.

            Lock, stock and barrel? That’s a massive exaggeration. Plenty of A&M fans in Houston.

            Like

          • swesleyh says:

            Probably more A&M fans in Houston than Longhorn fans. Probably more Students from Houston go to A&M than Texas for just the distance. Only about an hour or less from NW Houston to College Station. Almost three hours to Austin.

            Like

        • Richard says:

          It’s solid because none of the other replacement candidates can be what TAMU is either, and TCU would be better than most choices as a brand.

          Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        Also, I really think part of TCU’s appeal right now is that it isn’t in an AQ conference. Once it is, it’ll just be “another small college in Texas” and much of the national appeal will be lost (no more “under-dog status”).

        Like

    • bullet says:

      TCU to the Big 12 as #10 is the biggest surprise to me in any of these realignments. I could see them as #12 due to the limited number of options, but #10? The expansions have all added new markets (of varying sizes). TCU isn’t even 4th in their own market and are probably just 4th if you only look at Ft. Worth. They were the weakest program in the SWC over the last 30 years of its history. They are the 2nd smallest AQ school after Wake Forest.

      This says, 1) Academics matter. TCU is a much more highly regarded undergrad institution than any of the other serious candidates;
      2) Athletic budgets matter. TCU has a big time budget. That shows committment.
      3) TCU has value to ABC/ESPN. I can’t imagine this being done without consultation.
      4) Big 12 other than UT and OU was probably a little concerned about the impact of TCU in the BE would have on the ability of the other BE schools to recruit Texas.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        bullet:

        It also tells us that the B12 doesn’t have many good choices. I assume that BYU has decided to stay independent (if the reports that Louisville is next on the list are to be believed). If so, then the only other choices in the same league as TCU for the B12 would be Louisville or WVU, neither of which are big markets either (or Boise; also a non-big-market).

        Plus, you could argue that the B10 decided on brand instead of market when they added Nebraska, and TCU’s brand isn’t bad compared to the alternatives.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          That’s really my point #3. It also supports Zeek’s and my argument against Duffman and Alan that “brand” is a very much “what have you done for me lately.”

          Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Maybe, maybe not….it does however show that conferences fighting for survival (BEast, B12+/x) have a very different set of options than the ‘predators’ (ACC, B1G, Pac 12, SEC).

            Like

  36. footballnut says:

    Tulane? Huh?

    Like

    • Mike says:

      AAU school, New Orleans market. Could have been a BCS team in 98(?). Why not?

      Like

      • Mack says:

        Tulane missed the boat when they resigned from the SEC in the 60’s They could be another Vandy sucking up all the cash thrown out by LSU, Alabama, etc. BCS is just not going to ever happen for Tulane. That was a 100+ year wrong decision. Georgia Tech was the other school that resigned from the SEC in the 60’s but at least they have landed in the ACC.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Same story for UChicago in the Big Ten.

          While a lot of people applauded that decision at the time and some still do, I’ve spoken to a lot of undergrads/alumni who wished that they were still a D-1 football school…

          Like

          • metatron5369 says:

            I have a feeling that if Chicago made the effort and wanted back in, they’d be accepted.

            Hell, they’re still apart of the family, even if they don’t play sports.

            Like

          • greg says:

            UChicago is still in the CIC, but jumping into D-I athletics would be a gigantic stretch for them, particularly football.

            Like

  37. Bob Nonya says:

    ND would be insane to pass up B1G money, exposure, proximity to head to the ACC. ND is big on the East Coat, no doubt, but all Domers know that the heart of Domer Country is Chicago. JMO

    Like

    • Not a Domer, but ND’s independence isn’t about money at this point. I don’t think anyone’s doubting they’d make more money in the B1G. Independence for them is part of their identity, it’s in part what makes them special, and I think most Domer fans fear being regarded as ‘just another Midwestern team.’

      Exposure for them isn’t an issue now, at least for football. And proximity works against the B1G in this instance. ND fans don’t seem to like to see themselves as a small school in Indiana — they see themselves as a fancy East Coast school that just happens to be really far inland. 😛

      Personally, I vacillate between wanting them and feeling that they’d be toxic in the B1G, but if anything ND fans’ hatred of the B1G would make the games more interesting.

      Like

      • Bob Nonya says:

        No disagreement w/ any of that at all. If they had to pick between ACC and B1G for full conference membership, I think they’d be crazy to go for the ACC. If the BigIIX was smart, they’d offer ND non-football membership.

        Like

        • footballnut says:

          They did offer ND a bid long ago, along with Arkansas. Guess what they both said??

          Like

        • jtorre says:

          The BIg 12 needs to decide if there is any chance of forming an aliiance with ND (yes – Domer Law). Non-football membership would offer them as many games as they would want/need late in the season (UT-ND T-day? yes!) and an opportunity to be part of the bowl agreements. The Big 12 then needs to go after teams that would entice ND. Per haps a similar arrangement with BYU? Louisville and their basket ball/geographic proximity? USF and its Florida access? Rutgers/UConn east coast games?

          If Swarbrick tells Dodds no way or ND joins the ACC the Big 12 needs a diffferent strategy and Tulane and USF (Rice?) might not be bad adds.

          Like

      • metatron5369 says:

        “Just another Midwestern team”.

        I know they don’t really follow college football on the East Coast, but that’s just downright ignorant.

        Like

      • allthatyoucantleavebehind says:

        I have to ask any Irish fans out there…if given the choice of A) remaining independent in football but joining a shaky Big 12 in non-football sports OR B) joining the Big Ten for all sports…which would you choose?

        I know football interests trump all else…but Texas Tech/Notre Dame in bball twice every year? Notre Dame/Oklahoma State? Independence in football is really worth THAT?

        Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          Big XII in all but football. Easiest decision I’ll make all day.

          Like

          • allthatyoucantleavebehind says:

            Interesting. Do you think 90% of ND fans agree with you? 50%?

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            Guessing, I’d say >90%, but your surprise made me double check to see if my strong gut reaction is out of line. However, the only sport ND plays and the B1G has a championship while the BXII doesn’t is Women’s Field Hockey. There’s no reason to forfeit Football independence for that.

            Like

    • Mike R says:

      1) Football independence is a huge part of their “brand” and identity as a national school not tied to a single region. They will leave $ on the table to preserve that.

      2) If they have no choice and must affiliate, the ACC offers more schools that mirror ND institutionally — BC and Duke most obviously but also Syracuse, Wake and (yes) Miami. Pitt also is a historic rival of the Irish. Northwestern aside, B1G is made up exclusively of flagship, research-oriented schools, which is not at all ND’s profile. ACC would also entertain the idea of an ND network or a separate TV contract for ND’s OOC slate. B1G would not.

      Like

      • M says:

        I’m going to trot out the same arguments that I always do…

        First, the schools that best mirror ND institutionally don’t play football (the other Big East basketball schools). If they would like to mimic their peers, they would drop football. Duke is a major research institution, so I don’t know how they are similar. Wake Forest is quasi-Baptist. Miami is the definition of “rogue program”. Syracuse is a basketball school.

        Second, attendance. In the ACC, only FSU and Clemson are over 70,000 attendance, compared to 7 Big Ten schools. The average attendance at an B1G game in 2010 was 20,617 more than the average ACC game. This was before the addition of Nebraska, which will push the Big Ten average up by roughly 1000 (without considering any secondary effects of Nebraska road games). It’s also before the addition of Syracuse and Pitt, who will push the ACC average down by approximately the same amount.

        Third, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (containing 8 ACC schools) are 38th or lower in per capita Catholic population. That is not a hotbed of Notre Dame support.

        In short, Notre Dame would be joining a conference with half the schools in Catholic-lite states to play in smaller stadiums against dissimilar schools (except BC). Basically, it would be worse than joining the Big East circa 2002.

        Like

        • EZCUSE says:

          First paragraph is apples and oranges. Duke is a major research institution, but then you shift to religion and athletics. ND and Syracuse are VERY similar institutionally. BC too. if Duke is not like ND, then NW isn’t either. And then nobody in the Big 10 is anywhere close to ND.

          Second, what does ND care about attendance? ND brings the people. The ACC games can be scheduled in NFL stadiums up and down the coast if necessary to accommodate more fans.

          Third, while the south is low Catholic, the ACC now has a northern presence. Moreover, I am sure that the Catholic presence is fine in Florida and in the urban areas. Games in Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, DC, etc., will supply plenty of fans. And if there were zero fans, it would be a good chance to spread the word.

          The ND folks may very well choose the B1G someday, but I am skeptical that the reasons are going to be the ACC’s institutional dissimilarity, attendance in games not involving ND, and per capita Catholicism.

          Like

          • Boomershine says:

            “The ACC games can be scheduled in NFL stadiums up and down the coast if necessary to accommodate more fans.”

            I think you missed the point. It isn’t a question of stadium capacity, it is fan interest. The 2008 ACC Championship Game, played in the Buccaneers pro stadium, drew 27,000. Image:
            http://www.haaba.com/sites/default/files/photos/2008-12-06/083952-01-02.jpg?0000-00-00%2000:00:00

            The 2007 ACC Championship Game, played in the Jaguars pro stadium, drew 53,000 (but looks even emptier even in the fourth quarter of a tied game). Image:

            So, here you have two ACC Championship Games played in pro stadiums aren’t even close to being sellouts.

            I hazard a guess this wouldn’t happen in the Big Ten…

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Why on earth would all the ACC teams agree to give up home field to play ND in an NFL stadium for conference games?

            Like

          • M says:

            My point on institutional similarity was that schools like Notre Dame (small, private, undergraduate focused, Catholic) do not play top level football. The only conference ND could join with peer schools would be the Big East basketball conference.

            Schools do not like to play conference games away from their home stadium. I can’t think of a single BCS school that regularly allows their home games to be moved at the whim of their opponent.

            The attendance is a proxy for fan support (or buzz if you prefer). While ND does bring its own fan base, the Michigan and USC games drive the ticket lottery. If ND wouldn’t schedule a home-and-home with a team, why would they ever join their conference?

            The best possible division for ND in terms of Catholic presence would be Miami, Boston College, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Maryland, and FSU. The Big East in 2002 was Miami, Boston College, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia and Temple, plus the Catholic basketball schools and UConn. I don’t see how that’s a substantial improvement, especially considering that I doubt the ACC would put ND, FSU, and Miami in the same division.

            If you doubt that ND doesn’t want games in those states, consider that this year ND will play its 5th game in those states over the last 50 years. If they don’t want to play there now, I don’t see why they would change their mind in the future.

            Like

          • Chris says:

            Brian, 2 reasons come to mind. First, because they want the national exposure. Whats one home game, when it gets people across the country to watch. Second, a number of acc schools are either located in/have their support in a city already. See gt in atl, miami, pitt, syr in ny, md at fedex which is 20 minutes from campus. Sure, the carolina and virgininia teams dont match like this, but seeing as how they would probably add an extra conference game anyhow, seems like an overall win to me.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Chris,

            GT doesn’t play anybody in the Georgia Dome, and their home field is small. Even UGA/GT is never a neutral site game and you can be sure they’d make more money playing it there.

            It’s one thing for schools to move an occasional OOC game to a neutral site for the money, but regularly moving a conference game makes no sense.

            Like

      • cutter says:

        What makes Notre Dame a “national” school? Your claim is that Notre Dame isn’t tied down to any region, but is that really true?

        Take a look at ND’s schedule this season and you’ll see the Irish play seven home games. Six of them are in South Bend and one will be in the Washington, DC area against Maryland. Of the five remaining games, you have Michigan, Purdue, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest and Stanford.

        By my count, ten of those twelve games would be played in the Midwest and mid-Atlantic/northeast regions. If the Big Ten had become a 16 member conference and expanded into those regions with teams that have been mentioned before like Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers and Maryland, then Notre Dame would have been playing in those same geographic areas.

        Maybe the only outliers to this were the games at Wake Forest and at Stanford. If Notre Dame had added them to their non-conference schedule, then the game locations would have been pretty much the same.

        Now the opponents might have been different–or not. ND’s home games included two current Big Ten teams (Purdue, Michigan State), USC, Air Force, Maryland (which could have been in a Big 16 Conference), Navy and Boston College (which could have also been in a Big 16 Conference. Only two of those home games are with opponents outside that Midwest/mid-Atlantic/New England envelope (USC, Air Force).

        So what makes Notre Dame a national school is essentially four games–USC, Stanford, Wake Forest and Air Force. All of them could have been made non-conference games by ND if they’d been part of a Big 16 Conference.

        The truth of the matter is that Notre Dame relies heavily on playing Big East and ACC teams in the latter two thirds of its schedule (outside the regular games with USC and Navy). Of course, this also doesn’t count bowl games as well, where the Big Ten has the Rose Bowl tie in plus major bowls in Florida.

        The fact of the matter is if the ACC or the Big Ten get into becoming super conferences with at least 16 teams, then there is going to be a wide geographic spread for both of them–the ACC on a north-south axis and the Big Ten on an east-west axis. Both conference will reach into the northeast in the end.

        But let’s assume Notre Dame joines the ACC with Connecticut and becomes a member of the ACC North with Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Virginia and Virginia Tech. Let’s also assume they play nine conference games and continue their series with Navy and USC.

        That means ND will play eight of its twelve games with teams located between Boston and Charlottesville, VA–the seven teams in its own division plus Navy. Two games will be opponents from the ACC South and one of those games will be in South Bend. That leaves the two remaining non-conference games–USC and an opponent to be determined. That’s about as much regional diversity as Notre Dame has on this year’s schedule as an independent.

        You can do the same drill with the Big Ten. Add Maryland, Pittsburgh, Missouri and Notre Dame to the current conference membership with ND in the Big Ten East with MD, Pitt, PSU, OSU, UM, MSU and Purdue. Notre Dame would play four games with eastern opponents (Penn State, Pitt, Maryland, Navy) plus four more with teams in its own division (Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue). Note that three of those last four are already on ND’s schedule. Add two games from the Big Ten West with one of them played in South Bend (Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin) plus USC and one non conference opponent to be determined.

        So if you’re Notre Dame and you want to keep the vestige of a national presence, which one of the two conferences do you pick to become a full-time member? ACC or Big Ten? Also ask yourself which opponents are bigger in terms of national recognition–Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State or Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh and let’s say Boston College over Syracuse? Which game would get a bigger television rating–Michigan-Notre Dame or Virginia Tech-Notre Dame?

        Like

        • Chris says:

          Except the acc will not go north/south. Im guessing their division would happen to have pitt, bc, and miami in it. its not impossible to have them with md and syracuse, too. So every other year they could play in boston, dc,atl, miami, raleigh, and pittsburgh. That is a substantial footprint.

          Like

          • cutter says:

            Chris:

            The Big Ten could set up its divisions to mirror what you just suggested as well so that Notre Dame could get games in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, DC and Boston and extend its footprint as well.

            Heck, both conferences could go to a pod system with Notre Dame playing from Plains States to the East Coast (Big Ten) or Miami to Boston (ACC) over a four year period as well. There are all sorts of configurations they could use to make it work.

            If the ACC did four pods, then it might look something like this in order to maintain the rivalries in place and make sense geographically:

            Pod A: Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Syracuse
            Pod B: Maryland, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech
            Pod C: Duke, North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest
            Pod D: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, FL

            In Years 1 & 2, ND’s schedule would include Boston College Connecticut, Syracuse, Maryland, Virginia, Duke, North Carolina State, Clemson and Florida State.

            In Years 3 &4, it be BC, UConn, SU, MD, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech and Miami-FL

            Here’s the same setup with the hypothetical Big 16 Conference:

            Pod A: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
            Pod B: Illinois, Missouri, Northwestern, Indiana
            Pod C: Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Ohio State
            Pod D: Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh

            In Years 1 & 2, ND’s schedule would be Maryland, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Michigan, Purdue, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska and Minnesota

            In Years 3 & 4, ND’s schedule would be MD, PSU, Pitt, Ohio State, Michigan State, Northwestern, Indiana, Wisconsin and Iowa

            My larger point behind this exercise is that the ACC and the Big Ten could both provide Notre Dame with attractive options using a divisional or a pod system. In a super conference, both will have a pretty big geographic footprint. You can rearrange it any way you like and I think you could still have attractive options to Notre Dame from both super conferences.

            Like

          • chris says:

            I agree with your overall premise. Certainly, each conference has much to offer, though it is clear they are quite different from one another. The major downside that I see with the pod system, however, is that fans only get 3 repeat rivals, which means only 1 annual rival comes to town some years. Of course, some could be OOC games, but thats equal, so its moot.

            But then again, pods aren’t going to happen. They only made sense in the pac-16, and there it was due to large distances with few in between schools. To have pods necessitates an awful time trying to balance teams, rivals, etc. And then geography either takes precedence, or it has to go out the window to try and achieve a four-way balance. Besides, geographic based pods only serve to reinforce gripes when they inevitably come down the line…..See Big XII

            Like

          • Richard says:

            chris:

            Depends on how you configure it and how many conference games there are, etc. If you don’t have to play every other team at least half the time, you could have 4-5 annual games, or 4 annual games and another 2/3rds of the time, etc.

            Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          I can’t believe you are still on this issue of ND’s love of its national schedule…

          Since the B1G has been interested in ND (1991, with the signing of the NBC contract), the Irish have averaged 28.7% of their games to be outside of B1G states. This is especially interesting because that exact same percentage (28.7%) is the percentage of the schedule during that time of teams that are now in the B1G (including Nebraska and PSU). In the last 20 years, ND has kept up the idea of playing all over the country, even as it plays a higher percentage of home games.

          During the last twenty years, ND has made it’s schedules by front loading the Big Ten in September, playing USC when it prefers, Stanford when it can, and the rest with Big East/WAC/MWC/ACC/Independents who are available. There was a stretch when LSU and Tennesee also made appearances later in the year, but with the rise of the SEC, but note lately. Including Pitt, there has not been one ND schedule in the last 20 years more where than 5 Midwestern/PA teams appear, and typically it’s only the usual suspects (UM, MSU, Purdue, and Pitt).

          “So what makes Notre Dame a national school is essentially four games–USC, Stanford, Wake Forest and Air Force. All of them could have been made non-conference games by ND if they’d been part of a Big 16 Conference”

          Not with 9 conference games! =( And, for that matter, there’s no reason to play them all on the road annually. Since WWII, ND has played 20-30% of it’s games outside the B1G footprint.

          The issue is a scheduling straightjacket that occurs when you try to get a national schedule playing 9 conference games, USC, and Navy annually, leaving only one truly open slot to schedule. Those 9 conference games will be in the and with teams in the Midwest (potentially PA, I suppose) if ND joined the Big Ten. Our only out of region games will be @ USC, Navy (neutral site), and whatever else we can scare up. In the ACC, well, it depends on what the schedule would be. Eight games obviously is better than nine. Four conference home games, and two OOC will be at NDS in the Midwest. This is consistent with current scheduling. 4 conference road games varying along the East Coast from New England, through the Mid-Atlantic, the Tidewater, the Carolinas, to the Deep South and all the way to Miami will bring much more geographic diversity than B1G can provide. Add the California Trip, and it seems quite similar to what we have now.

          Dang, I’m talking myself into this…

          “Also ask yourself which opponents are bigger in terms of national recognition–Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State or Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh and let’s say Boston College over Syracuse? Which game would get a bigger television rating–Michigan-Notre Dame or Virginia Tech-Notre Dame?” Let’s try to compare more similar things, please. If your using PSU, UM, OSU as your B1G examples, let’s use FSU, Miami, and your pick of VT or GT. With the gistoric animosity between ND and UM, and the comparatively recent animosity of Catholics vs. Convicts and the ’93 game of the Century, it’s kinda six on one, half a dozen on the other.


          “ND fans don’t seem to like to see themselves as a small school in Indiana — they see themselves as a fancy East Coast school that just happens to be really far inland.” is accurate. Mostly because maybe 1 student in 6 there is a Hoosier.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            FLP,

            If the B10 brings in ND, they won’t stay at 13. If the B10 reaches my dream ideal by adding ND, Texas, Miami, and Rutgers/UMD with an 8 game conference slate and a permanent inter-pod rivalry with Texas, ND would play Midwestern/PA teams roughly 6 times a year (1 vs. Texas and almost 1 vs. Miami & UMD/Rutgers. That’s not a huge increase from 4-5. This is even with ND being in the same pod as PU, Michigan, and MSU.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            When I lived in central Indiana, there were very few Notre Dame fans. It wasn’t really thought of as an Indiana school.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            Richard,

            That’s:
            4 Conference home games in NDS.
            3-4 Conference road games in Midwest/PA
            Every other year 1 Conf. road game in TX
            2 Home OOC games
            2 Road OOC games likely outside midwest.

            So ND goes from the typical 3-5 road games outside the midwest to 2.5. Um, actually, that’s a pretty big percentage drop.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            FlP:

            Actually, 3. ND would play Miami 1/3rd of the time and Rutgers/UMD 2/3rds of the time in my scenario (you’d play your 3 podmates and one interpod rival annually + another school 2/3rds of the time; the rest 1/3rd of the time with the 16-school rotating pods with 1 interpod rival and 8 conference games system that Frank drew up several posts ago).

            Looking at future ND schedules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish_football_future_schedule

            They play outside the Midwest/PA (in the US):
            2 times in 2012
            4 times in 2013
            4 times in 2014
            3 times in 2015
            4 times in 2016

            That’s not a huge difference from 3.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            On the other hand, UMD and Miami are already in the ACC, so it’s really a push counting those 2 for and B1G/ACC type comparison.

            So, Richard, the B1G schedule for ND becomes:
            Permanent
            *UM
            *MSU
            *Purdue
            *Texas
            USC
            Navy

            Miami 4 outta 6 years

            2 outta 6
            *Penn State
            *Ohio State
            *Indiana
            *Illinois
            *Northwestern
            *Iowa
            *Wisconsin
            *Minnesota
            *Nebraska
            *UMD/Rutgers

            2 to rotate against
            Air Force
            Army
            BC
            BYU
            FSU
            GT
            LSU
            Oklahoma
            Stanford
            Syracuse
            Tennessee
            Vandy
            Washington
            WFV
            etc.

            Assuming the B1G would go back to an 8 game schedule and the pods?

            And the ACC schedule, for comparison, would be?

            Like

          • cutter says:

            On your last point, if you honestly think Notre Dame can talk itself into a pod within the ACC that includes Miami, Florida State and Virginia Tech or Georgia Tech as the three other members, then have at it. The other thing I suppose you could do is the zipper division setup like the Pac 12 was discussing at one time and apply it for the ACC so ND would have all those teams within its own division. The only problem with that is Notre Dame’s 15 other “partners” in the conference would have to agree to that setup and with all the major football programs in one division, you’re going to have a problem with competitive balance. Protected rivalries are a possibility in any conference set up, so maybe ND gets one of VaTech, UM or FSU on its schedule on a regular basis, but there’s no guarantee Notre Dame would have all three.

            The other question we’d have is the status of Pennsylvania–is it Midwest or is it East for our discussion? Specifically, are Pittsburgh and Penn State midwestern or eastern institutions?

            We can also play with the Big Ten expansion so that in lieu of Missouri, the conference brings in a third eastern school such as Rutgers or Syracuse. You can reconstruct the four Big Ten pods like this:

            Pod A: Maryland, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
            Pod B: Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State
            Pod C: Illinois Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue
            Pod D: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

            Notre Dame would play Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State each year plus two eastern schools from Pod A (if you consider PA an eastern state), two schools from the states of Illinois/Indiana and two schools from states that border the Mississippi River. Add in Navy and USC plus one more non-conference school and you have a schedule with teams that border the Plains state to the Atlantic Ocean plus one game with a team in California and one TBD. That TBD program can be from Texas or Florida or anywhere ND wants to get it from (such as this year’s games with Air Force or Wake Forest).

            That’s about as “national” a schedule as Notre Dame could get in a 16-team conferene. And yes, we could do the same thing in the ACC as well with game spanning the entire Atlantic seaboard.

            Perhaps Notre Dame fans need to rethink what they consider the national aspect of the schedule and weigh it against the overall quality of the opponents that a super conference might be better able to afford it. Wake Forest, for example, might be in keeping with ND’s desire to have a national schedule, but does playing the Demon Deacons in Winston-Salem really make for a compelling matchup? That’s not to say there won’t be clunkers if ND joined a conference, but there might be some more high end opponents in a conference schedule than an independent one.

            One other consideration Notre Dame fans will have to make is the post-season. I’m not talking about bowl tie-ins or even a potential playoff. What I am saying is that with the possible exception of the Big XII (and that’s still TBD), all the major BCS conferences will now have conference championship game in early December and the Big XII is currently committed to playing some major games (ex. Oklahoma-Oklahoma State) on that Saturday. How will this effect Notre Dame in the BCS bowl picture or even for the national championship game when the Big Ten, Pac 12, SEC and ACC all have teams that will have played one more game in a conference championship setting? How would a hypothetical 12-0 Notre Dame fare against a 13-0 Alabama or 13-0 Oregon or 13-0 Texas or 13-0 Ohio State for a berth in the NC game?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            FLP:

            If ND joins the ACC, they’d have even less space to play OOC games as USC, Navy, Michigan, Purdue, and MSU would pretty much take up the entire 4-game OOC slate (assuming the ACC has at least an 8-game conference slate). So forget about Stanford, OU, Texas, BYU, AF, Army, Washington, LSU, etc.

            ND would actually play less games on the West Coast and pretty much never anywhere between IN and CA.

            In any case, LSU? You guys don’t even play them now. Last time (in the regular season) was over 12 years ago, when Bob Davie was coach.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            OK, let’s try to get a fair comparison:

            Rule 1: Only move teams from the Big East of Big XII
            Rule 1a: So definitely no moving ACC teams to the B1G
            Rule 2: Keep new additions feasible
            Rule 3: B1G and ACC get 8 game schedules.
            Rule 4: ND’s OOC games against Navy (neutral site) and USC are annual.
            Rule 5: Conference adds:
            ACC: Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, UCONN
            B1G: Notre Dame, Rutgers, Texas, Mizzou

            Main conference Rivals:
            ACC: BC, Miami, GT
            B1G: UM, MSU, Purdue
            Advantage: B1G? More historical, but don’t underestimate the bad blood between the BC and ND student bodies

            Geographic Diversity:
            ACC: New England, New York, Western PA (Midwest), Mid-Atlantic, South, Florida
            B1G: Midwest, Eastern PA (Mid-Atlantic), Great Plains/Texas
            Advantage: ACC, but Texas would be sweet.

            “Best” Pods:
            ACC: Miami, FSU, BC
            B1G: UM, PSU, Texas
            Advantage: B1G

            Feasible Pod:
            ACC: BC, GT, UCONN
            B1G: MSU, NU, Purdue
            Advantage: ACC

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            Richard, I forgot to address your OOC comments.

            In the ACC the scheduling will be much more limited. It will be Navy and USC, but my guess is that Michigan will go off the schedule permanently and the schools will argue about who’s fault that it. The only B1G game ND would play would be either trading off with Purdue and Michigan State, or forcing them to compete against each other on the bid for the game.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            FLP,

            I don’t get your “rule” about the B10 not being able to add ACC teams. In reality, they can, “fair” comparison or not.

            In any case, you forgot to include another category, which is the rivalries that would have to be dropped. With 4 OOC games and USC and Navy taking 2 of them, let’s say 1 of the others is reserved for the rest of the country. That means that in the ACC, ND would have 1 game for Michigan, MSU, and PU (and none for other B10 schools ND has played frequently in the past, like NU, PSU, & Nebraska). In the B10, ND would have one game for BC, Pitt, and the rest (GTech, etc., though you guys rarely play GTech any more as it is).

            You stated yourself that Pitt isn’t considered a rivalry game, so it comes down to playing BC less or playing Michigan, MSU, and PU less (or not at all). That’s a big advantage to the B10.

            Like

        • metatron5369 says:

          Notre Dame’s less of a “national school” than Alabama at this point.

          Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Exactly.

            Like

          • cutter says:

            You make an excellent point. The only criteria that’s been discussed at this point about Notre Dame being “national” is its schedule. But as a number of posters have mentioned, if ND was in a 16-team Big Ten or ACC, with a nine-game conference schedule, it’d essentially have the same geographic range in terms of opponents it plays as it does as an independent.

            Is Notre Dame a national program because of its on the field success? ND’s largely been out of the conversation for a national championship for the better part of two decades and its the Irish’s winning percentage since its last NC calibre team is 59.2% which puts it in 34th place.

            Notre Dame games are seen on television all the time, but so are a bunch of other major programs, so that’s a wash. There are alumni and fans of major schools throughout the country, so that doesn’t make ND unique either. Schools also recruit nationally when they have to, so again Notre Dame isn’t that unique either. In sum, programs like Alabama and Texas and USC and Ohio State are just as “national” as Notre Dame is right now.

            That doesn’t take away from the fact that ND is one of the kings of college football. But the important phrase here is “one of the kings” and not “the king”. Notre Dame has a story and tradition and a brand tha’s easy to market, but so does Oklahoma and Michigan and Florida State and LSU.

            With Texas now seemingly entrenched in the Big Ten, a lot of attention is going to be given to Notre Dame because of its position vis-a-vis conference expansion. If Missouri leaves the Big XII for the SEC and Lousiville/West Virginia/Cincinnati become members of the Big XII, then everyone know ND is going to have to face a decision because the viability of the Big East as a football conference (especially in the BCS) is going to be a question.

            If Notre Dame wants to be an independent in football and wants to position its other teams in a conference, then it won’t be in the Big Ten. The modifiied Big East or perhaps the ACC or even the Big XII would be possibilities. But this concept that Notre Dame is a “national team” as an independent would still be a myth.

            Like

  38. charlie says:

    random idea for appeasing ND in the B1G:

    one of the biggest concerns for ND is playing a “national” schedule, right? what if the B1G expands to 16 (say by adding ND, UConn, Rutgers, and Mizzou) and creates 4 pods. then the inconference scheduling could be based around swapping which pods play over different years (you always play all the schools in your pod, then year 1 – North vs East, West vs South, year 2 – North vs West, South vs East, year 3 – North vs South, East vs West). that’s 7 in-conference opponents with 5 open dates on the schedule. now, what if the B1G opens up “Flex-Scheduling” on those 5 open dates: based on how many in-conference opponents you schedule for those 5 dates, you receive a bigger cut of the TV cash, so, if a school plays 2 in-conference opponents, they’ll get more TV cash than if a school schedules 0 in-conference opponents. this would allow ND to still schedule USC, Navy, Pitt, ect, or allow Penn State to schedule Pitt without losing a body-bag game, but, no hard feelings would be created because the school would forfeit a small percentage of the TV cash to pursue this route

    Like

    • greg says:

      Why do people want to “appease” ND? If they don’t want to be an equal conference member, they can choose to remain independent. They don’t want the B10, and we shouldn’t want them.

      Like

    • M says:

      Notre Dame isn’t worth going to 7 conference games.

      Like

      • cutter says:

        I agree. If the Big Ten (16) were to set up a pod system with four teams in 4 different pods, that should provide plenty of rotation for any team, including Notre Dame. That would give them three non-conference games to schedule–one with USC, one with Navy if they opt to keep that series intact plus one TBD.

        This doesn’t have to get fancy and if Notre Dame doesn’t like it, they can go to the ACC or perhaps the Big XII and DeLoss Dodds will let them become a member for all sports except football and play footsie with them.

        Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      1. ND’s first problem: The only B1G schools that have been consistently on the schedule since the NBC contract was signed are Purdue, MSU, Michigan. Since there is NO WAY Michigan would allow that, there’s minimal incentive there.

      2. B1G problems: Since there is not the same number of conference games, how would you determine who the goes to the CCG? Why schedule away OOC games against B1G teams? Unequal revenue sharing is also against B!G principles.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Agree on all those points.

        It just doesn’t work for either side.

        Big Ten wants more conference games so teams like Iowa-Wisconsin or Nebraska-Wisconsin can play more.

        Notre Dame wants control over the teams that it rotates (which is more than 4-5).

        The objectives are completely opposed to one another.

        Like

        • EZCUSE says:

          SO… basically… the one team that will give the B1G an expansion woody is ND and ND has a pretty good reason to not want to jump on board.

          Meanwhile.. from the comments above… the lure for ND is apparently Rutgers, Miami, and Maryland. 2 ACC’s teams… and a 3rd that could be added with ND to the ACC in a snap of the fingers.

          Not saying it is impossible, but the B1G folk still don’t understand ND’s issues. They don’t WANT to be in a geographically contiguous conference. Their interests are different from the interests of Iowa and Illinois.

          If they HAD to, they would. But some people drink their own urine because they have to. Doesn’t mean they start ordering it at restaurants when there are other options. The ACC is positioning itself as ND’s best option.

          Like

  39. hangtime79 says:

    As a Baylor alum, I am very happy to see TCU back in a conference close to home. Congrats to the Horned Frogs. Its a good day in Ft. Worth.

    Like

  40. Grassman says:

    Hail to Pitt!

    Like

  41. Mike says:

    The other Big 12 news..

    From Pete Thamel (@petethamelNYT)

    Busy day in the Big 12. They have also agreed to a “grant of right” for “a minimum of 6 years.” Mizzou didn’t vote.

    The Big 12 language gives them some leeway if they want to add to the 6 years grant of rights. Something Missouri would likely want.

    Like

    • Purduemoe says:

      Seems like that would eliminate the PBC idea that Texas would join the B1G in 2014. Although in fairness to him he only said there were talks on that front and that UT would prefer the Big 12 to survive.

      Like

    • allthatyoucantleavebehind says:

      Texas prefers the Big 12 to survive. And I still think a major move like HEADING NORTH TO THE BIG TEN would be a final move…not a preemptive strike by them. I’m still a UT-to-b1g homer, but I’m not dismayed by this news. The Big 12 is still viable…so Texas doesn’t have the political cover.

      However, giving TCU a solid home does help them politically long-term.

      Like

  42. Carl says:

    Bye-bye Big East …

    Like

  43. zeek says:

    Hopefully we’ll get more news on the holdup over BYU.

    Like

  44. Read The D says:

    TCU a smart move for the Big 12. They don’t open any new markets but what school really would other than BYU? DFW is great for recruiting and this assures all Big 12 teams in a 10 team scenario that they get at least 2 games in Texas every year and at least 1 in a 12 team league. They have a very good football brand right now and they are fairly competitive in all sports except men’s basketball.

    TCU is very similar to Baylor except in a better city and have been allowed to flourish outside the shadow of the big state schools. It will be interesting to see if they can keep that up.

    Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      Not often you seeing “similar to Baylor” & “great move” as being connected.

      Like

      • Bob in Houston says:

        Indeed. I’ve called TCU “purple Baylor.” But we’re going to get to see.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I was glad to see them get invited to the BE and thought they could thrive there. Not so certain about the Big 12. They’re half the size of Baylor and a lot closer to the Cowboys. They’re the 2nd smallest AQ school.

          Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Well the one thing that TCU has done is upgrade their AD department to be competitive with peer institutions (mid pack range BCS schools). If they have done so in a fiscally responsible manner (ie without digging into their endowment like Cincinnati) then they have a very good shot at maintaining respectability. I don’t think they will maintain anything close to the run of success they’ve had over the past decade but I also believe they are going to slip back to anywhere close to where they were for the last 20-30 years in the SWC.

            Like

  45. duffman says:

    Frank, I was going to send you an email, but will put it here since you started a new thread.

    First, Notre Dame joins ACC with UCONN to get to 16 !!!!

    😦 😦 😦 😦 😦 😦 😦 😦

    .
    .
    .
    .

    WHAT HAPPENS NEXT ????

    2010 Brand Distribution
    B1G = OSU, UM, PSU = 30%
    B12 = UT, OU, UNL = 20%
    SEC = BAMA, +1 = 20%
    PAC = USC = 10%
    IND = ND = 10%

    2012 Brand Distribution
    B1G = OSU, UM, PSU, UNL = 40%
    SEC = BAMA, +1 = 20%
    B12 = UT, OU = 20%
    ACC = ND = 10%
    PAC = USC = 10%

    The ACC just bought a seat at the CFB adult table!

    The 16 team “super conference” is reality, and no longer a myth!

    To cement the deal the ACC locks down with a 5 year 50 million exit fee

    What happens next?

    The SEC is already at 13, and need 3
    The B1G is now at 12, and needs 4
    The PAC is now at 12, and needs 4
    The B12 is now at 9, and needs anyone? anyone? (spoken as Stein in Ferris Beuller)
    The Big E is now in nuclear winter

    Say the ACC / B1G / PAC / SEC can not raid each other, and you (specifically you, but open to any Frank the Tank reader) are Jim Delany holed up in the B1G* bunker deep underground @ 600 West Chicago, what is your next move?

    .
    .
    .
    .

    * yes I know the actual HQ is in Park Ridge, but you know they have a bunker at the transmission point! Also, I googled B1G and got Breast International Group (is this a cover for a B1G move to add a european school near belgium?)

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Did the state of Florida disappear into a hole in the ground while I wasn’t looking at the map? Pretty sure there are 3 brands from there…

      Like

      • duffman says:

        zeek,

        BAMA is an undisputed brand, UT should be next, but have fallen. Unlike the B1G or PAC, the SEC really does go “6”. LSU and UGA have been there, and LSU is back. Auburn has always waited in the wings, and Florida is the new kid, as Pell got them across the river so Spurrier could take them to the promised land.

        The question was who would you add now if you were Jim Delany?

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Florida isn’t an undisputed brand now though?

          It’s probably among the 4 or 5 most valuable football programs in the whole country; yes it is nouveau riche but I’d say it’s more valuable than Alabama because of the population footprint that it brings.

          If I had to rank the SEC schools in terms of total value:

          1) Florida
          2) Alabama
          3) LSU
          4) Tennessee (used to be in the top 2-3 but has slipped and might be down to 5 if it never gets back up)
          5) Georgia
          6) Auburn
          7) Arkansas
          8) South Carolina
          9-12) Kentucky/Miss State/Ole Miss/Vandy

          I’d say that Florida/Alabama are the undisputed brands. LSU is right near them (might even be a true king if they win it all this year). Tennessee has slipped and is now in the near pack with Georgia and Auburn; those 3 are all similar in value. Arkansas and South Carolina haven’t really distinguished themselves until the past year or two. Then the rest.

          You basically have a top 6 in the SEC, but the top 3 are the main brands right now. I agree that there can be movement, but Florida has lorded over the SEC for the past 20 years… (10 of 19 SEC CCG appearances with 7 SEC Championships; over that time no one has won more than 3 (Alabama and LSU each have 3 wins)).

          Like

          • duffman says:

            Zeek, I am going back to conversations with Bamatab and Alan on here awhile back. Brands survive generations not just decades. The best way to identify brands are winning generation after generation, and fans that travel when they are down. Not sure anybody in the country travels like Alabama football and Kentucky basketball. The 3 Florida schools are all rockets now with the Gators leading the pack, and Miami bringing up the rear as they can’t sell 40 K seats when they are down. The state of Florida is big, but UF has to share with other colleges and pro teams, so the eyeballs wander. Alabama eyeballs are from cradle to grave.

            I have never see the plague of the locusts described in the bible, but I was in Nashville once and saw the Kentucky fans descend on that city, so at least I have an idea about how to interpret the biblical version. If an Alabama football fan bred with a Kentucky basketball fan I think I know what you get when you cross breed a Jehova Witness with a pit bull. Just as scary!

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            zeek – duff hit the nail on the head. Florida is a 20 year phenom. I do think the Gators are here to stay, but prior to Darth Visor’s arrival in Gainesville (due to the LSU BoS’ stupidity) as the Head Ball Coach, Florida had NEVER won the SEC title. They were (pardon the comparison, Frank) the Illinois of the Southeast.

            When Florida is riding high, the jean shorts are everywhere, but if you tune in this Saturday on CBS at 2:30pm EDT, you’ll probably notice some empty seats in the southeast corner of the endzone and the east upper deck of Tiger Stadium. That’s the visitors’ section. Most all of the other SEC schools sell out their allotment, and show up. When the Gators are down – even a little – they stay at home.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            While I agree with what both of you are saying, even in a sport as tradition based as college football we do live in a “what have you done for me lately” kind of world.

            That’s the whole reason why Les Miles would choose LSU over Michigan or Urban Meyer would choose Florida over ND.

            Even if you didn’t want to arrange those 3 in terms of tradition or what, I’d think it’s clear that those 3 are a step ahead of the rest in the SEC with Auburn/Georgia/Tennessee bringing up the next 3.

            Yes, the distinction between those 3 and the next 3 in the SEC isn’t as big as the top 4 in the Big Ten from Wisconsin/Iowa (former all have multiple MNCs whereas those two don’t in the Big Ten), I’d still put that out there.

            That’s what make the SEC different from the Big Ten in a way; right now they have 3 national brands going but it rotates over time based on who’s up or who’s down (because they have 6 to choose from). The Big Ten has 4 but if any are down, the Big Ten’s top looks thin.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            zeek – I think stating that “Florida has lorded over the SEC for the last 20 years” is a little strong and doesn’t take into account recent trends. From 1992 (the first year of divisional play) until 2000, I would agree with you. During those 9 years, UF won 5 SEC titles (5 more than they had ever won) and played in 6 SEC CGs. Over the last 10 years, the wealth has been shared, as Louisiana native Huey Long might say. LSU leads in conference wins, conference championships, and CCG appearances, but 8 different schools have participated in the SEC CG, 5 different schools schools have won the SEC, and 4 different schools have combined for 6 BCS NCs during that time.

            Here’s how the schools stack up from 2001 to the present:

            LSU – 4 SEC CG apps; 3 SEC titles; 2 BCS titles
            Florida – 3 SEC CG apps; 2 SEC titles; 2 BCS titles
            UGA – 3 SEC CG apps; 2 SEC titles; 1 2nd place finish in the final polls
            Auburn – 2 SEC CG apps; 2 SEC titles; 1 BCS title and one 2nd place finish in the polls, behind USC’s vacated title
            Alabama – 2 SEC CG apps; 1 SEC title; 1 BCS title
            Tennessee – 3 SEC CG apps
            Arkansas – 2 SEC CG apps
            South Carolina – 1 SEC CG app

            Like

          • zeek says:

            That’s entirely fair. I’m not disagreeing with what you guys are saying.

            I do get the “Alabama + whoever’s up” approach to the SEC historically given that there are 5 other clubs that could be in that “whoever’s up” category.

            With respect to Florida though, I think they have staying power more than anyone in the country outside of Texas. Those are the two easiest recruiting jobs in the country and they’ve been huge drivers of TV ratings.

            I just think if I had to bet on the next 20 years of SEC football, I’d take Florida/Alabama and probably LSU or Georgia to be the top schools (of course Georgia is the school that never seems to put it all together…).

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I’m with Zeek that there is a very much what have you done for me lately. See TCU to the Big 12. I was checking to make sure that wasn’t an internet hoax.

            Florida, FSU and Miami are taken seriously whenever they have halfway decent teams. That in my mind makes them brands, even though, none of the 3 were anything prior to the 80s and FL really the 90s. The population and talent growth in Florida has made them permanent (as much as brands are permanent) brands. I heard a talk show host talking about the 70s when both FSU and Miami had votes to drop football and Tampa was the Florida football power (he also made the comment that Tampa defined cheating). But things have changed.

            Like

          • Ross says:

            Les Miles never chose LSU over Michigan. He was never offered the job, either time.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Ross – you are correct in that Les Miles was never formally offered the Michigan job. He has too much love and respect for his alma mater to allow Michigan to make a formal offer and then humiliate them by turning down the offer. But make no mistake about it, Michigan wanted Les both times. Lloyd Carr may not have wanted Les, but the job was his if he wanted it. Les let Michigan down easy and allowed them to say that Rich Rod and Brady Hoke were their respective first choices. If you really believe that, then . . . .

            Like

          • metatron5369 says:

            Les Miles chose LSU over Michigan because he was never offered the job in the first place.

            Urban Meyer: that remains to be seen. I still think he’s going to be in Columbus next year, and am already picturing the ensuing ESPN feeding frenzy.

            Like

          • cutter says:

            Les Miles didn’t have the unanimous support he would have probably wanted the second go around with Michigan. He saw what happened to Rodriguez and knew that he’d never get Carr’s support or the help from the former players that Hoke has been receiving.

            Miles burned too many bridges in Ann Arbor when he was an assistant there and didn’t enamor himself with Carr on the recruiting trail. He would have been persona non grata by a lot of important elements at Michigan.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      Assuming ND is gone, you add nobody unless UT wants to join.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Pretty much this.

        There’s nothing wrong with the Big Ten at 12.

        Texas committed to the LHN (and through that the Big 12) means that we are in a 5×12-14 world.

        Expect the 5 conferences to keep AQ (probably will shove out Big East eventually since it’s just a C-USA rerun at this point and especially if it loses WVU) for themselves. That’s the world we live in…

        Like

        • duffman says:

          Brian,

          Playing devils advocate, ACC is at 16

          PAC adds UT / TT / MU / KU
          SEC adds TAMU / OU / oSu / (pick 1) Rice / Tulane / SMU / USF / ????

          The model is 16, and the B1G is still at 12, you are saying you stay there?

          Like

          • Richard says:

            The odds of the SEC adding Rice/Tulane/SMU are, um, low. The odds of the SEC adding USF are negative.

            Plus, we just saw the Pac & Texas reject each other. What’s going to change?

            Also, Texas to the Pac while OU and little brother to the SEC? About as likely as the SEC adding Rice.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            richard,

            It tied back to the OP up at the 2pm mark that I made:

            It assumed the ACC went to 16 with ND and UConn, and that B1G could not take a team in the ACC / SEC / PAC. Brian responded about UT, but the following post meant no team in the ACC could go to the B1G or SEC.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Duffman,

            If ND and UT are both off the board and the rest of your scenario stands, the B10 will not expand in the next 50 years. Nobody else is worth it. Someone might grow into being deserving, but nobody else is now.

            Staying smaller and close knit trumps expanding just to expand.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Duff:

            How does the ACC going to 16,
            1. make the SEC choose Rice/Tulane/SMU/USF?
            2. force the Pac and Texas to work out the LHN issue?
            3. make OU & OK State go to the SEC while Texas goes to the Pac?

            None of these are realistic scenarios regardless of what the ACC does.

            Like

  46. mark says:

    Maybe two from Florida…Miami has another ten year downturn on the horizon.

    Like

  47. hagenr says:

    I can only imagine that tonight somewhere in Columbia, MO, Brady Deaton will be drowning his sorrows and singing to himself……
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    SECilia, your breaking my heart
    You’re shaking up my conference daily
    SECilia, I’m down my knees
    I’m begging you please for a home

    SECilia, your breaking my heart
    You’re shaking up my conference daily
    SECilia, I’m down my knees
    I’m begging you please for a home
    Need a home….

    Conference calls in the afternoon with SECilia
    Up in my boardroom (conference calls)
    I got up to wash my face
    When I turned on the tube
    TCU has taken my place

    SECilia, your breaking my heart
    You’re shaking up my conference daily
    SECilia, I’m down my knees
    I’m begging you please for a home
    Need a home….

    Humiliation, B1G dumped me again
    Neinas calls and I’m crying
    Humiliation, B1G dumped me again
    Neinas calls and I’m crying

    Like

  48. Jake says:

    Hey guys, did I miss anything?

    Like

  49. zeek says:

    Pete Thamel
    PeteThamelNYT Pete Thamel
    If Missouri stays and the Big 12 doesn’t swoop up Louisville, that’s a huge break for the Big East. But these things are fluid.
    2 hours ago
    Pete Thamel
    PeteThamelNYT Pete Thamel
    The Big 12 would like Missouri to be No. 10. “It looks promising right now.” If not, its moved on to Louisville.
    2 hours ago
    Pete Thamel
    PeteThamelNYT Pete Thamel
    Big 12 administrator just told me that the league is expected to settle at 10 schools.
    2 hours ago

    If Thamel’s source is right then BYU is totally out and we’re just down to Missouri or Louisville. I don’t know that Thamel is right that it would be a huge break for the Big East. SEC will still need a #14 (WVU anyone? or FSU/Va Tech which leads to UConn -> ACC?).

    Seems to me that the Big East will almost certainly lose someone when the SEC makes its move to 14.

    Like

    • derek says:

      It could be a break for the BE if they only lose one team. They might be able to limp around for a few years with a weak replacement waiting for the landscape to change, but if they lose two teams – game over. I think we all agree either way the BE does not come out of this a winner.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Agreed. I meant that Thamel is wrong that the losses stop at Pitt/Syracuse/TCU. I think they lose Louisville or WVU or UConn when all is said and done, given that BYU doesn’t seem to be able to work out a deal to enter the Big 12.

        Like

    • Eric says:

      Kind of a big jump down for West Virginia. Hoping and expecting SEC, ACC, or Big 12 and possibly left in a Big East down to 5 teams.

      Like

  50. zeek says:

    I know some people have said this wouldn’t hurt A&M, but I think it does. We all know that Texas gets its picks and OU gets its picks. But A&M tends to go for the top of the rest. That’s where TCU, Tech, Baylor, Missouri, whomever are going to be aiming. I don’t see how it doesn’t hurt A&M specifically and probably Baylor/Tech (in terms of recruiting, but they’re happy the conference is stable) on the recruiting trail.

    gkketch Geoff Ketchum
    It’ll be fascinating to watch the recruiting dynamics of all of this unfold.
    3 hours ago
    Geoff Ketchum
    gkketch Geoff Ketchum
    I expect the top three recruiting teams in the Metroplex (in order) to be Texas, Oklahoma and TCU.
    3 hours ago
    gkketch Geoff Ketchum
    TCU heading to the Big 12 could be a real thorn for A&M in recruiting. Those two schools have been squaring off more than either vs. UT
    5 hours ago

    Like

  51. zeek says:

    DaveSittler Dave Sittler
    Big 12 source: “Missouri needs to fish or cut bait.”
    4 minutes ago

    We could see resolution on Missouri really soon. I’m pretty sure the rest of the Big 12 members want to get Louisville in their place ASAP so they can settle in at a group of 10 that actually wants to be a conference for the medium/long term…

    Like

    • gas1958 says:

      Wouldn’t BYU make more sense than Louisville regardless of what happens with Mizzou?

      Like

      • jtorre says:

        Not if you want to eliminate NDNFSHC (Notre Dame’s non-football sports homeconference).

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          If Dodds wants Notre Dame’s non-football sports in the Big 12, it would behoove him to get both West Virginia and Louisville in the conference to help destroy the Big East as a football conference. ND basketball needs some games at least on the fringe of the east; being in a league where your easternmost rival is in Ames, Iowa won’t cut it for the Irish.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            I just don’t see it. Why wouldn’t ND just park it’s non-football sports with whatever league the bball Catholic schools form?

            Like

          • M says:

            @Richard

            The general consensus seems to be that the Catholic schools would be a mid-major or worse, especially outside of basketball.

            Like

          • Mike R says:

            Being in a basketball league with Marquette, Villanova, Georgetown, St. John’s etc. would be great from ND’s POV. But ND has big ambitions for its Olympic sports, and those schools do not have depth in their sports programs. Standings in the Directors’ Cup tend to bear this out.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            That doesn’t fit ND, outside of football? ND made $4M in bball during 2009-2010, which was dead last in the BE in bball. DePaul, Providence, and Seton Hall all easily outpaced ND. Marquette and WVU made triple what ND did.

            Like

          • M says:

            With the usual caveats about Director’s Cup standings, here are the results from last year:

            18 Notre Dame
            50 Villanova
            55 Georgetown
            94 St. Johns
            96 Marquette
            113 Providence
            140 DePaul
            238 Seton Hall

            Notre Dame’s AD is on a different level than the others. For basketball, this conference would be relatively respectable, but in several sports, this conference wouldn’t have enough teams.

            Like

      • zeek says:

        Yes, but I would have expected BYU to be the replacement for A&M if BYU was going to happen.

        BYU was/is the most valuable school available to the Big 12, but if they already took TCU and are willing to stay at 10 regardless of Missouri’s decision, then the guess would be that the BYU ship has already sailed.

        After all, it’s foreclosed if Missouri decides to stay, so the fact that it didn’t already occur is telling.

        But this is all just an assumption. You’re right that BYU is the most valuable choice…

        Like

    • JHH says:

      Wouldn’t Louisville have to wait 27 months to leave Big East like Pitt and Syracuse ? If they do they wouldn’t be available to Big12 til 2014. Maybe why Big 12 takes Louisville,Cincinnati and WVA. You would have 5 votes to disband Big East football at that point. Leaves Rutgers,UConn and So Florida in tough spot though.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        That’s not a good enough reason to go from 10 to 12. I mean it won’t be a disaster for the Big 12 to just stay at 9 for two years until Louisville becomes #10 to replace Mizzou.

        After all, they’re agreeing to grant their TV rights for T1/T2 to the conference.

        Like

      • Dave says:

        I’m not at all convinced SU & Pitt will really have to wait 27 months. They may very well have to stay through the end of the 2012-2013 academic year, but 27 months would force three lame duck seasons for them (and given the issues with expanding non-football sports further, probably for any new all-sports members as well) unless they wanted to switch conferences mid-year.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          I think the Big East wants time to figure out the future and after that is over will negotiate for an earlier date. They want to delay things if need be though.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Marinatto is basically a jerk, but the Presidents will be reasonable. 2012 would make it really tough on the remaining schools-and on the conferences any additions leave, but 2013-14 is probably when they leave.

            Like

    • bullet says:

      Just yesterday I saw Boren quoted as saying the conference would expand in 7-10 days. Think that moved up a little quicker.

      Like

    • Patrick says:

      Awesome, more Big 12 ultimatums. That hasn’t worked out very well for the Big 12 recently.

      Like

  52. bobo the feted says:

    This was a horrible move for UT, but they got 2-3 conference games on LHN (which makes getting LHN on cable in Texas easier, esp if this game is a Tech/Baylor or TCU game). Texas will lose out by legitimizing TCU, this will cost the Longhorns some in recruiting in DFW, but not much. Also TCU will not be an easy out like Baylor was, they’ll at least be a Tech level difficulty in conference play.

    Great move for TCU – gets them in to the conference they have always wanted to be in and they get to play Texas, OU, Tech and their biggest rival, Baylor every year.

    This spells doom for the Big East. Either the Big12 goes back to 12-14 and takes the remaining BE schools or SEC takes WVU and kills BE football.

    Bad for ND – the Irish are gonna be cornered but I suspect they will be happy to keep their olympic sports in the now very catholic and very east coast BE Basketball league.

    I suspect the rest of the Big12 (the non OK/Texas schools) will want to go back to 12 at a minimum if not 14.

    SMU, Houston got screwed.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      It won’t cost Texas anything.

      You know who it will cost? Texas A&M, Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma State. TCU and Texas A&M don’t go head-to-head with Texas for recruits; they’re much more likely to go against each other.

      Texas gets all the top 5 star and 4 star talent. Oklahoma gets its pick of top 5 star and 4 star talent. Then the rest get to take from the top 3-4 star talent in the state. That’s how it’s been in Texas.

      If anything, it’s the other 4 who are going to be competing more often with TCU on the recruiting trail who are going to be harmed.

      gkketch Geoff Ketchum
      I expect the top three recruiting teams in the Metroplex (in order) to be Texas, Oklahoma and TCU.
      3 hours ago
      gkketch Geoff Ketchum
      TCU heading to the Big 12 could be a real thorn for A&M in recruiting. Those two schools have been squaring off more than either vs. UT
      5 hours ago

      Like

      • Jake says:

        If I were Gary Patterson, I’d be making a few more trips to Aledo, just to see if this guy might change his mind:

        http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/04/22/3019619/aledos-johnathan-gray-chooses.html

        And I would probably say that SMU is TCU’s biggest rival. It’s close either way, though. And it could change now.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Baylor-TCU is like the Big 12’s version of Iowa-Wisconsin. Although I think both of those will shift to the latter teams a bit if current coaches stay where they are.

          Will you guys still play SMU annually? I mean if the Big 12 stays at 10, you’re looking at a 9 game set right there.

          I guess Utah does play BYU, but I’d doubt SMU is as important to TCU as BYU is to Utah. But I don’t really know enough to comment on that.

          Like

          • Jake says:

            I’d be shocked and disappointed if we dropped the Battle for the Iron Skillet. It’s hard to find a solid comparison for that rivalry. It’s kind of like the biggest cross-town high school rivalry game in the state. Stanford-Cal might be a good comparison, I guess. The main problem is that it hasn’t been very even since the ’60s. I imagine TCU’s OOC scheduling will be FCS home game, SMU home-and-home, BCS or academy home-and-home (opposite of SMU). Patterson’s a big fan of the academies, and since AFA isn’t a conference game anymore, I’d expect to see Army and Navy on the schedule frequently.

            I’m looking forward to TCU-Baylor being an annual thing again. IIRC, when the SWC broke up that was something like the second most-played rivalry in FBS (or 1-AA, if you don’t want to be anachronistic). With Nebraska-Kansas, A&M-Baylor and A&M-Texas no longer being annual games (or likely so, at least) we can climb back up the list.

            Like

          • bobo the feted says:

            In Dallas the SMU-TCU rivalry is big and might have some religious undertones as well. But nationally it’s much less relevant than Cal-Stanford or Iowa-Wiscosin, not even close. All four of those schools are big state institutions (except private stanford) are well known nationally and excellent academic reputations.

            I like SMU and TCU but face it back in 1996 those schools were left out of the Big12 for a reason, can you imagine the BigTen without Iowa/Wisc or Pac10 without Cal/Stanford?

            TCU – BU has been played 107 times, and at one point in time both schools were in Waco, TCU relocated to Ft Worth in the 30s or 40s I think. Again with the religious undertones its pretty heated.

            Like

          • greg says:

            I never heard that TCU relocated. wikipedia tells me:

            Origins in Fort Worth, 1869-1873
            Move to Thorp Spring, 1873-1895
            Move to Waco, 1895-1910
            Return to Fort Worth, 1910-present

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Christian_University

            Like

          • Jake says:

            Yeah, TCU’s Waco campus burned down, and Fort Worth offered some land and traveling money, so away we went. Frogs and Bears played two or three times a year back then. We also changed names a couple of times. TCU sure beats the heck out of AddRan Male & Female College.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Wake Forest University was once located in the town of Wake Forest (a few miles due north of Raleigh) before the campus moved to Winston-Salem in the mid-1950s.(There’s an old story, probably apocryphal, that in the ’40s, Wake’s football coach, a guy known as “Peahead” Walker — I have no idea how he got that nickname — would take recruits to the fancy Duke campus in nearby Durham and pass it off as Wake’s.)

            The town/college names still confuse some people — in the 1970s, some members of the Maryland baseball team drove down for a game vs. Wake and actually went to the town of Wake Forest before someone set them straight! (Which reminds me of when Jim Valvano, newly hired at N.C. State, was scheduled to speak to a Wolfpack Club gathering in Greenville, N.C., and mistakenly took a plane to Greenville, S.C., right in the heart of Clemson territory!)

            Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            @vp19,

            Wake Forest the town is now essentially a bedroom community for Raleigh now that Raleigh has sprawled so far north in the past decade or two.

            Anyway, I was curious how and why Wake Forest University left for Winston-Salem, and here’s the story:

            Wake Forest, the college, had opened Baptist Hospital in Winston-Salem in the 40’s. The school quickly developed a good relationship with the RJ Reynolds family in Winston-Salem, where the headquarters of the tobacco giant was (and is) located. Meanwhile, the school had a desire to grow, but the WFU campus in the town was tiny and surrounded on all sides by residences and small businesses. It was also very remote at the time, yet close enough to Duke, NC State, and UNC that the school was very overshadowed even its immediate surroundings. So, the RJ Reynolds family approached the school and offered them a vast portion of their estate, located few miles north of Winston-Salem, on the condition that the university completely relocate. The decision wasn’t too hard. Winston-Salem was the second in population only to Charlotte in the state at the time.The new location allowed the hospital, medical school, and university to be in close proximity and allowed the school the chance to stand out in its own city. The campus in Wake Forest, the town, remains very much in use to this day. Since the 50’s, it has been Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            I meant evenness of the teams in making that comparison.

            Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            Waco? Fire?

            Too soon?

            Like

    • Richard says:

      bobo:

      Seriously, if Texas gets to the stage where it has to compete with TCU for recruits, Texas football would have much bigger problems to worry about.

      Like

  53. DougH says:

    I don’t think the signing of the six-year agreement TV rights deal by U Texas disproves the assertions that Texas has agreed to join the B1G in 2014. So what if Texas has to give up four years of its top two tiers of TV rights, when it stands to make more money as a B1G member anyway? And so what if the B1G loses four years of Texas TV income, when it won’t have to pay much to Texas for those four years, due to Texas getting to keep its LHN money? Both might have to take a small, short-term loss, but it’s well worth it in the long run for both. And it GETS RID OF THE TECH PROBLEM. No school will be able to follow Texas out of the conference because none of them can afford it, and the B1G wouldn’t take them anyway. The six-year agreement guarantees that neither the B1G nor Texas will cause the collapse of the Big 12, or even the loss of another school for the conference. This is a brilliant move by Texas, as it gets them off the hook from any possible legal or political hassles, and they get to go to the best conference for them.

    Like

    • MSlive says:

      Would Texas keep its tier 3 rights? They would of course be on the LHN providing significamt revenue for Horns. Would the remaining big 12 teams promote Longjorn games to tier 1 or 2 just to spite Texas?

      Like

    • allthatyoucantleavebehind says:

      Good point. I suppose details of a buyout clause (like the ACC’s recent 20-million clause) is probably more significant for Texas’s actual commitment to the league. If the buyout is just 5-10 million, they could leave the others sitting in decent shape. Even OU might be fine in the Texasless Big 12…

      Like

  54. DougH says:

    Texas wouldn’t be breaking any commitment agreement to stay in the conference, and it would be paying a stiff penalty to the Big 12, so no team in the Big 12 would have any legal grounds to stop Texas moving to the Big.

    Like

  55. duffman says:

    Alan,

    Off topic, but do you have a kid going to Sewanee? Somebody on here did, and now I have forgotten.

    Like

  56. M says:

    I’ve decided what I want to happen. Missouri to the SEC. SMU, Houston and Rice to the Big 12. It would be like the SWC kicked out A&M and Arkansas, followed by a raid to take the Big 8’s worst teams (and Oklahoma).

    Like

  57. Mike says:

    Air Force to the Missouri Valley? I’m not sure I fully understand this.

    http://www.gazette.com/sports/gen-126331-west-names.html

    Air Force and the Mountain West have discussed the possibility of Air Force remaining in the conference for football, but taking its other sports to another conference.

    Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson confirmed the discussions between himself and Air Force. The Missouri Valley Conference would be the most likely destination for Air Force’s non-football sports if it pulls those programs out of the Mountain West.

    Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/gen-126331-west-names.html#ixzz1a3oCiOpe

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Maybe they read where I suggested it here the other day when they were talking about Air Force to the Big East!

      The Mountain West is really not a good fit for Air Force as far as the type of schools and their “national” brand.

      I’ve thought AF, Navy and Army ought to join CUSA (Navy and Army for fb only) and play together in the West with Rice, SMU, Tulsa & Tulane. They could be in a conference, play similar high level academic schools, help Texas recruiting (which all 3 do a lot) and have more schedule flexibility than they normally would in a conference since they would all be together and they would be playing some common ooc opponents in conference.

      Like

  58. Mike says:

    Air Force to the Missouri Valley? I’m not sure I fully understand this.

    http://www.gazette.com/sports/gen-126331-west-names.html


    Air Force and the Mountain West have discussed the possibility of Air Force remaining in the conference for football, but taking its other sports to another conference.

    Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson confirmed the discussions between himself and Air Force. The Missouri Valley Conference would be the most likely destination for Air Force’s non-football sports if it pulls those programs out of the Mountain West

    Like

    • zeek says:

      We heard about Navy, Army, Air Force to Big East the past couple of days, but dunno if they want to compete at such a high level? That or travel costs probably lower?

      Probably makes it easier for them to run their AD (read cheaper) if they do this…

      Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        Air Force might, I doubt Army and Navy would.

        Doesn’t anyone else remember when Army joined CUSA hoping to get a bump like AFA did in the WAC but ended up putting all of their programs back like a decade? Navy’s been a bowl team for nearly a decade now in no small part thanks to creative scheduling. I see no reason for either of them to get involved with the Big East now.

        Like

      • 84Lion says:

        Does anyone know, when the service academy teams travel, do they travel commercially or do they use military transport? The reason I ask is that I’m curious whether the costs are such that they have to pay their own way or are for all intents and purposes “cost-free.”

        Like

        • vandiver49 says:

          @84,

          Travel is conducted just like any other school. Navy travels commercially out of BWI for its trips. As has been mentioned previously, the AD via football and donations has positive revenue.

          Like

        • Jake says:

          According to my cousin, who works in the athletic department at Air Force, they travel on military transport whenever possible.

          Like

      • frug says:

        Money doesn’t really matter to the service academies. Since they don’t give scholarships (tuition is free at the SAs) and don’t need to recruit in the traditional sense, their costs are significantly lower than literally any other FBS athletic departments. Plus, they bring in lots of money in donations.

        Like

        • greg says:

          “Money doesn’t really matter to the service academies.”

          Unfortunately, that kind of opinion is too prevalent in our government.

          Like

          • frug says:

            I guess I should rephrase.

            Money probably matters to them, they just don’t need it in the same way other schools do. They already operate in the black every year (the only non-AQs besides BYU to do so), so reduced travel costs or more conference payouts are not going to help them all that much.

            Like

  59. bullet says:

    Also off topic, but discussed here. Can’t link the article since it is in the archives, but Astros purchase proposal expires November 30th. Jim Crane says he may walk if its not approved by then. Thinks delay is baseball working on moving Astros to AL. He won’t go to AL without compensation. Astros would be in West with a lot of 9pm starts and AL payroll is $9.2 million higher on average.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      I’m not sure how many games MLB teams play intra- and inter-division these days, but say it’s 18 & 9, respectively. That’s 45 games against western time zone teams in the NL vs. 54 against western time zone teams in the AL. Granted, 2 of the NL teams are in the Mountain time zone, but AZ doesn’t observe daylight savings time, so really, 4 of the NL teams play on Pacific time during baseball season. That means there are 18 more games in the AL against Pacific time teams. Half of those will actually be played on the West Coast, so he’s balking due to 9 more 9PM starts out of 162 games?

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        I could see the Marlins moving to the AL East, getting a bump from the Yanks and Bosox (something the Fish might need even with a new ballpark), with Toronto heading to the Central and the Royals to the West. Meanwhile, the Pirates would go to the NL East, renew their rivalry with the Phillies and foster a new one against the Nationals (a la Capitals-Penguins).

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Vincent:

          Royals would hate it, and unlike the rest of the teams moving, they wouldn’t even have a local rival to assuage the hurt.

          Like

      • Jake says:

        @Richard – from someone who puts up with this from two of his pro teams, it’s not the number of West Coast games, but the importance. It really stinks when a key match-up with a division rival doesn’t get over until 12:00 or later on a work night.

        Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Dammit. Houston is an NL city. Always has been. Even before the Astros we were the St Louis AAA team since the ’20s. Stop this madness.

      Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        As a Reds fan I absolutely LOATHE the Astros but they belong in Houston, in the NL & in the same division as Cincy & St Louis.

        Like

  60. M says:

    Don’t think I’ve seen this here:

    http://cincinnati.com/blogs/uc/2011/10/06/east-carolina-central-florida-next-big-east-members/

    UCF and ECU to the Big East, possibly announced tomorrow.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      Well, they’ll need at least one more, as the B12 and/or SEC and/or ACC will need at least 1 more team from outside those conferences, and BYU seems off the table for the B12. Go back to Houston for SMU or Houston? Both?

      Like

  61. Mike says:

    Big East to Strike Back?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/sports/ncaafootball/big-east-presidents-to-discuss-possible-new-members.html?_r=1&ref=sports


    The inevitable defection of Texas Christian to the Big 12 conference has left the Big East with just six members in football and a sense of uncertainly about its future in that sport. The league’s presidents will be holding a conference call on Friday morning to discuss expansion possibilities. While nothing is guaranteed, three people with knowledge of the call have indicated that invitations to new members will be discussed and could be decided on the call.

    The Big East is staggering right now, as only Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Rutgers, Connecticut and South Florida remain in football. The league had appeared determined to lure Air Force and Navy, but those possibilities diminished with the instability that came with the news of T.C.U.’s departure to the Big 12. But East Carolina, Central Florida and Temple are all clamoring for a spot, and that could strengthen the league’s dwindling numbers. The Big East lost both Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the Atlantic Coast Conference last month.

    Like

    • So that would leave 10 in C-USA, and 10 in MWC. If the C-USA/MWC championship game idea comes about, those numbers work perfect (this in not to say C-USA will be happy to go down to 10). The proposal is that there would be no cross over games, so each conference could play 9 games in a round-robin with their champions meeting in a championship game, perfect.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      I bet Villanova is looking better and better, especially as the better FB programs leave.

      Like

  62. FLP_NDRox says:

    Finally figured out what ND and Texas *really* have in common:

    Both ND and Texas have TV deals that the conference around them resents terribly.

    ND was of no interest to the B1G, as far as I can tell, until the 90s when Lou was winning and NBC was showing every home game nationally. When ND won 4 National Titles in 7 years and applied to the Big 10, they were turned down in favor of MSU. I don’t remember any big outreach to ND when PSU got invited. However, once the money and TV appearances started rolling in, the BIg Ten came calling to TPTB under the Dome.

    Of course, the Domer theory is that the B1G wants ND to join both to kill the NBC contract by making ND give it up as a condition of entry and to make the B1G TV contracts that much bigger based off of ND’s national name recognition and fanbase that first began in a large part due to being blackballed from the conference for literally generations.

    When UT’s conference mates were upset by Texas’s uneven revenue share and private TV deal on the LHN, Oklahoma and the others didn’t handle it by changing the conference rules to make them similar to the B1G, but by trying to get away from UT. UT has no interest in Independence, so it has been making compromises and deals to keep the Big XII/Neo-SWC together.

    If it keeps ND independent, I hope it works out for everyone.

    Like

    • M says:

      Lou stopped winning in 94, so if that were the reason, the Big Ten would have invited ND in 1993. The Big Ten only invited ND once they started playing poorly. Make of that what you will.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      I actually think the whole ND separate from the Big Ten thing worked out better for both sides (even the later times it didn’t happen in the past few decades). ND wouldn’t have been that different from Northwestern or UChicago as a draw if it had been in the Big Ten all this time, and so you get a weird kind of thing where independence has been optimal for ND, exposure-wise.

      I actually do think ND will be able to stay independent for the long haul. NBC doesn’t sign a deal for ND’s hockey unless it expects to be renewing the football contract, and with 5 conferences at the 12-14 level, there’s really no threat of 4×16.

      After all, the Big Ten is not moving off 12 and the Pac-12 will stay because Texas wants the LHN.

      I mentioned this earlier, but the Big Ten’s goals are the opposite of ND’s with respect to scheduling. ND wants to play teams in different regions more, whereas the Big Ten wants to get rid of MACrifice weekend for more Iowa-Wisconsin among other discontinued annual rivalries.

      Texas’ choice this summer along with the Big 12 losing all of the schools that would be coveted by other conferences makes it unlikely that ND will lose independence barring some kind of dramatic turn of events with respect to the BCS.

      Like

      • cutter says:

        You forget that Chicago was a major program in the conference until they started on the road towards deemphasizing football. Chicago was a founding member in 1896 and 73 Big Ten championships over fifty years fielding up to 19 sports. U of Chicago had won seven football championships up to 1933 when Stagg left as head coach.

        If Notre Dame had joined the Big Ten in the early part of the 1920s, the ND story would have undoubtedly been different, but that wouldn’t divorce the Irish from being a very successful football program or from prospering as a long-time member in the Big Ten.

        But even if there are people who doubt that Notre Dame would have flourised in the conference at that time with big, bad Fielding H. Yost at Michigan being their personal nemesis, imagine what Notre Dame would have looked like in the last dozen years if it’d joined the Big Ten back in 1999. It’s certainly something the faculty wanted, even though the other stakeholders didn’t.

        First off, the conference could have split up on a north-south axis for competitive balance and rivalry preservation:

        North: Iowa, Michgian, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Wisconsin
        South: Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue

        With eight conference games, ND would play the five in its own division, three from the other plus four non-conference games. Add in conference championship games, the Rose Bowl and other major non-BCS bowls in Florida against SEC teams. If ND ran the gamut in the regular season and won the conference championship game, they’d certainly be in an excellent position to get into the BCS championship game (especially if they kept USC on the regular season schedule).

        You can argue how well Davie, Willingham, Weis and now Kelly would have done in this sort of set up and how being in the Big Ten would have changed the school’s recruiting strategy, but as a platform for success, the B10 would have probably been just as good if not better than ND’s strategy to go independent. Would Notre Dame have been allowed to keep the NBC contract? Or would NBC have become the Big Ten’s “second network” like CBS is now with the SEC?

        I know a lot of the Notre Dame backers say the conference was run by Michigan and Ohio State and they’ll quote Parseghian about how ND would be voted 11-1 on most issues because of the nature of the institution and its goals. But seriously, before running out the party line, I’d love to know what issues woud cause Notre Dame to be in a minority of one within the conference. Are we talking about referee assignments? How time is kept on the field? Conference championship tie breakers? What issues would ND and the other institutions would have them so split that no one else would side with Notre Dame on them?

        Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          Frankly, I neither know nor care at this point what B1G votes on. I think it is an articulation that there are massive cultural differences between the two sides, and I think we all agree on that.

          Correction: Despite the oft-cited faculty senate vote, Professors were considered 50-50%. Only the Grad students were in favor in 1999. Also, the B1G demanded the dropping of the exclusive NBC contract as a condition for entry.

          That schedule also is awful from an ND fan perspective. IU and Illinois annual when we rarely play them now? UM and MSU only occassionally? At that time only 3 Non-conference games meaning we rotate only once since USC and Navy are carved in stone.

          No wonder this is the one thing we marched for when I was there.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            For Notre Dame to join the Big Ten, I think these two conditions would be prerequisites:

            * 16-team conference
            * Pods, with ND in a pod with Michigan State, Michigan and Purdue.

            ND would likely prefer an 8-game conference play so it could schedule two other games in addition to Navy and Southern Cal.

            Like

          • cutter says:

            Once the 12-game schedule was adapted, Notre Dame would have had four non-conference games and not three. That’s USC, Navy and two more teams TBD. Since those games would take place in September, it’d mean ND would be in a better position, for example, to get an SEC team on the schedule (which seems to be a bit problematic these days).

            Secondly, these divisions could be easily changed so that Notre Dame could play Michigan and Michigan State every year instead of two years out of every four, if you want. Frankly, if I were a Ohio State or a Wisconsin fan, I’d be miffed. 🙂

            I’m surprised you have problems with playing Indiana or Illinois since Purdue and Northwestern would alternate with them two years on/two years off. ND would just be swopping schools within the same states. At the very minimum, that’d be better than playing Tulsa or Army or Western Michigan and they’d be easy games for ND fans to attend in person.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            FLP_NDRox,

            Frankly, I neither know nor care at this point what B1G votes on.

            Lately, it would be things like playing 8 or 9 conference games, how to align divisions and adding NE. I doubt ND would have lost 11-1 on any of those issues (with ND, NE would never have been an issue because the 12 were set).

            I think it is an articulation that there are massive cultural differences between the two sides, and I think we all agree on that.

            There are some major differences, but also some similarities.

            from cutter’s post:

            North: Iowa, Michgian, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Wisconsin
            South: Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue

            That schedule also is awful from an ND fan perspective. IU and Illinois annual when we rarely play them now? UM and MSU only occassionally? At that time only 3 Non-conference games meaning we rotate only once since USC and Navy are carved in stone.

            I agree that cutter’s divisions are less than ideal. Maybe try this (listed in order for locked crossovers):

            North – MI, MSU, PU, ND, WI, MN
            South – OSU, NW, IN, PSU, IA, IL

            ND would have gotten MI, MSU, PU and PSU every year, plus WI and MN. The other 5 schools would have been 40% of the time, leaving 4 OOC games for Navy, USC and 2 others that rotated. With ND added, I doubt the B10 would have gone to 9 games for 2017 (maybe later once ND was more used to being in a conference).

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            I’ve been trying to come up with a Pod system that makes ND-UM-MSU-Pur something the rest of the conference would go along with, and I’ve yet to do it. Things get weird around the Minn-WU-Neb-Iowa stage, and the OSU-PSU-Eastern filler causes the IL-IN-Northwestern-etc. to just make everything look silly.

            zeek put it quite accurately, ND and the B1G want vastly different things from their schedules.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            FLP_NDRox,

            I’ve been trying to come up with a Pod system that makes ND-UM-MSU-Pur something the rest of the conference would go along with, and I’ve yet to do it. Things get weird around the Minn-WU-Neb-Iowa stage, and the OSU-PSU-Eastern filler causes the IL-IN-Northwestern-etc. to just make everything look silly.

            Cutter’s supposition was what if ND had joined in 1999, so that’s why you got sets of divisions.

            Pods are hard, because geography and balance don’t match up very well for the B10. Divisions might be better, with:

            West – NE, WI, IA, MN, MO, IL, NW, OSU
            East – ND, PU, MI, MSU, PSU, MD, RU, IN

            You’d have to lock OSU/MI, and OSU would definitely get the short end of the stick (6 B10 schools in neighboring states all in the other division) but it’s about the only way to balance the power and keep the major rivalries annual. You’d have to have 9 games (7 division) so ND would be back to 3 OOC for Navy, USC and 1 rotating. ND would get lots of eastern exposure, plus MI (like now) and IN. They could potentially lock in NE as well (OSU/MI, NE/ND, WI/PSU, IA/MSU, MO/PU, NW/RU, IL/MD, MN/IN).

            zeek put it quite accurately, ND and the B1G want vastly different things from their schedules.

            I don’t think that’s entirely true. Both want to play familiar teams a lot (MI, MSU, PU, Navy, USC, Stanford, Pitt, etc) and get a lot of exposure. The big difference is that ND wants more geographic diversity (for now). I’d say KC, Minneapolis, Chicago, OH, Detroit, NYC, Philadelphia, DC and CA is pretty good exposure. They can play Navy all over the country as a neutral site for more locations, or play some big neutral site games (ND/AL in Dallas to open the year, ND/FSU in Atlanta, etc) or big home and homes (Miami, UT, BYU, etc).

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Pods are hard, because geography and balance don’t match up very well for the B10. Divisions might be better, with:

            West – NE, WI, IA, MN, MO, IL, NW, OSU
            East – ND, PU, MI, MSU, PSU, MD, RU, IN

            You’d have to lock OSU/MI, and OSU would definitely get the short end of the stick (6 B10 schools in neighboring states all in the other division) but it’s about the only way to balance the power and keep the major rivalries annual.

            Would swapping Indiana and Northwestern work? That at least gives Ohio State an adjacent state, and two cross-division rivalry games at season’s end (OSU-Michigan, Indiana-Purdue). Also, Michigan State likes playing Northwestern for the exposure it receives in metro Chicago.

            Still prefer the pod concept because everyone in the conference will want to play Notre Dame on a semi-consistent basis.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            I think B1G-ND would prefer 2 divisions of 8 with one cross div rivalry, and an 8 game conference slate. But, since that means only playing the 7 other teams 2 in 14 years, I think that’ll get shot down double-quick by the rest of the league.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            With 16 teams, you’d need pods (in the B10, anyway).

            FLP, how about this:

            East: PSU, OSU, Miami, Rutgers
            Central: ND, Michigan, MSU, PU
            South: Texas, Illinois, Northwestern, IU
            West: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minny

            Primary crossovers (play annually):
            Michigan-OSU
            PSU-Nebraska
            ND-Texas
            IU-PU
            Iowa-Illinois
            Miami-MSU
            Wisconsin-Rutgers
            Minny-Northwestern

            Secondary crossovers (play 2/3rds of the time):
            Michigan-Minny
            OSU-Illinois
            ND-Rutgers
            Wisconsin-Texas
            Iowa-Miami
            MSU-Northwestern
            IU-Nebraska
            PU-PSU

            Everyone else is played a third of the time (I have Northwestern-Iowa sacrificed so that MSU can play NU 2/3rds of the time). I also have a series of “Big Ten Kickoff Classics” where B10 schools play nonconf against another B10 school on a neutral field (in Chicago, Meadowlands, and Jerryword), every B10 school plays 8-9 B10 opponents on average (but ND can play theirs in NYC).

            East is a beast and Texas gets off easy, but OSU & PSU at least get yearly trips to south Florida (for recruiting and alums) for their troubles, and PSU finally gets its Eastern “rival”.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            So technically Ohio State is no longer in the Big Ten?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Scarlet:

            All the scenarios I saw had OSU. Which one are you referring to?

            AD

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Shoving the Buckeyes in a pod with Joe Pa’s dream eastern schedule & no traditional B1G teams is completely unacceptable.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Scarlet,

            Well, you get to visit FL (your second-most important recruiting ground) every other year and play a team from there every year. Plus, playing in NJ every other year also would help recruiting. In fact, the East pod has probably 4 of the 5 best recruiting states in this new B10.

            You’d still play Michigan every year and Illinois 2/3rds of the time. The biggest change from the current divisional setup is that instead of playing IU, PU, & Wisconsin every year, they’re substituted by Miami & Rutgers. Does OSU really want to play the IN schools that badly?

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Playing traditional rivals vs being ghettoized in the guido division? Yeah the importance of the former far outweighs any alleged benefits of the latter. Those long term ties are what binds a conference together and you need to made the best effort possible to keep them strong. Outside of bowl games the game at Miami this year was the first time Ohio State has EVER played in Florida. The importance of playing schools in an area you want to recruit is grossly exaggerated IMO. As far as playing a crappy Indiana team vs a crappy Rutgers one? Yes I’ll take the de facto home game four hours away in Bloomington every time.

            I would be saying the same thing if it were being suggested for another school…say placing TSUN with ND, Syracuse & Boston College…or Illinois with UNL, MO & Kansas. Those are the types of moves that make it harder to fully integrate newcomers into the conference and also risk alienating current long term members.

            Ideally in the mythical move to 16 each pod would contain 3 current members (yes UNL now falls into that category) and one new addition.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            vp19,

            My divisions:
            West – NE, WI, IA, MN, MO, IL, NW, OSU
            East – ND, PU, MI, MSU, PSU, MD, RU, IN

            You’d have to lock OSU/MI, and OSU would definitely get the short end of the stick (6 B10 schools in neighboring states all in the other division) but it’s about the only way to balance the power and keep the major rivalries annual.

            Would swapping Indiana and Northwestern work? That at least gives Ohio State an adjacent state, and two cross-division rivalry games at season’s end (OSU-Michigan, Indiana-Purdue). Also, Michigan State likes playing Northwestern for the exposure it receives in metro Chicago.

            I considered swapping NW and IN, and it certainly could work. I went for divisions that wouldn’t require locked rivalries (except OSU/MI) to maximize the frequency of playing the other teams. I figured MSU gets plenty of Chicago exposure playing ND, so they could sacrifice playing NW every year. Plus, the western teams really need some Chicago access since so many of their students are from there.

            Still prefer the pod concept because everyone in the conference will want to play Notre Dame on a semi-consistent basis.

            In theory, pods are great. The best pods systems either are based on geographic proximity or on spreading the new guys out so they get integrated.

            In practice for the B10, I think they have a lot of problems.
            1. Balance
            2. Confusion for national and casual footprint fans
            3. Gimmicky
            4. Preserving rivalries
            5. Enticing ND (in this case)

            Like

    • cutter says:

      That’d be a recent development. Notre Dame has had the NBC contract since the 1990s whereas Texas and the LHN is virtually brand new.

      Penn State joined the Big Ten in 1990 and started playing in the conference in 1993. Notre Dame received its first invite to the Big Ten in 1999 and there were indications ND would join the B10 in 2003 when the Big East lost three members and the thinking then was that the BE was kaput.

      No one’s denying Notre Dame’s value for any conference, but ND’s not making anymore money right now than any Big Ten team when you look at what makes up the annual conference distributions. The conference is scheduled to disburse over $23M in FY 2012 to each team in the B1G with the revenue sources being television (football and basketball), net bowl revenue and money from the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. Depending on which bowl Notre Dame gets involved in, the Irish may get roughly that same amount from similar sources.

      In terms of any conference, what Notre Dame and Texas have in common that more important than any of their television deals is the larger value they can bring to a conference. That’s why people who have followed expansion and the Big Ten have long hoped to see ND and UT in the B1G. It’s not going to happen with Texas and the jury’s still out on Notre Dame at this point.

      Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      Conspiracy theories are almost always nonsense.

      The B1G isn’t interested in ND with the intent of injuring the school. That would be self defeating and the folks running the conference aren’t so foolish and petty.

      Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        Fits the evidence pretty well, tho’, Lutefisk

        Cutter, your comment is accurate, but that’s no reason for Texas to buddy up with us. I’m starting to think this recent development is tied to their recent LHN issues, and more specifically, how the Big XII reacted.

        Thanks M and Zeek, great points.

        Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          “Fits the evidence pretty well, tho’, Lutefisk.”

          –Like with any conspiracy theory there may be some superficial correlation but to any reasonable observer it doesn’t fit.

          Anyone who honestly thinks the B1G would seriously entertain the notion of adding a member for the sole purpose of damaging said member has a screw loose.

          Like

          • greg says:

            It was suggested on this very blog that the Big Ten “was content to add PSU and turn them into a second tier program”.

            People are crazy.

            Like

          • @Greg: That’s silly. I can’t imagine any serious B1G fan believing that. If PSU has fallen to second-tier status, it’s not the B1G’s doing; PSU has fallen because their coach has held on too long, and it’s been like that for quite a few years now.

            Like

          • M says:

            I don’t know what’s so hard to understand. The Big Ten is trying to add ND in order to damage them, unless the Big Ten is trying to keep out ND in order to damage them.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            lol

            Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      You Domers are sure long-suffering…..it all goes back to Yost kicking Rockne in the nuts……

      Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        Rockne 3 Nat’l Titles, first in ’24
        Yost 0 Nat’l Titles after ’24
        Stagg, 0 Nat’l Titles after WWI

        When we could have used security and scheduling help the B1G was nowhere. Once we were getting more TV and Lou was gone all of a sudden the B1G appears? Why should ND believe that the B1G has their best interests at heart? For nearly a century, ND has been competition not only on the field and in recruiting, but in the business of college sports. In the age of Television, ND and its corporate partners are not only competing against individual Big Ten schools, but now against the B1G itself, and its corporate partners.

        Hostle takeovers are rather common in business, y’know.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Well passing on ND in the ’50s was more the result of political pressure from Michigan pols than the Big 10 actually preferring MSU, and the decision not to approach the Irish in the early ’90s was the result of a four year moratorium on expansion the conference enacted after adding PSU (that’s the same reason they passed on Texas in ’96).

          Like

    • AstroBoiler says:

      I know there’s been talk of Fielding Yost forcing all Big Ten schools to stop scheduling Notre Dame, but how true is it? According to Wikipedia, Purdue has played Notre Dame at least twice in every decade since the 1890s, and the longest break in the series (1908-1917) overlapped with the time that Michigan was kicked out of (or voluntarily left) the Big Ten.

      Like

      • Josh says:

        It’s bunk. Fielding Yost wouldn’t schedule Notre Dame, but other Big Ten teams did. And contrary to what Golden Domers say, Yost didn’t not schedule ND because he was an anti-Catholic bigot, but rather because he believed Notre Dame was cheating and paying players.(Which was true, although they weren’t the only ones.) But if you look at ND’s schedule in that period, you can see Indiana, Wisconsin, Purdue, Northwestern, etc.

        And Michigan left the Big Ten for a while on their own accord. Michigan thought they were too good for the Big Ten and wanted to schedule more prestigious teams like Penn, Harvard and Cornell.

        Like

        • Purduemoe says:

          Watch out, your blowing holes in the Domer’s favorite anti-big ten rant. Some how they have conflated their problem with michigan (and really with just one man, Yost) into a problem with the whole B1G, even though many B1G schools have never had a problem with scheduling ND.

          Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          Just double checked, and ND did not play ANY B1G teams from 1908-1917, and IIRC Stagg was behind that. The first few years we ended up playing Marquette and a bunch of future DIII schools that weren’t much even then. When Michigan left/got kicked from the B1G we played in 1909, but after ND won and embarrassed Yost, Michigan would not play ND until WWII. That didn’t improve until ’13 when Jesse Harper showed the Priests that a road trip could actually make money, and our success eventually allowed us to play and beat the Eastern powers. During the Rockne Era, ND typically only scheduled 2 B1G teams in a 10 game schedule. During the 30s, a third B1G game was added, and from the 1940s-until the late 60s ND would often play 4-5 Big Ten games. I think that was due to trying to keep the travel budget in line and because Fr. Hesburg was sorta trying to keep the football-factory comments down by keeping the travel time down. Since the “Era of Ara” it’s been primarily 3 B1Gs on the schedule.

          BTW, in an era where there were no athletic scholarships and recruiting at all was illegal, ND was only giving out real jobs and doing only limited recruited, as opposed to Michigan, Chicago, and OSU who just got hammered by the reformers for all their improprieties. Say what you will about the Hierarchy at ND, they don’t put up with much funny business.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            ND played WI in 1917. The gap was 1906-1916 according to Stassen.com. It doesn’t change your point, I just figured you’d want to be accurate.

            To be more honest, this is who ND did play from 1901-1920 that is still a I-A program:
            Army 7
            MSU 7
            PU 7
            NE 6
            IN 5
            WI 3
            UT 2
            NW 2
            WMU 2
            KU 1
            MI 1
            PSU 1
            Rice 1
            Syracuse 1

            Of the 14 schools, 8 are now in the B10 (including 5 of the top 6), 1 is independent, 2 are B12, 1 is ACC and 2 are non-AQ. I can certainly see why ND would be mad at the B10 for this. They only provided 70% of ND’s games against current I-A’s. The nerve. And before you say it, I’m well aware MSU, PSU and NE weren’t in the B10 by 1920. We’re talking about the relevance of this issue to the current B10.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            Sorry, typo. There *was* a 0-0 tie in Madison in ’17. But the last B1G opponent before the conference’s refusal was a game against the Boilers in November of 1907. Second typo I just saw on Fr. Hesburgh, C.S.C.

            But the B1G deserves no points for MSU, who was also on the outside looking in and for opponents then, PSU an eastern independent, or Nebraska who’s anti-Catholic fans were the impetus to drop them as our “Western” rival in favor on USC.

            And, since Nebraska’s played all of ONE B1G game at this point 🙂

            Also, with actual B1G members during that time, only 17 games were played in twenty years. An entire generation came of age when ND averaged less than a game a year against B1G competition.

            And we’re not angry, we’re grateful for the opportunity to become what we are today. By 1928, a sizable percentage of the fan base already believed Independence was the best option.

            On the other hand, any offer from the B1G is going to seem like Greeks bearing gifts to Domers, and rightfully so.

            Like

      • metatron5369 says:

        Notre Dame’s identity is shrouded in a mythos of anti-Big Ten origins. We are the mysterious powers that be that tried to strangle them in the cradle, only to see them rise to glory and victory.

        None of that is really true, but people aren’t exactly rational. We are the others, and no matter what, they will always hate us. It’s basic human behavior.

        Like

  63. M_in_PHX says:

    Memphis with Mike Leach as coach would be an exciting BigEast add.
    Instant football interest.
    Stadium to grow into.
    Basketball brand name.

    Like

  64. vp19 says:

    A hypothetical question: If you were the University of Louisville administration and had verbally agreed to enter the Big 12, but Rick Pitino then tells you that if UL leaves the Big East, he’s resigning, do you still go forth with the conference change? I say yes. (I’m not intimating this scenario happening, just throwing out a “what if.”)

    Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      You don’t base a hundred year decision (well, according to aTm (six year decision in reality in the B12)) on the whims of one coach in one sport.

      Like

    • duffman says:

      vincent,

      maybe not, as they just built YUM

      a) BE allows booze, not sure about B12
      b) Pitino is the franchise, look at how Knight’s son did @ TT
      c) They can not fill the Pizza Pit, but they can at the Double Down
      d) As tight as Jurich is with Rick, impossible to believe there is no communication

      ps, I keep meaning to ask, is that barbara stanwick as your avitar?

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        Good guess — but no, it’s not Stanwyck, but Carole Lombard. (Yesterday marked the 103rd anniversary of her birth.) I’m a classic Hollywood fan, have a blog on the topic called “Carole & Co.” (http://carole-and-co.livejournal.com), and; we’re currently in the midst of a blogathon called “Carole-tennial(+3)!”

        Like

        • duffman says:

          The problem is the pic is so tiny and grainy, so you can see cheeks but not well enough. Like Frank’s his kind of looks like a guy in a cowboy hat.

          Like

        • GreatLakeState says:

          Just saw Mr. & Mrs. Smith yesterday. I agree that your avatar has a Barbara Stanwyck vibe.

          That’s the ticket.
          Personally, in regard to women movie-stars-of-old, I’ll take the brunettes.
          Hedy Lamarr, Rita Hayworth, Ava Gardner etc. etc,

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            The Lombard avatar is from “My Man Godfrey,” arguably the greatest screwball film ever made, co-starring William Powell, my all-time favorite actor.

            Like

        • GreatLakeState says:

          Everybody loves The Thin Man. I just learned that Powell grew up only a couple blocks from a girl named Harlow Carpenter, who became Jean Harlow. Small world.
          Anyhooo, I promise not to turn this into an old movie thread. Interesting stuff though.

          Like

    • bullet says:

      I was looking at a similar discussion on a UL board and they, for the most part, seemed to be glad to let him take a hike. UL isn’t about Pitino. They can get another great coach.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        But can they find another coach that will dress like Colonel Sanders and have really quick sex at a restaurant? That’s the question.

        Like

  65. allthatyoucantleavebehind says:

    http://nittanylionsden.com/2011-articles/october/the-missouri-compromise.html

    Blog on Missouri’s importance to b1g’s expansion plans. Next few days should be interesting…

    Speaking as a Big Ten fan, it would be nice to beat the SEC at something!

    Like

    • PSUGuy says:

      I could care less about what the SEC does.

      My problem is that the B1G, through basically sheer dumb luck, has been handed large populations who value state funded educational systems and have a rabid sports affinity. Now to their credit, the B1G schools have maximized those assets (for the most part), but in the end they have acquired (from my POV) an almost arrogant air of superiority. Its like they think they’re the most wanted community to live in “in town” and that if they wanted to add a few more homes down the line, anyone else would be more than willing to come along (probablem being of course even the best neighborhoods get run down in time).

      The facts as I see them are thus…the Big Ten has a legitimate chance to completely reshape the entire college landscape (and I think for the better). If it were to expand to 16 members (the right 16 members) it would have a huge say in how the NCAA runs its business from a rules standpoint. Since the B1G tends to voluntarily engage in “ethical” rules like not over-signing & focusing on the “student” portion of “sident athlete” they could actually push for transparency and change in these areas and all the while continuing to solidify their ability to provide for their member institutions in the future.

      IMO, getting Mizzou and Rutgers into the B1G is the first step of that…but in the end I think they’ll be content to rest on their laurels and “ride it out” at 12 for the next 20 years (while the rest of the conferences catch up by just following through on what the Big Ten did in the first place).

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I’ve seen several people saying that college sports and its rules are going to change dramatically in the next 18-24 months. The Cam Newton, SEC over-signing, SEC dumping athletes on medical hardship or dumping them totally, Ohio State, UNC and Miami messes are driving the presidents to act. The increase in TV money probably gives them a little breathing room and lessens the financial pressure to win.

        Like

      • metatron5369 says:

        A) You’re assuming that they want a change in the NCAA rules. By and large, I believe they’re for most of the rules currently in existence.

        B) It might be arrogant, but it’s true. These institutions have a real interest in maximizing their revenue; they’re not-for-profit institutions that have a plethora of non-revenue sports to offer for their students.

        I want the B1G Ten to jump to sixteen as much as anybody, but I don’t see it happening unless one of the major dominoes fall. Texas and Notre Dame currently have everything they want, and Missouri would’ve gotten an invite already if Chicago felt they were crucial to their long-term plans.

        Like

    • Peter says:

      That blog isn’t fully researched. Maryland’s own actions seem to indicate they don’t feel the ACC is off-limits at all, so long as its them doing the leaving. It’s odd for Maryland to be doing what it did (they founded the conference), but there’s only one explanation. If the B1G asked them, they would go.

      The B1G asking them is an entirely different matter. That involves declaring war on a fellow conference and that’s just not how they operate.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        But with Connecticut openly campaigning for an ACC slot, it could easily replace Maryland as #14 if the Big East collapsed as a football conference. That would make things a bit easier on the Big Ten from a public relations perspective.

        Like

      • allthatyoucantleavebehind says:

        What actions by Maryland are you referring to? I haven’t seen any solid leads hinting that Maryland would leave. What did I miss?

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          It, Florida State and a third ACC member successfully lobbied to limit the exit fee for leaving the conference from a proposed $34 million to $20 million ($4M above the previous fee). While Maryland has no complaint with expanding the ACC to 14 with Syracuse (a semi-traditional football rival) and PIttsburgh (which it’s sporadically faced in football and both men’s and women’s basketball), if the Big Ten ever decides to expand, it wants to be available; it would provide an immeasurable benefit to the university, academically, athletically and in research.

          Like

  66. Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

    http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/10/07/100711-sports-wolken-tcu-big-12-1-3/

    “Since Nebraska moved to the Big Ten last year, not a single football program of longstanding national relevance has changed conferences, and look how much has changed, how much more is on the verge of destruction.”

    Ouch.

    Like

  67. Read The D says:

    Seems to me that BYU told the Big 12 they weren’t interested unless it was a 12 team league and they could be in the North, or at least in the division opposite of Texas & OU.

    BYU probably believes an independent schedule makes them more relevant in terms of record. After all, in the warped world of college football, no matter who you play, an undefeated season means you’re in the BCS discussion. That makes more sense than virtually scheduling 2 losses every year to big time programs.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Seen some speculation by BYU people that BYU was being a pain in the neck with demands. Don’t know if those people have any reliable sources, just comments by the administration that BYU wouldn’t compromise its principles. BYU has been very tight lipped, unlike most schools.

      BYU was the 1 most logical addition from an athletic standpoint. It may be that Neinas was driving the Big 12 east. From a geographic standpoint, BYU is a significant outlier. There was some discussion about eastern vs. western expansion and BYU may have been viewed as too far west without other good alternatives out west.

      There has been some speculation BYU is off the list, but it still wouldn’t surprise me to see BYU get the next invitation.

      Like

        • Read The D says:

          I saw that BYU was a pain on another post, with sources coming from MWC. That’s fairly believable and I can see them acting in a similarly stubborn manner to Notre Dame.

          Since BYU is an outlier and sandwiched between the Pac-12, which will not take them, and the Big-12, that affords the Big-12 the luxury to offer an invitation to BYU when the Big-12 pleases. No one else is going to come knocking on BYU’s door.

          I think 10 is smart for a year or two, especially if Missouri leaves. Poor decisions can be made in a panic. However, if Mizzouri leaves, that makes Louisville almost as much of an outlier to the east as BYU is to the West. That would seem to make BYU more logical for 10 than Louisville. Then again, BYU may not want that to be in a 10 team Big-12.

          Like

        • Read The D says:

          Another interesting reminder:

          http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/09/29/1820011/broncos-byu-extend-series-to-2023.html

          The non conference series with Boise St., Notre Dame, and Utah sort of makes BYU’s schedule pretty unflexible. They may be digging in for independence long-term.

          Like

        • cutter says:

          Oklahoma may well be right about the fact that there are no really good candidates for Big XII expansion beyond ten teams at this point. West Virginia, Louisville and Cincinnati aren’t exactly major programs, although I can see why they like UL because it has the biggest budget of the three and is closest to the conference’s current geographic footprint.

          I wonder what the other conference members think. Missouri, I understand, wanted to see the Big XII get back to twelve members and have a conference championship game. With just ten members, do the other programs think the conference is still vulnerable (sort of the same reason why the ACC added Pittsburgh and Syracuse).

          I think that one article touches on an important point–there aren’t any really great alternatives out there for conferenes to expand beyond the numbers we’re seeing now with the exception of Notre Dame unless there’s some major poaching, such as Florida State or Virginia Tech going from the ACC to the SEC.

          The ACC, for example, could invite Rutgers and Connecticut and move up to 16 members in short order, but would that be a really worthwhile move at this juncture? The answer is probably not, and like the Big Ten, they’ll leave an opening available for Notre Dame because ND’s the #1 free agent right now.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            BYU, UL and WVU are all solid.

            The championship game pays for #12. They need to get enough from #11 and #12 on their own to pay for one, or at least close to pay for one team.

            If I were the AD of someone other than UT or OU, I would be pushing for 12 to solidify the league in case UT or OU do eventually leave. It would also strengthen the Big 12’s negotiating position as the Big East would no longer be taking up many TV slots.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            bullet other reason is competitiveness. At least if you separate back into Big 12 North/South, you can get a chance to get to a Big 12 CCG. In a Big 12 without divisions, what are the odds that a school outside of the Texas or Oklahoma schools wins the Big 12? Near 0.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            If Brigham Young is out of the Big 12 derby, does it still make sense to go to 12 members if Cincinnati takes its place alongside West Virginia and Louisville?

            Like

          • Read The D says:

            If you remember back last year Bill Snyder said a bit tongue in cheek that he thinks the Big 12 should keep the divisions even with 10 teams. NO SCHOOL wants to be in the same division with OU and Texas.

            I can’t see any schools other than OU and Texas not wanting 12 teams. And I would think they would want OU and Texas in opposite divisions in any new construct with a guaranteed crossover.

            If B12 can keep Mizzou and add BYU, the CCG should pay for #12 no matter who it is.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @bullet

            One thing to keep in mind is that Fox agreed to keep paying the conference $10 million a year for the CCG even though it is not being played.

            Like

          • cutter says:

            Bullet: A conference championship game might pay for one school, but not the two or more that would be needed depending on what Missouri does.

            I’m not saying that UL, Cincy and WVU aren’t solid, but they also aren’t wow choices either.

            Truth be told, the inventory of possible kingmakers in any conference expansion scenario we can look at in the near future is pretty thin. Notre Dame is certainly the primary candidate now that Texas and Oklahoma seem set in the Big XII. Missouri would be a nice addition to the SEC, but given the choice, most people would identify FSU as having greater value than Mizzou.

            A conference like the ACC added Syracuse and Pittsburgh as a preeemtive move. The SEC added Texas A&M so they could get a foothold in the state. Missouri presents a nice market addition and evens out the conference, but again, they’re not Florida State.

            The Pac 12 tried to add two kingmakers and failed. Even Oklahoma with Oklahoma State in tow wasn’t enough for them to make the move to 14.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            How about South Florida accompanying West Virginia and Louisville? Tampa-St. Petersburg is somewhat larger than Cincinnati, and Florida has long been a target of Big Eight/Big 12 recruiting. Moreover, USF has established itself as a competitive force in football. If it went to the Big 12, it probably wouldn’t worry about seeing Central Florida join the Big East.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @cutter-Not sure if we are saying the same thing. That was my point that a conference championship game pays for #11. Then #11 and #12 have to add (excluding the championship game) at least half as much as the average of the existing 10 schools. If the BE was worth $11 million per school, WVU and UL may very well add enough to bring a little extra value to the Big 12 when they add a championship game in addition to $11 million or so apiece.

            Like

  68. Milton Hershey says:

    Jim D needs to stop golfing and start getting aggressive. His “sit back and wait for ND” strategy is going to blow up in his face when they choose another conference. He was hoping that by destroying the Big East, ND would come to him… That might not be the case. The BiG needs to move on Maryland asap.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Even if Notre Dame is never coming, I don’t think the Big Ten wants to expand. I agree with that sentiment. There is no reason to expand just for expansion’s sake. For every team that enters the Big Ten from this point, we play each other less. We add 1 to each division and (with 9 game schedules) we go from playing most the other division 6 out of 10 years to 2 out of every 6 years. That’s not worth it unless the teams are ones we really want to play.

      Beyond that, no one is going to 16 here and most are staying at 12. 14 isn’t so high up that we are going to be seen as behind because we are staying at 12.

      Like

    • cutter says:

      I don’t think Delany necessarily needs to be aggressive at this point of time. In three years from now, the Big Ten will be negotiating with ABC/ESPN and a host of other networks for the rights to B10 college football and basketball. If the past television deals we’ve seen with the ACC and Pac 12 are any indicator, then the conference will be in the cat bird’s seat with the twelve current members.

      But that upcoming negotiation also gives him leverage in terms of potential revenues with any of the target programs the Big Ten looked at during the most recent conference expansion exercise that brought Nebraska into the conference. Many of the programs that have been mentioned as possible targets outside of Notre Dame could probably still be brought into the Big Ten if they desire it.

      Until there’s some conference strutcture that’s a prerequisite for a post-season playoff which doesn’t allow independents, Notre Dame is probably going to exercise each and every option available to keep its football team independent. To a lesser extent, the same goes to schedule and access to bowl games as well.

      But the bottom line is revenue generation with an eye to the Big Ten Network. In FY 2012, the conference will distribute over $23M to each program in the B10 thru revenue from television (football and basketball), net bowl game proceeds and the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. As long as that number continues to go up and there’s a prospect for a major spike in a few years’ time when the new contracts come into effect (which is what happened in 2006 when the current contract with ABC/ESPN started), conference members may then be getting over $30M per year by FY 2016. That’s going to be a major hurdle for any new program to add to, which is why Delany’s best strategy in terms of confernce expansion is to do nothing at this point.

      Like

      • drwillini says:

        Cutter, your final point is a great one. After the new contract is signed the ‘degree of difficulty’ of adding a new school goes up tremendously. Adding a new school too far ahead of that window is merely dillutive. Seems like the conference would not need to have any additional school playing by 2014, only identified so that it could be properly valued in the negotiations. Maybe Jimbo can afford to hit the range after todays round after all.

        Like

    • charlie says:

      start getting aggressive? who do you suggest he targets? Mizzou? Rutgers? UConn? Nebraska was a home run addition, plus getting the CCG makes it a grand slam – at this point, any schools the B1G adds has to at least equal, if not exceed, the Nebraska + CCG revenue increase, otherwise all of the current schools are going to be taking a pay cut. there’s only 2 school (in my mind, but I feel many people would agree) which could individually produce that kind of increase: ND and Texas. so, are you saying that Delany should call up DeLoss and beg him to join the B1G? maybe leave a 400th voicemail for Swarbrick? the only other option is to hopefully get the NYC market (which has been analyzed and reanalyzed by Frank as neigh on impossible). so, should Delany target UConn + Rutgers + ‘Cuse + BC if ND’s off the table? I think Delany knows he done good, and at this point, unless Swarbrick makes the phone call saying ND’s gonna join the B1G, there’s really nothing left for Delany to do…

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        To everyone repeating this “pay cut” line, please explain how the ACC taking Pitt and Syracuse is not effecting a pay cut….and why we hear nothing of “pay cuts” when discussing A@M and MO to the SEC…..also, the ONLY reporting of whether the BIG’s study of whether expansion would be profitable indicated it was.

        The Smaller 10 is being fat and arrogant because everything is not going according to their timetable.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          ACC payouts are $15M per team and Big East had a proposal for $11M per team. It’s easily imaginable that Pitt and Syracuse being among the most valuable teams in the Big East (WVU/TCU are probably the only bigger brands) were above that $11M per team average in terms of value that they brought.

          Most likely the ACC gets a pro-rata increase or maybe more from ESPN for killing off the Big East.

          Before the Big East was going to receive $100M per year for its 9 teams (after TCU’s entrance).

          Now, ESPN can just give the ACC $30M per year to take Pitt/Syracuse and can just pay the Big East $30-40M per year. Net gain for ESPN…

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Although I guess the Big East’s proposal included basketball so that per 9 teams wasn’t really correct.

            Regardless, my point stands. There is a lot of “deadweight” value in the Big East given that most of its teams were in the C-USA just a few years ago and don’t bring traditional value.

            By taking 2 of the most valuable teams (and the Big 12 taking 1 of the 2 remaining), the Big East’s contract is now worth significantly less, and ESPN gains that loss back…

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The estimate of the split between bb and fb was slightly more heavily weighted towards football and it came to $11 million/school for the football schools.

            Like

        • zeek says:

          As for A&M/Missouri to the SEC, I tend to agree with you.

          Not really sure either will bring value to the CBS contract (they really going to get that many games there?), and as for ESPN, I guess they’d give them a pro-rata increase.

          Future valuations (and especially a TV Network for 3rd tier rights) would probably do a better job of bringing out the value of A&M and Missouri…

          Like

          • joe4psu says:

            I’ve often found this comment section to be informative as well as entertaining but somehow the group here is misinformed about tv contracts and expansion. Please read this.

            http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/09/26/Colleges/ACC.aspx

            Here is part of the article:

            …The opportunity to reopen its 12-year, $1.86 billion deal with ESPN was a significant factor in the ACC’s decision to expand with Syracuse and Pittsburgh, Commissioner John Swofford told SportsBusiness Journal. The ACC signed that media agreement in May 2010, but subsequent rights-fee deals signed by the Big 12 and Pac-12 were considerably richer than the ACC’s.

            …The ACC’s contract with ESPN, which is valued at $155 million a year, contains a standard line called a “composition clause” that allows either the conference or ESPN to reopen the deal if membership increases or decreases by at least two schools. The conference or the network can act on that clause any time the conference’s membership changes by at least two schools.

            The agreement does not permit the ACC to take its rights to the open market. But the addition of two schools does create the opportunity for a new negotiation and, undoubtedly, more money. If the two sides cannot come to an agreement, the deal would go to an arbitrator.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The SEC has never mentioned any type of composition clause. I believe that is unique to the ACC, although I presume the Pac wrote one in. The SEC discussion has been about “look-ins.” Its been very clear from ESPN’s comments, comments in the paper from insiders and Slive’s careful language that the SEC doesn’t have significant ability to get the contract changed.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Bullet:

            Not saying I disagree completely, but if Sports business daily calls a composition clause a standard line I’d consider other factors as to why Slive wouldn’t cite it. If it is there could referencing it prior to actually expanding be construed as the conference seeking new members, as opposed to responding to unsolicited petitions from schools (see: Baylor)? Does Slive care what anyone outside knows or doesnt know for a public fact? Obviously the SEC sees an advantage to expanding at this time or they wouldn’t be doing it. Perhaps it’s planing for a future we don’t yet see rather than gaining some imediate increase in $$$s.
            I’ve been told it is far more instructive to watch what people (schools, conferences, etc.) actually do, and pay much less attention to what they say, especially if they seem to conflict.

            Like

          • joe4psu says:

            bullet,

            ————————–
            “The SEC has never mentioned any type of composition clause. I believe that is unique to the ACC, although I presume the Pac wrote one in. The SEC discussion has been about “look-ins.” Its been very clear from ESPN’s comments, comments in the paper from insiders and Slive’s careful language that the SEC doesn’t have significant ability to get the contract changed.”
            ————————

            The “composition clause” is described in the article as standard in these types of contracts. That doesn’t mean that it is in the SEC contract but to believe that it’s not you’d have to believe that the SEC and/or their lawyers are stupid. I don’t believe that by the way. The “look-ins” Slive talked about were set up to happen throughout the contract without changes in membership.

            Without access to the SEC contract this is all just hot air.

            Like

          • joe4psu says:

            More on the ACC’s negotiations.

            Expanding ACC will reopen ESPN deal – Michael Smith & John Ourand, SportsBusiness Daily
            http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/09/26/Colleges/ACC.aspx

            The clause in the ACC-ESPN contract that permits the deal to be reopened is standard among college conferences. The SEC is expected to exercise its right to a new deal if it adds Texas A&M and another school, as reported. ESPN and Fox, meanwhile, could void the Big 12’s contract or ask the conference to give it a reduction in fees if it loses teams. Network sources say that is an unlikely option, especially if Texas remains in the conference.

            The ACC-ESPN deal that went into effect this season pays about $4 million in new media revenue for each existing ACC school. Three percent escalators are built in annually.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            To say ESPN would allow the conferences to just add schools and totally re-open contracts would assume ESPN is stupid. It looks like none of the conferences have much leverage. If the B1G got $7 million for adding Nebraska from Fox, the ACC and SEC aren’t going to do much better than maintaining the per school average for Pitt, SU and A&M. The only way they get more is to give more (more scheduling flexibility, 9 game schedules), which is something they can do without expansion.

            There’s been enough consistent talk by all sides to have a pretty good idea of what rights the SEC has.

            Like

          • joe4psu says:

            ESPN is not allowing the contract to be totally re-opened. With the addition of, or subtraction of, 2 or more schools the conference and ESPN attempt to come to terms and if they don’t it goes to a mediator. No other network can bid so the contract is not actually open and ESPN is in no danger of losing a contract. As to whether it would be stupid of ESPN to allow for this, I don’t think it is stupid if it is industry practice as stated in the Sports Business Daily by Michael Smith & John Ourand. On whether this is in fact industry standard, I’ll defer to those guys.

            I’m guessing the ACC will profit from this. Since their contract was signed the value of fb has skyrocketed. ESPN may not want to do anything more than give the minimum to let the ACC schools maintain their current levels but a fair mediator will probably be inclined to take the new reality into account. As I said, it’s a guess. I have no knowledge of, or experience with, mediated settlements.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Joe:

            I believe that the way these things work is that the deal can be reopened to add the current value of the new members to the old deal. So Pitt & ‘Cuse right now may be worth more than the $12.9M per school that the ACC currently gets. I’d be shocked if they added more than the $20M-$25M average per school that the Pac12 got. Divide that by 14, and it increases the take of each ACC school by a million or couple per year.

            Like

        • charlie says:

          well, I think before grouping the ACC, SEC, and B1G expansions’ objectives together, we should analyze the purpose of each expansion:

          ACC: let’s be honest, the ACC needs to protect itself from a future raid, whether it’s from the SEC or B1G. the first course of action was for the ACC to raise the buy-out to $20m. the second course of action is to proactively beef up its ranks so that in the event a conference does take 1 or 2 teams, the ACC is still sitting pretty at 12 and gets to keep its CCG. also, a side benefit is that by further weakening the BEast, the ACC has made that conference a better target for raids, thereby deflecting attention to itself. because of these factors, taking a slight pay-cut is a worthwhile tradeoff to securing itself against further raids

          SEC: everyone and their dog wants to tap into Texas at this point. let’s be honest, if DeLoss called up the B1G right now and said they wanted to join (and would make concessions about the LHN), Delany would be all over that like white on rice. the SEC is such a valuable brand that it knows it can negociate with its TV deals to ensure that the current membership continues to receive the same payout. so, adding a Texas market/recruiting base is definitely worth expansion

          B1G: we’re good to go, honestly. we got our CCG, we added a grand slam in Nebraska, we don’t NEED to add anyone else. we’re not suring up ourselves against raids and, frankly, MO isn’t exactly the most stellar recruiting hotbed, so, unless we get a new, major market (Texas, or the entire country via ND), we’re taking a pay cut for no reason

          and, finally, we can be arrogant: we got the only major program to move conferences via Nebraska, no other conference is adding any school anywhere near that caliber

          Like

        • Mike says:

          In another thread I cited a direct quote from the ACC commish that said the additions will allow the ACC to reopen their TV contracts. You can expect at the very least ESPN will increase the value of their deal proportionally so that no school takes less money. Otherwise, there is no incentive to expand. Look what happened with the B1G and Nebraska, Nebraska was added and ESPN (and CBS?) increased the value of their contract to a proportional value for 12 teams instead of 11. The direct immediate benefit of Nebraska came from the Championship game and the BTN.

          Has there ever been an expansion where the schools in the expanding conference made less money?

          Like

        • Peter says:

          The ACC is trying to fortify against raids to survive. The B1G is trying to make more money. There’s a difference, and its pretty major. A university CEO can vote his university’s best interests if it keeps a conference together even if it doesn’t increase the TV payout. No BCS conference, lower payout anyway.

          Since it is impossible to raid the B1G, THOSE university CEO’s are all about the academic profiles and increased financial payouts.

          Like

      • allthatyoucantleavebehind says:

        From a “political” standpoint, the b1g standing pat and taking a “non-agressive” stand might actually help them with Notre Dame’s fan base. If the Big Ten plays hard to get with Notre Dame, it might make public opinion with ND soften a bit. Part of the reason they are resisting so much is because they don’t want to feel forced. Nobody wants to be strong-armed.

        But if things play out over the next few months and ND begins to see the Big Ten as their best option, they’ll come to us.

        Like

        • @allthatyoucantleavebehind – Agreed. To the extent that Notre Dame is ever going to join a conference, you’re going to have to “kill them with kindness”. Some of the suggestions that I’ve seen that would “force” them in (i.e. Big Ten schools stop scheduling them) would likely have the opposite effect.

          Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Just look at some of the sentiment shown even on this blog. There is a belief that the B1G despises ND and that is why they would like to see the Irish join…not as a partnership that would be mutually beneficial but rather out of jealousy and a desire for revenge towards ND.

            If you are asking someone to marry you and they believe you are doing so because you want to keep them from ever having sex…well it is hard to reason with that mind set.

            Like

  69. Read The D says:

    Question for you northerners: Would the B1G ever be interested in inviting BYU? Would BYU and Notre Dame be a good for numbers 13 & 14?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Nope. Pac-12 isn’t interested either in BYU.

      BYU’s only shot at a BCS slot is/was the Big 12. There must have been some kind of mismatch to not make that happen (either BYU was hesitant about Sunday competition or the TV network thing or leaving the WCC after just placing other sports there).

      Like

      • gas1958 says:

        You’re probably right that, if BYU were going to the Big12, it would have happened already.
        I suppose their very insularity could mean a much different process than we’re used to seeing and that it still might happen. Oddly, if Mizzou stays put, then the Big12 will need a “northern” team to balance UT-TCU-BU-TTech-OK-OSU in the south. I’m still unconvinced Louisville is a strong addition in any scenario, but it looks like I’m in the minority.

        Like

    • Eric says:

      For all the talk of geography being important or not, I think it still holds some weight and BYU is too far away to be considered. Very few names would warrant consideration at that distance and BYU isn’t one of them (I love the program, just not in a Midwestern conference).

      Like

      • Peter says:

        Apart from the financial reasons, BYU is out for the same reason its out of the PAC – cultural/political mismatch. The California schools were an absolute veto on the admission of anything affiliated with the Mormon Church after the Proposition 8 mess. I can’t imagine Oregon State much liked them either…

        The B1G doesn’t exactly have more toleration for that sort of thing. The states may be more politically moderate than the “left coast” but that is manifestly not at all true of the university towns or the university leadership. These are research universities. Apart from BYU not being one at all (they have no real graduate education to speak of), that also means you can pretty well guess how most of the B1G politics lean. They don’t want a theocratic institution.

        Hell, Notre Dame has a lot of cultural fit issues as well and they know it. They are literally religiously opposed to some of the CIC’s research. These concerns are why they are so hesitant. It has nothing to do with money. Texas A&M would also have been a lousy cultural fit for the B1G, even though it does have the academic/research profile and was the only one who would be acceptable as a “pair” with Texas. Texas A&M is considered right-wing by TEXAS standards.

        Like

        • cutter says:

          Are there any Big East programs that conduct the same sort of research that Notre Dame might find itself religiously opposed? ND plays at least three Big Ten teams per year–if they’re religiously opposed to research done at these schools, why does ND play them?

          Like

          • Bob says:

            From a Catholic perspective, there is a huge difference between playing someone who engages in research you don’t like, and being part of a research consortium with them. The B1G is the only conference with anything like the CIC.

            Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          The Pac’s view of BYU goes back to long before the recent Prop 8 silliness.

          The treatment black athletes often received in Provo left a sour taste in the mouth of many Pac schools that will take a LONG time to go away.

          Like

          • frug says:

            It’s not just BYU. The PAC gave Larry Scott a no religious schools order last year and it remains in effect.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Irregardless BYU is an absolute no go for reasons beyond mere religious affiliation (said affiliations role in the events I mentioned previously non-withstanding). If for some reason ND wanted in they would have a potential shot at making…BYU will never happen.

            Like

    • M says:

      BYU has too many flags for the Big Ten
      1: Distance. I’m not saying that the Big Ten would never consider a school that far away, but it’s definitely a negative.
      2: Support. BYU is by far the best remaining non-AQ program, but I don’t think they measure up to the Nebraska/Penn State (or ND/Texas) level.
      3: Academic freedom: BYU has had a number of issues in this area (much more so than ND)

      Conversely, the Big Ten is not particularly appealing to the Big Ten, as a very low percentage of Mormons live in the Midwest (Idaho has more LDS members than any Big Ten state).

      Like

      • Brian says:

        M,

        To be fair, a very low percentage of LDS live outside of the west. Of non-western states, only TX and FL have more than 100,000 members and that’s purely due to their huge populations. Idaho has more LDS members than all but UT and CA, so it’s probably not a fair comparison.

        Percentage of population as LDS members:
        >10% – UT, WY, ID
        5-10% – NV, AZ
        2-5% – NM, CO, MT, WA, OR, CA, HI, AK
        1-2% – TX, OK, KS, NE, SD, MO, VA
        0.5-1% – ND, MN, IA, AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, FL, SC, NC, TN, KY, WV, IN, OH, MD, DE, VT, NH, ME
        <0.5% – WI, IL, MI, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA

        Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          I would have thought MO’s LDS population would be higher given it’s importance in their history.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Well, it is the “Show Me” state and Smith couldn’t show the tablets to anyone.

            If you look at the map, MO is an outlier as the only state on the eastern shore of the Missouri River with more than 1% LDS population. The only other outliers are ND (only state west of MO that doesn’t have at least 1% LDS), and VA (only state east of the Mississippi with over 1% LDS).

            Like

  70. footballnut says:

    Reading that Texas is pushing for ND to park non-football sports in Big 12. WHat’s the chance of that ever happening?

    Probably zero.

    Like

    • Gopher86 says:

      Why not? The Big 12 is the de facto ‘appeasement’ league now that the Big East is dead. It can cut a deal that the ACC or B1G won’t.

      Let them in for all sports, but indy in football. Guaranteed UT/ND annual game, plus 3 additional rotating games for the rest of the Big 12.

      (1) ND gets a parking spot in a strong league for its other sports & no conflicts for hockey.
      (2) UT & ND get their pairing.
      (3) ND gets 8 other slots on its schedule to maintain its rivalries, plus guaranteed scheduling for games that fall late in the season (hard to do with 9 game scheduling becoming popular).
      (4) The other Big 12 schools get a ND game every three years.

      Like

      • Mike says:

        Here’s my opinion why they won’t:

        Waco, Lubbock, Manhattan, Stillwater, and Ames. I’m sure they would find Lawrence (KC), Norman (OKC), Dallas, and Austin fine but if they are a “national” university they need to stick to either big names or big cities.

        Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          Let’s note that it’s games, not HOME GAMES. If Baylor, K-State, and Iowa Sate want to come out to Notre Dame for game in Oct/November, we’d probably have no problem with that. It beats having a Non-AQ, as far as I’m concerned. On the flip side, perhaps a one-time trip out there wouldn’t be too awful, since every BXII school has a 50K capacity stadium.

          Like

      • cutter says:

        On (3), why do you assume the Big XII would have open schedule slots late in the year? The previous published schedules didn’t and we don’t know if the conference would be willing to do that for Notre Dame.

        Besides, the conference was committed to a nine-game conference schedule, so that means the number of slots availabe to play Notre Dame is limited. Texas has a four-game series with ND, three of those four are season openers and the other is in the second week of the season. Oklahoma has a home-and-home with the game in South Bend in September and the return game in Norman in October. That’s one out of six games where OU and UT have accomodated Notre Dame.

        The Big East was supposed to get three games with Notre Dame each year when Kevin White was the Athletic Director. What guarantee would the Big XII have that ND would honor the three games per year requirement when ND didn’t do that with the BE?

        Could ND do three games a year with the Big XII? Possibly, but keep in mind that Notre Dame generally plays three Big Ten teams per year, USC, Navy and four teams from the ACC/Big East. That theoretically leaves three games, but ND likes to make an annual trip to California (thus Stanford and USC are both on the schedule), so that gets you down to two per year. More likely than not, that will be Texas or Oklahoma plus one more school, which means the remaining members of the confernce would play ND maybe one years in eight.

        That doesn’t preclude ND from perhaps shifting one game from the ACC/Big East and adding one to the Big XII, but ask yourself this–where are most of the ND fans located? In the mid-Atlantic/northeast areas or in the Big XII’s current geographic footprint?

        Like

  71. greg says:

    I don’t know if this says more about Mizzou or the B12 tv deals, but Missouri’s homecoming against ISU this weekend will not be televised.

    Like

    • footballnut says:

      they play kSU this weekend, ISU is the 15th…and you’re right, it will not be televised…unless Mizzou beats KSU who is ranked #20. Maybe someone will pick up the game if Mizzou is ranked.

      Like

    • kmp59 says:

      Missouri turned down an offer to put the game on Fox College Sports because an 11 a.m. or 6 p.m. start time was required and the school preferred 1 p.m. and no TV as that’s the best time to coincide with homecoming activities.

      Like

  72. hey diddle diddle says:

    “gkketch Geoff Ketchum
    It’ll be fascinating to watch the recruiting dynamics of all of this unfold.
    3 hours ago
    Geoff Ketchum
    gkketch Geoff Ketchum
    I expect the top three recruiting teams in the Metroplex (in order) to be Texas, Oklahoma and TCU.
    3 hours ago
    gkketch Geoff Ketchum
    TCU heading to the Big 12 could be a real thorn for A&M in recruiting. Those two schools have been squaring off more than either vs. UT
    5 hours ago”

    he also thought Garrett Gilbert was gonna be great to, so I think Ketchum’s opinions are just that.

    how come A&M losing games in the SEC causes A&M’s recruiting to suffer?

    but TCU’s losing games in the Big 12 recruiting goes up?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      TCU’s addition to the Big 12 will probably hurt A&M, Tech, Baylor, Mizzou, etc. in terms of recruiting. Those are the recruits that TCU will most be able to shake off the tree by being able to say they’re in a top BCS conference (especially the one with Texas/OU).

      Like

    • Mike says:

      Doesn’t he run Orangebloods? That would make him a little biased against the Aggies.

      Like

  73. Mike says:

    Last week the B1G this week Texas. Geez Paawwwwl.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/paul_finebaum/10/06/texas/

    However, short of SMU in the ’80s and the University of Miami since, has anyone done more recently to diminish the integrity of the game than the self-indulgent people who run Texas?

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I guess Finebaum doesn’t want to look out his window at all the SEC schools around him. He’d probably get tarred and feathered and run out of town.

      Like

  74. hey diddle diddle says:

    “Texas A&M is considered right-wing by TEXAS standards.”

    ummm not really Texas is pretty conservative…Bush 1 & 2, Perry, even former long horn cheerleader K B Hutchison is more similar to A&M in politics then UT.

    The mayor of Austin is an Aggie.

    Austin is by far more liberal than most of Texas, Granted I don’t think Austin is as liberal as most places in the B1G. If it came down to it UT culturally doesn’t fit in much better than A&M does in the PAC or B1G.

    Texas is a whole other country and A&M, UT and TT and all of the other schools in Texas reflect that, Even OU and OSU fit Texas politics better than the B1G or PAC.

    Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      The ‘stay weird’ Austin took a real hit when the tech companies invaded and it became an ‘it’ town, jacking taxes and forcing a lot of the old mainstays on Guadalupe St. to shut down. The hippy vibe of Austin today feels like a contrived remnant of days gone past. It’s still liberal, don’t get me wrong, but Ann Arbor and Madison it is not.

      Like

  75. hey diddle diddle says:

    TCU’s recent success doesn’t change that it is still a small school with limited “brand” and enrollment. It’s done great with the lemons handed to it, but if they are going to be playing in a top conference they will still need to step up their game.

    I’m also not sure of how academic standards will change for TCU coming up a level. They may have been able to let in academic risks more than Big 12 schools.

    Like

  76. hey diddle diddle says:

    I think ND will go to the Big 12 in all sports except football if the BE completely collapses.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      I could see it, but the remaining Big East (combined with some new basketball schools like Xavier and others) would still give them exposure in the areas of the country they are most concerned about.

      Like

  77. M says:

    Re: TCU recruiting

    Over the last 5 years TCU has a .500 or better recruiting record against every Big 12 school except Oklahoma (7-10), Texas A&M (8-15) and Texas (0-29). I have to think that whatever bump A&M receives from going from the Big 12 to the SEC, TCU would have even more improvement going from the MWC to the Big 12. A&M may find itself going from third to fourth in its own state.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      That would surprise me. TCU has done well, but it’s overachieved in the Mountain West and A&M just has far too many more fans in the state for me to believe TCU would be able to surpass them on any kind of perment basis.

      When they have gone head to head, have they been for starts, or different positions? I’d imagine TCU would be looking for some people as starters that A&M might have wanted to wait redshirt a year or be back-up for awhile.

      Like

  78. EZCUSE says:

    Think like a President.

    I just don’t see the B1G Presidents sitting around with strategies as to how to ruin other conferences or keep up with them even. The B1G saw an opportunity to expand to increase the value of the BTN and add a CCG and did so with Nebraska. That was a Home Run.

    So what if adding Maryland adds a new market? The BTN does fine financially already. Same with Rutgers and Missouri. So what if they can make a few more millions? A few more million to Rutgers means a lot. A few more million does not mean as much when you are already comfortable.

    The B1G doesn’t need the BTN to become TBS. It’s just a nice way to ensure that every school gets to see it’s team play AND it makes money that could not be earned otherwise.

    Accountants and lawyers? Yeah, we would want to expand. The budget director? The state legislators? Sure… anything that improves the bottom line.

    But I am just not sure the Presidents of the B1G think that way. I think they prefer the B1G to act as they want the world to be–not as it is.

    Like

    • charlie says:

      I agree with most of these points except the part about the BTN not trying to be TBS. quite the contrary: the only reason the BTN makes as much revenue as it does is because it’s on the basic cable package (so, customers get the channel (and therefore pay for the channel) without having to order a special ‘sports pack’, which nets the conference cash for every viewer, regardless if they’re a B1G/football fan or not). if the B1G could get the BTN on every single basic cable package across the country, you’d better believe it’d do it in a second. the whole point about adding more schools is that the B1G has to research whether or not the BTN would get on the basic cable package for the customers of that state (considering we’re a conference of large, state universities for the most part). with Nebraska, this was a no brainer: the cable customers in Nebraska are rabid about their college football (as are all the other fans/alumni for the rest of the B1G schools), so, the BTN didn’t have a problem becoming part of the basic cable package in that state. let’s say that Rutgers could absolutely guarantee that the BTN would be part of the basic cable package for NYC/NJ, the B1G would have invited them yesterday, unanimously. unfortunately, that’s not the case, so, the B1G takes on a huge risk adding them. but, if the BTN could become like WGN, Delany would have had all of the contract written up last week

      Like

      • EZCUSE says:

        All this expansion talk is driven by a perceived need to obtain more money. If you take money out of the equation, would the B1G take:

        Penn State? Yes.

        Nebraska? Yes.

        Those are moves you make even if not a big financial winner.

        But then you start coming down to moves that might make more money, but money is really the main reason. And I just don’t think that the B1G Presidents think like that.

        If ND wants to come on board, then I think the B1G would gladly accept them (without special rules, of course). In that instance, adding a non-King to get to 14 presents many options, such as Missouri, Rutgers, or others.

        But you are still talking about a football home run to move the dial… not a financial home run.

        This does not mean that individual universities do not think about money. Rutgers cannot expand its stadium due to funds. Other schools have other issues. Those are very real. But that cannot be extrapolated out to the B1G too.

        Just an observation. I think people are confusing Frank’s “Think Like a President” to mean “Think Like the University is a Corporation That Must Increase Annual Profits” Maybe I am wrong, but that’s how I see it.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      The most important quote, to me, is:

      “First, we’ve been told by two sources inside the SEC that there is no gentleman’s agreement to blackball schools from within SEC states.”

      Can we let that argument drop now?

      Like

      • Jake says:

        I never really believed it was a hard-and-fast rule, just a good idea in most cases. The SEC needs markets a lot more than it needs strong football brands. Hence, A&M and (maybe) Missouri. VT would be a strong add for them as well. North Carolina would be a great addition – they wouldn’t upset the order too much in football, but they’ll move the SEC into a fairly populous state and make the league a lot more relevant during basketball season. I’m not much of an oddsmaker, but I’d say that one qualifies as a long shot.

        FSU might be good enough, and in a big enough state, to get in anyway.

        Like

  79. zeek says:

    Post from a BYU board:

    B12 TV deal, as is, would be a significant step back…

    … in exposure for BYU. B12′s deal has ESPN selecting only 18 games for Tier 1. Even in a 10-team confernence, that’s unlikely to produce more than 2 or 3 for BYU in a good year. Fox gets all remaining game except for one and can place those games on either F/X (comparable to Vs), one or more of their FSN regional networks, or on FCS. Fox selects one game to leave for BYUtv. In addition to our home games, our road games will be subject to the same deal, which means that perhaps half or more of those games will end up on a Fox regional channel or on a local affiliate.

    As an indy, we have a minimum of 4 home games guaranteed on ESPN and we can write our own scheduling deals with our opponents to ensure that games don’t get buried (like OSU, scheduled pre-indy). Bottom line is that this season, all but one of our games, home & away are on ESPN. Under a B12 package, we’ll likely get 3 to 5 on ESPN, 1 on BYUtv and nearly half on F/X, Fox regionals or even local/online only networks. People should also remember that it’s not just BYU that would have concerns here, it’s also ESPN. If BYU just plugs into the B12 TV deal, ESPN loses several contracted games to Fox.

    This has been an issue in joining the B12, especially when they needed the 10th team to replace A&M in the Fox deal as is to preserve it (remember, the Fox deal is signed with each of the 10 schools individually). This “minutae” as some fans call it, is in reality more described as the devil being in the details. BYU learned a whole lot from the MWC TV debacle. They’re not going to repeat those mistakes in the B12.

    Bottom line is it may be far better for BYU to not be #9 or #10 replacement school, but #11 or #12 instead, with some negotiated exceptions. The current Big 12 schools all have regional fan bases. The B12 TV deal is structured for those regional fans. BYU has a national fan base and likely needs some tweaks to ensure the vast majority of its fans can see nearly all the games like the fans of all other B12 schools. With exposure and fan access being the BOT & BYU’s top priorities, they’re going to negotiate hard in this area.

    http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=7538493

    Not sure I agree with everything in there, but this might tend to be what the BYU brass is thinking. They want exposure and in a conference where Texas and Oklahoma are taking the ESPN slots, that’s probably their biggest concern. These are probably close to the actual reasons why BYU dropped off the list.

    Like

    • bobo the feted says:

      that and BYU is run by the LDS church and not the AD. Wilner said it best a week ago, the hardest player to read is BYU. I’m guessing BYU fans are not happy though, just because you’re indy doesn’t make you ND, the cougars still need a seat at the AQ table to get back to equal with Utah.

      Like

  80. bullet says:

    Good interview with KSU President (chairman of B12 expansion committee) on why TCU and what the Big 12 has been thinking about beyond that.

    http://www.themercury.com/K-StateSports/article.aspx?articleId=dfe442cf86a942508d770d51ee94dfb0

    Like

    • zeek says:

      The comments on 10-14 are probably the most interesting.

      Given the drop in BYU->Big 12’s stock; I could see them not doing anything in the near term if Missouri decides not to go to the SEC.

      If Missouri does go to the SEC, I think they’ll just take Louisville.

      I think BYU + 1 would be a strong enough justification to go up to 12 if they can work out an agreement with BYU down the road…

      Like

    • bobo the feted says:

      LOL Best quote – , ‘hey are they all gonna disperse and go elsewhere in six years.’

      That’s EXACTLY what is gonna happen. The 6 year thing is a play by UT (and a lesser extent OU) to get their TV networks up and running so that by then the Pac/B1G or whatever conference takes them WILL HAVE to accept those TV networks.

      KU/ISU/BU/KState are really dupes if they can’t see that. They should insist on handing over media rights for at least 13-30 years if they really want stability.

      BTW if UT had just given into this demand when NU asked for it 1.5years ago, all this stuff would have been averted, Nebraska would still be in the Big12, and likely A&M, MU would be staying put – and UT would have been able to keep LHN without all this self created instability.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Nebraska might very well have left anyway.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Nebraska and Texas A&M both would have left if they had invites from the Big Ten and SEC respectively. They both coveted that much more than a long-term commitment to the Big 12.

          As for the Big 12, there’s no way they would have gotten anything longer than the Fox deal out of Texas. Texas isn’t going to lock itself in when the Big 12 is clearly less valuable as a whole than the Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC.

          Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Nebraska would not have reached out to the B1G last year if Texas had gone ‘all in’ in regards to the Big 12.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Nebraska had already reached out to the Big Ten. It was just that driving back from that meeting Perlman basically said he had a deadline to commit to the Big 12.

            Plus, Powers had already tipped off Perlman about the possibility of a Pac-16, so although it may have delayed things, the ball was already in motion re: Nebraska to the Big Ten. The whole ultimatum thing just moved the Big Ten’s timetable up by a half year.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            There was contact in Jan 2010 but not at the level you seem to be suggesting. Nebraska was exploring it’s options because of a tip that the landscape was about to blow up. If the Big 12 had taken the necessary steps to remain a stable and viable conference Nebraska would very likely not have left.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Well, what you’re saying would have had to have happened well before all of this. I’m talking about the incident where Perlman told Texas that the only way to secure the Big 12 was to grant rights, and Texas said no. By that late in the game the Pac-16 was clearly on the table and Perlman had already had fairly deep discussions with the Big Ten. He called Delany after that meeting and told him that it was basically put up or shut up time. By then, even if Texas had said they’d consider granting rights, I’m pretty sure Nebraska would have still made the jump because the threat of a Pac-16 at some future time was already out of the bag.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Ahh understood. We are just talking about different points in the time line.

            Like

  81. Mike says:

    Delany Speaks

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/10/07/sports/s124435D97.DTL

    Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany says the league has what it wants with 12 members.

    Delany was at a Nebraska booster luncheon Friday. He says he hasn’t received many phone calls from schools looking for membership because they realize he’s serious about wanting to stand pat.

    Delany said expanding the Big Ten beyond 12 teams wouldn’t be appealing now because it could compromise scheduling and chemistry among the schools.

    Nebraska was accepted as the Big Ten’s 12th member last year. The Cornhuskers became active members this fall.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/10/07/sports/s124435D97.DTL#ixzz1a84Cbh9e

    Like

  82. bullet says:

    Some of you have been asking for it. Here it is. Delaney once again says, not now.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6v-7x0tCddU5G4xxttog4j74P4A?docId=1d0ff011c80f45eea81f047f7d1d073f

    Like

    • zeek says:

      The plan is to ask ND around 2015 when they’re redoing their NBC contract and the Big Ten is redoing its 1st/2nd tier rights. Most likely it’ll be a privately done inquiry that will be met with a polite rejection. Doubt we hear anything about it.

      As much as I love expansion news, it looks like we could be at a 15-20 year detente between the major conferences.

      This one could be much more permanent than the last given that there’s very little space left in the 5 biggest conferences. Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC-14, SEC-14 could all be unchanged in 20 years.

      If Texas ends up sticking with the LHN, Big 12 might go back to 12 and settle there for a long time, just so it will be considered again as an equal to the other conferences with the prestige of the CCG, etc. This is especially more likely if a school like BYU asks to join. Barring something dramatic, we could be at the end of the major upheavals among the biggest conferences.

      And it makes sense given that the only coveted schools outside the 4 bigger conferences are Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma. There’s no reason for the Big Ten or Pac-12 to go anywhere unless the first two schools are on the table. There’s no reason for the ACC to go to 16 without either of those schools. There’s no reason for the SEC to go to 16 without an ACC school, and even if that happens, the ACC would just stay at 12 or go back to 14…

      Hard to see any scenario that would lead to dramatic upheaval although as others have pointed out, these are being driven by media contracts. If we move to a world in which media changes (which it seems as if we are), then that will change everything including the successfulness of things like the BTN or Pac-12 Networks or LHN or whatever model the conferences are using…

      Like

    • David Brown says:

      What Delaney is saying should shock no one. Guess why Missouri was rejected? They did not fit what the Big 10 wanted, the same applied to Pitt & Rutgers. I know people love to bring up politics, when mentioning The Big 10, but that is NOT the issue (For example:Tom Osborne and Nebraska were not rejected, despite being more Conservative than Madison, Wisconsin). It is more about the system itself, which benefits ALL schools involved (Which is why the Conference remained intact even when major changes have occured around it (Including wars & The Great Depression)), and will any added school make the system better or simply gum up the works (For example: See UT in th Big XII. They certainly brought in lots of $$$$$$$ but at the same time, made life miserable for everyone else (Guess why “Little Brother” A&M wants to get far away?)) The feeling was Nebraska would the Conference better, Missouri would not. Simply put:The only way a school will be added, is if their presence benefits every school in the Conference, not just a few.

      Like

    • Big Ten Jeff says:

      Delany said there’s a perception that realignment is done willy nilly.

      “I just think we have to make a compelling case for change,” he said. “We don’t look at it as something insignificant. We look at it as fundamental to who we are. There are a lot of fans who look at it differently than a conference commissioner might. They look at it more like a fantasy sports experience or Monopoly.”

      Even if a conference expands for the right reasons, Delany said, it can be a painful process.
      “Whenever there is that much change and uncertainty, there are winners and there probably are going to be some losers,” he said. “We always want institutions to feel good about where they are. The instability is hard. Not everybody will be hurt. Some will be hurt. Some conferences will be hurt and some conferences will get stronger.”

      Delany said expanding the Big Ten beyond 12 teams could negatively affect scheduling and relationships among the schools.

      “Our objective is to have great competition, a great student-athlete experience, have institutions that understand each other and can collaborate and do things like the Big Ten Network, the Committee on Institutional Cooperation,” he said. “For us, we always would need to make a compelling case for expansion. Not any case. A compelling case.”
      ============================================================================

      If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a million times. The B1G has already won. Nothing has changed (except instead of ‘Think Like a President’, now Delany says “Think Like a Conference Commish”).

      See you in 2014 or when the Big East blows up, Notre Dame. Or not.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        I hate it that he left out the “We are the fat and arrogant Smaller 10” part…..

        Sorry Jeff, letting MO go to the SEC is about as stupid as it gets. The Diminished 10 is a big loser coming out of this round.

        Like

        • Boomershine says:

          I don’t see how the Big Ten will be the “Smaller 10” or the “Diminished 10”. In a couple of years, the Big Ten will have the richest television deal, and share it amongst fewer teams than the ACC and SEC. The ACC, SEC, and Pac-12 are locked into their current television contracts until the early to mid 2020s.

          Like

        • frug says:

          Please tell which of these is the best move:

          A. Big 10 adding NU + CCG
          B. PAC-10 adding CU + UU + CCG
          C. SEC adding TAMU + Mizzou
          D. ACC adding SU + Pitt

          (I’ll give you a hint; it’s A)

          Like

          • bullet says:

            The Pac 10 has benefitted the most financially. And they may in exposure.

            Like

          • frug says:

            The PAC’s new TV deal was (mostly separate) from expansion. Given the current environment they were in line for a big day anyways. Not saying Colorado and Utah didn’t help, but I can’t imagine they increased the per team value of the conference all that much outside of the CCG, which is less valuable (based on the TV deal) than the Big 10s.

            Like

  83. bobo the feted says:

    Latest rumor update from a South Carolina forum:

    1. Mizzou does have the votes for acceptance if placed in the East.
    2. Alabama is adamant that they not loose their rivalry game with Tennessee.
    3. Alabama is also demanding that Auburn not be moved to the East, due to the fact it moves the Iron Bowl to earlier in the season.
    4. with Mizzou in the East, they would get Arkansas as the cross divisional opponent. Carolina, would be paired with Texas A&M.
    5. SEC presidents/chancellors will meet this weekend with Commissioner Slive to vote on Mizzou.

    If true what will the Big12 do? Gut the Big East?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Louisville. I’d stick with the theory that if BYU was coming it would have already been accepted with TCU holding off to replace Missouri.

      Plus, BYU is valuable enough that it could be the Big 12’s justification for #11 with WVU or someone else as #12 (money justification being the CCG).

      Like

    • bullet says:

      Of course, Louisville probably can’t come next year. Now with WVU, UL and Cincinnati, maybe everyone does get out next year. BYU can come next year. Big 12 really wants to stay at least 10 to avoid TV contract and scheduling problems.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        Missouri might not be out as quick as A&M though. The SEC seemed to expect a 13 team season and Missouri starting this so much later means waiting an extra year is certainly understandable (and much cheaper presumably).

        Like

    • bullet says:

      BYU can come next year-UL can’t.

      If its UL/WVU/Cincinnati they could probably get out early, but I would think the Big 12’s preference would be 10 now and if they do 12, to have them come in 2013 or 2014 closer to contract renewal. Although, there has been discussion of re-doing and extending the current contract with ABC/ESPN.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Wouldn’t be a total disaster to have to do 1 or 2 years at 9 teams if they had to… as would be the case for Louisville replacing Missouri.

        Like

      • bobo the feted says:

        If the Big12 were to destroy Big East football by taking Louisville, Cincinnati and WVU, there would only really be USF,UConn and Rutgers left. At that point I am pretty sure that the conference would simply dissolve and so no 27 month period would be needed.

        Also the 27 month time period can be negotiated, Pitt and Syracuse definitely think so, by paying more than 5 million schools might be able to leave earlier. The Big East members know that if people are leaving its best to leave asap so they can extend invites out asap.

        Like

        • joe4psu says:

          You think that USF, UConn and RU would let the BE fb conference break up? The BE is their only chance of being in a BCS conference in the near future. Why would they do that? I believe that no matter how many schools from the BE are left, they will rebuild the conference. They will not give up BCS status that easily.

          There may be a question about them retaining BCS status but they would be foolish to just give up.

          Like

          • frug says:

            I think the question is how many votes are necessary to simply dissolve the football conference. If it’s a simple majority then the departing schools can threaten to dissolve the conference if UCONN, Rutgers and USF don’t waive the 27 month requirement.

            Like

  84. Bo Darville says:

    Well, I suppose if Missouri is in the East they’ll get disgruntled with the SEC and be ripe for the 14th in the Big 10 in 2015.

    Like

  85. duffman says:

    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

    What are your 3 “must see TV” games for the weekend?

    Like

    • duffman says:

      13 undefeated teams left, 13 max by end of week:

      B1G 23% = Wisconsin 11/19, Michigan 11/12, Illinois 11/12 & 11/19
      Wisconsin vs Indiana / Michigan vs Michigan State / Illinois vs Ohio State
      B12 23% = Oklahoma 11/29 & 12/03, Oklahoma State11/05 & 12/03, Kansas State
      Oklahoma vs Kansas / Oklahoma State vs Texas / Kansas State vs Texas Tech
      SEC 15% = LSU, Alabama : November 5
      LSU vs Tennessee / Alabama vs Mississippi
      ACC 15% = Clemson, Georgia Tech : October 29
      Clemson vs Maryland / Georgia Tech vs Virginia
      PAC 8% = Stanford
      Stanford vs Washington State
      MWC 8% = Boise State
      Boise State vs Colorado State
      CUSA 8% = Houston / OFF

      Like

  86. duffman says:

    Frank,

    Contracts can be opened?

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7071841/acc-reopened-tv-deal-negotiations-commissioner-john-swofford-says

    Looks like the ink is barely dry, and Swofford and ESPN are at the table! So much for how impregnable these things are. If the ACC can get more money for Pitt and SU you have to think Slive can get more just for adding TAMU (and possibly MU).

    “The commissioner said the ACC and ESPN had informally discussed changes to the existing TV deal before starting negotiations last weekend following last month’s decision to add Syracuse and Pittsburgh from the Big East. This year, the ACC and ESPN began a 12-year deal worth $1.86 billion to give the network exclusive rights to conference football and men’s basketball games.”

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      The difference is that ESPN probably won’t be paying that vastly different an ACC + Big East sum, as the latter’s shaky status almost certainly lessens its contractual power; Central Florida and East Carolina are not Pittsburgh and Syracuse. Even if the wording and conditions of the SEC contract with ESPN are identical (unlikely), its tie-in with CBS alters the landscape Slive has to navigate.

      Like

    • Eric says:

      Other big difference might be ACC informally talking with ESPN before move. The Big 12 being pushed down several pegs probably is not in ESPN’s interest (particularly if it indirectly led to schools heading to the PAC-12) and they probably weren’t going to give the SEC any incentives to do it. The ACC and Big East might be another matter though. The Big East contract is up next year and an ACC raid means less money on that contract so ESPN might have been more open to a renegotiation there.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      “Reopened” can mean one of several things. It could mean revaluing the whole deal at present market rates (which is what many SEC partisans believe could/should happen when the SEC expanded and which I doubt will). It could also just mean adding the current value of Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC deal.

      Note that the B10 also reopened and renegotiated its TV contracts with Fox and ESPN after adding Nebraska, but the main thing the B10 got was the right to show BTN games during ESPN/ABC’s afternoon window. I believe the BTN payout just increased by a pro-rata share and the ESPN contract was the same or less.

      No one ever said that TV deals can not be renegotiated after adding a member (they have to be, because the inventory has changed). What is disputed is whether current members of a conference would see a big jump in TV revenue after adding a member. I seriously doubt the ACC schools will see more money per school from adding Pitt & ‘Cuse, and I doubt the SEC schools will see significantly more as well.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        I agree with everything you’re saying. And what seems to be the case is that most of the situations are pro-rata increases to account for the new member/inventory.

        We have yet to see a situation where the rest of the conference benefits from a new member. The Big Ten received a $7M per year bump to the BTN contract which basically covers Nebraska’s BTN portion (new inventory).

        All indications are that the same will happen for the SEC and ACC. Unless a school like Texas or Notre Dame or UNC or FSU moves, it’s hard to see why anyone would get a significant enough contractual bump as to make everyone else better off.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          And I’m only referring to contracts in place.

          Obviously, Nebraska being in the Big Ten will be fully valued in 2016 when we get the new ABC/ESPN numbers (or whoever the Big Ten signs with)…

          I’d expect the same to be true for the SEC in the 2020s…

          Like

      • @Richard – This is essentially what it is. I don’t believe that conferences can just completely tear up their existing deals or else leagues would just expand for the sake of expanding. Of course, that might be what’s happening right now with respect to the ACC, but it’s more likely along the lines of what Richard has said. ESPN is a pretty tough negotiator and to have such an “easy” trigger for a full-fledged reopening of an agreement doesn’t make sense for them to ever agree to.

        Like

      • jj says:

        I don’t think a contract “has” to change. Depends on the deal. Both sides would want some such terms I would think. Are these ks public?

        Like

    • Walk72 says:

      It’s also possible the ACC (and Pac12) may have demanded an expansion rider, something conferences (incl. the SEC) may not have asked for before. Based on the ACC and Pac12 contracts, a true market value for the SEC is probably 30-35 million/team/year, 40+ if the SEC can convince the networks their football dominance is “permanent.” ESPN/CBS are going to avoid paying the current market rates at all costs.

      Like

  87. bullet says:

    ESPN’s incentives are very different. They have the BE schools and are about to go to bid. They are re-shuffling. They have A&M and Missouri in Tier I and are now going to get them in Tier II in the SEC.

    Here’s an anti-expansion article from SEC land. Someone from SEC land not worshipping Slive & Co., points out the brilliant people in the SEC office hadn’t even considered scheduling.

    Bright people often do pretty stupid things when they are tired and in a hurry. Also true when egos get involved. We shouldn’t give them all too much credit for doing things right. Saw one article that Slive at age 71 is trying to create a legacy.

    http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20111008/SPORTS/110080337/Extra-point-Expansion-crutch-major-programs

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Honestly, I don’t think the SEC fully thought this through. That’s no disrespect to the people running the conference, but Mr.SEC has continually pointed out that this seems like Texas A&M forced the SEC to move with the SEC being unprepared for it.

      The SEC clearly hadn’t thought of a #14 and now might be ready to settle for Missouri because they haven’t been able to shake FSU or Va Tech out of the ACC.

      It was like when that Vanderbilt administrator was joking about inviting Yale to be #14. And I was like “you people can’t be serious, how have you not thought of #14, is anyone thinking about 5 years from now let alone 5 minutes from now.” We keep getting told that these are 100 year decisions, but no one’s acting like that. People are acting like this is musical chairs and the music is going to stop extremely soon.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Perhaps the “music” is anticipated to stop when the BCS contract is up and the potential exists for dramatic change?

        Like

      • hangtime79 says:

        You bring up a good point zeek about the SEC. When they invited 13 they had no idea who 14 was, TAMU completely forced their hand. When the ACC and Swofford saw the SEC go for 13 he knew he had to strengthen his flank and did so. I posed a scenario over at Mr. SEC and would love everyone else’s take on how the SEC would handle it.

        First we have to start with what does every conference need/want:

        From Easy to Fill to Hard to Fill
        The Big East needs warm bodies
        The Big 12 – 2 – 1 + 1 needs football ready schools
        The ACC needs kings and football ready schools
        The PAC 12 has no needs but wants kings, academics and to expand westward.
        The B10G has no needs but wants kings, academics and to expand eastward.
        The SEC needs cultural fit and new markets and wants kings

        My scenario I posed was as follows: Assume Nienas can keep Mizzou at home and grabs WVU and Louisville getting the Big 12 back to 12. Both Louisville and WVU satisfy the need for football ready schools. Of course a move to take both would put the Big East in serious jeopardy. Also, this would in effect take three schools out that fit the SEC’s needs the best and are easiest to poach at the moment.

        Afterwards, the Big 12 is locked up for 6 years, so the Big 12 is off the table.
        Does Slive and company go hard after Clemson/FSU/NC State in the ACC?
        Would they take a flyer on a Big East leftover, USF?
        Would they bring a school up from a non-BCS conference?
        or would they try to wait it out?

        What we have seen throughout this entire process is when decisions are made the speed of movement increases dramatically. Sticking at 13 is not the same as sticking at 11 so I don’t think the SEC would be able to wait 5 years stuck on 13. Scheduling is going to be a nightmare for one year let alone 5 and a decision made now would be the same made two years from now because the tectonic plates of realignment would be roughly the same. So the question, what does the SEC do if the scenario bares out?

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I agree with you, and I think that if Missouri stays in the Big 12, the SEC would probably have to settle on WVU if the Big 12 started making eyes at WVU.

          13 is clearly a very, very bad spot to be stuck in…

          11 is not really that different from 10 or 9 other than that you don’t get round robin. But 13 makes divisions a total mess because you end up with strange scheduling.

          If the SEC lets Missouri and WVU end up locked into the Big 12, then they really don’t have an obvious #14 if the ACC is strong enough to repel interest in FSU or Va Tech, that’s probably why Slive is going to push through an invite for Missouri…

          All of this is also why the SEC can’t be too happy about Texas A&M forcing their hand. In some sense, it would have made sense to take FSU or Va Tech as #13 and then go to Texas A&M (who would jump in anyways) as #14. But of course, the Aggies weren’t going to wait that long…

          Like

          • bullet says:

            What you suggest is a real scenario where USF finds a good home. And USF wouldn’t be all that bad for the SEC. Going to 14 means all the western schools get less exposure to Florida which is critical for all of them. USF could also easily be moved west if they go to 16 with two eastern teams at some point.

            But I don’t think the Big 12 is going to lock up WVU before Missouri makes their decision. I think they should go to 12 and should think about doing that. I suspect they will be deliberate and wait until Spring to decide on 10 or 12. They will still have Louisville and BYU available to get to 12.

            Neinas is saying 9 and 14 and 16 are out. Its 10 or 12.
            http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.com/colleges/2011/10/big-12-final-configuration-to-be-10-or-12-teams-neinas-says.html

            Like

          • hangtime79 says:

            If we think in game theory, BYU is an open call option to the Big 12.

            1. The Pac 12 won’t take them on religious grounds
            2. BYU is too far away and too different for any of the other leagues to contemplate them (unless you buy into Frank’s Big Flyover Conference)
            3. BYU is ok being an independent at the moment

            BYU’s value is in its ability to be plugged in almost immediately exactly like TCU was. The difference is TCU had a little more value currently and the expiration on that option was fast approaching. BYU’s option given the above is open-ended.

            I believe Mizzou’s move will dictate whether the Big 12 goes to 10 or 12.

            If Mizzou stays:
            The value to the Big 12 is grabbing WVU and Louisville as it forces the SEC into a quicker decision on 14 and ultimately makes the Big 12 more stable by satiating the beast to the east (SEC). You put the SEC in awkward situation of either grabbing a Big East team (USF) during the implosion or pray you can pull an ACC team in the next two years (and by the way Swofford will know your coming).

            If Mizzou leaves:
            At that point, BYU is the plug. Why? Well, you only need one school and the SEC is fat and happy so they won’t be grabbing anyone. Thus what value is there to blowing up the Big East when you may need schools down the road. The ACC won’t do it, the B10G won’t, and the SEC certainly won’t. Better to have Louisville and WVU in a BCS conference then having one scramble.

            The key to all this is that 13 in the SEC is unsustainable and whether the SEC fills that void or is forced too – its going to happen in the next month or two – not two to three years from now.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Was it Delaney saying it wasn’t game theory? And if it was, TCU was always there, just like BYU. Noone else would take them and the BE couldn’t hold them.

            Like

          • hangtime79 says:

            bullet,

            Don’t know if it was Delaney or not, but its complete game theory – the key is everyone has different goals and objectives. If UT was on the block tomorrow without TTU and LHN, Delaney and Scott would be jumping over themselves to get UT. Everyone has different needs and wants. Delaney wants another king in his conference and he will not move for anything less. The only two kings left are UT and ND. That makes it pretty easy to guess Delaney’s moves. If they don’t involve one or the other then it will not happen. Same goes for Pac 12, but they are probably a little more open-minded about little brothers. That leaves use with 4 players, ACC, SEC, Big 12, and the Big East.

            The easiest to determine is the SEC. They need a cultural fit. I highly recommend the Mr SEC series on expansion that just wrapped up as a primer. It basically comes down to pulling one of the southern ACC schools (Va Tech, Clemson, FSU), grabbing Mizzou from the Big 12, or settling on Louisville or WVU. That’s it. That’s the extent of the SEC’s list. We still don’t know if the ACC plans to go beyond 14, but they most likely won’t make a move on the Big East unless the SEC raids them for 14 (hence why Swofford bulked up and is letting UConn sweat it out). The Big East is pretty much out of it and is getting turned down by service academies now. That leaves us with the Big 12 and what the Big 12 does hinges on Mizzou.

            You are correct in that TCU was always there, but they were not always needed. This year they were needed. I think if all of this had happened a year from now we would be talking about BYU and not TCU. The key was the impending move to the Big East put them on the market and possible political thoughts behind their move into the Big 12. Don’t discount the Texas politics involved. If the Big East were to fail with TCU still in it due to the actions of TAMU and UT, and there had been a way to save TCU don’t think that wouldn’t have repercussions in 2013 once the Texas legislature came back into session. Of course, I don’t think this would happen a year from now because TAMU would have never moved while the legislature is in session. In a word: Right Place, Right Time, Right Scenario for TCU.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            If Brigham Young says yes to the Big 12, it stops at 10. If BYU says no, it’s the eastern trio of West Virginia, Cincinnati and Louisville.

            Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Are you saying the PAC wants into Hawaii? 

          Like

  88. vp19 says:

    If West Virginia becomes the Big 12’s prime target to replace Missouri, does it likely mean a 12-member conference? If it’s the only school east of the Mississippi, that’s quite an outlier. Louisville and Cincinnati would seem to be its most likely partners.

    Like

  89. zeek says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7077468/new-big-12-chairman-burns-hargis-missouri-stay-big-12-conference

    “Hargis says the Big 12 is still considering expansion options and would prefer schools that are in the league’s footprint and that would not dilute the revenue the current members are generating.”

    That doesn’t make any sense at all, since there are no choices like that. (And it probably doesn’t mean anything).

    We’re probably looking at WVU as the main replacement for Missouri as others have said. It’ll be like Miami in the Big East in terms of outliers (although the time change is an additional factor versus Miami-Big East).

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I saw that. I’ve also seen it said no more Texas schools. Houston is the only school “in the footprint” that is halfway rational. It may be that he’s talking Central Time Zone (no Boise, perhaps no BYU, definitely no UConn, Rutgers or USF). That would pretty much limit it to Louisville (CST), WVU (EST), Cincinnati (EST), and two real Central Time Zone longshots-Tulane and Memphis.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        So its definitely musical chairs for the BE. Pac 12, Big 10+2, ACC done for now. SEC-needs 1. Big 12-needs 0 to 3 depending on if the SEC takes Missouri. So that means there are 1 to 3 slots and 6 Big East schools and BYU looking for AQ homes. UConn and Rutgers are in bad shape unless ND decides to give up independence. USF needs hangtime’s scenario. Cincy, BYU, UL and WVU are sweating.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Yep. Hard to see how the Big East comes out of the SEC’s #14 conundrum intact. Maybe if BYU ends up being the replacement for Missouri…; outside of that, it seems as if the Big East will lose at least 1 more in any scenario.

          And if BYU does join the Big 12 someday, they could lose another…

          Like

    • bullet says:

      Looks like same interview-different questions-including one on what “footprint” means.

      http://newsok.com/article/3611757

      Basically he doesn’t know, but is looking at “this Midwest culture that we have would be great.”

      Like

      • zeek says:

        I know a lot of people complain about DeLoss being in charge of the Big 12.

        But some of these clowns make me glad that Texas is running the show there…

        Like

  90. Quiet Storm says:

    Although the Big East may lose Louisville, West Virginia and possibly Cincinnati don’t be surprised if Marinatto still forces the football members to stay for 27 months. I think their strategy will be to add UCF, East Carolina, Memphis and Temple to play at 12 teams for next 2 years and attempt to use the league’s performance in that time to preserve their BCS status. If WVU and any of those departing schools have have good seasons during that time the BE will get to count those towards retaining BCS status.

    I could also see also them inviting Villanova, giving them 3 years to transition from FCS to FBS and begin play in 2014. That would put them at 8 (or 9) teams and if they want to get to ten or more FB members perhaps offer SMU and/or Houston. Knowing the Basketball schools, my guess is instead of the Texas schools they would offer UMass or Colonial Athletic Assoc. schools UNC Charlotte, Old Dominion, James Madison or Delaware football only memberships to get to 10 or 12. All those schools are reportedly interested in moving up to the FBS and UMass will begin play next year in the MAC.

    It’s the only explanation I can see for them to just sit here and do nothing after Pitt and Syracuse announced they were leaving. They are going to force these schools to stay a full 27 months and ride their coattails for as long as they can. It sounds petty but a lot can happen in 2 years; will those conferences have patience and wait that long for their new members? Or will some other changes happen during that time?

    Like

    • bullet says:

      The other explanations are: 1) fb schools don’t want to stay; 2) bb schools aren’t sure fb is worth it.

      If you are left with UConn, Rutgers, USF and Cincinnati, maybe the bb schools don’t want football requiring them to select teams. They’ve got a good 12 team conference. Those 4 could join another conference for football. Obviously, that’s not what the fb schools would want, but do the bb schools think its worth it to be anchored to ECU and UCF? I think that’s why they’ve been talking about Villanova, Navy, Air Force and Temple, schools they wouldn’t have to admit for basketball. That’s also why Pitt and SU were so anxious to get out.

      Like

    • wolverines says:

      My understanding is the BCS status of everyone is re-evaluated after the ’03-’04 season so anything that happens now is pretty meaningless regarding your BCS status come ’04-’05 & beyond.

      Like

  91. Playoffs Now says:

    One of the dirtiest hits you’ll ever see was committed by an aTm piece of trash tonight, ending a young man’s season and possibly career. Should be suspended the rest of the season.

    Like

  92. bullet says:

    Somewhere in here, someone made a comment in the last couple of days about Air Force and the Missouri Valley being discussed. Here’s an interview with AF AD indicating its being strongly considered. Also shows money isn’t everything to everyone. Air Force declined to pursue the Big 12. A week or so ago when someone asked where AF other sports would go if they went to the BE for football, I suggested the MVC. The MVC is evenly split between private schools and state schools and is pretty strong in a lot of sports, especially basketball.

    http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/FBC-AIRFORCE-EXPANSION_6259075/

    Like

  93. EZCUSE says:

    Syracuse played Tulane in the Superdome today. I know Syracuse is not a big draw… but there is NO way that the announced crowd of 23K was accurate. If there were 5 digits of fans, I would be surprised. Seriously… you need to see the footage. How can the Big XII even consider a team that was likely outdrawn by high schools this weekend?

    Like

  94. Looks like Air Force is still interested in the Big East (very much so if all 3 service academies are members) and, whether or not they switch football conferences, it’s likely that they’ll send their other sports to the Missouri Valley Conference. Also, Air Force turned down interest from the Big 12, although it seemed to be more for competitive reasons than stability issues.

    http://www.gazette.com/sports/mueh-126443-names-john.html

    Like

    • zeek says:

      That’s the first administrator that I’ve seen actually think about fitness for an institution. Good to see that the AFA is in good hands.

      Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        An academy admin who is basing decisions on athletic recruiting has very possibly lost focus on what his actual core mission is.

        Like

        • vandiver49 says:

          Scarlett,

          While the AD core mission is athletics, I guarantee you the Superintendent of AFA understands his school’s core mission. The BE only play here is if it can convince all three D-1 Service Academies to join. And I can tell you that as they are comparing notes, Army’s experience in C-USA is being heavily discussed.

          Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Given the Air Force Academy’s recent history with major leadership lapses I don’t believe anyone can guarantee that. Unfortunately, the same hold true for Annapolis where the ‘diversity’ scandal has been bubbling for a few years now.

            All of that is of course outside of the scope of this forum.

            Like

        • Richard says:

          Scarlet,

          In the article, he says it’s for recruiting, not just athletics recruiting. I can believe it (well, not a lot, but a little). Just as BYU likely wants to remain independent to spread the faith, AFA may want to get their school noticed in areas of the country where they usually are not in order to get their name in the news and in front of high schoolers who may not have considered them otherwise. West Point and Navy don’t need more brand recognition. AFA being in the news & being on more national channels may reach high schoolers who would consider Army, Navy, or ROTC but not AFA as strongly before.

          Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      Gotta think that $9-$10M per team projection is a bit nuts without Pitt, Syracuse, TCU, and whomever else leaves to complete the Big XII or SEC.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Question is whether that is everything or just football.

        They were thinking $12-$15 million all sports with those 3. No way they get $9-$10 football only now. May still be there with the right schools for all sports.

        Like

        • EZCUSE says:

          http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_760984.html

          6 years, 218M from ESPN. 36M per year.

          1/3 of the $$$ goes to the football schools to split evenly.

          12M/8 teams = $1.5M.

          2/3 of the $$$ goes to all schools to split evenly.

          24M/16 teams = $1.5M

          Another $9M/year from CBS for hoops.

          $9M/16 teams = .600

          Pitt takes in about $3.6M per year from TV.

          I question the $1.4B #. Everywhere else I have seen $1B.

          At 1.4B, Pitt would have increased by $10M per year to $14M.

          Even at $1B, that is 3 times the money the Big East was taking in. I can see why ESPN got royally pissed off at the Big East for rejecting a 300% raise.

          Like

  95. vp19 says:

    A guest columnist and former dean of the celebrated Newhouse communications school at Syracuse University details how ACC membership may work to SU’s academic advantage:

    http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/10/syracuse_university_acc.html

    Like

  96. bullet says:

    The real Dan Beebe speaks.

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7080495/ousted-big-12-commissioner-dan-beebe-puts-onus-nebraska-cornhuskers

    Some of his comments:
    Nebraska was one of the biggest objectors to equal revenue sharing that he had pushed and believes this all could have been done earlier with no defections
    Thinks Colorado is the one move that made the most sense
    HS games and 2nd game were objections to LHN, not the money
    Schools wanted 4 Texas teams for exposure

    Like

    • Jake says:

      The Colorado move certainly makes more sense for them now that the Pac-12 has its shiny new TV contract. Financially it seemed questionable at the time, with the exit penalties they were paying.

      I doubt we’ll ever get the straight story on the last year of the Big 12. Now it’s Nebraska that opposed equal revenue sharing? Sure, whatever.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        Nebraska was always against equal revenue sharing. That wasn’t a disputed fact last year. Nebraska, along with Texas, OU, and I believe A&M made more money without equal revenue sharing.

        Like