Several news sources, including the New York Times and Charleston Daily Mail, are reporting that West Virginia will leave the Big East for the Big 12 as a replacement for Missouri (who is expected to head to the SEC sooner rather than later).  It appears that the Big 12 will stay at 10 for now.  I personally think the Big East can still rebuild into an AQ conference as long as the remaining 5 football members stay and without having to resort to a 32-team Rebel Alliance League.  West Virginia leaving alone also doesn’t seem to be enough to spur Notre Dame to look for a different conference home, either.  (I think Louisville leaving would’ve been worse from the Domer perspective.)  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. EZCUSE says:

    Well…

    Like

    • Todd says:

      Congratulations on being first.

      Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      This becomes kind of like a “Name that Tune” type of thing.

      Player 1: I think that the Big East can survive with only 7 of the 9 expected teams.

      Player 2: Well, I think that the Big East can survive with only SIX of the 9 expected teams.

      Player 3: Tough call. I am going to go ahead and say that the Big East can survive with only 5 of the teams it was planning on having for 2012.

      Player 4: Yikes.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Definitely at the “yikes” phase.

        The three schools that carried the Big East past the Miami/Va Tech/BC exit were WVU/Pitt/Syracuse.

        Needless to say, this is pretty much the last traditional team they had, and losing it takes all the prestige out of the conference.

        Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          Last year was the first time Syracuse has had a winning season since before Miami & Co bolted to the ACC. How were they carrying the conference?

          I think WVU carried the load almost single handedly, not only have they been champs or co-champs more than any other team; they are also the only one that received any respect at a national level.

          The only other team with multiple BCS appearances is UC (yikes!).

          Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            I just saw your other post where you clarified Syracuse being a standard bearer due to their FB tradition. Now I see where you’re coming from.

            Like

        • Eric says:

          This does make you wonder about the a contraction of AQs at some point in the future. I don’t see one now, but the entire Big East save Rutgers (who know would have cared about when the BCS formed) will all have been non-AQ at the time of formation.

          Like

    • Craig Z says:

      add

      Like

  2. greg says:

    Hawks #2 in the Legends.

    Like

    • mnfanstc says:

      Sorry Greg… Not anymore…
      the Gopher’s are keepin’ Floyd in Minnesota for another year… Miracles do Happen…

      Hopefully a sign of better things to come for the Gopher FB program…

      Like

  3. Josh says:

    Hide ya couches, hide ya farm animals

    Like

  4. Denogginizer says:

    Add. GBR

    Like

  5. Christian says:

    Would be interested in your take on Chip’s story today concerning Notre Dame’s non-football sports maybe moving to the Big 12, Frank…

    Like

    • @Christian – I’d put the likelihood of Notre Dame heading to the Big 12 as a non-football member far ahead of the prospect of the Irish joining the ACC or Big Ten as an all-sports member. If there’s a competitive option for ND’s non-football sports that allows the school to maintain independence, they will take it. However, I still think ND prefers the Big East and will stay there if the hybrid is maintained. Geographically and culturally, it’s still a good for for the Irish – they basically get to hit all of their key alumni markets (NYC, Chicago, DC, Philly, Boston/Providence) and as long as UConn and Louisville stick around, there are at least some competitive all-around athletic departments. Texas might be putting the cart before the horse here, too. I’m not sure why the rest of the Big 12 members would allow ND in without football as it provides a direct precedent for the Longhorns to do the exact same thing a few years from now (which would ultimately destroy the Big 12).

      Like

      • zeek says:

        That last part is important.

        There’s a big difference between accepting BYU for football-only versus ND for non-football. We’ve heard so much about a pairing of Texas and ND as independents, that it’d seem to be questionable that the Big 12 would want to deal with that.

        Plus, how would the bowl bids work out if that’s included in the deal, etc.

        And the 6 football game part of the story is a non-starter as well as the part about eventually being a full member…

        Like

        • greg says:

          6 football game part isn’t a non-starter. They’ll just ignore it as they’ve ignored the 3 Big East games or whatever it is now.

          IMO, ND is staying in the BE until it ceases to be.

          Like

          • Stew says:

            At this point, what makes the BE still attractive to the Catholic non-FBS schools? Seems to me those eight could peel off and be a northeast/midwest urban all-sports but football conference of like schools, and potentially see if they could attract potential like schools such as Duquesne and St. Louis – Duquesne, Georgetown, and ‘Nova could continue to play football at the FCS level, and at least one part of the college world would make sense.

            Is the football money that big for the St. Johns and Georgetowns of the world?

            Like

          • Mike R says:

            Obviously the BE non-football schools are a great fit for ND — Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette etc. It’s the perfect basketball league for the Irish. But ND has invested heavily in their Olympic sports over the past two decades and the “Catholic league” schools’ Olympic sports programs, with a few exceptions (like Villanova track and field, which has a great tradition) are fairly weak.

            Like

          • greg says:

            I realize ND cares about their Olympic sports, but it seems they don’t care about them if it means losing their core identity attributes of football independence and being a Northeast school.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Stew,

            The non-FB schools don’t get any of the FB money. It’s the MBB money that is valuable to them, and UConn, UL, WV, SU and Pitt added a lot to that pool.

            Like

        • EZCUSE says:

          What about adding BYU and ND as part of a 12 team zipper model?

          A: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, ND, WVU
          B: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Iowa St., Kansas, BYU, Kansas St.

          BYU/ND play division foes only, plus each other. Qualifies for CCG under NCAA rules. By having two schools with special rules, not the same scheduling issues. With 6 conference games, that leaves 6 OOC.

          Protected rivalry for A v B…. ND/BYU (the religious part-timers), Texas/Oklahoma (they need a name for this), TCU/Oklahoma St. (the second fiddle bowl), Tech/Kansas (the ESPNU bowl), Baylor/Iowa St. (the ESPN3 bowl), WVU-KSU (the Huggins Bowl)

          I still say that a system like this should have been promoted by the Big East, who was already so hybrid that it would not have mattered.

          Like

        • Eric says:

          From a bowl perspective it might be a good thing. The Big 12 line-up is very good, but with several key members leaving and with other conferences improving, it might help to have the Irish to keep the current set-up.

          Like

  6. “GET US OUT OF HERE!” —WVU

    Like

  7. Mike says:

    As long as none of the teams the Big East is trying to recruit (Houston, SMU, Air Force, Navy, UCF, etc.) suddenly get cold feet from this the Big East will survive.

    If the Big East does collapse, I’d be interested in seeing if the Big Ten makes one last play for Notre Dame and scoops up Mizzou at the 11th hour away from the SEC.

    I would not be a fan of the MWC-CUSA-Big East leftovers conference/league. It’d become the league in between 1-A and 1-AA. It’d be a season long version of the NIT.

    Like

    • charlie says:

      the B1G will definitely make a play at ND, but I don’t see them scooping up Mizzou as #14. if we do manage to finally reel in ND, #14 will be some school out of the northeast, probably rutgers, for 3 major reasons:
      1) ND + PSU + some NE team will be the closest thing the B1G’ll get to penetrating the NE market
      2) ND’s major fan base is in the NE, so, we’ll need to provide a way to exploit that, plus, that’s where ND likes to be seen
      3) PSU has always wanted more schools from the NE, that’ll definitely help appease them

      Like

      • metatron5369 says:

        If Rutgers was so damn valuable, the ACC would’ve eaten them up.

        Everyone is missing the forest for the trees: the Big Ten didn’t take Nebraska because they wanted the Omaha markets, they took them because Nebraska gets on SportsCenter.

        Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          “Everyone is missing the forest for the trees: the Big Ten didn’t take Nebraska because they wanted the Omaha markets, they took them because Nebraska gets on SportsCenter.”

          That’s actually one of the best summaries I’ve seen for why conferences expand when there’s only a small market, or no new market at all, added.

          By contrast, the ACC’s moves seem to have been motivated largely by markets. FSU was added for the SportsCenter effect, but its presence in the state of Florida was crucial, too. BC and Miami clearly expanded the “footprint.” Va. Tech added no new markets, but their spot was supposed to be reserved for Syracuse. Ironically, VT has been by far the most successful addition for the league, whose expansion in ’03 has largely been [unfairly] regarded as a failure. Syracuse was eventually added anyway, alongside Syracuse, with “footprint” being one of the prime motivators for their addition. With that said, the ACC is still wise enough to know that market size is one of many factors, and that’s about the only thing Rutgers offers. Its academics fit the ACC just fine, but its athletics department is mediocre overall and it has less national cache than any of the ACC’s other additions in the past 20 years.

          Like

        • charlie says:

          yes, I recognize that we got Nebraska because they get on SportsCenter, but that’s the purpose of getting ND is it not? the B1G already has 2 schools in Indiana, so, we’re clearly not trying to add ND because it lets us expand our footprint. also, I’m not saying that Rutgers by itself is valuable, hence why no one is adding them by themselves. the point of grabbing Rutgers in tandem with ND is because ND’s major market is on the east coast, so, by getting ND + Rutgers, it allows us to get another team that’s on SportsCenter, and expand our footprint to the market that ND excels in

          Like

  8. DaveInPA says:

    By the time this is all over the Big East will split into two one-team divisions:

    Big East North : Connecticut
    Big East South: Rutgers

    Like

  9. hey diddle diddle says:

    I would think WV would be a better fit in the SEC then Missouri.

    small fan base but passionate

    Like

    • footballnut says:

      Mizzou an AAU school, has two large TV markets, fans better than you think. 71,000 showed up for Iowa State and 65,000 showed up for Okie State, and Mizzou has a losing record! Mizzou borders 3 SEC states. Couches are located INSIDE homes and the only thing that’s buring is the Big 12’s butt.

      Like

      • Bo Darville says:

        MIssouri about 12 miles of border total with Kentucky and Tennesee where the Universities are located on the other side of the state. TCU is just as close to Columbia as the University of Tennesee is.

        Like

    • Mike says:

      So passionate their head coach called them out this year for not showing up to games.

      Like

  10. zeek says:

    The only prediction I’d make, is that the Big East is almost a lock to lose their AQ now.

    WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse had the tradition (WVU picking up when Pitt dropped off) and regionality (Northeast outside of Penn State-Big Ten and BC-ACC) to really carry the conference.

    Now, what’s left? Rutgers, UConn, Louisville, Cincinnati, and USF.

    The latter three of those were C-USA just a half decade ago. UConn has only been around in football for a decade. Rutgers is the definition of historical underachiever.

    It’s really hard to see how anyone is going to view the new 12 team Big East as anything other than a C-USA/MWC retread (mostly from C-USA). That won’t look anything like an AQ conference.

    And now, they even lose the regionality factor. The Northeast is taken care of the by the ACC and Penn State. The Mid-Atlantic is all accounted for…

    What gets lost by just forcing the Big East to fight for the non-AQ spot (as Boise State would have been doing anyways if they weren’t considering the Big East)? Nothing.

    Like

    • frug says:

      The problem is if the Big East loses AQ designation the non-AQ’s will be the numerical majority in FBS, which means the Big Five will have to expand further or promote another conference to AQ status in order maintain control.

      (For the record, by 2013 there will be 124 teams in D-IA and only 61 will be in the Big 5+ND, putting the AQ’s 2 short of a majority)

      Like

      • zeek says:

        C-USA and MWC are merging into 1, so it’s 5 out of 10.

        As for the numbers, Big 5 + ND = 14+14+12+12+10+1 = 63.

        Like

        • frug says:

          (Slaps self)

          Forgot that Syracuse and Pitt were moving to the ACC. So yeah, I guess they could survive.

          Like

        • MWC and C-USA aren’t really combining. They are still separate conferences. All they are doing is effectively creating a football version of the basketball tournament’s “play-in” game. They think (hope) this will get them an automatic bid, but it in no way dissolves either conference as a separate entity.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            For all intents and purposes related to football, they will be one football conference (to meet the NCAA rules on conferences and CCGs requiring round robin among two divisions).

            For non-football sports, they will remain two conferences.

            Like

      • Purduemoe says:

        Why do the big five worry about control? Couldn’t they just tell everyone else they will take their teams and form their own association? They would have all of the top football programs, and most of the top basketball programs. The NCAA couldn’t afford to have them leave, so I don’t think you would see any threats that could make that happen.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          This is pretty much the reason why everyone will accept it.

          It’s basically like how one negotiates when one holds all the cards. The Big 5 are in a position to dictate terms because they can take the BCS and go home. They lend legitimacy to the NCAA and not the other way around.

          Like

        • frug says:

          Yes that is the ultimate threat, but it’s not clear it’s really a viable option for (at least three reasons)

          1. It could put the members tax exempt status in jeopardy. Whatever new entity they set up would not be guaranteed an exemption and its unlikely many politicians are going to want to help them out (more on that later).

          2. For anti-trust reasons the big boys could never play any of the NCAA schools in any sport. That would do some damage to football, moderate damage to basketball, and absolutely devastate non-revenue sports. It would also make expansion almost impossible since there would be no way to know exactly how good left behind schools are relative to the break aways.

          3. If you think the politicians have caused problems for the BCS try and imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if the AQ schools tried to leave the NCAA. The blow to mid majors would be almost unimaginable and there is simply no way most states are going to let their flagships leave because of it.

          Like

      • Eric says:

        I think control is overstated, but bad press isn’t. I don’t think people really care that much about the non-AQs, but they are a good excuse to lobby for a playoff and leaving them out gives people who would like to interfere (Congress) incentive. This is especially true if Connecticut and New Jersey’s teams are left out. For that reason, I think the Big East will hold onto the AQ as long as they can pull in Boise State and some of the better other teams (I’ll comment on if they can’t below).

        Like

  11. herbiehusker says:

    Go Big Red!

    Like

  12. EZCUSE says:

    The ACC should make a play on WVU/ND.

    ND’s academics offsets WVU’s. That would make the football schools happy.

    So much better than duplicating a geographical area with ND/Rutgers or ND/UConn someday.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      There’s no real point to that. I mean you already have Va Tech (Blacksburg) and Pitt (the media market that includes Morgantown); what else does WVU offer other than a state without major population centers/media markets?

      The ACC already has a crapton of people now. ND-UConn or ND-Rutgers are really the only choices.

      Like

      • EZCUSE says:

        Better football than Rutgers and UConn?!!!?!!!! After Syracuse and Pitt were added, the FSU board was lit up with complaints that the ACC ignored football. You can’t do a N/S division because Va Tech has no competition. And so on. Adding WVU and ND would add two football first schools to the North and help balance that out.

        Plus, you get rivalry games between Syracuse, Pitt, BC, and WVU on ESPN. Syracuse had its biggest crowd in several years with WVU in town on Friday. The Backyard Brawl. Historical BC-WVU games too.

        Meanwhile, what does UConn add that BC and ND would not? What does Rutgers add that ND and Syracuse would not?

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Well, you already point out that WVU is probably a non-starter on academic grounds.

          I mean, if the SEC was balking on WVU’s academics and lack of a market, then the ACC would choke on the academics. Where the Big Ten looks at research $ rankings, the ACC looks at US News undergraduate rankings among other things.

          Duke, UNC, among others would probably vote WVU down fast. The football reason isn’t good enough; I mean you’re getting Notre Dame. The football upgrade is already accounted for, just go for Rutgers or UConn to round it out…

          Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            You just want the ACC weak and vulnerable so that the Big 10 can take Maryland or Va Tech someday.

            Taking UConn would give Florida State a reason to consider the SEC, which would give the ACC schools a reason to get weak kneed about the B1G.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            While I’m overtly a Big Ten partisan, I don’t see your point.

            If ND comes to the ACC, then it doesn’t matter who #16 is because Va Tech, FSU, Duke, UNC, etc. will all be out there cheering in the streets.

            Why would FSU or anyone leave a conference that just got Notre Dame?

            So by that token, the 16th should just be a school that fits the profile well and would work well with ND; i.e. UConn or Rutgers.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            The freakin’ SEC not wanting WVU due to academic concerns somehow equates to a Big Ten plot to keep the ACC down?

            Good lord.

            Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            Scarlet… relax Francis. What plot are you talking about? I was just picking on Zeek.

            As for Zeek, I don’t know why anyone would leave anyway. But FSU looks to the SEC for comparison. There is no Rutgers or UConn in the SEC. WVU can at least compete against SEC teams. Have Rutgers or UConn ever even PLAYED an SEC team (other than Vanderbilt)? Adding WVU further legitimizes the football side of the equation.

            Like

    • redwood86 says:

      ACC Commissioner has pretty much acknowledged that he already made a play for ND.

      Like

      • EZCUSE says:

        I know.

        But I rank the combinations like this (regardless of possibility):

        1. ND/PSU
        2. ND/WVU
        3. ND/UConn
        4. ND/Rutgers

        Frankly, I could see where Temple would be a good fit too. I always liked the idea of ND and TCU sliding to the ACC to keep the football schools happy.

        The Big 10 can have Rutgers and its precious NJ market. The rest of us just care about football and basketball, whether it takes place in Stillwater or Tuscaloosa.

        Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          The Big Ten added Nebraska.

          The ACC added Syracuse.

          Who doesn’t care about football again?

          Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            0 for 3 on grasping my point today.

            My point in the last paragraph was that, while market is important, conferences also have to look at the competence/tradition within the two main sports. The fact that Nebraska was in Lincoln did not stop the Big 10. The fact that West Virginia is in West Virginia will not stop the Big XII.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Maybe it’s 0 for 3 on making your point?

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            “The Big 10 can have Rutgers and its precious NJ market. The rest of us just care about football and basketball, whether it takes place in Stillwater or Tuscaloosa.”

            —I don’t think there was any confusion at all regarding what you were trying to say there.

            Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            It was directed at the people on this board who think everything revolves around markets, AAU membership, research dollars, etc. The Big 10 just took Nebraska. It was all about football–not about markets. Nebraska hasn’t won a national title in a quite a while. But the years and years of tradition make them a national team. When Nebraska is even a shadow of itself, people care.

            Moreover, if the non-football characteristics controlled, wouldn’t Rutgers and Missouri already be in the Big 10? I get that those other factors are reasons why the Big 10 might eliminate a school. They can’t take a West Virginia due to academics. No real need to take Pittsburgh. And so on. But those schools are also a level or two below Nebraska anyway. It’s about football.

            I also get that the ACC took Syracuse and Pitt. They are not football Kings, but they also deliver excellent basketball. This apparently matters to the ACC more than the Big 10. Syracuse-Duke will get buzz. Pitt-UNC will get buzz. If a lot of basketball fans watch a game, does it really matter what the market share of NYC is? Does it matter that the game is held in Western PA or NC? There are TVs all across the country (and world).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            EZCUSE,

            It was directed at the people on this board who think everything revolves around markets, AAU membership, research dollars, etc. The Big 10 just took Nebraska. It was all about football–not about markets. Nebraska hasn’t won a national title in a quite a while. But the years and years of tradition make them a national team. When Nebraska is even a shadow of itself, people care.

            I would argue that you just contradicted yourself. You say adding NE was all about CFB, but then you prove that NE brings a national market while not being at their CFB peak lately. That national market, and not it’s local one, is a large part of why the B10 added NE so it was about markets. Long term CFB success leads to a brand name which leads to a national market. You can say that it was about football, but that would better explain if the B10 added Boise or TCU.

            Moreover, if the non-football characteristics controlled, wouldn’t Rutgers and Missouri already be in the Big 10? I get that those other factors are reasons why the Big 10 might eliminate a school. They can’t take a West Virginia due to academics. No real need to take Pittsburgh. And so on. But those schools are also a level or two below Nebraska anyway. It’s about football.

            No, I don’t think RU and MO would be in if everything but CFB was a factor. MO is a great complement to another school, but they don’t really improve the B10 in any way. They bring a decent population, but others already bring more. They have weak academics relative to the B10. They aren’t a dominant program in MBB or non-revenue sports. The best things going for MO for the B10 are that they are a really good fit and have no major downside. RU would bring strong academics and research, a big state, access to NYC and terrible sports. That might have gotten them in, but it very well might not.

            The tricky part of finding good B10 candidates is that they have to make the B10 better in some significant way. To me, that means they must meet at least one of these conditions:

            1. Football king (which you said not to consider, so I won’t for the rest of this post)
            2. Basketball king
            3. Elite overall athletic programs
            4. Flagship of a large state
            5. Bring major media market(s)
            6. Elite academics and/or research

            In addition, they can’t meet any of these conditions:

            1. Poor academics
            2. Little or no research
            3. Poor cultural fit
            4. Not in geographic proximity to the rest of the conference
            5. Non-AQ
            6. In the SEC (the B10 isn’t taking any of their current 12)

            How many schools match at least one of the good conditions without also meeting one of the bad ones?

            BE – Rutgers, Syracuse?, Pitt?
            ACC – MD, VA /VT with MD?, NC/Duke with MD and VA/VT?
            B12 – NE, MO?, KS?
            P12 – none
            SEC – none
            Other – none

            Other candidates tempting enough to make an exception:
            ND, UT, TAMU?, OU?

            As you can see, it’s a pretty short list. I only see 5 definite candidates and 10 possible candidates.

            I also get that the ACC took Syracuse and Pitt. They are not football Kings, but they also deliver excellent basketball. This apparently matters to the ACC more than the Big 10.

            Of course MBB matters more to the ACC. They have Duke and UNC and NC is a basketball crazy state. Also, ACC FB isn’t so great. The B10 has always been more of a FB conference. Pitt was not elite enough athletically to make up for already being in the footprint of the B10. Syracuse would have added territory, but they are a questionable cultural fit in the B10 as a private school with a MBB focus and a lesser focus on research.

            Syracuse-Duke will get buzz. Pitt-UNC will get buzz. If a lot of basketball fans watch a game, does it really matter what the market share of NYC is? Does it matter that the game is held in Western PA or NC? There are TVs all across the country (and world).

            What is “a lot” of fans, especially for a regular season MBB game? The whole point of caring about NYC market share is because that is a route to a lot of fans. With the BTN, getting traction in NYC is a way to greatly increase the subscriber base and thus the payouts for the schools. That is less important to a conference that doesn’t have an independent network (they care more about total viewers).

            Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            Nebraska didn’t need a share of NYC to be a worthy add. They have a national market.

            Rutgers does not have a national market. The question is whether they can even deliver the local market. If it is so clear that Rutgers could deliver that market AND that market trumps football… why isn’t Rutgers Big 10 already? Because the on-field performance must matter. What else is there?

            Yes, the Big 10 leaders have spoken about academics, research, geography, and markets. However–in my opinion–these are reasons to not add a school. They are not reasons to ADD a school.

            The first criteria is athletic performance. If a university passes that hurdle, then it comes down to other issues. For academics, that eliminates a state flagship school like West Virginia pretty easily. Syracuse was likely doomed by low research/AAU. Georgia Tech might be a nice fit, but that makes little geographical sense. Similarly, Pitt’s geography is almost too close, as they are within a market. And the market issue is quite problematic for Pitt. Those non-sports criteria help eliminate schools.

            I just am not convinced that it works backwards….where you find a good academic school with a geographic fit and presence in a new, sizeable market and take that team. That’s just what I think. And until the Big 10 takes Rutgers, I am not inclined to change my mind.

            Now if Rutgers starts playing big name opponents and going to major bowls, then the issue can be revisited. But they have not even played–much less beaten–a football King since Miami left for the ACC. I am not sure that they have even played a Prince in a bowl game. They need some on-field success before that market even becomes relevant.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            In the 2010-2011 Directors’ Cup standings, Purdue was the lowest-ranked Big Ten member at 49th. Maryland, which has regularly placed in the top 30 for quite a few years, ranked 17th. Rutgers was 158th –– lowest among all BCS members and second-lowest in the Big East (Seton Hall was at the bottom at 238th). That certainly doesn’t aid Rutgers’ cause.

            Like

  13. Bamatab says:

    I would love to hear an explanation on how the remaining Big East schools can rebuild the conference and keep its AQ status? USF, UL, Cincy, & UConn were just filler schools to help support the remaining “semi-traditional” schools of WVU, Pitt, & SU. With those schools now gone, What additions could they possibly add to separate themselves from the MWC & CUSA? Adding teams like the service academies or teams like Houston, UCF and SMU does not push the competitiion of the remaining Big East past the MWC or CUSA.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      As you point out, the Big East is basically C-USA (and some MWC) filler now.

      USF, Cincinnati, Louisville were all C-USA just a half decade ago, and UConn wasn’t even playing a decade or so ago. No one’s going to shed a tear for leaving Rutgers behind because they haven’t done anything in D-1 other than play the first game over 100 years ago.

      Losing the tradition based schools in the Northeast is basically the death knell of the Big East’s AQ status. It will basically be the top teams from C-USA and MWC, but that isn’t worth an AQ invite.

      Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        You know if the B1G thinks Rutgers will actually add any value at all somewhere along the line now would be a perfect time to offer them membership under a restrictive set of rules…only partial payouts until specific criteria are met…ie the AD is brought up to par & in the black, they can show they are bringing in more than their weight via the NJ/NY market etc etc.

        You could add them without them being a financial burden.

        Like

        • greg says:

          Why the heck add Rutgers as a partial member?

          Big Ten hasn’t done weird crap like that for their entire history, there is no need to start now.

          Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            I am only speaking of financially, they would still be full members athletically & members of the CIC. Nebraska currently isn’t receiving a full share of BTN money until they’ve built up equity (until 2017 IIRC). I am talking about something along the same lines just even more restrictive.

            IF the B1G is potentially interested in Rutgers long term but is worried about a short term financial hit then now is a good time to dictate terms that the school might normally balk at. Terms that would allow Rutgers membership but would not cause the other schools to take a hit by subsidizing the Scarlet Nights joining the conference.

            Again this is all dependent on a number of ‘ifs’ that no one has shown to be even close to accurate at this point.

            Like

        • wmtiger says:

          B10 can add Rutgers whenever they want them.

          Like

  14. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX #1 LSU Fightin’ Tigers!

    Like

  15. OT says:

    Missouri – from XII to ESS EEE CEE pending legal issues

    West Virginia – From BIG EAST to XII

    Houston, SMU, and Central Florida – from Conference USA to BIG EAST

    The BIG EAST will have 8 all-sports schools unless the ACC decides to make another move:

    UCONN
    Rutgers
    Louisville
    Cincinnati
    Central Florida
    South Florida
    Houston
    SMU

    (Notice 4 very neat and tidy pairs of schools, with both schools in the pair within 4 hours of driving.)

    (Rutgers will be the only original Big East football member left in the league.)

    Will Navy, Air Force, and/or Boise State join that bunch? I have my doubts about Air Force or Navy.

    Boise State may have no choice but to take its chances with the BIG EAST if “Big Mount USA” does not happen.

    ==

    I don’t see the “Big Mount USA” proposal from the Conference USA/Mountain West alliance being accepted by the BIG EAST.

    The BIG EAST appears to be moving ahead with its raid on Conference USA this week: Central Florida, Houston, SMU.

    West Virginia basically got out of dodge before the exit fee was increased.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      OT,

      (Rutgers will be the only original Big East football member left in the league.)

      It’s even worse than that. Rutgers was not an original FB school. They joined for FB in 1995. The originals (1991) were BC, Miami, Pitt and Syracuse. Rutgers and WV joined in 1995. VT joined in 2000. UConn joined in 2004. UC, UL and USF joined in 2005.

      Rutgers will be the “senior” school and the only school from the last century still around. Nobody else has a decade in the BE for FB.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Never mind me, OT, I was misreading a source. Rutgers joined for FB in 1991 but wasn’t a full BE member until 1995 (I reversed the years).

        Like

  16. M says:

    Let’s take a walk down memory lane:

    Big East football, circa 2002
    Virginia Tech (gone, ACC 2004)
    Miami (gone, ACC 2004)
    Boston College (gone, ACC 2005)
    Pitt (gone, ACC 2013?)
    Syracuse (gone, ACC 2013?)
    West Virginia (gone, Big 12 2013?)
    Temple (gone, MAC 2005, but maybe back)
    Rutgers

    CUSA circa 2002:
    Louisville (gone, Big East 2005)
    USF (gone, Big East 2005)
    Cincinnati (gone, Big East 2005)
    Houston (gone to Big East?)
    ECU (gone to Big East?)
    TCU (gone, various conferences)
    Army (gone, independent)
    UAB
    Southern Miss
    Tulane (gone to Big 12? /rofl)
    Memphis

    Potential Big East 2013 members, conference affiliation as of 2000
    Rutgers – Big East
    Temple – Big East, about to be kicked to the MAC
    UConn – FCS
    Villanova – FCS
    Louisville – CUSA
    USF – CUSA
    Cincinnati – CUSA
    Houston – CUSA
    ECU – CUSA
    Army – CUSA
    UCF – MAC
    AFA – MWC
    Navy – Independent
    Boise State – FCS

    The most charitable description of this group is that it’s a “best of the rest”. The least charitable description is “CUSA II + the worst Big East teams + some FCS schools”,

    Like

  17. M says:

    Also, add

    Like

  18. Playoffs Now says:

    My prediction:

    BCS is replaced (actually tweaked, but under a new name that allows them to drop the BEast AQ without directly voting to do so) with a 6-school virtual playoff that utilizes 5 major bowls – Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, and Orange. Plays off the champs of the 5 power conferences (P12, B1G, B12, SEC, ACC) plus an invite to the ‘Best of the rest.’ B12 returns to 12, BEast is neutered, and not much real change in the landscape beyond that.

    Rose returns to a permanent match up of P12-B1G champs, while the Fiesta-Sugar and Cotton-Orange alternate between the other 2 playoff games and 2 ‘BCS-esque’ games of non-champs from the 5 power conferences. After the bowls the top-ranked playoff winner gets a bye while #2 hosts #3 in an on-campus game 1-2 weeks after New Years. A true national championship game is then played the Saturday before the Super Bowl, rotated between the 5 bowl sites.

    This setup in theory allows every D1 school access to whatever they call the BCS replacement, keeping Congress off their backs and the lawsuits tamped down. Lets Notre Dame, BYU, and possibly others remain independent (IIRC, ND has a vote in the BCS talks just like the conferences do.) Preserves the bowl system and the importance of the regular season while creating a virtual playoff and finally a legitimate national championship earned on the field instead of in beauty contest polls.

    Would also increase access for the power conferences to the ‘BCS-equivalent’ bowls, something the B1G and SEC strongly want. Currently it can be as few as 8 of the 10 slots, in the 6-school virtual playoff it would be a guaranteed 9 of 10 slots. (Could also be increased to 6 bowls and 11 of 12 slots, depending on how the bowls alternate between playoff and ‘BCS-esque’ games.)

    Leaks from the conferences, various schools, and the BCS have hinted for a while now that a Plus One will likely be adopted, or at least be the starting point in negotiations. That’s either a 4-team playoff or playing the bowls and then taking the top 2 winners for a national championship game. The 6-school plan would improve upon the Plus One by including the conference champs of every power conference but not increasing the number of neutral site games played (addressing the bowls’ worries that multiple neutral site games would hurt attendance/tourism.) In a Plus One format 2 schools at most would play 15 games in a season, the rest no more than 14. In the 6-school format at most 2 schools would play 15 games and 1 would play 16, and the rest no more than 14. Instead of 2 teams, 3 would play beyond New Years week.

    Negligible impacts compared to a Plus One, but a realistic compromise given the current power players’ position that corrects most of the flaws and would please 90+% of college football fans. Finally, in effect a real playoff and legitimate nat’l champ.

    Like

    • Playoffs Now says:

      Should also add the possibility of going to 7 BCS-equivalent bowls in a 6-school playoff format. Rose still a permanent P12-B1G playoff game, with the Fiesta-Cotton-6th bowl and Sugar-Orange-7th bowl rotating the playoff games between them, hosting once every 3rd year instead of every other year. That would provide 12 or 13 of the 14 slots to the power conferences, perhaps increasing the likelihood of approval.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      I could see that happening in steps. Would take at least a decade or two to get to that point though. These things move at a glacial pace.

      First thing: drop Big East AQ (probably will happen within 2-4 years); add Cotton Bowl or Capital One (most likely Cotton for geographic diversity; probably within the next BCS contract or two) to the BCS; open the number of bids per conference (may or may not happen; only benefits the SEC and Big Ten, so the other 3 major conferences may not support it).

      Like

      • Read The D says:

        I think an easier solution once the Big East is stripped of their AQ status is to give an automatic BCS birth to the highest rated non-AQ conference champion. Every conference would vote for this, except the Big East.

        Then add the Cotton Bowl and slap on a +1.

        Like

        • Read The D says:

          This would also put an end to the conference merging madness.

          Like

        • zeek says:

          That’s actually a really good point to removing the whole voting bloc aspect.

          You’d probably get 9 of the 10 conferences to vote for that kind of deal.

          Like

        • Playoffs Now says:

          The problem with a Plus One is that at least 1 champ of a power conference gets left out, so SOS controversy will continue. The beauty of a 6 team playoff that includes the champs of all 5 power conferences is that SOS no longer matters. If the B1G wants to schedule all OOC as home MACfests it doesn’t matter. If OU, LSU, FSU, etc want to schedule all top 25 OOC games, it doesn’t hurt their chances at getting into the playoffs. All that matters is winning conference.

          So we are no longer arguing about whether Wisconsin’s or Florida’s cowardice should be rewarded over say an FSU or USC or LSU willing to risk a loss at a Top 10 opponent, match ups that provided us quality entertainment. Removing the SOS issue should actually be enticing for the B1G, the biggest hurdle to getting a playoff. Guaranteeing a spot for all the power conference champs is enticing for the ACC, and should be also for the P12 if it can’t expand further. Same for the B12 in down years. Keep access for the outside conferences via at least 1 slot and you’ve now got an NCAA voting block and a power conference voting block for a playoff.

          Like

          • Read The D says:

            @Playoffs

            I see what you’re saying but that effectively makes the regular season less meaningful. I’d think you would want some sort of carrot out there for the AQ’s to play some quality OOC opponents. Otherwise ever school would play local punching bags in every OOC game.

            Like

  19. Carl says:

    PSU > Northwestern

    Like

  20. EZCUSE says:

    As per ESPN: “But the source said that as long as the Big East holds onto Louisville, then it will remains a viable conference and will be able to add members.”

    From TCU…. to WVU… to Louisville. Kind of sad that they passed by Rutgers and are on to new members to save the conference.

    With WVU leaving, looks like Big USA has legs:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7148713/big-east-meet-conference-usa-mountain-west

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Seems like they’re just moving the bar. Once you get to the point of relying on a C-USA team to be your anchor, you’re doomed.

      The Big East is just going to be the best of the C-USA/MWC + Rutgers/UConn. That kind of conference just won’t get much play in terms of $.

      I don’t see how the football in that conference is worth much more than a couple million per team per year.

      Like

    • Bamatab says:

      I guess someone will have to explain to me how Louisville makes the Big East a viable (and by viable I’m assuming that they mean AQ) football conference. Since when did UL become relevant in football?

      Like

      • zeek says:

        It’s just spin.

        It was one thing to claim WVU as the anchor.

        But outside of WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse, the Big East had no other football tradition. The Northeast football tradition is entirely in Penn State and the ACC now along with WVU in the Big 12.

        Like

      • Morgan Wick says:

        Actually, Louisville was the star of the Big East’s raid of C-USA, coming off a year when they came within a play or two of going undefeated. They were a national championship contender one year early in their Big East membership. It’s only after that that they fell off the map.

        Like

  21. Bamatab says:

    So let me see if I have this right. Both UT and OU have implied that they don’t want to go to the SEC because of the academic reputation of the SEC. Yet they are good with the Big 12 replacing aTm & Mizzou (2 AAU schools) with TCU and WVU? Yeah right.

    Like

    • OT says:

      The XII is nothing more than a playpen for Texas, its slave Oklahoma, and a harem of 8 which will serve at the pleasure of Texas.

      ==

      Latest round of realignment:

      ESS EEE CEE takes two from XII

      ACC takes two from BIG EAST

      XII then takes two from BIG EAST (including TCU.)

      BIG EAST will take 3 from Conference USA (assuming that Conference USA/Mountain West will have no luck with the “Big Mount USA” proposal) and possibly 1 or 2 from Mountain West.

      B1G and PAC are standing pat.

      Like

      • greg says:

        Karl, I thought UT was in the WAC?

        Like

      • vp19 says:

        OT, you don’t have to capitalize Big East, unless you’re sending your comments from a certain office in Providence.

        Big East football, circa 2002
        Virginia Tech (gone, ACC 2004)
        Miami (gone, ACC 2004)
        Boston College (gone, ACC 2005)
        Pitt (gone, ACC 2013?)
        Syracuse (gone, ACC 2013?)
        West Virginia (gone, Big 12 2013?)
        Temple (gone, MAC 2005, but maybe back)
        Rutgers

        I eagerly await Big East shill Lenn Robbins’ comments on this in tomorrow’s New York Post.

        I’ll leave you with this: West Virginia officials should contact Boston College about life as an outlier — but at least BC was in the same time zone with the rest of the conference. WVU now needs a Cincinnati and/or Louisville the same way BC needed (and got) Syracuse and Pittsburgh.

        Like

    • Read The D says:

      Agreed. I think OU and Texas are trying to make the Big 12 as football strong as possible so they can leave Texas Tech and Oklahoma State behind and not flapping in the wind when they move on to greener pastures.

      Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Bamatab – as you and both know, the academic argument against joining the SEC, was always a red herring, when UTx and OU both insisted on little brothers Texas Tech and OK State going anywhere they go.

      Are you going to the game?

      Like

      • Bamatab says:

        No I won’t be in Tuscaloosa for this game. A bunch of my family (Uncles, cousins, ect) are getting together and cooking out and watching the game. I usually end up with a chance to go to most games, but this one I never got a ticket offer for under $300. But watching it with family is the next best thing. Watching the big games has actually been a family tradition of ours for as long as I can remember. But with that said, if I could find a ticket for a reasonable price I’d jump at going to this game. The game day atmosphere will be unreal for this one.

        Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          Bamatab – that’s a shame. I’ll be there and can’t wait for the biggest regular season game in SEC history.

          Is it November 5 yet?

          FYI – Here are the 16 regular-season games matching the top two teams in the Associated Poll in the past 50 seasons.

          1963: No. 2 Texas defeated No. 1 Oklahoma 28-7 at Dallas, Tex.
          1966: No. 1 Notre Dame and No. 2 Michigan State played to a 10-10 tie at East Lansing, Mich.
          1968: No. 1 Purdue defeated No. 2 Notre Dame 37-22 at South Bend, Ind.
          1969: No. 1 Texas defeated No. 2 Arkansas 15-14 at Fayetteville, Ark.
          1971: No. 1 Nebraska defeated No. 2 Oklahoma 35-31 at Norman, Ok.
          1981: No. 1 Southern California defeated No. 2 Oklahoma 28-24 at Los Angeles, Cal.
          1985: No. 1 Iowa defeated No. 2 Michigan 12-10 at Iowa City, Ia.
          1986: No. 2 Miami defeated No. 1 Oklahoma 28-16 at Miami, Fla.
          1987: No. 1 Oklahoma defeated No. 2 Nebraska 17-7 at Lincoln, Neb.
          1988: No. 1 Notre Dame defeated No. 2 Southern California 27-10 at Los Angeles, Cal.
          1989: No. 1 Notre Dame defeated No. 2 Michigan 24-19 at Ann Arbor, Mich.
          1991: No. 2 Miami defeated No. 1 Florida State 17-16 at Tallahassee, Fla.
          1993: No. 2 Notre Dame defeated No. 1 Florida State 31-24 at South Bend, Ind.
          1996: No. 2 Florida State defeated No. 1 Florida 24-21 at Tallahassee, Fla.
          2006: No. 1 Ohio State defeated No. 2 Texas 24-7 at Austin, Tex.
          2006: No. 1 Ohio State defeated No. 2 Michigan 42-39 at Columbus, Oh.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Of those:

            Conference games – 5
            1969 UT/Ark – SWC
            1971 NE/OU – B8
            1985 IA/MI – B10
            1987 OU/NE – B8
            2006 OSU/MI – B10

            By team:
            ND, OU – 5
            UT, MI, FSU – 3
            NE, USC, Miami, OSU – 2
            MSU, PU, AR, IA, FL – 1

            Most years in a row – 5 (1985-1989)

            Most times in 1 year – 2 (2006)

            Only team to do it twice in one year – OSU (2006)

            OSU became the first team to ever play in three #1/#2 games in one season in 2006, and won 2 of 3. Not too bad for one of the most maligned teams in recent memory.

            Like

          • greg says:

            1985: No. 1 Iowa defeated No. 2 Michigan 12-10 at Iowa City, Ia.

            aka the greatest day in the history of Iowa

            Like

          • Bamatab says:

            Alan, it’ll definitely be an awesome gameday experience. Get there early so you can enjoy the whole day and do so tailgating. I’ve heard that they plan on putting a big screen tv out on the quad for folks that go to tailgate but don’t have tickets for the game (and that is just the university, there is no telling what ESPN will setup there). If that is the case, then I’m sure they’ll be showing other games all day out on the quad. It’ll definitely be an event you won’t soon forget.

            Hopefully you’ll also get to enjoy a stirring rendition of Rammer Jammer at the end of the game. 🙂

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Brian
            Note that 9 of the 12 “kings” (including the 3 Florida newcomers) are the only ones in more than one of these games. And only Iowa among non-kings has been in one of those games since the 60s. Of the other 3 kings, Florida has been in 1 while Alabama and Penn St. have not yet been in one of those games.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            Note that 9 of the 12 “kings” (including the 3 Florida newcomers) are the only ones in more than one of these games. And only Iowa among non-kings has been in one of those games since the 60s.

            Yep. Adding the postseason games strengthens that divide, too (see below).

            Of the other 3 kings, Florida has been in 1 while Alabama and Penn St. have not yet been in one of those games.

            It’s a little surprising that the SEC has never had a 1 vs 2 regular season game before. The P12, ACC and BE are much less surprising to me.

            Some more notes:
            Alan only left off 6 games from the 40s from his list, all involving ND, Army and/or Navy:

            10/9/1943 ND 35 – MI 12
            11/20/1943 ND 14 – Iowa Pre-Flight 13
            12/2/1944 Army 23 – Navy 7
            11/10/1945 Army 48 – ND 0
            12/1/1945 Army 32 – Navy 13
            11/9/1946 Army 0 – ND 0

            If you count the ND/MI game, that would raise ND to 6 (first place by themselves) and MI to 4.

            Obviously a lot of postseason games have also featured 1 vs 2:
            1963 USC 42-37 Wisconsin Rose Bowl
            1964 Texas 28-6 Navy Cotton Bowl
            1969 Ohio State 27-16 USC Rose Bowl
            1972 Nebraska 38-6 Alabama Orange Bowl
            1979 Penn State 7-14 Alabama Sugar Bowl
            1983 Georgia 23-27 Penn State Sugar Bowl
            1987 Miami 10-14 Penn State Fiesta Bowl
            1988 Oklahoma 14-20 Miami Orange Bowl
            1993 Miami 13-34 Alabama Sugar Bowl
            1994 Florida State 18-16 Nebraska Orange Bowl
            1996 Nebraska 62-24 Florida Fiesta Bowl
            1999 Tennessee 23-16 Florida State Fiesta Bowl/BCS CG
            2000 Florida State 46-29 Virginia Tech Sugar Bowl/BCS CG
            2003 Miami 24-31 Ohio State Fiesta Bowl/BCS CG
            2005 USC 55-19 Oklahoma Orange Bowl/BCS CG
            2006 USC 38-41 Texas Rose Bowl/BCS CG
            2007 Ohio State 14-41 Florida BCS CG
            2008 Ohio State 24-38 LSU BCS CG
            2008 Alabama 20-31 Florida SEC CG
            2009 Florida 24-14 Oklahoma BCS CG
            2009 Florida 13-32 Alabama SEC CG
            2010 Alabama 37-21 Texas BCS CG
            2011 Auburn 22-19 Oregon BCS CG

            By team (postseason only):
            AL – 6
            FL – 5
            OSU, USC, Miami – 4
            UT, NE, PSU, OU, FSU – 3
            WI, GA, TN, VT, LSU, AU, OR, Navy – 1

            The only non-kings on this list are the princes of WI, GA, TN, VT, LSU, AU and OR plus Navy in the 60s, and they are the only schools with only 1 game. The missing kings are MI and ND. I’m a little surprised ND never made a 1/2 bowl game.

            In 2008, OSU became the first school to play in 4 consecutive 1/2 games since WWII (Army had 4 in a row from 1944-1946).

            Total 1/2 games by team:
            9 – ND
            8 – OU
            6 – AL, UF, FSU, Miami, OSU, UT, USC
            5 – NE
            4 – Army, MI
            3 – Navy, PSU
            1 – AR, AU, GA, IA, Iowa Pre-Flight, LSU, MSU, OR, PU, TN, VT, WI

            I’d say the teams with multiple 1/2 games makes a pretty good kings list, with the academies in a special class and the FL schools as nouveau riche. The one-timers is a pretty good princes (at one time) list except for Iowa Pre-Flight. LSU is in a gray area, since one of the BCS CG wasn’t 1/2 for the AP and they are about to play their second one.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Notre Dame did jump from #5 to #1 in 1977 by beating #1 Texas in the Cotton Bowl. And they also played #1 Texas in the 69 and 70 Cotton Bowls. Penn St. missed a chance for a #1 vs. #2 by refusing to play Texas in 69 which opened the door for Notre Dame to return to the bowl scene after refusing to play in bowls for over 40 years.

            Like

          • Carl says:

            “bullet” wrote:
            >Notre Dame did jump from #5 to #1 in 1977 by beating #1 Texas in the Cotton Bowl. And they
            >also played #1 Texas in the 69 and 70 Cotton Bowls. Penn St. missed a chance for a #1 vs. #2
            >by refusing to play Texas in 69 which opened the door for Notre Dame to return to the bowl
            >scene after refusing to play in bowls for over 40 years.

            Just to be clear, Penn State didn’t refuse to play #1 Texas in the 1969 Cotton Bowl. Penn State chose not to play #2 Texas or #3 Arkansas in the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, instead choosing to play at the Orange Bowl in Miami. The next week, #1 Ohio State was upset by #12 Michigan, and Texas moved up to #1, Arkansas to #2, and Penn State to #3.

            As a Penn State fan who was only 4 at the time, I wish the players had chosen to play in the Cotton Bowl instead of the Orange Bowl. But they weren’t ducking a #1 Texas. Good decision or not, they were choosing to have fun at the beach in Miami, instead of spending time in Dallas, partly because 20 years earlier Penn State players had been discriminated against in Dallas because of race. In retrospect it’s an unfortunate decision lacking foresight — but I don’t believe it’s fair to describe it as “refusing to play [#1] Texas in 69”.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Carl – in 1969, the Cotton Bowl had actually extended an invitation to LSU, only to have that invitation rescinded when Notre Dame announced it would end its bowl boycott, and it did so after all the bowl deals were cut. My 10-1 Tigers stayed home for the 1969 bowl season. The old-timers around here, Catholic or not, will never forgive the Irish for taking LSU’s Cotton Bowl spot.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      Bamatab,

      You shouldn’t lump TCU and WV together academically. TCU isn’t a big research school, so no AAU, but they are #97 in the USNWR compared to #164 for WV.

      I agree with your point otherwise.

      Like

  22. I predict the Big East will probably not exist as a football conference past the 2013 season. That’s the last year with Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU. Conincidentally, that will also be the last year of the current BCS agreement. As it was, I’ve had a gut feeling that the other five BCS conferences were going to cut the Big East out of the next BCS agreement even if they had not lost any member schools. They were already itching to get rid of the 2 school per conference limit for BCS bowls. What better way to make room for more schools per conference than by getting rid of one AQ bid. With that in mind, even if the Big East gets replacement members for the departing 3, the Big East will very likely lose its AQ status for its champion in the next BCS agreement.

    Like

  23. Milton Hershey says:

    I think PSU should consider a move to the ACC. Joe Pa and our AD have been pushing for East Coast expansion for years. JD had the chance to add Pitt and Cuse but opted to wait. Playing Pitt and Cuse was a big part of our tradition prior to joining the BIG… and by adding those two teams it would have strengthened PSU’s ties to the past and made the conference more attractive to ND. Not to mention completely lock up the NYC media market.

    Like

    • greg says:

      And PSU could have continued to play Pitt and Cuse after joining the B10, but chose not to. Don’t blame the conference affiliation on it.

      Like

      • Stew says:

        They used to play Maryland too. It all fell apart when PSU started insisting on 6 home games every 10 years even before they joined the B1G.

        Like

    • Bamatab says:

      Didn’t PSU (along with all the other B1G schools) sign over it’s tv rights to the B1G conference for the forseeable future? If that is the case, the ACC wouldn’t want them if they can’t show their games on tv.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Milton,

      How did PSU’s president vote on NE? Just because JoePa and the AD want it doesn’t mean it is right for PSU or the B10.

      It’s not like the B10 has been expanding wildly and just refusing to look east.

      Like

    • Jefferson says:

      Screw SU and Pitt. They screwed with us when Joe proposed the Eastern All Sports Conference and then voted against us. WVU, on the other hand, did not. Neither did Rutgers.

      Like

    • Peter says:

      PSU going anywhere is a non-starter. It would cost them hundreds of millions to buy back their TV rights (if B1G would sell) and bailing on the CIC would be both even more expensive long-term and breach of fiduciary duty.

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Milton, I don’t balme you or PSU from thinking that way. I told anyone who can read that this will be an ongoing issue in the Diminished 10 unless and until PSU actually leaves for the ACC…

      Why WOULDN’T PSU fans and alums want to go there? The majority of the fanbase outside PA is in NY/NJ/MD/and the Atlantic coast. That’s also where the majority of their football recruits are……..

      It was a gigantic blunder for the Smaller 10 to let Missouri go to the SEC.

      With no Missouri available on the west side, the BIG couldn’t add Rutgers at this point even if it wanted to.. There is now no viable 14th school.

      Those of you who have wanted the BIG to be a midwestern team may end up getting your wish. \When PSU eventually leaves for the ACC, we may be looking at KU or Iowa St. as a replacement.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        Penn State isn’t leaving the Big Ten under any circumstances. Look all around State College to see what conference membership has meant for PSU — from the Bryce Jordan Center, to national championships in wrestling and men’s and women’s volleyball, to the research parks that have popped up throughout the area, and the Big Ten has been an academic, athletic and research bonanza for PSU, lifting the university to the top tier of land-grant flagship institutions. More sour grapes from mushroomgod.

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Read the PSU fan forum for the next 5 years or so, then get back with me.

          Like

          • gregenstein says:

            As a PSU fan, I can say there is NFW Penn State leaves the B1G in the next 5 years. Would I rather they have yearly games with Pitt, Syracuse, or even Miami? Yes. But let’s be honest here. Money talks. Until the stadium stops being full for Coastal Carolina and alumni refuse to donate solely because of conference affiliation, we’re in the B1G. People have to stop watching on TV too.

            It’s more likely everyone on this blog gets struck by lightning than the above scenario playing out.

            Like

          • Jefferson says:

            PSU fan here. I have no desire to go to the ACC, which is another basketball-led conference that would have been against PSU. The B1G is imperfect, and I would have preferred independence, but unlike ND, Penn State has a grip on reality.

            Plus, we win bowl games.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Fans can whine all they want, but the fact remains that the Big Ten owns PSU’s TV rights for another decade and half so the school isn’t going any where any time soon.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            “Plus, we win bowl games.”

            —LOL … for the win!

            Like

  24. duffman says:

    Is it all the B1G game plan, and has Delany just won?

    Big East
    Pitt = ACC bound
    Cuse = ACC bound
    WVU = B12 bound
    Uconn = ACC bound ??
    UL = B12 bound
    UC = B12 bound

    Leaving only Rutgers and USF, end of Big East and Notre Dame must jump :

    a) SEC, okay I had to put them in to be fair
    b) PAC, possible, but a huge commute
    c) B12, possible, but I am not sold
    d) ACC, strong possibility
    e) B1G, hummm, 😉

    Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      They’d go to the Big 12 in the olympic sports first.

      They’d go to the ACC over the BIG in all sports, possibly taking PSU with them. In case you haven’t noticed, the Domers hate the BIG’s guts. It’s personal and institutional. ND to the BIG isn’t going to happen.

      Like

  25. joe4psu says:

    add

    Like

  26. Milton Hershey says:

    Delany’s plan will backfire when ND joins the ACC. They will not pick the BiG because they have no East Coast presence outside of PSU.

    Like

    • Bamatab says:

      The B1G could also invite Rutgers to go along with PSU for the east coast presence.

      With that said though, if Delany would’ve grabbed Syracuse and say UCONN before the ACC, then they may have had move leverage with ND at this point in time.

      Like

      • greg says:

        It would have been a gigantic mistake to add Cuse and UConn on the hopes that someday ND might join a conference.

        Like

        • Bamatab says:

          My point was that that PSU and RU would give the B1G some east coast coverage. But if Delany’s (and thus the B1G’s) end game is getting ND, then they should’ve already figured out what ND’s desire regarding their need for east coast coverage is. If PSU and RU isn’t enough, then maybe he should’ve grabbed SU and UConn.

          When all is said and done, I just really don’t see ND staying in the Big East with their remaining schools for all the other non-basketball sports. If that is the case, then Delany should’ve pu the B1G in a position to be the unquestionable choice for ND to go to. That is not the case as it stands now. It appears that ND may desire to have their teams play on the east coast. So the ACC now may surpass the B1G as the top choice. Or does putting the other sports in the non-football Big 12 a more viable option if football can stay independant? Who knows. I just wonder if the lure of the B1G for ND might’ve been greater if they had more east coast teams.

          Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            You’re ignoring the possibility that Delaney & co have in fact done their due diligence in regards to ND’s desires and the lack of offers to Syracuse, Rutgers, UConn is indicative of that fact.

            Like

          • Bamatab says:

            I’m not ignoring that possiblity. My statement was based on the OP’s assumption that ND will join the ACC. I’m not saying that will or won’t happen. All I’m saying is that if that does happen (ND joins the ACC), then Delany did not do his due diligence. Because without SU and Pitt, to go along with BC, there would be no reason for ND to go to the ACC since BC alone wouldn’t be enough of an eastern (or northeastern to be more precise) draw.

            Now if ND ends up keeping its non-football sports in the Big East or moving them to the Big 12, then that would be proof (in my opinion) that Delany did do his due diligence on examining the east coast teams.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            “Because without SU and Pitt, to go along with BC, there would be no reason for ND to go to the ACC since BC alone wouldn’t be enough of an eastern (or northeastern to be more precise) draw.”

            —According to whom?

            Like

          • Bamatab says:

            Scarlet, I’m basing my assumption (all anyone outside of the affected conference offices and athletics departments can do is make guesses and assumptions) on the fact that ND evidently desired to join a conference that was made up of northeastern schools and catholic schools. Since the currently only has one catholic school, I think it is safe to assume that isn’t a reason to join the ACC.

            What reason do you think that ND would have to join the ACC over the B1G?

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            The primary advantage touted by ND is the conference’s focus on undergraduate studies vs research (where the B1G is dominate).

            Syracuse & Pitt don’t break anything new to the ACC in the eyes of ND.

            If everything shakes up to the point where ND is forced to join a conference and IF that conference ends up being the ACC…it won’t have a thing to do with Pitt or Syracuse.

            Like

          • SideshowBob says:

            If the times comes in the future for ND to be willing to join a conference for all sports and they are talking to both the Big Ten and the ACC, why wouldn’t the Big Ten not be able to add 1 (or more) east coast teams at that time? Do you think that Syracuse or Pitt (or Rutgers,or even Maryland, etc.) wouldn’t be interested in joining a Big 10 + Notre Dame conference?

            I don’t get the idea of inviting Syracuse or UConn or whomever in the hopes that someday it will make the Big Ten more appealing to Notre Dame. You don’t invite those complimentary pieces unless Notre Dame is already on board (and demands it).

            Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Agreed……and it’s a gigantic blunder NOT to add Missouri and Rutgers.

          Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        If any of the Big East FB schools provided leverage with ND then the B1G would have offered them. They don’t so the B1G didn’t.

        Like

    • PSUGuy says:

      They can always play others for a “presence”…what kills them joining a conference is their rivalry games and the fact they just won’t be able to play all of them OoC every year and still maintain a “national” schedule.

      ND plays UofM, MSU, Purdue, USC, and Navy every year. With the way the Legends / Leaders divisions are set up ND could join Legends and play UofM and MSU yearly and have Purdue be their “cross division rival” to maintain all their current Big Ten rivals plus add a historic national power to their docket by playing Nebraska and maintain games in Chicago with Northwestern (largest USC v ND game was at Solidier FIeld with 112,000+ in attendance) yearly. That doesn’t even include cycling through PSU / tOSU as far as “national appeal” games go.

      With USC and Navy as yearly OoC you have SoCal and the mid-Atlantic covered, you’d just need to add regular games in the Southwest (*cough*UT*cough*) and north east (BC, UConn or perhaps Cuse in NYC) and throw in home and away’s every so often with Stanford or perhaps Miami/etc to cover the entire map.

      I mean ND says they want a national schedule that proves they are the best, well how can anyone, in any given year, say a schedule of those teams wouldn’t immediate require the Domers going to the National Championship?

      Like

    • curious2 says:

      Re: Delany’s plan (M Hershey)

      Delany talked about the importance of keeping the Big 10’s “DNA” intact and not expanding for expansion sake if it compromises what makes the Big 10 unique. That means to me the Nebraska add was about preserving the midwest culture: adding a large state university that can contribute to the athletic competition, not dilute rivalries and contribute to the financial success of the conference.

      The UT option obviously was explored and went nowhere. If ND wants in, then Delany’s plan works. If ND doesn’t want in, then the Big 10 is still the Big 10 and hasn’t diluted its membership for a school or schools that are not wanted for themselves or for a school that at this point wants to remain independent.

      Like

  27. Brian says:

    BE football really needs to die if this happens.

    Remaining members in 2014:
    Rutgers joined in 1991
    UConn joined in 2004 from I-AA
    UC, UL and USF joined in 2005 from CUSA

    How can that group stick together?

    Like

  28. Milton Hershey says:

    JD didn’t anticipate ESPN advising the ACC on expansion.

    Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      He probably did not anticipate Pitt, WVU, and Rutgers leading the charge to turn down a $1B offer for the football schools either. If the Big East had just taken that, I don’t think we would be in this scenario today.

      Instead ESPN allowed the pro rata increases to the SEC and ACC… which thereby allows a chain reaction of events that lead to 2 Big East schools going directly to the ACC and 2 Big East schools going to the Big XII to replace the 2 departing for the SEC.

      But, really, what IS Delany’s plan? I think it was to simply weigh expansion and make the appropriate decision. Between various 12, 14, and 16 school plans–adding only Nebraska was the winner. I don’t think it was a chess move to line up anything else. I don’t think he has any cards up his sleeves. Maybe Texas or ND will someday be Big 10 schools. However, nobody anywhere really knows what will happen….even him. The move they made was definitely not a loser move. The Big 10 is a winner. Quality over quantity, IMO.

      Like

      • Phil says:

        Pitt, WVU and Rutgers led the charge for keeping Villanova from moving up. Actually, Rutgers, Seton Hall, Georgetown and ND were the only ones that initially voted against the ESPN offer.

        -Since ND is the one school that can legally be talking to another provider (NBC) most people took that as a good sign for where the Big East’s rights were going

        -After the Pac 12 deal became public, it became unanimous to take the next contract to market

        Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        It was a good move going to 12. It is a very bad move not responding to the SEC and ACC going to 14.

        Like

  29. M says:

    The other takeaway from the Big East explosion: Rutgers is not worth anything. The ACC and Big 12 both picked other schools first; why would the Big Ten take sloppy SEConds?

    Also, bad news Frank. You’ve been bumped down a notch on my favorite blogs list:
    http://nderpnation.tumblr.com/

    Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      The SEC is taking B1G sloppy seconds in Missouri.

      The various conferences don’t all have the same needs.

      Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        Just to clarify, despite the content of my last couple of posts I have never advocated for Rutgers to be given membership in the Big Ten.

        Like

  30. imho says:

    This really seems like things are falling into place for Notre Dame to the B1G. Every new development seems to reduce ND’s options and their ability to maintain their sweetheart deal. Remember, Notre Dame is a (NY, Philly, Boston, Chicago, LA) school. That is where their fan base is, that is where they recruit, and that is where they need to play (in all sports). This more or less makes the Big 12 the least attractive option. Unless of course, ND decides to throw ALL of their Olympic sports under the bus… which they very well may do, but I doubt it. Moreover, I agree with Frank, and doubt the Big 12 would go for it.

    Anyway, Notre Dame’s options, in order of preference, are.

    1.) Football Independence with the Big East remaining a viable Home for their Olympic sports.
    2.) Football Independence with the ACC a home for their Olympic Sports.
    3.) Football Independence with the PAC 12 a home for their Olympic Sports
    4.) Full Membership in B1G
    5.) Full Membership in ACC
    6.) Full Membership in PAC 12
    ?.) Anything relating to Big 12

    We know (1) is teetering by a thread. It’s a fact that ND is starting to feel nervous about the Big East (and this was before the WVU news). It’s more or less documented that they where negotiating to move their Olympic sports to the ACC (2). Unfortunately for ND, the ACC was forced to publicly decline by reaffirming that equal revenue sharing and all-in are non-negotiable. (3) is never going to happen either, as the PAC 12 wouldn’t even make that deal with Texas.

    If ND is forced to completely join a conference (as is looking more and more likely), it’s a no-brainer that ND + Rutgers to the B1G makes more sense than the ACC or PAC 12… The three most popular teams in NY are ND, PSU, and Rutgers, and the B1G already owns Philly and Chicago. That would be 3 of the top 5 markets in the Country! The ACC can offer nothing even remotely close to that. Neither can the Pac 12.

    The only chance ND has is to hope ESPN shifts course 180 degrees and decides to save the Big East instead of destroying them… fat chance!

    Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      I think you underestimate the Big XII option.

      For Olympic sports (and basketball, which is an Olympic sport too, of course… so, not sure why I have this parenthetical)…. compare the BIg XII to the Big East. The Big East is about to become the JV team to the Big XII. Houston, SMU, ECU, UCF, Boise St., Air Force. Not like these schools are NE based at all. While the Catholic schools remain urban based, especially in the NE…. there is a huge dilution in NE exposure. So when comparing the Big East as it will be to the Big XII, as it could be, the geography starts to even out.

      And if you factor in that the Big XII could certainly offer ND a partial football schedule. Yeah, ND probably does not want to play Iowa St. But they just played Tulsa. It’s not impossible. Plus, if the emerging conference realignment makes quality opponents harder to find for late in the season, the Tulsa’s are going to be more common.

      If the ACC or Big 10 offered ND a way to keep football all or partially out, ND would certainly jump at that. But a partial partnership with the Big XII is an improvement over the Big East… which might outweigh having to be a full member of the ACC or Big 10.

      And from the Big XII perspective… who cares? If they are going to 12, better to do it with ND + than Lville +. If the + is BYU, all the better. The Big XII would be 1/3 private.

      Like

      • imho says:

        Yea man, I agree that ND would jump at a partial from the B1G or the ACC… but it ain’t gonna’ ever happen.

        And your first argument about the dilution of the Big East as an Eastern Conference is actually a reason why ND’s preferred number 1 option is teetering by a thread.

        Also, I could be underestimating the Big 12 option. But consider this, Notre Dame’s regular students come from the East & West Coasts + Chicago. Their Olympic sports recruits come from the East & West Coasts + Chicago. ND really can’t have their Olympic sports (unofficial marketing arm) running around Oklahoma and Kansas. Is that really a better option than locking down 3 of the top 5 national markets, increasing your athletic revenue, and joining an academic conference arguably more prestigious than the Ivy League. Moreover, I wouldn’t be so sure, the Big 12 is willing to give ND special treatment, when Texas just gave up equal revenue, etc.

        Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          imho – I’m guessing that UTx is behind the NC-to-BigXII-2-1+1-1?+1 for all sports but football, as a precedent setter.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            That might be why the rest of the schools would veto that option.

            I mean if you’re Iowa State or Kansas State, do you really want to give Texas a backdoor exit?

            Like

          • Brian #2 says:

            Zeek, what makes you think ISU, KSU, or anyone else will vote against what UT wants? It is now more obvious than ever that the horns say jump and the dwarves ask how high.

            Like

    • imho says:

      The real question here may be if it makes sense for the B1G to also try for Maryland. ND+Rutgers is a no-brainer, but is Maryland enough to deliver the DC market. I sorta doubt it as the B1G probably would have already invited them if that was the case.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Most people say Virginia Tech is the dominant force in D.C. right now, although Maryland probably delivers some of that market. UVA is obviously a factor due to proximity, although I’d guess that Virginia Tech has really surged past them in the Beamer era.

        The split is probably in favor of Va Tech though…

        Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          I live in the Maryland side of the DC area. Maryland is still the preferred college school in the area (though my PSU is easily #2).

          VT has more push on the Virginia side of the Beltway (again I’d say my PSU is probably #2).

          Though both those observations are just that…my observations with no real data behind them.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            Maryland in the Big Ten would be an entirely different animal than Maryland in the ACC, a conference with virtually no football brand. Football recruiting in College Park would improve dramatically, and attendance at Byrd Stadium would skyrocket, probably leading to its expansion.

            Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            vp19,

            You keep saying that football attendance at Maryland would skyrocket if it was in the Big Ten, but I don’t understand what makes you so sure. Maryland has ALWAYS had low attendance; as a matter of fact, Maryland had about 20,000 empty seats for the Maryland-NC State, the last game of a very strong season by Md’s standards. They’re not selling games out for FSU, Virginia Tech, or Clemson today. They weren’t selling out against FSU’s great teams in the 90’s. A lot of Maryland’s ticket-selling woes are related to a lack of success on the field, but again, even a winning product has trouble attracting fans. Why would Maryland fans suddenly show up to watch Maryland mostly lose just because the big names change from Florida State and Virginia Tech to Ohio State and Penn State?

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Because ACC football has next to no pizzazz or allure, particularly in a pro-oriented area such as Washington/Baltimore, whereas the Big Ten has more than its share. It’s a far different market than the Research Triangle.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Michael,

            The large number of B10 alumni in the area might help, especially compared to FSU or Clemson. There’s no good excuse for VT.

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            @Michael
            Indiana had a “home” game in FedEx field in DC vs PSU a year back and they had a pretty packed stadium.

            If the Big Ten regularly came ot Maryland I can almost guarantee that stadium would be packed with all the Big Ten transplants living in the area.

            Like

      • imho says:

        But don’t forget that PSU is a top 3 School in the DC Market. So it becomes a PSU+MD proposition.

        BTW, and off topic. This is why PSU is the B1G’s more valuable school, and one of the most valuable schools in the country. Completely Deliver the Philly and Pittsburgh Market. Top 3 in NY/NJ, DC/VA

        Like

        • greg says:

          BTN does not receive in-state carraige rates in Philly, so I don’t think you can say PSU “completely delivers” it.

          Like

          • SideshowBob says:

            Because Comcast is based in Philly, dominates that market, and made it their point in negotiation to get a favorable deal for there. I don’t think it has anything to do with PSU not “delivering” Philadelphia, where they are far and away the most popular college football team and routinely get regular media coverage.

            Like

  31. zeek says:

    Honestly, I think Chip Brown’s sources are way off on this.

    ND only has to leave the Big East if the comprehensive athletic departments like Louisville and UConn leave. But they’re not really going anywhere.

    As long as the Big East can get back to 12, why should ND leave? ND’s basketball program and non-football sports need to remain there for access to their fanbase and recruiting grounds.

    It’s hard to see why ND cares what the membership of the Big East is as long as there are some Northeast football anchors (comprehensive sports programs) and a viable conference in general.

    Whether the Big East has BCS is irrelevant to ND.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      I think he might be hearing what Big 12 sources are pushing for, but has little idea about what’s actually going on in the Notre Dame administration. They might be considering it and negotiating, but this would never pass the alumni test if more than 3-4 games are involved in my opinion (and even that would significantly alter their schedules if they are going to continue hitting the 7-4-1 model).

      Like

  32. Eric says:

    Assuming no playoff for a moment, I’ve been wondering about how the BCS might transform even if Boise State were to say no to the Big East for some reason. This idea occurred to me and might be something they’d try which would technically eliminate the AQ labels (eliminating a little criticism), but practically give the power conferences the same/more power.

    1. AQs are eliminated, but any conference champion of any conference (including all current non-AQs) is automatically eligible for a BCS bowl if the bowl wants them. The 4 bowls will have the opportunity to take their champion(s) first if they wish too (or a replacement if they lose the opportunity to take one to the national championship game).

    2. The 6 highest ranked champions (again regardless of conference) are guaranteed a spot each year. For instance, 2 years ago, both Boise State and TCU would have been in automatically as they were in the top 6.

    3. Other rules regarding places stay if effect (top 4 make it regardless, selection order, and likely number of possible bids per conference).

    4. Greater money (current AQ money) given to the 5 conferences (Big Ten, ACC, PAC-12, SEC, and Big 12) that provide the bowl games. Rest is divided partly to all conferences and partly based on appearance (basically same as now).

    In effect this wouldn’t have a terribly big effect on things, but it would eliminate the AQ tag officially, provide a way to downgrade the Big East while not really taking its spot most years, and simplify things somewhat (no top 14 or 17 for the non-AQs).

    Like

  33. OT says:

    I would love to see the ACC attempt to decapitate the Big East by inviting Rutgers this weekend.

    (Rutgers vs Louisville drew more viewers than Syracuse vs West Virginia last Friday, both in the New York market and across the nation.)

    That would leave 1 spot available in the ACC.

    Notre Dame would then hold the college football world hostage, as Notre Dame will have to decide: ACC, B1G, XII, or Big East?

    (UCONN would be ACC’s backup for the 16th team if Notre Dame were to pass on the ACC.)

    Like

    • curious2 says:

      Re: additional ACC expansion (OT)

      Conference expansion is about calculation and consensus. I believe ACC was a major winner adding SU and Pitt, becoming a north-south coastal conference.

      But my guess is they want to consolidate their additions, create acceptable divisions that promote conference integration, including playing 9 game schedules.

      The SEC is apparently going to add Missouri as team 14; the Big 10 is apparently staying as is; the Big East with the loss of WVU is likely to have only RU and UConn as core northeast state schools.

      Personally I would like to see the ACC immediately add RU as you suggest. It would consolidate their northeast footprint. But I doubt that is the way they are likely to go.

      Re: Friday’s game and national ratings:

      Net Time Viewership (million, Live+SD) Adults 18-49 rating (Live+SD
      SU vs. WVU ESPN 8:00 PM 2.210 0.7
      RU vs UL ESPN2 8:00 PM 1.472 0.4

      http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/10/24/friday-cable-ratings-smackdown-ties-spongebob-plus-sanctuary-boss-house-of-payne-more/108154/

      I really wonder when the BB schools say enough; do they really want Houston and SMU and UCF added to USF as all sports teams? Apparently ND as chair of the expansion committee wants to preserve the football side of the conference, but it seems like a geographical hodgepodge with little long term future.

      Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        People are placing WAY too much importance on the ratings of those two games.

        Like

        • Phil says:

          Actually, I think they say a lot. Syracuse’s national rating of 0.7 was the same as their rating in the NYC market. Rutgers, who was on ESPN2 without the benefit of playing a ranked opponent got a 0.4 national but a 1.45 in the NY market.

          I think that fits the truth about both schools.

          -Nationally, fans remember enough about the previous success of Syracuse that they have a good brand, but the NYC interest in Syracuse is completely overstated.

          -Rutgers fans are not delusional when they try to sell RU’s support in the NYC market, but their lack of any sports success in the last 3 decades means that right now they are a non-entity on the national scene.

          Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Give me several years of Rutgers ratings along with accompanying NY numbers for other schools and then we’ll talk.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            To add…that doesn’t mean Rutgers can’t generate interest within the city only that the results of a limited number of games taken out of context doesn’t prove much of anything either way.

            Like

          • Phil says:

            How about the other statistic in the articles from Friday’s games, that of the top 5 NYC rated ESPN college games and the top 5 NYC rated ESPN2 games, Rutgers was involved in 9 of the 10 games? is that context enough for you??

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Phil you don’t seem to understand what ‘context’ is. Talking about a limited number of data points without being able to see the entire body of data is essentially meaningless.

            What games are normally shown on ESPN/ESPN2 in NYC? If ESPN’s lineup is normally weak then being at the top of it doesn’t mean a whole lot.

            How often does Rutgers get Tier 1 coverage in the city? How do those games do when compared against other programs in similar time slots?

            The original intent of the story was more geared towards “Syracuse is less popular in NY than Rutgers”, that certainly may be true but it is also very different than “Rutgers can deliver NYC”.

            Hell I believe Maryland is closer to NYC than Syracuse is.

            Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            The question is this… what is MORE important to a network for monetizing its inventory?

            If .7 nationally = 2 million viewers… would it matter if the NYC audience did not care at all?

            If .4 nationally = 1.5 million viewers… would it matter if the NYC audience is responsible for .3 of that .4?

            I don’t know the answer. I don’t run a cable network.

            How does a 1.45 in NYC compare to a Penn State game in NYC?

            Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            Let me state it another way. Do these ratings add to the Big 10’s confidence that it can get basic cable with Rutgers? Or would they need to see a 5 rating to feel comfortable?

            Also, if it is just ratings… why isn’t basketball more valuable? If you get a 2.0 in February, why is that more or less valuable than a 2.0 in October?

            Like

          • Phil says:

            Scarlet-

            I’m not sure why you are making this so complicated. The only football games that ESPN does not show nationally are the mirror games Sat 3:30 (meaning ESPN and ESPN2 are showing the 2nd and 3rd most attractive games in NY) and Sat 8:00 (ESPN2 is a national game but ESPN sometimes has an ABC mirror so it is the 2nd best game).

            Out of all of the ESPN games shown in NYC, RU was involved in 4 of the top 5 and ESPN2 games RU was involved in 5 of the top 5. I guess I am too used to reading how the Big Ten doesn’t need RU because they are always on TV in NYC anyway to now understand why you downplay RU as if they are just beating out a bunch of Columbia-Penn games.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            I’m not making it complicated at all. It is very simple.

            Small data sets are great for people who have an agenda that matches but they are completely useless when you want accurate information upon which to base long term decisions.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            @EZCUSE

            These numbers show how poor of a college football market NYC is in general.

            If Rutgers or Syracuse or some combination could regularly pull in high single digit shares on Tier 1, then it’d be worth considering, but they can’t.

            5 highest ESPN ratings in NYC: That list is headed by Rutgers-Louisville in 2006, which drew an 8.1 rating, and includes Rutgers-West Virginia in 2006 (6.04); USC-Ohio State in 2009 (3.74); Rutgers-Cincinnati in 2006 (3.62) and South Florida Rutgers in 2007 (3.35).

            Let’s just put it this way; say there are 22M in the NYC media market. Around 300k were watching Rutgers-Louisville (probably mostly from northern NJ), and 140-150k were watching Syracuse-WVU (probably from the boroughs).

            That’s really not that many people.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Phil, I’ve lived in quite a few areas, and metro NYC has by far the lowest interest in college football, particularly if Notre Dame isn’t involved. There’s simply no college football culture in New York, and there hasn’t been any since NYU and Fordham dropped or de-emphasized football after World War II and Lou Little led Columbia to occasional glory (a Rose Bowl upset of Stanford, beating Army in ’47). Saying Rutgers has the highest ESPN ratings in college football in NYC — with ratings numbers that probably aren’t comparable to those drawn in other markets — is essentially saying it’s the tallest of midgets.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Scarlet_Lutefisk,

            Phil you don’t seem to understand what ‘context’ is. Talking about a limited number of data points without being able to see the entire body of data is essentially meaningless.

            What games are normally shown on ESPN/ESPN2 in NYC? If ESPN’s lineup is normally weak then being at the top of it doesn’t mean a whole lot.

            That’s not true. The top 5 of several hundred data points is significant. How significant depends on how much lower the other ratings were, but 4 of 5 and 5 of 5 is not a fluke. NYC will have gotten every 12:00 B10 game and all the reverse mirrors of 3:30 B10 games that weren’t on ABC in NYC. They also would have a bunch of BE and ACC games not to mention all the SEC games.

            Sure, the top games were probably from those few years when Rutgers was pretty good, but consistently making the top 5 is pretty good. I take two things from this data:
            1. NYC is a bad CFB market
            2. Rutgers does pretty well in that market compared to other schools, especially for being so bad most of the time

            Like

          • Brian says:

            EZCUSE,

            The question is this… what is MORE important to a network for monetizing its inventory?

            If .7 nationally = 2 million viewers… would it matter if the NYC audience did not care at all?

            If .4 nationally = 1.5 million viewers… would it matter if the NYC audience is responsible for .3 of that .4?

            It depends on the network. More total viewers boosts ad revenue. More viewers in NYC means a chance to get more subscribers for the BTN (they already get ESPN), which would be a major source of revenue.

            How does a 1.45 in NYC compare to a Penn State game in NYC?

            http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/10/23/tv-ratings-saturday-rangerscardinals-world-series-game-3-leads-fox-win-tops-usc-notre-dame-texas-tech-oklahoma/108121/

            Don’t have that data. Here’s a national comparison to the national games this weekend, though:

            ND/USC – 0.8 rating (18-49), 2.6+ M total viewers
            TT/OU – 0.7, 2.2+ M viewers
            SU/WVU – 0.7, 2.2+ M
            RU/UL – 0.4, 1.47 M

            Clearly WV is a bigger national draw than Rutgers or UL, but RU won handily in NYC apparently. Combining RU with a national draw could do well.

            Let me state it another way. Do these ratings add to the Big 10′s confidence that it can get basic cable with Rutgers? Or would they need to see a 5 rating to feel comfortable?

            I doubt it changes the B10’s opinion much. I’m sure they already looked at ratings data. I’m not sure how large of a number would be needed to get the BTN on expanded basic in NYC, but that would be the B10’s concern.

            Also, if it is just ratings… why isn’t basketball more valuable? If you get a 2.0 in February, why is that more or less valuable than a 2.0 in October?

            CFB pulls much higher ratings than MBB. That’s why it’s more valuable. Only a few MBB games draw decent ratings (Duke/UNC, etc). The top CFB games pull huge numbers.

            Like

          • Phil says:

            Scarlet-

            Every college football game EVER shown on ESPN and ESPN2 in the New York media market is a small data set?

            At roughly 6 Sat games and 2 weeknight games per week for a 13 week college season, that is approximately 1000 games just in the last 10 years.

            Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            “NYC is a bad CFB market.”

            If that’s the case, maybe it just needs to be discounted as a market worth striving for.

            “Rutgers does pretty well in that market compared to other schools, especially for being so bad most of the time.”

            Compared to what other schools? Syracuse? A private school located 400+ miles away that hasn’t been to a BCS bowl since the 1990s and went through a 10-37 stretch under Greg Robinson that caused it to fall completely off the map? How many more graduates has Rutgers churned out in the last 50 years? Probably 2 to 1. Plus, how many of those graduates merely have to stay in the market… whereas Syracuse grades have to move to the NYC market. Shouldn’t Rutgers have had a 5 to 1 or 10 to 1 edge?

            After all, some could argue that Rutgers is a football school and Syracuse is a basketball school. So in Rutgers “best” sport and Syracuse’s second-best sport, Rutgers could only double Syracuse.

            I am not even sure if there is any other example of such an utter failure of a university to capture its home market relative to a private college that, while in-state, is 400 miles away. Maybe an Indiana-ND basketball matchup in Indianapolis? Maybe Stanford/UCLA in a head-to-head football matchup in Los Angeles? Struggling to think of any others.

            Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            Rutgers has 42k undergrad. Syracuse has about 14k. It is almost exactly 3 to 1.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            I’m with EZCUSE on this.

            All this shows is that Rutgers has something like a 10 to 1 advantage in terms of alumni in the NYC media market, since that’s where most of its alumni go and it produces significantly more.

            The problem is (and this is why NYC is a bad cfb market), is that you can’t really monetize that market enough probably.

            The Yankees struggled for carriage. Odds that any kind of conference network would get carriage in NYC are low.

            Odds go up a bit with ND and Penn State. Add Rutgers or UConn for placement of teams and the odds might go up slightly.

            That’s really what we’re talking about… not enough people consistently care enough in NYC to draw big ratings. Chicago or Atlanta draw way higher ratings for college football. It’s probably not even close.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            EZCUSE,

            “NYC is a bad CFB market.”

            If that’s the case, maybe it just needs to be discounted as a market worth striving for.

            It’s too large to be discounted, but I have never advocated for adding RU except maybe as a complement to ND.

            “Rutgers does pretty well in that market compared to other schools, especially for being so bad most of the time.”

            Compared to what other schools?

            All other schools. Who else has been that bad and can still pull that rating in NYC?

            Syracuse? A private school located 400+ miles away that hasn’t been to a BCS bowl since the 1990s and went through a 10-37 stretch under Greg Robinson that caused it to fall completely off the map? How many more graduates has Rutgers churned out in the last 50 years? Probably 2 to 1. Plus, how many of those graduates merely have to stay in the market… whereas Syracuse grades have to move to the NYC market. Shouldn’t Rutgers have had a 5 to 1 or 10 to 1 edge?

            Feel free to get off your Syracuse high horse. I didn’t say RU doesn’t have good reasons to do better than SU in NYC, I just commented on the fact that they did do better. Not every comment about RU is intended as a put down of SU.

            After all, some could argue that Rutgers is a football school and Syracuse is a basketball school. So in Rutgers “best” sport and Syracuse’s second-best sport, Rutgers could only double Syracuse.

            Who on earth would call RU a FB school? They aren’t a FB or MBB school. They may put more emphasis on FB than MBB, but they don’t emphasize either enough to count.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            zeek,

            I’m with EZCUSE on this.

            I don’t think you are, at least not based on what you wrote here.

            All this shows is that Rutgers has something like a 10 to 1 advantage in terms of alumni in the NYC media market, since that’s where most of its alumni go and it produces significantly more.

            Nobody said there weren’t good reasons for RU to do better than SU.

            The problem is (and this is why NYC is a bad cfb market), is that you can’t really monetize that market enough probably.

            The Yankees struggled for carriage. Odds that any kind of conference network would get carriage in NYC are low.

            Odds go up a bit with ND and Penn State. Add Rutgers or UConn for placement of teams and the odds might go up slightly.

            That’s really what we’re talking about… not enough people consistently care enough in NYC to draw big ratings. Chicago or Atlanta draw way higher ratings for college football. It’s probably not even close.

            Nobody was arguing this point either.

            Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            Syracuse high horse? Just talking about Rutgers. It is NJ.com that is ecstatic about Rutgers carrying its local market relative to Syracuse. Unfortunately, the more you look at those stats, you realize that it is an apples to oranges (no pun intended) comparison. If Rutgers carried “its market,” it would crush EVERY other college EVERY week. Are they even outside the margin of error on this past week’s games?

            Regardless, what other state flagship school in the country needs to boast about carrying its local market? The fact that this is even debate is reason enough for it not to matter.

            Rutgers has had football longer than anyone else. What the excuse there? Rutgers’ “market” is a basketball hotbed. They haven’t been to the Big Dance since 1991.

            This isn’t about Syracuse. It’s all about Rutgers.

            Like

          • EZCUSE says:

            “They may put more emphasis on FB than MBB, but they don’t emphasize either enough to count.”

            What else is there? Why on Earth would the Big 10 or ACC take Rutgers if they don’t sufficiently emphasize either revenue-generating sport? We are talking athletic conferences here.

            At least UConn tries. They just moved up to FBS a few years ago and they already got Notre Dame and Michigan on the schedule. Before they joined the Big East for football, they scheduled Va Tech and Miami for OOC games. And obviously UConn takes its hoops seriously. Seems like they are sufficiently emphasizing the revenue-generating sports.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            EZCUSE,

            Syracuse high horse? Just talking about Rutgers.

            No, you weren’t. Half of your comment was comparing RU to SU and proclaiming how much better SU was than RU by comparison.

            It is NJ.com that is ecstatic about Rutgers carrying its local market relative to Syracuse.

            How dare a local media source focus on the local school?

            This isn’t about Syracuse. It’s all about Rutgers.

            Then perhaps you should stop comparing RU to SU and how well each does in NYC versus the difficulties they face there.

            “They may put more emphasis on FB than MBB, but they don’t emphasize either enough to count.”

            What else is there?

            There is not being a sports school. To be a CFB or MBB school, you have to make a concerted effort to be good at it, you have to emphasize one over the other, and your fans have to care much more about one than the other. I don’t see how RU qualifies since they haven’t really tried to be good at either and their fans don’t seem to care that much about either..

            Why on Earth would the Big 10 or ACC take Rutgers if they don’t sufficiently emphasize either revenue-generating sport? We are talking athletic conferences here.

            First, neither one has taken RU. Second, there is no obvious sign that either is looking to add RU. The reasons they would consider it are RU’s academics/research and state flagship status, NJ’s large population and access to the NYC market.

            At least UConn tries. They just moved up to FBS a few years ago and they already got Notre Dame and Michigan on the schedule. Before they joined the Big East for football, they scheduled Va Tech and Miami for OOC games. And obviously UConn takes its hoops seriously. Seems like they are sufficiently emphasizing the revenue-generating sports.

            And now you throw another school into it. For it being all about Rutgers, you sure talk a lot about other schools.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            Brian:

            Here are my first two posts:

            • EZCUSE says:
            October 26, 2011 at 11:09 am
            The question is this… what is MORE important to a network for monetizing its inventory?
            If .7 nationally = 2 million viewers… would it matter if the NYC audience did not care at all?
            If .4 nationally = 1.5 million viewers… would it matter if the NYC audience is responsible for .3 of that .4?
            I don’t know the answer. I don’t run a cable network.
            How does a 1.45 in NYC compare to a Penn State game in NYC?

            • EZCUSE says:
            October 26, 2011 at 11:17 am
            Let me state it another way. Do these ratings add to the Big 10′s confidence that it can get basic cable with Rutgers? Or would they need to see a 5 rating to feel comfortable?
            Also, if it is just ratings… why isn’t basketball more valuable? If you get a 2.0 in February, why is that more or less valuable than a 2.0 in October?

            Do I mention Syracuse or UConn there? No.

            In my third post, a sentence stating–“Syracuse? A private school located 400+ miles away that hasn’t been to a BCS bowl since the 1990s and went through a 10-37 stretch under Greg Robinson that caused it to fall completely off the map?”–is somehow described as being on a Syracuse high horse? If I wanted to criticize Syracuse, that’s a good place to start.

            Stating that Rutgers graduates more people and that those people are located closer to NYC is being on a Syracuse high horse? Mentioning that Rutgers should have had a 10-1 edge over Syracuse is being on a Syracuse high horse? Syracuse’s rating was low too. The issue is that Rutgers’ rating was DOWN near Syracuse’s level. That’s not pumping Syracuse, that’s talking about Rutgers.

            Look at it this way. Boston College has 1 win. Duke has 3. You could make a bar graph showing Duke with a large win advantage over Boston College. But it is meaningless. You need to compare it to everything else. With 24 teams already bowl eligible, Duke has accomplished very little.

            Similarly, suggesting that Rutgers has fallen behind UConn in national prominence is, again, a focus on Rutgers’ failings. That’s not a UConn high horse. UConn has a long way to go too. Returning to the Duke/BC analogy… BC being worse than Duke–who is already well behind the pack–is a comment on BC, even though it indirectly comments on Duke. If you hit below the Mendoza line in baseball, that is disparaging to Mario Mendoza, but far more so on Rutgers. So your suggestion that these comments did not focus on Rutgers is inaccurate.

            The whole point in all of this was whether Rutgers’ ratings (regardless of whether you want to focus in on it in terms such as “RU won handily in NYC apparently”) this past weekend is something that would contribute to the overall impression of Rutgers or detract from it. The only “win” would have been in its head-to-head with Syracuse. My position is that focusing on the edge detracts from the bigger picture, which may very well be that NOBODY comes anywhere close to carrying NYC. That’s hardly pro-anybody. If it is anti-Rutgers, so be it.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            acaffrey,

            Here are my first two posts:

            [deleted for brevity]

            Do I mention Syracuse or UConn there? No.

            And that would be completely relevant if I didn’t already respond to those comments separately. My response that you objected to quoted you, so you know exactly which comment it was in response to.

            Stating that Rutgers graduates more people and that those people are located closer to NYC is being on a Syracuse high horse?

            When it’s used to denigrate Rutgers, yes.

            Mentioning that Rutgers should have had a 10-1 edge over Syracuse is being on a Syracuse high horse?

            Of course it is. You weren’t discussing the merits of SU, nor was your hypothesized ratio supported by facts. You were trying to make RU look bad despite pulling a better rating in NYC than SU. It’s understandable from a SU fan/alum, but don’t deny it.

            The whole point in all of this was whether Rutgers’ ratings (regardless of whether you want to focus in on it in terms such as “RU won handily in NYC apparently”) this past weekend is something that would contribute to the overall impression of Rutgers or detract from it.

            I directly answered that question in an earlier comment, before you brought SU into the discussion. It wasn’t the whole point in this comment of yours.

            The only “win” would have been in its head-to-head with Syracuse.

            Yes, because you brought up SU. Many people have speculated over the past year or two on which schools could pull the best ratings in NYC. A lot of people have said SU would be the favorite local school (others mentioned RU, ND, PSU). Someone earlier posted the NYC ratings from the weekend that allowed a comparison of RU to SU (as well as the comments about RU having 9 of the top 10 games in ESPN and ESPN2 history in NYC). Sure it was just one night, but it was 2 BE games at the same time on similar networks. SU had the better opponent, too. That’s about the closest you’ll ever come to a level playing field for making such a comparison. It isn’t a value judgment of either school, just data.

            Are there reasons why RU should outdraw SU in NYC? Yes.

            Are there also reasons why SU should outdraw RU in NYC? Yes.

            Did either pull an impressive number in those games? Not really.

            Can either school clearly carry the NYC market? No.

            Would either school do better in the NYC market if they were in the B10? Yes.

            Would either school do better in the NYC market if they were playing a B10 king? Yes.

            Would either school do better in the NYC market if they were playing ND? Yes.

            My position is that focusing on the edge detracts from the bigger picture, which may very well be that NOBODY comes anywhere close to carrying NYC.

            Nobody has been arguing that point, with the possible exception of a good ND team. NYC is not a strong CFB market. But you don’t need to carry NYC like you do a smaller market to make it valuable. RU provides closer proximity to NYC (good for B10 alumni in the NYC area) and Philadelphia. The recent data says they might pull better ratings than SU in NYC. The combo of RU and ND might do better than SU and ND in NYC. It’s not clear whether RU or SU would bring more cable subscribers for the BTN. NYC ratings and local BTN subscribers are important because ND would provide the national boost by itself. RU is also a closer fit academically in terms of research focus and being a state flagship while SU brings a powerful MBB program that is much more popular in NYC than RU’s. These are considerations for the B10 office when looking for a potential expansion complement for ND. Most people here aren’t advocating for adding RU without ND (some are, so feel free to argue with them).

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            Fine, if my main point was not in dispute, why are you debating it?

            The real reason is that the main point is problematic for Rutgers. I get that Rutgers could be the extra point for a Notre Dame touchdown. Wouldn’t UConn be that too? A lot of schools could have been the extra point.

            If Rutgers wants to demonstrate its local prowess, it needs to do so at the expense of UConn. Where are the stats on that? Relying on perceived superiority to Syracuse–who has a new home now–is pointless. But that is what Rutgers and, apparently, you are hanging your hat on.
            I think that is a questionable strategy.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            As I rest up for my trip to Tuscaloosa next week for the biggest regular season game in SEC history, it will be nice to watch some of the other teams this weekend.

            There are only two match-ups this weekend featuring two top 25 teams.

            #9 Oklahoma at #8 K-State
            #11 Michigan State at #14 Nebraska

            Other interesting games featuring a top 25 team against a potentially difficult opponent include:

            Baylor (4-2) at #3 Oklahoma State
            #5 Clemson at Georgia Tech (6-2)
            #6 Stanford at USC (6-1)
            #10 Arkansas at Vandy (4-3)
            #15 Wisconsin at Ohio State (4-3)
            Purdue (4-3) at #18 Michigan
            Illinois (6-2) at #19 Penn State
            #22 Georgia v. Florida (4-3) at Jacksonville, FL
            #25 West Virginia at Rutgers (5-2)

            Like

          • Brian says:

            acaffrey,

            Fine, if my main point was not in dispute, why are you debating it?

            That may have been your main point in your head, but it wasn’t the main point in the comment I responded to. I haven’t been debating the desirability of RU with you, and I have pointed that out several times.

            The real reason is that the main point is problematic for Rutgers. I get that Rutgers could be the extra point for a Notre Dame touchdown. Wouldn’t UConn be that too? A lot of schools could have been the extra point.

            That would make a lot of sense if I had ever advocated for the B10 adding RU without ND, but I haven’t. I just critiqued your argument of denigrating RU to make SU look better.

            And no, UConn is not as likely to be a complement to ND for the B10 in my opinion. RU is the better academic fit and NJ borders PA while CT is quite isolated from the B10. PSU would benefit more from RU than UConn, too.

            If Rutgers wants to demonstrate its local prowess, it needs to do so at the expense of UConn. Where are the stats on that?

            I’d say RU should prove it relative to SU and UConn, plus ND and the B10 kings. RU being in 9 of the top 10 ESPN family games in NYC is a stat that applies to both UConn and SU. I don’t have head to head ratings data for RU and UConn in NYC, but maybe someone else does. Nielsen, and thus the conferences, probably do have that data (if it exists at all).

            Relying on perceived superiority to Syracuse–who has a new home now–is pointless.

            I’d agree, but I don’t think anyone really is relying on that. It may have been an early consideration when looking at expansion candidates, but it’s hardly the only factor for choosing between SU and RU.

            But that is what Rutgers and, apparently, you are hanging your hat on. I think that is a questionable strategy.

            Please show me where RU has ever mentioned its strength in NYC ratings relative to SU. Show me where I have advocated for RU, too. I don’t want either RU or SU and never have, but if forced to choose a school near NYC I’d take RU every time. I don’t think that counts as advocating for RU. Their athletics stink, but I think they are a better fit than SU or UConn and would work better with PSU and ND. Based on my knowledge of NYC as a CFB market, I’d rather take MD than RU if they were available. I think MO is the best fit, but PSU really wants an eastern partner and ND would also want one.

            My preference (as a complement to ND if that ever happens):
            1.MD 2.RU 3.MO 4.SU 5.UConn

            However, I don’t think MD is available and MO won’t be once they join the SEC. That makes it just the three BE schools, so RU is my favorite of the bunch.

            I wouldn’t expand just to take two of those five, though.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            “Every college football game EVER shown on ESPN and ESPN2 in the New York media market is a small data set?”

            —In a vacuum without looking at exactly which games have been shown, how they compare to other markets and to games on other outlets within the NYC? Yes it is an incomplete & useless data set. I’m sorry if I don’t find the cherry picking of a few metrics to be overly compelling.

            The Oklahoma vs Texas Tech game got bumped to ESPN2 due to a weather delay & drew a 2.2 nationally…and that was tied for the worst rating ever when compared to the standard ABC Sat night slot. And we’re supposed to be impressed with Rutgers 1.45? No thanks.

            Like

          • Morgan Wick says:

            I think West Virginia popped that SU-WV national rating more than Syracuse. Personally, I see Syracuse as a basketball school and nothing else.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          Scarlet_Lutefisk,

          “Every college football game EVER shown on ESPN and ESPN2 in the New York media market is a small data set?”

          —In a vacuum without looking at exactly which games have been shown, how they compare to other markets and to games on other outlets within the NYC? Yes it is an incomplete & useless data set. I’m sorry if I don’t find the cherry picking of a few metrics to be overly compelling.

          You are conflating different arguments, and are pretending to answer his question while not actually answering it.

          He asked if you considered that a small data set. You answered yes, but go on to describe it as incomplete and useless. Those are all separate issues.

          1. Size of data set
          2. Accuracy of data
          3. Range of variables covered

          He asked about 1 and you talked about 3.

          A more proper answer from you might be:
          “No, it isn’t a small data set. However, most top games and good games with top teams are on broadcast networks instead of the ESPN family, so it is not as broad a statement on RU’s popularity in NYC as it might seem at first blush. In addition, TV ratings are hjghly dependent on the competition at that time. RU’s top rated games may not have faced the same level of athletic competition as most other games. Night games don’t face as much opposition as Saturday afternoon games, for example. Plus, being the top BE game that week might draw more fans than being the fourth best B10 game that week. There are a lot of factors that have to be considered to fairly evaluate the popularity of each individual school in the NYC market, and I’m not convinced a simple list of ratings is sufficient.”

          That would be a well reasoned argument that doesn’t deny the numbers but tries to provide a broader context for interpreting them.

          One thing I think you, among others, are doing is confusing the small issue with the broader issue. RU topped SU in NYC ratings when playing simultaneous games on similar networks, and SU had the better opponent. This is one piece of evidence that perhaps RU is more popular than SU for CFB in NYC, which is all most people have been claiming.

          The bigger issue is whether the ratings would justify the B10 expanding to add RU by itself. That’s a clear no. The total rating in NYC was low, and even the top RU ratings aren’t great. Whether RU or SU bring more cable subscribers in their respective states is anybody’s guess. NYC isn’t a strong CFB market, and none of the local teams are prominent enough to carry it. However, if the B10 was intent on aiming for the NYC market and added ND (presumably the most important school for gaining NYC market share), the data support potentially choosing RU as the other team (they help in NYC as well as coupling with PSU in NJ and Philly). Chasing the NYC market without ND is pure folly, and even with them it is probably a pipe dream to get the BTN on expanded basic there. That’s why I prefer MD as the other team, since they would also work well with PSU and it is a better CFB market. I don’t think MD is available, though, so I end up at RU.

          The Oklahoma vs Texas Tech game got bumped to ESPN2 due to a weather delay & drew a 2.2 nationally…and that was tied for the worst rating ever when compared to the standard ABC Sat night slot. And we’re supposed to be impressed with Rutgers 1.45? No thanks.

          I don’t think people were expecting you to be impressed with the number. I think they were expecting you to notice and perhaps be surprised by the fact that RU/UL topped SU/WV in NYC by a considerable margin. If we took a poll before those games and asked which would do better, I’m guessing SU/WV would have won in a landslide.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            The bigger issue is whether the ratings would justify the B10 expanding to add RU by itself. That’s a clear no. The total rating in NYC was low, and even the top RU ratings aren’t great. Whether RU or SU bring more cable subscribers in their respective states is anybody’s guess. NYC isn’t a strong CFB market, and none of the local teams are prominent enough to carry it. However, if the B10 was intent on aiming for the NYC market and added ND (presumably the most important school for gaining NYC market share), the data support potentially choosing RU as the other team (they help in NYC as well as coupling with PSU in NJ and Philly). Chasing the NYC market without ND is pure folly, and even with them it is probably a pipe dream to get the BTN on expanded basic there. That’s why I prefer MD as the other team, since they would also work well with PSU and it is a better CFB market. I don’t think MD is available, though, so I end up at RU.

            Maryland is definitely available, as its vote on raising the ACC exit fee to $34M made evident. Let Notre Dame carry New York, while Maryland provides significant impact in Washington and Baltimore. Were the Terrapins to accompany the Irish into the Big Ten, Rutgers could fill Maryland’s spot in the ACC.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            vp19,

            I’ll believe MD or UVA or UNC or Duke or any of the other old guard ACC schools are available when one of them moves or has serious discussions about it (trustees give power to choose to the president, etc). Until then it’s just wishes from fans.

            Like

    • Nemo says:

      I think it is accurate to say that the ACC would relish having ND/PSU but that is not ever likely to happen,. It would make the football schools ecstatic, however. If ND would agree to come in fully, a Rutgers combination would make a decent companion. UCONN is not favored by most of those in the conference I suspect. If the ACC ever decided to take UCONN and Rutgers, I think that the FSU/Clemson group of schools would look elsewhere and MD would revel in a shot at the B1G. The University delivers the Baltimore/DC area, is a flagship school and home to one of the largest TV markets in the country. VT can’t claim that and is tied to the UVA due to politics.

      Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        I think PSU is impossible, given the grant-of-rights. Notre Dame isn’t impossible, though. If ND is ever going to join a league for all sports, very solid arguments for both the ACC and the Big Ten can be made. Both offer schools ND would be happy to affiliate with.

        Like

  34. OT says:

    I would also love to see the reaction of Big East Commish John Marinatto if Boise State President Bob Kustra were to demand FULL MEMBERSHIP in ALL SPORTS.

    (If Boise State were to join the BIG EAST in ALL SPORTS, then Boise State would have a recruting advantage in basketball as the only school west of the Rocky Mountains to be able to sell recruits the chance to play each season at “the Mecca of Basketball, Madison Square Garden.”

    Boise State holds a pair of Aces and can play them strongly vs the Big East and “Mount USA”.

    Like

    • curious2 says:

      Re: All sports members of Big East (OT)

      I doubt the Basketball schools would ever add Boise as an all sports member and if UL and Cinn eventually leave for the Big 12, I could see the BB schools refusing to add any more all sports schools.

      8 all sports schools are required: RU, Uconn, USF and perhaps UCF, Houston, SMU (?)

      Perhaps Nova and UMass become compromise all sports schools 7-8, again if UL and Cinn leave.

      Like

    • Josh says:

      I don’t think Boise State wants full Big East admission. I don’t think they want to send their tennis team to Storrs and I know their basketball teams would get destroyed in the Big East. They’ve currently got their wrestling team in the Pac 12, and that works nicely for them.

      Of course, what they really want is a Pac 12 invite, but they know that’s not happening, at least not any time in the next few decades. Their more realistic hope is that the Big 12 goes to 12 and takes them and BYU. In fact, they’ve been buddying up to BYU lately (new 20 year home and home series) to try to make it seem like they’re a natural pair with BYU.

      Like

    • Gopher86 says:

      I don’t think Boise has the dollars to support a top b-ball team with a bunch of East coast travel.

      Like

  35. bobo the feted says:

    Why is Louisville the key to the survival of the Big East? Weren’t they in C-USA just a few years ago?

    ND needs to hurry up and join the ACC, the idea of playing 3-4 games against the new look Big East is bad TV ratings for sure.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      All spin at this point.

      The 3 that were the traditional schools were WVU, Pitt, Syracuse.

      Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        You have a very strange definition of ‘good’ TV. Apparently it is somehow connected “football games that nobody would watch”.

        Like

    • OT says:

      ND vs the following new Big East teams will make good TV:

      ND vs UCF – the George O’Leary angle

      ND vs SMU and ND vs Houston will work because ND wants to recruit and play games in the state of Texas

      ND vs Boise State will draw TV viewers because both teams polarize the college football world.

      Like

      • EZCUSE says:

        ND v UCF works once.

        ND v Boise St. is lose-lose. Which ever team wins, the win gets rationalized as merely proving that the PR devoted to the other is wasted.

        ND in Texas. I’d say this one is decent. See ND v USF. But ND already has games with Texas scheduled.

        Like

  36. Jeepers says:

    Le add.

    Like

  37. A couple of interesting columns:

    (1) Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune writes about Notre Dame possibly having to consider joining the Big Ten (or another conference). This is mostly noteworthy because Greenstein is the most connected sportswriter anywhere to the Big Ten conference office and he’s always been quick to dismiss any suggestion of Notre Dame joining the Big Ten in the past:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-west-virginias-move-could-prompt-irish-to-think-big-ten-20111025,0,5667287.story

    (2) Jon Wilner’s latest column about realignment has a few tidbits, including more confirmation that the Big 12 is likely staying at 10 (and it’s not just Texas that’s pushing that):

    http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/10/25/bcs-football-realignment-news-starring-the-big-12-missouri-west-virginia-the-sec-the-mwc-the-big-east-and-san-jose-state/

    Like

    • jj says:

      Well. Rutgers is sure worrying I bet.

      The schedule problem seems insurmountable to me still.

      Like

      • OT says:

        Rutgers will be fine.

        Too many TV household.

        Too many TV viewers.

        Too many alums on Wall Street.

        Too many alums in media.

        If the snooty B1G does not want Rutgers, then eventually the ACC will.

        The ACC wants to decapitate the Big East. Taking Rutgers this weekend (or next weekend) will take care of that.

        Like

        • jj says:

          Maybe. I’d still be worried. The beast gets nuttier with every incarnation. At some point, perhaps now, someone should get the proverbial fork.

          Like

    • Eric says:

      The idea of the 32 team alliance sounds interesting and would be a good solution, but I don’t think it will work given the framework for the BCS already gives the Big East an AQ. That just makes it too easy to pick off other members. (Besides the notion of an alliance between the 3 goes against reports of Houston’s regents meeting).

      If it is to happen though it will be because Boise State prefers it (prefer to remain in the Mountain West basically than go to the Big East for football only). If they push for this and reject the Big East there is a very slim chance I could see it happening. Amazing how much power a team that wasn’t even I-A at the start of the BCS has.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Frank,

      Some of the most interesting parts:

      Greenstein:
      “Some roll their eyes at the thought that Rutgers would give the Big Ten the New York market, but numbers support it.”

      “Rutgers has been part of four of the five highest-rated games in New York City on both ESPN and ESPN2.”

      This sort of data makes Rutgers the leading candidate for #14 if ND joins the B10.

      Wilner:
      “The mega-conference proposal, first reported by the Boston Globe, is the brainchild of CUSA and MWC officials.

      After encountering an alarming lack of interest from TV networks in their proposed alliance, they added the Big East to their model.”

      A little dose of reality for the non-AQs perhaps. It’s sad to think they are counting on UConn, UC, UL, USF and Rutgers to create TV value.

      Like

  38. MiHawk says:

    How about a REALLY outside the box solution.

    BiG could let ND join for Olympic sports only on the condition that they join fully (including football) in 10 years. Their Olympic sports DO bring value both in terms of television and gate revenue.

    The 10year window would give the ND fans and alumni time to accept the reality of conference membership and build some rivalries w/ BiG teams that they don’t normally pay.

    Maybe build in some HUGE exit fee (say $50million in todays dollars) if ND wants to walk away from the conference after 10 years and maintain independence in football or look for another home.

    Chances of this happening <<<1%, but I think it could work and would actually put the end game into place that could lead to final resolution of all the conference realignment.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      ND rejected that approach from the ACC a half-decade or so ago.

      No reason why they wouldn’t reject it now. ND is under no pressure to join a conference as long as there are comprehensive programs in the Big East like Louisville and UConn.

      Even if the Big East turns into C-USA retreads + Catholic schools for non-football; ND doesn’t care. That gives them a decent enough conference for olympic sports and the rest. It gives them the Northeast exposure they want for basketball and the rest.

      Like

      • Nemo says:

        This begs the question as to why ND has scheduled MD, Wake Forest and several other ACC schools recently for football. Is this a try out for compatibility or simply happenstance?

        Like

        • zeek says:

          That’s a pretty good question, especially considering the visit to Wake Forest.

          Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          I’d chalk it up to happenstance of the schedule. The Big Ten is the most hard-line of all the major conferences about the first 4-5 weeks of the season being exclusively non-conference games, with the final 8-9 weeks being exclusively conference games. The Pac-12 and Big 12 appear to be headed towards that way as well, although I’m sure exceptions would be made for Notre Dame. The Big East and ACC, on the other hand, have non-conference games scattered into October and even November, in the case of the in-state SEC rivalries, so those leagues are much easier for Notre Dame to schedule. The Domers will always have USC and Stanford for late in the season, plus Navy, the other academies, and BYU, but otherwise the ACC provides the most attractive matchups that Notre Dame is willing (on ND’s end) and able (on the league’s end) to make. Notre Dame doesn’t appear to have much interest in scheduling games against SEC teams.

          Like

          • cutter says:

            Michael in Raleigh: You’re largely correct about the ACC willing to schedule late season non-conference games. However, you’ll note that Florida State, Georgia Tech and Clemson aren’t appearing on any of Notre Dame’s late season schedules because they have late season, in-state non conference rivalry games already in place.

            That leaves nine ACC teams left (eleven, if you count Syracuse and Pittsburgh). Virginia Tech might be willing to play ND in a late season game, but they do have their end of season rivalry game with Virginia. Miami-Florida is going to play ND in the latter part of the season per the future published schedules, and as has been pointed out, Wake Forest, Maryland (at Fedex Field outside Washington DC), Boston College, Duke and North Carollina have also recently played the Irish in the latter part of the season–either recently or this upcoming year. That only leaves NCSU off the list so far.

            But if the ACC does go to a nine-game confernce football schedule (pretty likely given the 14-team membership), then it does limit some of ND’s scheduling options. The same goes for the Big Ten, although the conference is looking at scheduling some conference games in the early weeks of the season, meaning there might be some late season openings (and Northwestern has agreed to play ND late in the season on a future schedule at their home field).

            Stanford and USC have waivers from the Pac 12 to play Notre Dame in the latter part of the season and any P12 team can play a late season non-conference game if it gets permission from the other eleven teams in the conference. Since the Pac 12 has nine conference games already, it’s going to be a situation where ND is going to have to be shoe horned into an open scheduling spot.

            Notre Dame hasn’t played a SEC team in the regular season since the mid 2000s and there’s no indication that will change soon. On the current Big East side, Rutgers and Connecticut did talk about playing ND, but that discussion was terminated because they couldn’t get Notre Dame to play them at their home stadiums (ND wanted the Meadowlands and Gillette Stadium, not the smaller campus venues).

            But there are few potential scheduling problems for Notre Dame. In the era of conferences with championship games, ND is going to be at a disadvantage when it comes to a possible national championship game berth because the Irish only play twelve games and that final contest takes place in late November. The second problem is that while ND might be able to get games on their schedule, are they compelling enough in terms of strength-of-schedule to get them into a BCS NC game? It could be problematic (and I’m sure it’s a problem Notre Dame would love to have right now).

            The other question is television ratings. The ND-USC game last week received a 2.6 rating, which is the second best rating the teams has had (4.5 in Michigan game) this season and the best primetime rating its had on NBC. OTOH, the 2009 ND-USC game has a 4.5 rating (afternoon broadcast), so it shows that Notre Dame isn’t high profile enough by itself to draw good ratings (for example, ND’s fourth broadcast on NBC last year drew a 1.4 rating for Pittsburgh). If past if prologue, now that Notre Dame has three losses and is out of a BCS bowl, the ratings for the next four opponents (Navy, Wake Forest, Maryland, Boston College) should be below 2.0 with the finale against Stanford probably doing much better (especially if the Cardinal is undefeated).

            http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/10/ratings-week-8-college-football-overnights/

            We’ll see what happens. Notre Dame gets around $15M from NBC for televising roughly seven home/neutral site games a season. That contract ends in a few years’ time. Will NBC be willing to extend the contract? Will they add more money to it like they have in the past? Even if they don’t add more money, will that really matter to Notre Dame in terms of being an independent or not? Will ND games be moved off NBC to the Versus/NBC Channel and what effect would that have on the NBC/Comcast-ND relationship?

            Like many hae written beforehand, the main thing that will propel Notre Dame into a conference will be because of access to the post-season and a national championship game. While the BCS doesn’t provide a specific barrier to entry for them, a playoff system might do it (but not likely). What could be problematic for them, however, is a strength of schedule issue, no conference championship game and no game in early December. Who knows? Texas and ND may strike a deal so that UT plays them on the first Saturday of December and gives both programs the late season visibility they want. Perhaps the Big XII does give them partial membership with the caveat that ND can play teams from that confernce in the latter part of the season. We’ll see what happens.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Mike:

            The B10 use to be the most hard-line about scheduling all OOC before conference play starts, but they regularly schedule OOC games after conference play starts now. These days, the Pac is most hard-line. This year, Northwestern will play Rice in November. In 2014, we’ll play ND in November.

            Like

          • greg says:

            Richard, B10 is still the most hard-line. NW is the only B10 team with a OOC game after the B10 schedule begins. P12 has three OOC after the P12 schedule opens, the two ND games and Arizona closes the year with Louisiana-Lafayette.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            FWIW Ohio State has played a number of non-conference games later in the schedule over the past few years.

            2009 New Mexico St, 2007 Kent St, 2006 Bowling Green, 2002 San Jose State

            Most if not all were cases of other teams cancelling late in the game and a scramble being made to fit someone else onto the schedule.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            greg:

            In this case, you have to look at intentions instead of current schedules.

            The Pac has said that, while it would honor any current agreements, only the 2 ND games will be allowed to continue after conference play starts in the future.

            The B10 doesn’t care.

            Like

          • greg says:

            Richard, we’ll see when those “intentions” really happen. The reality is that the B10 is still the most hardline.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Greg:

            Based on what data? 1 season’s worth? Of course, every B10 team has had to play OOC games in the middle of the conference slate when the season (generally) ended before Thanksgiving and the conference had 11 schools, but both Wisconsin and Illinois have played season-ending OOC games. Besides Northwestern, IU is playing at Navy in late October in 2012. The B10 clearly doesn’t care if its schools play late season OOC games, while the Pac does.

            Like

          • greg says:

            Richard, feel free to go back over the last 6 or 10 years and see the behavior of each conference.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Since 2006 Big Ten teams have played the following OOC games after the start of the conference schedule:

            Illinois: 2010 Fresno St, 2009 Fresno St, 2008 WMU, 2007 Ball St, 2006 Ohio
            Indiana: 2010 Arkansas St, 2009 Virginia, 2008 CMU,
            Iowa: 2009 Arkansas St, 2007 WMU, 2006 NIU
            Sparty: 2009 WMU,
            TSUN: 2009 Delaware St, 2008 Toledo, 2007 EMU, 2006 Ball St
            Minnesota: 2009 N Dakota St, 2007 N Dakota St, 2006 N Dakota St
            Northwestern: 2011 Rice, 2009 Miami, 2007 EMU
            Ohio St:2009 New Mexico St, 2007 Kent St, 2006 Bowling Green
            Penn St: 2009 Eastern Illinois, 2007 Temple, 2006 Temple
            Purdue: 2006 Hawaii,
            Wisconsin: 2009 Hawaii, 2008 Cal Poly, 2007 NIU, 2006 Buffalo

            That doesn’t look like a hard line aversion to playing OOC games later in the year to me.

            Like

          • mike in st louis says:

            @Scarlet – In 2009, Illinois’ last two games of the regular season were non-conference games: @Cincinnati and Fresno St. at home.

            But your point stands: B1G has no problem playing games after the start of the conference season. Will be interesting to see if CCG changes that.

            Like

          • SideshowBob says:

            Greg: the Big Ten teams had to play OOC games after conference play began from 2006 to 2009 — with 12 game schedules and refusing to play over Thanksgiving weekend, that meant every team had to play 12 games in 12 weeks. With an odd number of teams, it was mathematically impossible to play all 4 non-conference in the first 4 weeks of the season — at least one team had to not have a conference game in any given week and that week had to have a non-conference game scheduled.

            Once the Big Ten starting playing over Thanksgiving weekend in 2010, OOC games after conference play began became largely a thing of the past. Occasionally, they still happen (i.e. NW/Rice this season) but the conference certainly discourages it. I don’t see how the Pac-12 is any more hardline than the Big Ten on this issue.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            SideshowBob:

            I’m not sure why you think the B10 discourages OOC games after conference play starts. Certainly, I haven’t heard anything about that recently.

            Like

        • wmtiger says:

          ACC starts their regular season really early and has open and bye dates in the middle of the season. Conference schedules are usually put together after ‘big’ home-away dates.

          Like

        • Richard says:

          ACC and BE are the only major conferences that regularly schedule conference games around late-season OOC games.

          Like

      • metatron5369 says:

        I like how slippery that slope has become.

        I can’t wait until people start trotting out such stalwarts such as DePaul and South Florida as anchors to keep Notre Dame happy.

        Like

    • Eric says:

      Alumni would react just as violently (withholding donations to a move in 10 years as in 2). I don’t think they want or should join a conference under any circumstances that I foresee developing in the near future. If it means their others sports are in a less than ideal spot, well that’s a cost that will have to accepted.

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Add Missouri and Rutgers, and ND in olympic sports…..now

      Like

  39. m (Ag) says:

    West Virginia is the best addition for the Big 12 if BYU isn’t available. If they get ND basketball too, good for them. Still, some things make me smile-

    -As others have said, this removes any pretense of the Big 12 academics being better than the SEC…It’s worse

    -This also contradicts all of the geographic arguments the Big 12 has been using against A&M and Missouri. This isn’t about loyalty to ‘Texas football’ or being a ‘Midwestern Conference’. WV is further from Texas than any SEC school. Anyone from Oklahoma or Texas driving (!) to WV will pass through nicely contiguous SEC country.

    -The Longhorns unwillingness to cancel future OOC match-ups to play A&M has even less rational basis. 2 of the schools they’re playing OOC in the next several years are Ole Miss and Maryland. Playing A&M will get them just as much exposure in SEC-land, while playing Maryland isn’t really necessary for Mid-Atlantic exposure when they’re playing WVU every year. Playing A&M would create more demand for tickets in Austin and be a game that would get more national attention.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      But it would also be expensive to get out of these series at a late date (something I doubt A&M will help pay for and something they don’t have to worry about as they have an extra game free again given an 8 game schedule).

      Beyond that, if they start a permanent series with A&M non-conference that’s it as far as scheduling goes if their concerns are at all similar to those in the Big Ten. Texas will have the same issue with Texas A&M that the Big Ten schools who play Notre Dame (and Iowa State) will have once it gets up to 9 with almost no room to schedule other home and home series. If they do schedule a 2nd home and home every year, they’ll be down to a 6-5-1 every single year with only one cupcake game. Given that 7 is the magic number in the Big Ten, I don’t think that would quite do it meaning no 2nd home and home, 2 cupcakes, and a rotating 6-5-1 and 7-4-1 schedule, and no big name opponents out of conference besides A&M.

      I think that if Texas fans really want this game, it will return as a yearly one as soon as possible. I don’t think Lognhorn fans are going to be pushing for it meaning the administration isn’t going to throw away all its flexibility and buy out a lot of games for it. That means I think it’s out of the question until there is free room and by then, I think they’ll take the same approach Penn State took with Pitt (scheduling on a rotating basis, but not permanent).

      Like

    • OT says:

      The XII is nothing more than a playpen for Texas, its slave Oklahoma, and 8 schools that are part of a harem for the pleasure of Texas, Oklahoma, and the TV partners (ESPN, Inc. and FOX)

      The XII would be the biggest joke in the BCS if Big East football were to disband. That can happen when (not if) the ACC takes Rutgers.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        Disagree completely. The 10 member Big 12 is this year arguably the best conference in the nation. Replacing A&M and Missouri for West Virginia and TCU, while bad from a TV and long term stability angle, is hardly going to turn it into anything less. More years than not, they’ll be better than the PAC-12 and about even with the Big Ten in football quality.

        Like

    • Mack says:

      If Missouri becomes the SEC#14 will you join the XII? was the perfect invite for WVU whose fans still believe there’s a slim chance of getting a SEC invite since its condition means WVU did not get that invite. So WVU can unconditionally accept the conditional invite.
      :
      This invite just shows how limited the XII options are. I am sure the XII would rather invite an AAU school with a big football program (ie. not Tulane or Rice) in a contiguous state. None of these schools will consider the XII. The 4 schools that just quit the XII and the west half of the B1G account for almost all that meet this definition. That left the XII inviting a SEC culturally oriented school isolated from the rest of the conference by 800+ miles.
      :
      The XII had better academics before it lost 4 of its 7 AAU schools. Now the neighborhood is looking rather shabby. Texas will want to improve on its former situation if it moves. In 6-10 years if the LHN does not pan out, A&M will have established the political precedent of bolting and leaving everyone in the dust. Texas will need to do that to join the B1G. Texas can probably carry a few teams to the PAC.
      :
      There is just no upside for Texas to play A&M except on a home only basis (always hard to schedule quality opponents for money games) but I doubt A&M will play on those terms. If Texas wants SEC exposure, there is a lot more upside playing Tennessee, Georgia, or Florida (and even Ole Miss or Maryland). Texas has 3 in state conference opponents on its schedule. Texas sells out every game and a donation is required just to buy tickets, so A&M will not add to demand in Austin. Baylor may be more willing to continue its 108 year rivalry with A&M, and A&M may need the win (22-2-1 last 25 years) to be bowl eligible playing a SEC conference schedule.

      Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        “The XII had better academics before it lost 4 of its 7 AAU schools.”

        —This. The only reason the Big 12 is scraping the bottom of the barrel academically with new members is because it has no choice.

        Like

      • m (Ag) says:

        “Texas sells out every game and a donation is required just to buy tickets, so A&M will not add to demand in Austin.”

        Most schools that have had a high level of recent success (as the Longhorns have) can find a price point to sell out their stadium. But they could still charge more with opponents that draw more interest. Ole Miss and Maryland won’t create as much demand as A&M.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      m (Ag),

      West Virginia is the best addition for the Big 12 if BYU isn’t available.

      UL might have made more sense from a logistics point of view. WV requires traveling farther and takes a lot longer because you fly into Pittsburgh and then bus to Morgantown (about 1.5 hours) while you fly straight in to Louisville. That’s at least 2 more hours each way for every trip. That’s significant for the non-revenue sports teams that travel during the week.

      WV is a bigger FB name which is important, but UL adds a bigger name in hoops. UL might be a little better fit culturally.

      For what it’s worth, Tommy Tuberville said in an interview that he thought UL might work better for the B12 overall because of logistics, but WV was better for FB which is what he cares about.

      Like

      • Read The D says:

        I agree and I think Louisville may still make some sense in a 12 team model. However, with Mizzou leaving there is no longer a land bridge to Louisville. So the choices became choosing an outlier in Louisville or an even further outlier with a better brand in WVU. WVU makes sense from that perspective.

        Like

      • OT says:

        The football and basketball teams will fly charter into Morgantown, which has a small airport with a 5000-foot runway.

        The infamous Colgan Air is the only commercial airline that serves Morgantown as “United Express”, with service to Washington Dulles.

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

        Like

      • bullet says:

        Apparently ESPN told the Big 12 WVU was the best addition from the Big East. Its about TV ratings.

        Like

      • Brian #2 says:

        Tommy Tubberville also has recommended San Diego State and Tulane as the best Big 12 additions.

        Like

    • bullet says:

      Maybe Texas prefers to keep its agreements instead of backing out?

      And if A&M has room for Texas, why has their AD said they don’t have room for Baylor or Texas Tech? A&M has been the champion of double talk. Loftin said he chose his words very carefully in that 2010 Big 12 meeting saying he supported the Big 12 as it was, so he wouldn’t be accused of lying. In non-legal language, he deliberately mislead everyone so he could technically deny that he lied.

      As someone said in an article, its all about recruiting advantage. Its a recruiting advantage for A&M to play Texas, but it doesn’t help Texas in recruiting. Its a recruiting advantage for Baylor or Tech to play A&M in football, but it doesn’t help A&M. Everyone is doing what they believe is in their best interest. A&M believed it was in their best interest to go to the SEC. Texas doesn’t believe it is in their best interest to optomize things for A&M in that league.

      Like

      • Mike says:

        Doesn’t Texas care about playing their traditional rival? I mean they are in your fight song and all. As a college football fan I would hate to see this go the way of Nebraska-Oklahoma.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          But this is what happens when bridges are burned down.

          Missouri will probably lose the Border War.

          Like

        • Mack says:

          YES Texas cares about its big rivalry game, but that is with OKLAHOMA (106 games since 1900), not A&M (despite 117 games since 1894, things change). That is why all of Texas’ discussions with the PAC had Oklahoma in the package. When forced to chose, Oklahoma gave up Nebraska and Texas is giving up A&M. The Texas game was the big game for A&M, but was not for Texas. Texas did not have huge bonfires, etc. for this game. I have not seen complaints from A&M fans about A&M ending the Baylor rivalry (108 game history) with the SEC move. That is sort of how Texas fans feel about the A&M rivalry. It was always much more important to A&M than Texas. A&M knew this game would end with their move to the SEC, but like Missouri (with its KC message) teased its fans by saying it might continue.

          Like

          • Mike says:

            Using that logic is it fair to say that the Red River Rivalry means more to Texas than Oklahoma? Oklahoma talked openly about abandoning the RRR, but won’t leave Oklahoma St. and the Bedlam series behind.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            “A&M knew this game would end with their move to the SEC, but like Missouri (with its KC message) teased its fans by saying it might continue.”

            I’m unsure why you think any A&M fans we’re ‘teased’. When I read Aggie boards before the SEC move I was surprised how it was widely accepted that the Longhorns would pout and not play A&M. It certainly made sense for A&M to offer to continue to play the Longhorns. The fact that it was done publicly (and repeatedly) wasn’t about A&M fans; it was for the casual observers in Texas who heard the Austin spin that A&M was ‘scared to play UT’. That is unquestionably refuted.

            Like

        • EZCUSE says:

          I have no dog in this fight… but A&M is the one that left. Texas may have dabbled in disturbing the status quo in 2010, but it was A&M that ultimately did it in 2011. I have zero sympathy for the Aggies.

          And if you want to criticize Texas for something, don’t turn around and do it yourself. Well, you can. But it just makes you a hypocrite.

          Like

          • Mike says:

            I’m not criticizing and by the way the Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry died with the creation of the Big 12. I’m just amazed that Texas can walk away from their traditional rival so easily for sounds like punitive reasons.

            Like

          • Mack says:

            Texas may have made some punative comments, but the decision is all business. There is really no advantage to Texas to continue to play A&M. Texas really does not care if it is an advantage to A&M to continue to play Texas (which it is). It is all about self interest. A&M fans say there is no school more self-centered than Texas so how could it have turned out any different?
            :
            The Big 8 powers (Oklahoma and Nebraska) created the B12 structure, not the SW conference invitees. If they had wanted to be in the same division, or create cross division protected rivals like the SEC, it would of happened. As it was, they went to meeting every other year as part of the normal cross division rotation and it lost some intensity. The full break occurred when Nebraska left for the B1G. I think OK preferred to keep TX and wanted to limit games with NE since that made it harder to get to the NC game. Still was a good chance of meeting NE in CCG.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            I’m glad you mentioned business, because that is what’s so surprising. Aggies and Longhorns have such a spirited rivalry it’s a shame to lose it over business. Longhorns will never hate or love to beat Notre Dame (or TCU, or whomever they replace A&M with) as much as they did the Aggies.

            If the Big 8 created the Big 12 structure it would have been the Big 16 and it would have been the complete merger between the Big 8 and the SWC with a title game. Texas wouldn’t go for it. Texas said 10 teams (smartly, for more money), and when the Texas politicians got involved it ended up 12. The two off, two on model for NU and OU ended up being done for the good of the conference. There is a big difference between doing something for the good of a conference and doing something for business.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Mike. Notre Dame has cost Texas 1.5 national championships. Texas enjoys beating Notre Dame. With A&M it isn’t so much beating them as the fact that some of the Aggies are so obnoxious if they win. You hate losing to them more than you enjoy winning.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            “I have zero sympathy for the Aggies”

            I’m not sure why you think anyone needs sympathy.

            “There is really no advantage to Texas to continue to play A&M. Texas really does not care if it is an advantage to A&M to continue to play Texas (which it is).”

            It won’t hurt A&M more than Texas. Neither school needs to play the other, but the game for both schools would be better than another non-conference match-up. It gets more attention from non-affiliated fans in Texas that any other game either school could schedule (even Notre Dame).

            Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            USC-Notre Dame
            Michigan-Notre Dame
            Florida-Florida State
            Georgia-Georgia Tech
            Clemson-South Carolina

            These are a few of the best rivalries in college sports, and they’re all non-conference. None of these schools, especially the latter six, who are major in-state rivals, would ever consider committing to some other non-conference game at the expense of a game with their rival. Texas’ suggestion that its non-conference schedule is too full is a petty and lame excuse for ending a game that is bigger than either Texas or Texas A&M. To me, it’s just that simple.

            Like

  40. I think the Irish head to the Big Ten, sooner rather than later. The revenue proposition has changed and that is one less (major) reason for them to go it alone. I think the administration has known this for some time and has simply been waiting for the alumni and boosters to come around. The near universal opposition to B1G membership has softened considerably since ’99, though independence is still (inexplicably) preferred.

    With all the problems of the Big East and talk of potentially moving to the Big 12 for non-football sports, I think that Jack Swarbrick may be floating unattractive alternatives to reduce resistance to the inevitable. Though there are conflicting reports, the ACC may be considering an asymmetric TV revenue split due to ND/NBC, but would require full conference membership. Long term, I don’t see how such a deal would benefit the ‘Domers over the Big Ten. Right now, they are collecting less TV revenue than Indiana or Purdue! Imagine what the B1G revenue split would be with the Irish aboard. The ACC simply doesn’t offer the same level of synergy. Its hard to imagine a preferential payout that would satisfy ND and be acceptable to the proud ACC schools.

    The New York Times ran a lengthy story indicating that Rutgers would bring the most juice to the B1G (other than the Irish or Texas) and would give Penn State an eastern playmate which they have sought since joining the conference.

    We will see – sooner than later.

    Like

    • This.

      The ACC’s desirability has increased with adding Pitt/Syracuse…but the money still points to the Big Ten. Hard to turn that down.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        I think you guys grossly underestimate the size of the balls it would take for Swarbrick to take ND to the BIG. It’s a job killer for him.

        I think if ND HAD to go to a conference, they’d go to the ACC. That would at least satisfy all those “Yost kicked Rockne in the ball in 1920” fanatics at ND. It would also be less troublesome to the “join the BIG and the CIC and they’ll make us all get abortions” crowd.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          The Big 12 needs a permanent commissioner. Neinas is 79 and isn’t staying more than a year or so.

          Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          MG, while saying it trollishly, is quite correct. Any AD publicly recommending against football independence will be considered a quisling by alums and moves to the top of the admin’s scapegoat list.

          Like

        • SideshowBob says:

          Um, how many those “Yost kicked Rockne in the ball in 1920″ fanatics at ND are there exactly? 5 people? The vast majority of the Notre Dame fan base wants to see football independence first and foremost and, failing that, good football games. If Notre Dame has to give up the former, I don’t see them choosing the ACC given the latter. If you have to cushion the blow over giving up independence, it’s easier to sell by playing Michigan, Ohio St, PSU and Nebraska (plus Purdue and MSU) and other schools that Notre Dame has played a decent bit (like Northwestern) than playing FSU, Va Tech and Miami (FL) (plus Pitt) and a bunch of southeast schools where their is little history.

          I mean, they play Michigan in football every year. I somehow doubt the people who might hold such an odd grudge give a crap.

          Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            The anti-B1G feeling at ND is deep. My Freshman O was during years where we weren’t playing Michigan and we were still taught by the upperclassmen why we hate UM.

            More practically, the large percentage of the school that is from the Midwest made the decision to go to ND knowing they pay like 4x more than going to the B1G state flagship. The kids from out East believe like the rest of the country that the B1G is a regional league, and they don’t want part of that.

            Not to mention the conventional wisdom is that ND’s best chance of continuing success is to stay indy. We look at what happened to PSU as a cautionary tale, fer crying out loud. While we don’t want to become Fordham, we don’t really want to become Vandy, NU, or Stanford either.

            ACC historical rivals are Pitt and GT, while there have been great games against FSU and Miami. B1G historic rivals are more numerous, but merely slightly more compelling. I think a decent percentage of the alumni wouldn’t care if we dropped all the B1G teams off the schedule.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            “We look at what happened to PSU as a cautionary tale, fer crying out loud.”

            —Perhaps instead Penn State fans should look at what happened to ND as a cautionary tale.

            1869-1992
            1 Notre Dame 712-210-41 76.06%
            8 Penn State 664-289-42 68.8%

            1993-2010
            14 Penn State 154-68 69.37%
            30 Notre Dame 133-85-1 60.96%

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Yep, lol at you Domer……and “what happened to Penn State” is they can’t be dominate with an elderly coach. Makes it kind of hard to recruit.

            Like

  41. m (Ag) says:

    I’m interested in seeing whether the Big East keeps its AQ bid, but I’m also interested in how the other bowls will be rearranged. The last deals were signed before any movement happened. How low will the the Big East bowls go? Will their best non-BCS team be playing ACC#5? SEC#7? Conference USA #1?

    The Big 12 has lost some depth but still provides value to bowls, while the other 4 BCS conferences added some depth. But the Big East has lost any desirability it had.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      I’m not sure it’s all that different if Notre Dame is still on board. After the last raid, the conference was in even worse shape and a Gator/Sun Bowl alliance (2 years of each) for its first bowl (with Notre Dame able to take each once, but that never happened). My guess is that they keep the Champ Sports Bowl (or something similar) as their first bowl beyond the BCS and the ACC opponent drops to 4 or 5 from the 3 currently. I think they lose the Pinstripe Bowl to the ACC thanks to Syracuse and the Big Ten might be added to it too if they can manage (otherwise the bowl will remain vs. the Big 12 or keep the Big East on one side).

      I think the biggest changes might be with the PAC-12 who will move up a bit. They had been putting their #2 vs. the Big 12 #3 in the Alamo (and before that Holiday) Bowl. Then again, I’m not quite sure how they’d move up there (Big Ten and SEC likely aren’t giving up Citrus or Outback positions and Big 12 should keep the Cotton).

      Like

  42. duffman says:

    Hooray for the simple math conference :

    Big 12
    – UNL
    – CU
    – TAMU
    + TCU
    – MU
    + WVU

    = Not the Big 10 conference! Hooray for new math!

    Like

  43. vp19 says:

    From the Charleston Daily Mail article:

    “WVU will have no regional rival within the Big 12, which has schools in Oklahoma, Iowa, Kansas and Texas. The closest school would be Iowa State, more than 850 miles away. More teams will have to fly to games rather than bus.

    “The travel costs go beyond the teams and players and affect their family members, who will have to spend more time and money to watch in person.

    “WVU officials also considered the athletic and academic changes for WVU’s so-called Olympic sports.

    “There is no men’s soccer in the Big 12, and Coach Marlon LeBlanc’s nationally ranked program will have do something like South Carolina and Kentucky. They belong to the SEC for major sports but play men’s soccer in Conference USA.

    “WVU’s volleyball team plays most of its matches that are not tournaments or invitationals on Friday-Sunday schedules. The Big 12 plays those same matches on Wednesdays and weekend days.”

    This move is going to involve a lot of logistics, the kind UPS can’t help with. WVU’s assistant ADs overseeing those sports and the conference office in Dallas will be very busy with this transition. (In contrast, Boston College’s closest ACC rival before Syracuse and Pittsburgh join the conference is Maryland, about 500 miles from Chestnut Hill, which to be fair is a slightly shorter mileage difference than that between Coral Gables and Tallahassee but is a quantum leap culturally.)

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Other thing to consider is timezone. Obviously, they don’t have a choice in all of this because they have to grab at one of the big conferences, and the only one that’s been willing to consider them to this point has been the Big 12.

      Like

      • mike in st louis says:

        Eastern/Central time zone differences are a non-issue. B1G is living proof of that.

        It’s mixing the Pacific time zone with the Central time zone that causes problems.

        Like

  44. Michael in Raleigh says:

    Got a question for everybody:

    Most people agree that even though it isn’t perfect by any means, the ACC is a more stable conferences with members much more compatible with each other than the Big 12. Given that, why do the Big 12 members appear so much closer to a true, unbreakable commitment to the league (i.e., grant of rights) than the ACC?

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Big 12 members probably feel it’s needed for assurance, whereas the ACC doesn’t need it. That’s comparable to the SEC not having an exit fee.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        In addition, if 3 members including FSU and Maryland were unwilling to raise the exit fee by more than $4 million from $16M to $20M (original increase was supposed to be to north of $30M), why would they be more willing to sign a grant of rights?

        Maybe they’ll end up with a grant regardless because of the additions of Pitt and Syracuse, but it’s not like they need it.

        As long as Duke and North Carolina aren’t going anywhere, it doesn’t matter who they lose. Even losing FSU and Maryland wouldn’t cripple the ACC. They just need to be the strongest presence in the Mid-Atlantic region.

        Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        Why, then, does the Big Ten have grant-of-rights? Because of concern that Penn State would have left for the Big East or ACC? No one else even has a small faction of its fanbase, much less any administrative support, that would have any interest of leaving the Big Ten.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          That’s different though. The Big Ten has had it since the 80s as a way of pooling TV rights.

          The ACC just hasn’t felt like its needed it. Same for the SEC (and the SEC schools make a lot off of T3 rights).

          The Big 12 is basically erecting gigantic gates around itself to protect itself. The ACC just has a decent exit fee to dissuade teams from leaving.

          Like

    • Mack says:

      For the same reason some people get religious after having a heart attack. Two close brushes with conference death have made all the members who are staying in the Big 12 by choice or lack of options take actions to avoid a third occurance.

      Like

    • vp19 says:

      Louisville making a last-ditch effort to wrest the slot from the Mountaineers:

      There is speculation that the “bump” was a push by Louisville.

      The Dominion Post’s Drew Rubenstein reports that there was a “late push” by the University of Louisville to be considered instead of WVU.

      “Sources used terms like ‘volatile’ and ‘internal battle’ to describe the conference realignment with the Big 12,” Rubenstein reported.

      Alas, it appears Texas won’t let the vassals take in both.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        We should know by now that nothing is done until the ink is dry. Missouri could still end up staying in the Big 12.

        Like

        • footballnut says:

          Nope. MU definitely going to SEC. Big donor money (Kronenke, Wal-mart money) tipped the conversation in the direction of the SEC, as suggested in the Wilner article. They built the new basketball arena. (Very nice..) Kansas City folks end up big losers. Somewhere in the 20 million range per year on MU-KU – Big 12 athletic stuff. But, that will be made up in other ways. Mizzou to SEC east makes a lot of sense. Tons of alumni lve in Florida/Georgia/Carolina/ regions….WAY more than in LA, MS, Alabama regions in SEC West. Just a matter of time for the announcement.

          Like

        • Gopher86 says:

          Chip Brown’s last article read like a ploy to bring Mizzou back to the table. That’s what I figured this thing was all along.

          Like

  45. Read The D says:

    A thought for the Big XII and WVU:

    What about adding a couple of Big East non-football members for all other sports. The two closest are Georgetown and Villanova at about 200 and 300 miles respectively. Adding either Georgetown or Villanova may also help bring in Notre Dame. You could even throw in St. John’s and go to 14.

    This would allow non-revs to break into divisions and help with travel.

    Like

  46. Read The D says:

    Should say “The two closest to West Virginia are…”

    Like

  47. OT says:

    Boise State is allegedly pushing the BIG EAST to add BYU as well (knowing that Air Force probably isn’t going to bite):

    BIG EAST Football as proposed by Boise State

    BIG Division

    Boise State
    BYU (instead of Air Force)
    SMU
    Houston
    Louisville
    Cincinnati

    EAST Division

    Central Florida
    South Florida
    Rutgers
    UCONN
    Navy
    Temple or East Carolina or Villanova

    Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      OT – is Air Force says no, does Navy still say yes?

      Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        Navy appeared to be leaning against joining even prior to this. AF was the one that seemed more interested in coming aboard.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Yeah, Navy seems to be the one deciding what to do and then Air Force will decide in part based on that decision. AFA wanted to be with Navy and Army originally but Army’s already said no. Most likely, they wait to see the SEC and Big 12’s moves shake out along with whether the Catholic schools decide to stay…

          Like

          • OT says:

            Air Force Academy officials did NOT attend the BIG EAST meeting in DC on Sunday.

            The joke: the Air Force Academy could not secure an Air Force plane to make the trip.

            ==

            I can’t see BYU making the move to the BIG EAST, even for football only, because BYU will DEMAND the following from the BIG EAST:

            1. Same-day tape-delay rights (5-6 hours after kickoff) to all BYU games in the Big East, home and away, on BYUtv.

            2. Guarantee of 4 “Tier 1” TV appearances for BYU football (in addition to the same-day tape-delay rights on BYUtv.)

            Those two demands scared off the XII.

            BYU acts like Notre Dame and Texas: i.e. a Primadonna with a TV network and lots of baggage in tow.

            ===

            West Virginia will need to put its men’s soccer team in either Conference USA (along with South Carolina and Kentucky) or one of the smaller league in the east if the Big East won’t allow West Virginia to stay as an affiliate member. The XII does not sponsor men’s soccer.

            Like

          • OT says:

            The non-football Catholic schools (including Notre Dame) want Big East football to survive. They don’t want to break off on their own because a “church league” would not be perceived as “big time” by the TV networks.

            (Remember what happened to the old Metro Conference when a bunch of schools broke off to form the Great Midwest [after Florida State left for the ACC and South Carolina left for the SEC]. That didn’t last very long at all and the two ultimately merged to form Conference USA, which was never regarded as a big time league.)

            Like

          • OT says:

            Navy just doesn’t have the personnel to compete at the BCS level (due to height restrictions.)

            Air Force has to rely on a gimmick offense (triple option) to be bowl-eligible while competing in the relatively Mountain West.

            Army failed miserably when the Cadets played football in Conference USA about a decade ago. Army would go 2-10 or worse every season if they were to join today’s Big East.

            Don’t see Army wanting any part of the Big East even if Navy and Air Force were to join.

            I would be surprised of Air Force were to join unless the Big East were able to add Boise State, BYU, and Navy.

            .

            Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      I think this makes some real good sense, with Temple and ECU instead of Navy.

      If Air Force/Navy want in, so be it. Go to 14 teams.

      With 12, play 5 divisional games + 3 OOD. That minimizes the travel.

      Like

  48. vp19 says:

    WVU has a weird athletic history. For decades, it was a member of the Southern Conference; in 1953, it tried to join the newly-formed ACC, but both it and Virginia Tech were turned down, largely because both had voted in favor of a 1951 bowl ban that Maryland and Clemson had ignored (both were ruled ineligible for the 1952 SC title and forced to play nonleague schedules, leading to the formation of the ACC). By the sixties, WVU had left the Southern Conference, first becoming an eastern independent before joining the Big East for football in 1991 and all sports in ‘95-’96. So WVU, which first looked south for a conference, then looked north, now looks west.

    Like

  49. bullet says:

    Headline is a little misleading. Nowhere does the former ND AD say ND is seriously considering joining the ACC, but he clearly implies ND is evaluating its options and its more than just theoretically possible options include giving up independence.

    http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-notre-dame-considering-full-conference-membership-says-former-irish-ad-acc-commissioner-corrigan-20111026,0,7637373.story?track=rss

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Their main options right now are probably:

      1) Big East for non-football sports

      2) Big 12 for non-football sports (if Texas can get the rest of the Big 12 to agree to that)

      I don’t really see fully joining the ACC or Big Ten on the table until there’s no way for Notre Dame to maintain their independence (i.e. Big East implodes and Texas goes to the Pac-16 creating a tighter BCS that forces their hand).

      As of now, their most favorable option is probably putting back the Big East together if the Catholic schools are willing to hang around. If the basketball schools want to break off, then ND has to make a choice. Until then, they probably don’t really have to do anything. As others have said, the weakness of the Catholic schools is that such a conference would be less comprehensive than one with Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, etc., so they’re probably trying to push everyone to stick together.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I think 1) depends on who stays. If its just the Catholics, I think ND is out of there. RU and USF don’t add much. So are UConn, UL and UC enough? Do UCF, UH and SMU help, assuming they still join?

        I think ACC and B1G would be very much on the table with a Big 12 non-football. The Big 12 really doesn’t fit, so do they take a competitive league that doesn’t fit over giving up football independence?

        So they have 4 choices and #1-the Big East, they don’t have much control over whether that remains viable.

        Like

  50. zeek says:

    Louisville bringing out the big gun:

    ‘The New York Times reported Wednesday that U.S. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, had lobbied Big 12 officials including David Boren, the president of the University of Oklahoma and a former senator, to include Louisville in expansion plans. The Times quoted a person with direct knowledge of the plans as saying: “I think it’s 50-50 right now between West Virginia and Louisville.”‘

    PeteThamelNYT Pete Thamel
    Just filed to NYT: After being told it was accepted to Big12, WVU in holding pattern. Its “50-50” and “too close to call” with Lville.
    1 hour ago

    “Big East officials gave projections to the interested programs that showed that the league would retain its Bowl Championship Series automatic qualifying bid, even with the loss of West Virginia. Those projections are based on B.C.S. points added by Boise State’s annual high finishes, Central Florida’s top-25 finish last season and Houston’s projected high finish this year.

    The way the B.C.S. automatic qualification works is that a team’s performance would count toward the Big East even if it were not in the conference at the time. (Cincinnati’s top-three finish in 2009 will help the league as well.) ”

    From another Thamel article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/sports/ncaafootball/West-Virginia-Big-12-Big-East.html?ref=sports

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Can someone in Morgantown conjure Robert Byrd to rise from the dead? (Actually, there’s little difference in Byrd dead and McConnell living.)

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        I thought he was dead 5 years before he was dead.

        Like

      • vp19 says:

        Or, better yet, get John Boehner involved. Once ol’ orange skin from Cincinnati gets on the case, even mighty Texas will understand it must accede to the concept of a 12-member Big 12, adding UL, UC and WVU.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Ironically though, WVU and staying at 10 is probably being pushed by Dodds.

          If there’s one thing that Dodds knows more than anyone, it’s how to chase the $. WVU clearly is the best football product they can find right now to add to the conference.

          The Louisville thing seems to be Boren giving in to political friendships and whatnot.

          My guess is Dodds wins out on this, but we still have a ways to go.

          Like

          • bobo the feted says:

            Dodds has outsmarted Boren ever since summer of this year. This will be no different.Still replacing NU/CU/A&M and Mizzou with TCU and WVU makes me want to throw up in my mouth. Texas should have just given up LHN and gone west, the BigXII is basically a husk of it’s former self (still good offensive football being played though).

            Like

    • Actually, the way the BCS works is that it’ll be completely renegotiated after 2013, so just because the Big East looks OK by today’s standard doesn’t mean it will based on tomorrow’s. “Hooray we’re in 6th” doesn’t work if the BCS decides 5 AQ’s is better, which I believe is allowable based on their bylaws (if I remember right, the minimum is 5 AQ’s, and even that could potentially be redone as conditions continue to evolve).

      Like

      • Phil says:

        Well, the BCS has never said what it would take for a conference to lose a bid, but to relieve political pressure they did release the criteria a new conference must meet to get one. If the Big East added Boise State and others so that they met the mathematical qualifications for gaining a BCS bid, it would be awful hard for the BCS to sell taking their existing bid away from them.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          The bar can always be moved, and I’d have to believe that it will be moved upwards…; if WVU goes to the Big East, the conference is basically C-USA/MWC + Rutgers/UConn.

          Like

  51. zeek says:

    And the latest from Bohls and the Big 12 news people:

    kbohls kbohls
    I’m told Oklahoma and Texas Tech favor Louisville.
    4 minutes ago
    High-placed Big 12 source sez will be several days before all works out; “WVa is a strong option, but not clear yet. We don’t even know yet”
    1 hour ago
    West Va., Louisville both expected to make formal pitches to Big 12 soon. Three to four Big 12 schools favor L’ville.
    1 hour ago
    Two Big 12 sources say slow down on West Virginia joining. WVa remains the leader and probable invitee, but Louisville still in the picture.
    1 hour ago

    This is interesting. Oklahoma and Tech favor Louisville along with possibly 1-2 other schools. But if WVU is the leader, that means they probably have Texas and a majority of the rest on their side.

    Like

    • Gopher86 says:

      Is OU still licking wounds from that BCS egg it laid against WVU?

      Like

    • zeek says:

      12:13
      Comment From Guest
      Does Deloss prefer WVU or L’ville?
      12:14
      Kirk Bohls:
      West Virginia.

      Like

    • bobo the feted says:

      OK and Tech probably favor UL for travel reasons, Louisville is much closer to Tech (the most far western Big12 program) than WVU is. Tech and OK don’t have big airports next to their campuses for Tech you have to fly from LBB to Dallas and then to Pitt and then travel by bus for 2hrs to get to Morgantown. OK you drive an hour to OKC catch a plan from there to Dallas or directly to Pitt, then bus 2hrs to Morgantown. With Louisville you save students at least 4hrs of travel time by flying in directly..

      Like

      • EZCUSE says:

        Perhaps someone can donate an airport? Perhaps eve an international airport?

        Mr. Burns: Something is not right about Larry’s upbringing. Send for the boys of Yale at once!

        Mr. Burns: Well, how did the interview go?

        Male Admissions Officer: Larry made light of my weight, then suggested my motto ought to be “Semper Fudge”. Afterwards he told me to “relax” and “forget about it”.

        Mr. Burns: OK, OK. How were his test scores?

        Female Admissions Officer: Let me put it this way. Larry spelled Yale with a 6.

        Mr. Burns, in a not-to-subtle moves, opens his checkbook
        Mr. Burns: Oh, I almost forgot, it is time for your annual contribution. How much should I give?

        Male Admissions Officer: Let us see. A score of 400 would require new football uniforms. A score of 300 would require a new dormitory.

        Mr. Burns: And in Larry’s case?

        Male Admissions Officer: A new international airport.

        Female Admissions Officer: Yale could use an international airport, Mr. Burns.

        Mr. Burns: Blast you! I am not made of airports! Get out!

        http://simpsons.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Burns,_Baby_Burns/Quotes

        Like

        • duffman says:

          bobo the feted,

          You actually inadvertently raised an interesting issue. For the folks on here that may not know, the louisville airport is very close to the University of Louisville. What you also may not know is that is a primary UPS hub airport which benefits the commercial direct flights from Louisville to other places. In particular I have flow Southwest out of Louisville on direct flights so it is something to consider in a B12 move. Fans following teams via commercial flights could find the southern B12 quite easy to get to.

          Like

  52. duffman says:

    What if:

    The ACC lands Notre Dame and Uconn to get to 16?

    How would you align the schools? Would you do 8 team divisions? Would you do 4 team pods?

    Here is my thought of a 8 team North / South division with no crossovers till the ACC CCG

    North = Uconn, BC, SU, Pitt, MD, ND, UVA, and VT
    South = UNC, NCST, Duke, WF, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami
    this would also kill the Atlantic and Costal mess in the national perception

    VT, ND, and Pitt would be the northern CFB anchors
    MNC in North = ND @11, Pitt @ 9, BC @ 1, MD @ 1, and SU @ 1 = 23 MNC’s
    Clemson, FSU, and Miami would be the southern CFB anchors
    MNC in South = Miami @ 5, GT @ 4, FSU @ 2, and Clemson @ 1 = 12 MNC’s

    Uconn and SU would be the northern MCBB anchors
    NCAA banners in North = Uconn @ 3, MD @ 1, SU @ 1 = 5 NCAA titles
    UNC and Duke would be the southern MCBB anchors
    NCAA banners in South = UNC @ 5, Duke @ 4, NCST @ 2 = 11 NCAA titles

    ND could keep U$C, UM, PU, MSU, and Navy as OOC football games
    ND has history with Pitt @ 66 games and BC @ 20 games
    ND vs Uconn, SU, MD, UVA, and VT > BU, KSU, ISU, WVU, and TT

    ACC could cut a deal with ESPN on individual Tier 3 rights in “pairs” similar to what the PAC did. While not allowing ND full financial independence it would allow ND to form their own LHN or BYU TV environment. Less like LHN and more like BYU such a TV network could transmit catholic programming, and hey look, Boston College is a catholic school in the North division. The catholic tier 3 “pair” could be weighted heavily to the advantage of the Domers.

    The ACC South is where the in-state OOC games are so ESPN protects both their SEC and ACC deals. UF vs FSU / UGA vs GT / USC vs Clemson all remain in the ESPN world, while they could push cross conference games. VU already plays WF, but suppose they pushed a UK vs UNC or UK vs Duke game. Suppose ESPN pushed a UT vs VT or UT vs Clemson game? Suppose ESPN pushed to make the Clemson vs Auburn happen with greater regularity. ESPN certainly would have a vested interest in seeing ACC football eyeballs grow if it means they get them at the expense of BTN eyeballs.

    In basketball ESPN could push the revival of the old ND vs UK game. Having UK and UF play UNC and Duke every year in a reformed “Big 4” game is not out of the question. UK and UNC already play every year, and UF vs Duke would anchor the other side. The downside is I could see ESPN asking UK to drop the IU game and pick up ND in their place. It would kill IU’s basketball value, but it is no care to ESPN if they want to grow the value of ND. It is things like this that drive me nuts about realignment. IU already lost the IU vs UK football game in favor of UL vs UK. To lose the basketball rivalry would be a stake in the heart.

    While I think this is all “what if”, I get the gut feeling this is already in the works, and why Delany should not have been playing golf. It also makes sense that the SEC would add Missouri and not go after an ACC school. Adding Notre Dame takes the ACC off the “prey” list, and makes it a lesser “predator” with ESPN in their corner.

    ACC has their 16, and leaves the SEC with 2 more slots for one of these combinations:

    Texas & Oklahoma = HOME RUN for ESPN
    Oklahoma & Oklahoma State = football and a little brother
    Oklahoma & Kansas = football & basketball
    Louisville & Cincinnati = border protectors + basketball schools for SEC vs ACC TV games
    Texas & Rice = AAU gambit and Rice vs VU baseball
    Texas Tech & USF = schools with boundary extensions : TT = west texas & USF = south FL

    Such options would give ESPN the east coast, the south, and the southwest while limiting FOX to the BTN and a part of the PAC and B12.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Pretty sure the SEC would stay at 14. Texas doesn’t want to go to the SEC. Does Oklahoma really want to?

      Rice, Louisville, and Cincinnati are non-starters. Ditto for Tech and USF. They don’t need any of those schools.

      They’re looking for flagships (or major football schools) with access to large media markets.

      The only schools they’re probably looking at are Va Tech and FSU for 16. Oklahoma + Texas don’t seem like they want to deal with the SEC. Hard to see why that would change.

      Like

      • bobo the feted says:

        VaTech and FSU also don’t want any part of the SEC either. Beamer doen’t like playing in that league and Jimbo knows FSU isn’t quite back yet, Mizzou by far is the best choice marketwise and AAU wise. Clemson would likely go to the SEC (HC has SEC ties, they are like SEC programs in fervor) but South Carolina is barren in TVsets in comparison.

        Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        The SEC would be crazy to go past 14, imo.

        Like

      • duffman says:

        zeek, I am looking at it from the TV side and not the schools

        Right now the BE deal is winding down and that means 200,000,000 of free cash flow for ESPN and 50,000,000 of free cash flow for CBS. ESPN has already bought Texas with the LHN, so they are probably okay with the Longhorns in the B12 for now, and possibly the PAC or SEC someday, just so long as Texas never enters the B1G. If Dosh is right, then ESPN has 1 billion into the B1G to FOX’s 3 billion. It also means it can cherry pick the best games, while not promoting the secondary games, so as not to add to adding value for FOX. ESPN already owns the ACC, and adding Uconn just puts the two together. If ESPN redeployed the 200 million in Big East savings back into the ACC, then the ACC schools have more money, and less reason to think of joining the SEC.

        Look at a simplified matrix – again courtesy of Dosh :

        ACC = 18 bucks in tier 1 and tier 2 @ ESPN
        B12 = 5 bucks in tier 1 @ ESPN for every 12 bucks in tier 2 @ FOX
        B1G = 10 bucks in tier 1 @ ESPN for every 30 bucks in tier 2 @ FOX
        PAC = 30 bucks in tier 1 and tier 2 @ ESPN & FOX
        SEC = 8 bucks in tier 1 @ CBS for every 22 bucks in tier 2 @ ESPN

        BE = 2 bucks in tier 1 @ ESPN for every 50 cents in tier 2 @ CBS

        .

        Now look at the BE money added to the ACC, and adding UL + UC + WVU for no additional cost on the B12 deal, or nominal at best.

        .

        ACC = 20 bucks in tier 1 and tier 2 @ ESPN
        B12 = 5 bucks in tier 1 @ ESPN for every 12 bucks in tier 2 @ FOX
        B1G = 10 bucks in tier 1 @ ESPN for every 30 bucks in tier 2 @ FOX
        PAC = 30 bucks in tier 1 and tier 2 @ ESPN & FOX
        SEC = 8 bucks in tier 1 @ CBS for every 22 bucks in tier 2 @ ESPN

        ESPN = low hanging fruit in ACC, B12, B1G and splits the PAC with FOX
        CBS = low hanging fruit in the SEC

        ESPN = remaining fruit in ACC & SEC, and splits PAC with FOX
        FOX = remaining fruit in B12 & B1G, and splits PAC with FOX

        .

        ESPN can let the B12 continue for another 6 years while they build up the LHN, and see if any other schools bear fruit in the meantime. Texas and Oklahoma could stay in the B12 forever, but at some point they will probably jump. Larry Scott really only has 6 options right now, and only 5 if Missouri does indeed head to the SEC.

        Larry Scotts options = UT / TT / OU / oSu / MU / KU

        The bigger issue is Notre Dame and Uconn in the ACC makes it much harder for the B1G or the SEC to raid them. On the flip side Delany should have attacked the ACC for Maryland before they can become a North team and still be in the ACC without being directly under the Carolina schools. I think the Virginia schools might also welcome such a distance, while still being attached to the ACC umbrella. Long term Scott may have limited the PAC by not pulling the trigger on OU and oSu when he had a chance. No matter how you slice it, the big winner in all this will be ESPN.

        Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      What could Delaney do to stop it?

      Not a Big 10 fan. But I think that “no expansion” is sometimes better than “any expansion.” And you cannot make a school join.

      I think ND + _______ is a win for the ACC. But it is also a win for the Big 10.

      The issue is whether and how it is a win for Notre Dame.

      I do think that you hit the nail on the head with respect to how a North/South division works with Notre Dame though. The issue is whether ND can maintain all of its desired OOC games in ANY conference. You can’t play USC, Navy, and Michigan if there are 9 conference games. Does it give up Michigan to have the flexibility to play a revolving cast of characters in that 12th game?

      I think if the ACC said 8 conference games, with 4 OOC… that would help. But then the cross-divisional games are 1 per season. Barely get to see the other teams. With 9, that drops to every 4 years.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        ACC is going to 9 games for sure, as is the Big Ten.

        Neither conference really gives a hoot whether ND chooses to join either. They’ll make their pitches, and ND is like to say “no thanks, we prefer to stay independent”.

        There’s no reason to not increase to 9 games for ND. You want your members to play one another more often, and with 6 division games and only 2 crossover (1 protected), a team in a 14 team conference barely sees the 6 non-protected crossover teams.

        Like

    • cutter says:

      I don’t think there’s any way Notre Dame would go for the North-South ACC alignment that you’re proposing. This is a school that prides itself on having a national footprint as an independent and to use the ND term, does not want to be regionalized.

      What you’re proposing with that divide (and with the annual non-conference game against Navy) is that Notre Dame would play eight teams each year that are located in the area between Boston and Charlottesville, VA with two games against teams south of the Virginia-North Carolina border, one against USC and one TBD (or two TBD if the opt to go with eight conference games, which isn’t likely).

      I suspect there’d only be two options here. One is the east-west zipper where there are protected rivalries in the two divisions to ensure, for example, that Miami and Florida State play one another on an annual basis.

      The other option is with four pods:

      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

      You know the drill from there. ND plays BC, UConn and SU each year plus two teams from each of the three other pods. This way, Notre Dame plays teams from New England to Florida each year and doesn’t get “regionalized” as much as a simple north-south division. They could even coordinate the schedule so that ND doesn’t play both Navy and Maryland home or away each season so that the Irish don’t make two trips a year to the DC/Baltimore area.

      It’s not ideal because that leaves Notre Dame only one non-conference game to schedule to keep itself “non-regionalized” because of the annual game with USC. If the ACC is willing to play conference games early in the year, that opens up non-conference dates later in the season to accomodate the game with the Trojans and it would give ND the opportunity to, if they wanted, schedule a second home-and-home series (which would mean they play just six home games) with another major program (Texas, Michigan, Alabama, etc.) in September or they could schedule a pay for play opponent (Rice, Air Force, San Diego State, etc.)

      Like

      • duffman says:

        Cutter,

        I agree with C and D. Given past history I could see :

        Pod A = BC, ND, Pitt, SU
        Pod B = MD, Uconn, UVA, VT

        while not a perfect fit, it may make getting ND easier.

        In my North and South it would be a “reverse” division theory, in that you are promoting OOC games at the expense of fewer IC games. Granted this would reverse for the non football sports to generate more in conference exposure. The B1G / SEC / PAC have football values, but the ACC must rely on basketball values. To “entice” FSU and VT to stay, you let them benefit in ways to fill their stadiums. What is good for ND will be good for them as well. I am basing this on 7 conference games, and not 8, 9, or 10.

        Look at how this might favor the other football schools in the ACC

        South = UNC, NCST, Duke, WF, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

        ND IC = Uconn, BC, SU, Pitt, MD, UVA, VT
        ND OOC = U$C, Navy, UM, PU, MSU

        VT can drop Duke and Miami
        VT IC = Uconn, BC, SU, Pitt, MD, ND, UVA
        VT OOC = UK, ECU, Marshall, Army, Navy

        FSU can drop BC, MD
        FSU IC = UNC, NCST, Duke, WF, Clemson, GT, Miami
        FSU OOC = UF, UCF, USF, Troy, and UAB

        Clemson can drop BC and MD
        Clemson IC = UNC, NCST, Duke, WF, FSU, GT, Miami
        Clemson OOC = USC, Auburn, ECU, Wofford, and Troy

        I know it seems counter intuitive at first, but the vast majority of SEC football fans travel well, while the vast majority of ACC football fans may drive no farther than 2 – 4 hours. If I am the AD of FSU, Clemson, or VT I want games that will fill my seats and these guys must shake their heads when they see Duke or Wake Forest coming to town.

        Notre Dame could play MD in Baltimore (big catholic population) when it was MD’s half of the home and home. Notre Dame could play UVA in Washington (big catholic population) when it was UVA’s half of the home and home. Notre Dame could play VT in Washington (big catholic population) when it was VT’s half of the home and home. Notre Dame could play SU in New York (big catholic population) when it was SU’s half of the home and home. Look at seating numbers for :

        Met Life = ~ 83,000 vs Carrier Dome ~ 49,000 (Syracuse)
        Allot 60,000 SU tickets, and 23,000 ND tickets
        FedEx = ~ 82,000 vs Lane ~ 66,000 (Blacksburg)
        Allot 70,000 VT tickets, and 12,000 ND tickets
        M&T Bank = ~ 70,000 vs Byrd ~ 54,000 (College Park)
        Allot 60,000 MD tickets, and 10,000 ND tickets

        If SU, VT, and MD can not sell their allotment, ND gets right of first refusal on tickets before they go to public sale.

        Like

      • duffman says:

        Cutter, I thought about it some more and thought about a 7 conference game and 5 out of conference schedule that went with the pod thinking. Pods for football but still the North and South divisions for all other sports. I also looked at your pods again, and pod D looked way to strong so I tried to rebalance. No perfect solutions, but if UNC vs UVA is a bigger money draw, then there you go. I tried to put at least 1 good football and 1 bad football school in each pod.

        Pod A = Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College
        Pod B = Virginia Tech, Virginia, UNC, UVA
        Pod C = Clemson, Georgia Tech, NCST, Duke
        Pod D = Florida State, Miami, Maryland, Wake Forest

        The point is Notre Dame makes good money playing so many home games, and neutral games. The football schools in the south would have to adopt a similar philosophy. In 2012 Notre Dame plays 2 neutral site games against Navy and Miami (FL) in addition to their home games. The football schools in the south might need to figure a way to use a similar approach. FSU has no neutral site games for 2012. Va Tech is playing UC at FedEx. Georgia Tech plays no neutral site games in 2012. Clemson plays Auburn in the Georgia Dome in 2012. The issue with Notre Dame overall is they have one of the bigger stadiums in the country, so live seats mean revenue. UM, PSU, UTn, OSU, BAMA, UTx, U$C, UGA, LSU, UF, Auburn, UNL, TAMU, FSU, and OU are the only ones bigger. 7 of these are in the SEC, 4 are in the B1G, 2 are in the B12, and the PAC and ACC have 1 each.

        It could also help schools like Duke and Wake Forest as they could really soften up their OOC in the 5 games, and actually get bowl eligible easier. Pods are tougher than divisions but there is no perfect solutions, or Frank would not have over 2 million hits and counting.

        Like

  53. cutter says:

    Berry Tramel: How Notre Dame could help out the Big 12

    As Sooner fans navigate the five stages of grief, somewhere between denial and anger, we offer a chance to jump the track.

    Remember what took your minds off football during the good times of last week? Use it as pain reliever in the bad times.

    Conference realignment.

    Various reports during a wild Big 12 Tuesday revealed West Virginia in, Missouri out and Notre Dame at least willing to listen to some kind of hybrid relationship with Conference Chaos.

    Feel better? Well, I didn’t think so. Nothing soothes a home loss to Texas Tech, just as nothing in Stillwater could detract from the euphoria of a No. 3 BCS ranking.

    But Notre Dame to the Big 12? Full membership in all sports but football, and a potential scheduling alliance on the gridiron? That would at least lift the Big 12’s status from desperate to quirky.

    Heck, the Big 12 might even be able to add Brigham Young as a football-only member to counter Notre Dame. Sure, such a mongrel conference would be squirrelly. But the Big 12 is long past the point of worrying about appearances.

    I don’t know if a Big 12/Notre Dame agreement could happen. But I do know Big 12 officials have dangled that possibility to South Bend since summer 2010, when Nebraska left the league.

    And now, with the Big East teetering, Notre Dame has to get serious about where its athletic teams will land. The Big Ten and the ACC have been adamant that Notre Dame has to be all in to be any in. For now, the Irish want to maintain a semblance of football independence.

    The Big 12 could be the solution, so long as the Big 12 goes in with the right attitude. Goes in with the knowledge that this common-law relationship never would result in a wedding.

    Better conferences than the Big 12 have grown old and gray waiting on Notre Dame to walk the aisle. The Big Ten. The Big East, the current shack-up, has been waiting, too, much to the chagrin of Big East old-timers like Connecticut women’s basketball coach Geno Auriemma, who last week blasted the Notre Dame/Big East relationship, inferring it kept the Big East in limbo.

    Notre Dame joined the Big East in 1995 for all sports but football. The Irish in football have played Pitt most years since ’95; the Irish also regularly played Boston College when BC was in the Big East.

    But Notre Dame didn’t play Virginia Tech or Miami. Doesn’t play Louisville or Cincinnati. Has played Rutgers, West Virginia and Syracuse thrice each during the Big East years; South Florida and UConn once each.

    If the Big 12 wants to make a deal with Notre Dame, some kind of minimum football scheduling should be required. Six games a year would be nice. A minimum of four.

    Texas is hot and heavy to play Notre Dame every year, apparently on Thanksgiving, which would be the ultimate stick-it-to-A&M move. Bob Stoops probably isn’t too keen on seeing the Irish every year, but frankly, the Sooners helped the Longhorns create this Big 12 mess. OU might need to take one for the team.

    A batch of Notre Dame games, two or three a year on the road at Big 12 schools, would greatly enhance the Big 12 television package when it comes up for bid in a few years.

    Why would Notre Dame suddenly sign off on showing its face in Manhattan, Kan., or Stillwater, places it would play only while holding its nose while getting its butt beat? Because the Irish need a home for those good basketball programs, and the Big East is turning into the Trans America Conference, with Boise State and Central Florida and SMU being mentioned to join the likes of Georgetown and St. John’s.

    Giving them that choice, a football game every once in awhile in Lubbock, Texas, doesn’t seem so bad.

    If the Big 12 wanted to add one more school, say Louisville, along with the quality addition of West Virginia, the league could then try to get the BYU/Notre Dame partnership for No. 12.

    BYU in for football, Notre Dame in all other sports. Brigham Young’s non-football teams are competing in the West Coast Conference; football is BYU’s most pressing need. All the other sports are Notre Dame’s most pressing need. So that might work.

    It’s probably a long shot. And yes, it would be in many ways a dubious arrangement. Nothing screams mickey mouse like a patched-together conference in which some schools don’t toss all its teams into the mix.

    But like I said, the Big 12’s stately days are over. The Big 12 is in survival mode. The Big 12 will win no beauty contests. But nothing could proclaim the nine lives of this conference like a deal with Notre Dame.

    Read more: http://newsok.com/berry-tramel-how-notre-dame-could-help-out-the-big-12/article/3616983#ixzz1bukCZEpW

    Like

    • EZCUSE says:

      Perhaps ND is using the Big XII so that this rumor gets floated out there.

      Then… the ACC can get nervous and offer ND a mini-membership with 7 conference games. Division only. Have ND and the other added team flip between the North and the South:

      Say:

      North: UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, BC, Va Tech, Virginia, MD
      South: NC, NC State, Duke, Wake, GTech, Clemson, FSU

      Every two years… ND is North and Miami is South. Then switch for two years.

      Miami gets its northern exposure. Notre Dame gets its southern exposure. North schools get Florida exposure 2 out of 4 years.

      Problem I cannot solved though–ND would playing Miami.

      Stupid ND and their OOC crap!!!!

      Like

      • EZCUSE says:

        I got so mad that I abandoned grammar. Please translate into something about 2nd grade English for me.

        Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        In a 16 team ACC, ND would play 7 conference games? Hmmm

        Like

      • zeek says:

        Swofford is too smart to jump in with that kind of deal.

        ND isn’t going to get a special deal from the ACC or Big Ten. Both conferences pride themselves on equality of membership.

        The Big 12 on the other hand could easily cut such a deal for ND.

        Like

        • EZCUSE says:

          Isn’t that the issue? If the Big XII is willing to do it, then ND is off the table until the Big XII dies.
          For ND’s purposes, worth a try to see if there is any chance on that. I think the ACC is a rather clear #5 in football right now. They need a splash. To get even a partial season of ND football is worth it. That is also why I think WVU was needed. The ACC needs football juice more than anything else.

          You want a panic moment? Think about Rutgers and UConn. With Missouri off the table, the only way the Big 10 or ACC get to 14/16 is with one of the two paired with ND. For the conference that does not get ND +, they have little to offer and then have to wait for some other move. But WHAT move? The SEC could go to 15, but they would probably just go to 16. So that does not create any openings. At least with a ND + Missouri to Big 10, that left Rutgers + UConn to the ACC possibility.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            ACC didn’t need a splash though; they needed to build their fences around their membership. They did that with the Pitt/Syracuse additions.

            More than anything, they need FSU and Miami to go back to being top 10 programs. They need Pitt/Syracuse to use Mid-Atlantic/Southern recruiting to recapture their glory days in the 70s-80s. They need the Mid-Atlantic schools like UNC, UVA, and NC State to realize how important football is like Va Tech does. They need Clemson to finally breakthrough with all of those 5 star athletes they keep bringing in (might happen this year).

            The ACC was never broken, it was just down because FSU and Miami were down. All those dreamed of top 10 matchups of FSU and Miami still haven’t materialized, and the conference is left with Va Tech to carry the banner this past 7 years.

            As for the final part, what exactly is wrong with staying at 12 or 14? The ACC could stay at 14 forever. The Big Ten could stay at 12 forever. I’m not seeing the fascination with 16.

            In all honesty, the play is ND + 1 or bust for the ACC or Big Ten. The ACC will stay at 14 or 16 if it gets ND, and the Big Ten will stay at 12 or 14 if it gets ND. The conference that doesn’t get ND isn’t going to make some panic move.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            shroom and zeek,

            It makes sense to Swofford if the end run is to create to (2) 8 team mini conferences within the ACC as a “poison pill” to ward off B1G and SEC raids. Such an arrangement would offer the differing ACC issues a way to resolve themselves while not offering cracks for other schools to come in. Look at positives school by school :

            North schools
            Notre Dame = still allows 5 OOC games
            Uconn = can develop football while maintaining basketball in division
            BC = allows closer rivals
            SU = big east feel with VA and MD recruiting
            Pitt = Long history with ND protected
            MD = Basketball freedom from UNC and Duke in separate division
            UVA = Do they really care about sports in the first place
            VT = Easy football schedule, and east coast recruiting

            South schools
            UNC = still in control
            NCST = with VT gone, can develop football
            Duke = still in control, and not having football does not hurt
            WF = happy to still be around
            Clemson = can focus on southern football
            GT = if the SEC is out, this is good spot to be
            FSU = drops fan “drag” games and fills stadium with better “fillers”
            Miami = sets up saints and thugs for CCG when both are good

            You can look at it historically as well :

            North
            Boston College = IND
            Notre Dame = IND
            Uconn = IND
            Syracuse = IND
            Pitt = IND
            MD = SoCon
            UVA = SoCon
            VT = SoCon

            South
            UNC = SoCon
            NCST = SoCon
            Duke = SoCon
            WF = SoCon
            Clemson = SoCon
            Ga Tech = SoCon
            FSU = IND
            Miami = IND

            7 former IND
            9 former SoCon

            6 private schools
            10 public schools

            The B1G / B12 / PAC / ACC can not offer such a balance for a PRIVATE and INDEPENDENT school like Notre Dame.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Duffman, I see a few problems with your ACC format:

            * With Notre Dame in the conference, everyone will want to play the Irish. If the South is locked out, its addition means nothing to them.

            * You are dropping some traditional North/South rivalries, notably UVa-UNC (a big deal, especially in Charlottesville).

            Better to use four pods, add a guaranteed out-of-pod game (e.g., UVa-UNC, NCSU-Clemson in the “Textile Bowl”) and play three other out-of-pod games, rotating pairings.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            zeek, the reason for 16 is a move to a playoff while certain schools and conferences maximize the value of the “first round” by keeping it inside a conference. The CCG’s become the round #1 guaranty for the B1G / PAC / SEC / SEC in a 4 team playoff

            4 team playoff slots =
            B1G
            PAC
            SEC
            ???? with ACC as first option

            B1G CCG winner meets PAC CCG winner in Rose Bowl
            SEC CCG winner meets ???? play in winner in Sugar Bowl

            Sugar Bowl winner plays Rose Bowl winner in National Championship game

            Winner is D 1 FBS NCAA National Champion

            Like

          • duffman says:

            vincent, maybe you add 1 more conference game with a cross division rival so UVA and UNC can still play. Settling the issues will be like sausage, in that you do not want to see it made, but in the end you have a product people will buy and consume. In the South you make it up in basketball for schools like Wake Forest, UNC, NCST, and Duke. That just leaves GT, FSU, Clemson, and FSU. These schools should just be happy with the added football exposure ND would bring to a “basketball” conference. Again, you are looking for ways to not become “prey” as a conference, and maybe that is a price FSU and Clemson has to accept.

            Say you did it this way, see below, how would you make it work?

            4 OOC games only for ND (Navy, U$C, ????, ????)
            1 cross division protected rival (Miami)

            ACC scheduling
            4 OOC
            8 CG = 7 division + 1 cross division protected game

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            zeek…you and I finally agree on something…..16 is a bad #, …playing each other less, possibility of factions forming…..I actually think 12 is an ideal # for the BIG IF the ACC and SEC hadn’t gone to 14. I think that changed the game in the long-run.

            Like

  54. charlie says:

    the other option for the Big XII-1-1-1 is to invite BOTH WVa and L’Ville to get back to 11, and then wait to see if Mizzou stays, and if they go lobby for BYU or another school. I know Texas had said that they wanted to stay at 10, but 12 seems to be the general “number of stability” for conferences at the moment

    on the B1G side of things, this would absolutely destroy the BEast and could potentially push ND our way

    Like

  55. Read The D says:

    http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7152103/rick-pitino-louisville-cardinals-big-east-add-memphis-tigers-temple-owls

    Pitino makes so much sense. The Big East should go for the best basketball programs available. BE has officially lost the football sweepstakes. The Big East didn’t even want to have football to begin with. Get over football and figure out how to max out your basketball dollars. Are you telling me a Big East Network won’t sell college basketball in the Northeast?

    Like

    • mike in st louis says:

      I’m sure they could agree on Memphis. But Nova isn’t going to want Temple, St. Joe’s, or LaSalle and Cincinnati isn’t going to want Xavier. Who else is there to add? Charlotte? UMass? Richmond? St. Bonny? Duquense?

      Like

  56. zeek says:

    Straight from BCS director Bill Hancock’s mouth:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/id/25553/clarifying-the-big-east-bcs-relationship

    Another factor in whether the Big East retains BCS status: The Big East doesn’t have a contract with a specific BCS bowl a la the Big 10 with the Rose Bowl, which puts it in a precarious position when compared with the other BCS conferences.

    When asked if the Big East could lose its BCS status if it does not have a contract with a bowl in 2014, Hancock said: “Any of the conferences could, if the marketplace requests it.” He defined “marketplace” as the bowl games’ boards and television partners. (ESPN has the exclusive television, radio, digital, international and marketing rights for the Fiesta, Orange and Sugar Bowls through 2014 and the BCS title game through 2013.)

    Hancock said whether the Big East could end up entering a contact with a BCS bowl is dependent on “Negotiations among all conferences for any new BCS bowl. This would be part of conversations coming up.”

    ———————————————————–

    Basically, if ESPN and the BCS bowls don’t want the Big East to have an AQ bid, it won’t have an AQ bid.

    Like

    • frug says:

      Glad someone brought that up about the Big East not having a separate contract with a
      BCS Bowl. That means they lack the extra protection that the Big Five have.

      Like

    • Phil says:

      If ESPN doesn’t get the Big East under contract, they won’t want them to have a bid.

      However, didn’t the BCS create a problem for themselves by releasing the criteria for a new conference getting a bid after getting political pressure over the Mountain West? Wouldn’t they be opening themselves up to a s**tstorm of problems if they then ignored that criteria and took away a bid from the Big East (if they added Boise) that met the numbers?

      Like

  57. footballnut says:

    Some university president, can’t remember who, recently said, “…in the end, there will be two mega conferences: Fox and ESPN.”

    Then we can have a playoff.

    Like

  58. OT says:

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    The XII is still as dysfunctional as ever.

    Bevo wants West Virginia

    However, the Sooner faction (which now includes Texas Tech) want Louisville

    When will this Hatfield vs McCoy act ever end?

    Like

  59. frug says:

    Great. The politicians are getting involved.

    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/26/report-louisville-behind-wvu-to-big-12-snag/

    Senators McConnell, Rockefeller and Manchin need to make sure everyone knows how important they are…

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I think the WV Senators by going public may have killed WVU’s chances. Everything indicated, they were still at least in the lead for #10. They should have been working behind the scenes to convince ESPN and Fox to pay as much per school for 12 as they will for 10 and get both UL and WVU in. And the ACC and SEC will never even talk to WVU if the Big 12 now falls through. Swofford and Slive probably have Oliver Luck’s number on permanent ignore now.

      Sounds like WVU got ahead of themselves. Other than 1 WV report quoting 1 source, everyone seemed to believe WVU was contingent on Missouri leaving (who STILL hasn’t left yet-they’re beginning to smell kind of rancid). And the way these things work, nothing is done until the paperwork is signed. It really seemed strange to me they were planning a press conference.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Unless Chuck Neinas has flight reservations (or his charter on the runway), there’s no reason to be planning press conferences.

        Like

    • indy doug says:

      Where the hell are Ohio’s senators pushing for 12 in the big 12?

      Like

      • charlie says:

        having grown up in ohio and having lived in cleveland, columbus, and cincinnati, I can tell you that pretty much no one in ohio cares about UC. pretty much everyone in ohio roots for ohio state, and then if they went to a different college, they’ll root for their college as well (so, if you went to Toledo, you’d root for Toledo and Ohio State). nearly everyone thinks of UC as just another MAC team. in the city of Cincinnati, there’s obviously a little more pull for UC, but the big event in Cinci is the UC vs Xavier show down in basketball – there is relavitely little support for the UC football team in that city (as is evident by the poor attendance in Nippert Stadium). basically, no one in ohio feels the need to protect UC’s conference affiliation because no one thinks of UC as a big BCS school, they’re mostly thought of as another Miami (Ohio) or Bowling Green

        Like

  60. EZCUSE says:

    O/T Is it me or is the weather a much bigger factor the past two months than ever before? Maybe I haven’t been paying attention, but I do not recall so many college football delays/early cancellations. I also do not recall so many early cancellations of playoff baseball games.

    Like

    • OT says:

      The schools are scared to death of being sued. Any lightning results in a delay.

      All the night time kickoffs don’t help. Thunderstorms tend to take place in the early evening.

      Like

  61. Jefferson says:

    Boehner gets involved, Cincinnati, Louisville and WVU join the Big XII, while Mizzou goes to the SEC. Big XII goes to 12, but Big East implodes, with ND going to B1G or ACC. If B1G, Rutgers joins ND. And then Texas decides to join B1G.

    Like

  62. duffman says:

    Brian,

    The hits keep coming

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/page/bottom10111026/illinois-illini-fans-not-how-scary-movie-ends

    UK won so they did not join us in the doghouse, but having IU, Minnesota, and a shot at Zook makes this bad pub for the B1G.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Only if you care what an SEC shill has to say on a web site owned by the SEC shill network. It’s obvious IL doesn’t belong on the list at 6-2.

      Like

      • frug says:

        If you follow the weekly rankings you will see they regularly include teams that have good records that embarrass themselves. The column is designed to entertain people, not strictly represent the worst of the worst.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Yes, but there is also a bias in who he considers to have embarrassed themselves. SEC losses don’t get you on the list nearly as often as a B10 loss can. I’ve learned not to follow SEC shills.

          Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Man, the Zookster….hard to fire him with a winning record……but, have you seen their recruiting for next year? Yikes…..Illinois just can’t seem to find the right guy………

      Like

  63. zeek says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7153316/boise-state-bronocs-discussing-move-big-west-conference-non-football-teams

    “Interim Boise State athletic director Curt Apsey called Big West Conference commissioner Dennis Farrell on Wednesday to gauge interest in taking the Broncos’ other sports if they join the Big East in football, a source with direct knowledge of the conversation told ESPN.com.

    On the call, Apsey said the Broncos could be in a predicament in looking for a new home for all of its non-football teams, according to the source. The New York Times reported Boise State was one of a handful of schools that met with Big East officials Sunday to discuss joining the league in football only.”

    Like

    • bullet says:

      They don’t have many choices. I don’t think the Big Sky would take them, although it would give them an even number of teams. Big West is probably a long shot. Best chance is WAC, but its not clear if that is allowed. I’ve seen claims that you can’t be in one conference for all sports and another for football, but never seen any proof of that claim. Clearly the school couldn’t count you as a member for NCAA purposes, but that doesn’t mean you couldn’t do it while being treated as an affiliate.

      Like

    • Eric says:

      This is a really big hang up. I think Boise State takes the bid almost regardless, but not having a conference for its other sports. would be the only thing I think should give them pause.

      Like

      • OT says:

        Boise State is as good as gone from the Mountain West. BIG EAST or bust in football.

        The BIG EAST is moving ahead with its raid (SMU, Houston, Central Florida, Boise State) and is ignoring the “Big Mount USA East” nonsense from the “Mount USA” alliance.

        Meanwhile, the ACC will operate in stealth mode and launch a surgical strike in the middle of the night over a weekend. ACC has its choice of Rutgers (bigger TV market, bigger TV viewership, bigger alumni base) or UCONN (much better basketball.) I personally would take Rutgers over UCONN, but the likes of North Carolina and Duke, not to mention ESPN, inc., might favor UCONN.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          I don’t see the ACC adding anyone. Notre Dame is still likely not joining anyone and a 14 game schedule is already going to limit crossover games significantly.

          Like

    • @zeek – I only want this to happen so that we can see the same school be in both the Big East and Big West at the same time.

      Like

  64. zeek says:

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/10/west-virginia-jay-rockefeller-joe-manchin-big-12-louisville/1

    “The Big 12 picked WVU on the strength of its program — period,” Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia said in a statement. “Now the media reports that political games may upend that. That’s just flat wrong. I am doing and will do whatever it takes to get us back to the merits.”

    Joe Manchin, the other senator from West Virginia, has called a press conference for 6 p.m. ET to discuss conference realignment in college athletics.

    “If these outrageous reports have any merit – and especially if a United States Senator has done anything inappropriate or unethical to interfere with a decision that the Big 12 had already made – then I believe that there should be an investigation in the U.S. Senate, and I will fight to get the truth,” Manchin said in a statement. “West Virginians and the American people deserve to know exactly what is going on and whether politics is interfering with our college sports.”

    Manchin’s involvement in college sports is not unprecedented. As governor of West Virginia, he helped arrange for Marshall and West Virginia to play a seven-game series that started in 2006 and ends in 2012. Previously, the schools had only played once since 1923.

    ————————–

    Seriously, if politicians would actually think about what they were saying, the world would be a better place. Of course, everyone’s desperate at this point in time, but still, the notion that a senator who’s played these kinds of games would accuse others of playing these kinds of games is a joke.

    Like

  65. Michael in Raleigh says:

    There should be a cartoon with a children’s song about the Big East’s and Big 12’s problems that are now intersecting one another:

    “Dysfunction Junction, What’s Your Function?”

    Like

  66. Mike says:

    OT: Ah, the SWC…

    http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/32950430


    “When Fred Jacoby became commissioner of the SWC, in his first meeting the coaches had him leave the room – the commissioner – so that they could do their draft. They were buying all the same guys so they realized, let’s just be more organized. ‘You need these two defensive tackles, you take them, we’ll take him.’ They literally had a draft board. Poor Fred had come from the Mid-American Conference down to that environment.

    Like

  67. indy doug says:

    For UC that is

    Like

  68. Mike says:

    Is it just me or does this Pitt – UConn game feel like watching a spring practice?

    Like

  69. M says:

    We may be about to have a little test on exactly how much pull the NDNation segment has on ND. Brian Kelly just announced that he would like a Jumbotron, which is of course second on the list of the 10 most hated things at NDN

    1. Joining a conference
    2. Jumbotron
    3. Those damn kids playing Quidditch
    4. The vague cabal of shadowy figures that run ND and want the football program to fail
    5. Any coach who doesn’t run the wishbone
    6. Admission standards
    7. Swaying
    8. Mums (the flower)
    9. Enforcement of open container laws
    10. That obnoxious Ozzy Osborne youngster

    Don’t believe me? Here is a cached copy of their reasoned debate on the Jumbotron subject:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rMCFxJcEgbcJ:www.ndnation.com/boards/showpost.php%3Fb%3Dfootball%3Bpid%3D242006%3Bd%3Dthis+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Interesting to see how this plays out…

      I would say though, that a lot of the NDNationites are somewhat split on the first question.

      They hate the Big Ten more than anything and some are willing to join the ACC to spite the Big Ten if there was ever a situation where they had to join (4×16).

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        The academic side/faculty is going to carry a lot more weight in ND choosing a conference than some assume. They voted in a block to join the B1G in ’99 and I don’t believe their preference has changed. I realize that the tail wags the dog as far a football goes, but the advantages of joining the ACC pale in comparison to the B1G and I don’t believe grudges will rule the day.

        Like

        • rich2 says:

          I agree with you that the “academic side” will carry the day if ND is forced to relinquish independence in football and join a conference as a full member. You are completely wrong in how you frame the analysis. It is not “academics=Big10+” and “grudge=ACC” but “continue to build an undergraduate-centered ethos = ACC” vs. “graduate-research in the land grant mold=Big10+.” Since 1999, ND has made tremendous strides on the undergraduate side and the apparent benefits of adopting a research profile have eroded. There are still benefits for the faculty to increase emphasis on sponsored-research. There are more benefits for ND to continue its current path — which will lead it to ultimately, if forced to pick, to pick the ACC.

          Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            So long as ~50% of federal research dollars can be used for “research related expenditures” the “apparant benefits of adopting a research profile” will never erode.

            There’s plenty of federal reseach that wouldn’t come close to ND’s religious “no-no zones” and if they were to avail themselves of the oppurtunity the CIC would be a good organization to help maximize their endeavors.

            Like

          • Gopher86 says:

            There are a lot more institutions that share similarities with ND in the ACC. There are also plenty of east coast ND alums and clusters of Catholics in the ACC footprint.

            Like

          • M says:

            I think your depiction of the ACC as “undergrad focused” is a little misleading. UVA, UNC, Duke, NCSU, GT, Maryland, Syracuse and Pitt all have huge graduate research components. Miami, Clemson, Florida State and VT are all trying to move in that direction. That’s 12 of the 14 schools.

            Conversely, many of the Big Ten schools have very well respected undergraduate programs (Northwestern, Illinois, Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan).

            I don’t think the ACC schools are generally as similar to ND as you say, nor the Big Ten as different. As I’ve said before, if ND wants to be among peer institutions, it should drop football to FCS and join the Big East Catholic league.

            Like

          • M says:

            @Gopher

            Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia have some of the lowest Catholic populations of any state. Those states contain 8 of the ACC 16. So assuming that ND, FSU, and Miami are not all in the same division, ND’s best case division in the ACC is:

            ND
            BC
            Syracuse
            Rutgers (or UConn)
            Pitt
            Maryland
            Miami
            GT (traditional rival, though in a low Catholic population state)

            That’s basically the Big East circa 2002, or slightly worse (swap Maryland and GT for VT, WVU and Temple). If ND wanted to be in that Big East, they could have joined back then and probably kept the original ACC raid from occurring.

            Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      M-

      Nah, while joining a conference is the #1 hate, and the B1G is #1A, I get the feeling that NDN is more pro-I than the bone (even the Holtz die-hards). Also, there is definite pride in the admission standards being as high as they are. Mums should be higher, along with ushers telling people to sit down, and the general Disnification of gameday.

      That said, if Domers could be considered the Republican party, NDN is the Tea Party.

      I think there can be some discussion and debate on field turf, because apparently trying to grow grass north of Lafayette in November is a no go. But the traditionalists are very against the Jumbotron. They like the extremely limited advertising in NDS, and know that whoever the admin put in charge of putting stuff on the Jumbotron will manage to screw it up and embarrass us all. Going through that thread, I was amused I saw a bit of dorm on dorm trash-talk.

      GreatLakeState-

      The Professors voted by a small margin to join the CIC in 1999. Since that time, I’ve read more critical articles from ND re the CIC and generally the bad “cultural” fit between the two schools. I’m not sure I agree with all of it, but the fact it’s been out there the last couple years is different from the positive spin the CIC was given back in ’99. Also, there’s been a great deal of turnover at the top of the ND bureaucracy in the last 10-15yrs.

      Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        You know, join a conference, don’t…I couldn’t really care, but I do have to ask is NDN more than a little worried about going the way of the Ivies?

        I mean over the past 100 years ND went from a nothing to a national power, but since Holtz left it has finished in the Top 25 only 5 times (Top 10 once and even them I’m giving a 9 and 11 ranking an average) and its never been close to a National Championship. What’s more the school has really tried to build and maintain a successful program…especially with the latest two hirings that were much more high profile. My point is that it seems important for them to be known as a “top football school” but they are “failing” with every new hire.

        I mean don’t get me wrong, I honestly think the past decade of college football will be known as the “Cheater’s Decade” what with $cam Newton, NC, tOSU, Miami, USC (and not to mention all the “non-cheating cheating” with over-signing and the like), etc so I don’t want to say the sky is falling just yet, but on the other hand the Ivies, and the service academies too now that I think about it, refused to change the way they did business in college athletics in the face of rapidly changing college athletics and in turn they were (mostly) left by the way side. I can respect the decision, especially if the rationale is deemed more important (Ivies say they are academic first, services say they need to be soldiers first, and both prove it), but in the end it doesn’t change the fact they are where they are and its nowhere close to where they were.

        Anywho, just my thoughts.

        Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          For all the talk of Notre Dame’s academic standards being too high for them to be competitive, I give you Stanford. Their academic standards for admission for their football players is likely higher than any other FBS school, with the possible exception of the service academies. (If the standards aren’t higher, they’re at the very least on par with schools like Duke, Rice, and Northwestern, and I’m sure they exceed Notre Dame’s.) Stanford is also far from being a traditional powerhouse who, while having loads of finanical resources, it has very lukewarm fan support even in its best years. Yet it is one of the best teams in the nation.

          If Stanford can be this good, Notre Dame can most certainly be that good. Worries about going the way of the Ivies should not be a realistic worry.

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Good point, but very much the exception to the rule. Stanford’s had some decent teams off and on over the years. So has Georgia Tech. But how often have either challenged for a NC? And look at Duke, Rice ,Army, Navy, Northwestern….when you pro teams like LSU and Bama, high SAT scores don’t matter.

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            And also to the point…I don’t speak solely of academics. “Independence” is as much a “refusal to change with the times” as any other reason.

            Way I see it, while a school like Stanford CAN be successful, it can only be so in a conference because otherwise it would lack the visibility (not necessarily the money) during its down years. ND’s independence relies solely on the fact it has a national comercial every Saturday (via its NBC contract) and that’s a huge draw for prospective players.

            But that exposure is based on winning…something ND hasn’t been very consistant at very recently. If NBC decides to start pushing ND games to Versus (a very real possibility) or not carry them at all (not so much) it becomes no different than any other school fighting for air time on a crowded cable tv lineup (ok, slight exageration, but I think only slight).

            At that point ND may have clung to its mantle of “Independence”, but at the cost of not really being any different than any other college football program in the nation.

            Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Holtz compromised the admission standards and won a NC. ND won’t win a NC with its present strict standards.

          Like

        • rich2 says:

          PSUguy, I basically agree with your opinion. It would be best for our students and alums if the administration did commit to going the way of the University of Chicago rather than change the underlying philosophy of the football program. I don’t think there would be much disagreement over this statement at NDN. The real question under much debate is whether it is possible to compete consistently at a Top 15 level without racing to the bottom with all the other schools and holding to internal standards. Also, the definition of the “bottom” is broader than academic standards. You know the litany. Stanford, Harbaugh and Andrew Luck are today’s outlier. View their performance over the past 30 years. It appears to me that when Stanford hires one of the best coaches in America and signs Elway and Luck, they do well. That is not much of a guide. Stanford has gone back and forth on this very question. Decades ago ND needed the glamor of the football program to improve our undergraduate student base. It is now absolutely not needed. ND should not be in the entertainment business. Let other universities and conferences twist themselves into whatever shape ESPN wants to increase the per university dollar distribution by a few million dollars.

          Like

          • rich2 says:

            M (I can’t reply under your post) If you use the simplest metric possible (25-75 ACT/SAT split for incoming freshman), ND has way more in common with Duke, Virginia, UNC, WF, GT and even Fredo, than we do with the BIG10. Yes, some of the aforementioned ACC schools have also well developed graduate research programs. But, the converse is not true: you cannot find a similar core of Big10 schools with similar strength at the undergraduate level. As I have argued internally for a decade, the Big 10 could compete against the ACC at the undergraduate model if it changed its financial model and dropped the bottom 33% of the incoming freshman class every year.

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            But in fairness rich, that isn’t going to happen. The Big Ten schools are mostly land-grant state universities who were tasked by the government (and thus state tax money) to provide broad-based high quality education to large population bases. “Getting rid of the bottom 33%”, especially for “bragging” purposes, goes counter to the universities’ mission statement.

            That being said, while the undergraduate acceptance rates and nominally relevant entrance criteria (SAT/ACT) are not going to beat the ND (though Northwestern’s does last I checked), Yale, Harvard, etc I think it important to note the Big Ten schools, as undergraduate institutions, are highly respected in various fields (they outright own engineering, even at the undergrad level, and Wisconsin is as notable as MIT or Harvard for economics). While saying a focus on undergraduate studies is more prevelant in the ACC may be correct, I think the reverse logic for the Big Ten is not true.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            translation for B1G folks

            “Fredo” is Boston College

            Like

          • M says:

            I can’t find ACT/SAT splits, but that’s more a measure of the type of student than the quality or reputation of education.

            If you look at USNWR rankings, there’s not a substantial difference between the two:

            Duke 10 ACC
            UVA 25 ACC
            Wake Forest 25 ACC
            UNC 29 ACC
            Boston College 31 ACC
            Georgia Tech 36 ACC
            Miami 38 ACC
            Maryland 55 ACC
            Pitt 58 ACC
            Syracuse 62 ACC
            Clemson 68 ACC
            VT 71 ACC
            FSU 101 ACC
            NCSU 101 ACC
            Northwestern 12 Big Ten
            Michigan 28 Big Ten
            Wisconsin 42 Big Ten
            Penn State 45 Big Ten
            Illinois 45 Big Ten
            Ohio State 55 Big Ten
            Purdue 62 Big Ten
            Minnesota 68 Big Ten
            MSU 71 Big Ten
            Iowa 71 Big Ten
            Indiana 75 Big Ten
            UNL 101 Big Ten

            The Big Ten average is 56 (52 if you count UChicago). The ACC (including Pitt and Syracuse) is 51. If you accept those rankings as a proxy for how much the school cares about undergraduate education (or at the very least how much the school cares about undergraduate education rankings), I don’t think you can honestly say that the ACC and Big Ten are incomparable.

            Like

      • M says:

        There’s a definite (justified) pride among most ND fans about the admission standards, both for the football players and general population. The NDN crowd is more likely to espouse the “back in my day we didn’t have these limp wristed Ivy League rejects” and “the admissions department needs to ease up off the football team. Don’t they realize that football is the only important thing at ND? Why are they trying to sabotage the program?”

        “Tea party” might be too kind an analogy. “Militia training in the hills of Montana” might be more apt.

        Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        I agree with your ‘turnover’ comment and little else. The faculty DID vote unanimously to join the B1G in ’99.

        ‘However, in 1999, both Notre Dame and the Big Ten entered into private negotiations concerning a possible membership that would include Notre Dame. Although the Notre Dame faculty senate endorsed the idea with a near unanimous vote, the ND board of trustees decided against joining the conference and Notre Dame ultimately withdrew from negotiations.’

        Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          GLS-

          That isn’t even what your quote said. The Facutly Senate voted to request admission to the CIC, but ND student paper also quoted professors stating the opinion of the faculty at large was largely split, with the pro-CICs being the slight majority. Contrast that to the near unanimous pro-CIC feelings to the Graduate Student Union.

          At the time, it was the near unanimous pro-Independence and/or anti-B1G forces in the alumni Board of Trustees and Board of Fellows that saved us.

          I was an undergrad in ’99. The B1G courtship was the political discussion of that era, and the only thing that got the student body protesting.

          Like

      • bullet says:

        Are you sure the professors voted by a small margin? What I heard at the time is that they were very enthusiastic about it. I don’t have any links either way.

        Like

  70. Michael in Raleigh says:

    Ya know, I just had a thought: TCU and especially WVU may have interest in bringing both Cincy and Louisville along with them to the Big East. With the football league reduced to just Rutgers, UConn, and USF, it’s no longer really league. Seriously, the football league would not even really exist anymore. Would the teams even have to pay an exit fee at that point, and would the 27-month waiting period even be necessary? For that matter, wouldn’t Pitt and Syracuse be interested in seeing the Big East break up so as to save themselves $5 million and 2 more school years in the Big East.

    Like

  71. Eric says:

    If West Virginia is announced as #10, I will bet that Syracuse and UConn was pitch the idea of a northeast presence directly to the Big 12. I don’t think they’ll be successful and we may never hear about it, but I bet they try.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Rutgers and UConn are definitely going to put calls into the ACC, Big Ten, and Big 12.

      Heck, they might even try the SEC. At this point, everyone in the Big East is desperate. They’re all calling anyone to save them from that mess.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Reading between the lines of past comments by Rutgers’ president and AD, I think they’ve had ongoing conversations with both the ACC and BIG…..they’re kind of like MO was last year in that they think something good is going to happen to them, but they are more likely to get stiffed….

        Like

        • zeek says:

          That’s pretty much my read on the situation. Although, it is more transparent this time around that the Big Ten and ACC are waiting on Notre Dame.

          Like

  72. duffman says:

    Sorry if posted already, but so much flurry the past few days

    http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7149965/espn-middle-college-realignment

    From ESPN on the dual role of reporter and business operator. Say what they may, they are changing the landscape, and gaining a monopoly in the process.

    Like

  73. Mike says:

    This is fun.

    Like

  74. What is the potential this political maneuvering in Kentucky and West Virginia forces the Big 12 to take both schools? Honestly this 10 vs 12 blows my mind. The Big 12 claims it is about money, but 2 more teams would allow for a championship game, the revenue from which would cover a lions share of the additional two teams.

    Like

  75. For all of the talk about West Virginia’s small market being a disadvantage, here are 2 separate references noting that the Big 12 will still likely favor them over Louisville because the league’s TV partners want the Mountaineers:

    http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.com/colleges/2011/10/late-push-for-louisville-clouding-big-12-expansion-plans.html

    http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2011/10/26/big-12-football-more-madness-in-conference-realignment/

    I actually buy this line of thinking. From a national TV standpoint, WVU generally has more casual fan drawing power than Louisville.

    Like

    • wolverines says:

      Louisville is the #2 team in its ‘small’ state, West Virginia is only the BCS level team in its state…

      Either way, they are ‘settling’ for team #10.

      Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        WVU has also played at a competitive level for a long time whereas Lousiville was essentially unknown before the 90’s.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Louisville is no different from Cincinnati or USF in terms of football: schools that jumped from C-USA and had an exciting year or two in the Big East.

          Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Well In Louisville’s defense they haven’t mortgaged the university for short term success on the FB field like UC has. They appear to have built a solid foundation that gives them the potential for long term stability….again unlike UC.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            What has Cincy done……….?

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Was that for me or Zeek? Financially they’ve been dipping into their endowment to prop up the AD. On the field they’re outside of WVU they are the the only other Big East team to make multiple BCS appearances.

            Like

      • bullet says:

        I’m sure the Big 12 would be glad if you would send Nebraska back.

        Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        I really, really like WV if you aren’t concerned about academics and don’t mind the prospect of being assualted at one of their games. Those are passionate fans.

        Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          I’ve been to Morgantown for games many times (multiple family members are alums)…it really isn’t any worse than going to Madison & dealing with Badger fans.

          Of course that isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement…

          Like

    • zeek says:

      “Louisville-Texas Tech doesn’t attract many eyeballs. West Virginia-Oklahoma State does.”

      This is 100% correct.

      Like

  76. Michael in Raleigh says:

    The craziest part about this story–WVU being all but gone to the Big 12, then being put on hold because there’s a late push for Louisville–is that nobody is surprised by it. The dysfunction in the Big 12 is as alive and well as ever.

    Texas, OU, and everyone else can’t blame this embarrassment on the defectors. This one is on them.

    In addition to “Dysfunction Junction,” how about a little Led Zeppelin? “Communication Breadown… It’s Always the Same”

    Sheesh… I think the time where we blame Dan Beebe on all the Big 12’s problems is long past. Winston Churchill himself could not unite this group.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      West Virginia makes Missouri look like it is locked down tight. Many of them were convinced despite the massive evidence to the contrary that they were a lock for SEC #14. There have been stories of attorneys doing work and communications with the SEC that they interpreted as being invited to the SEC. Its not clear how much was Big 12 leaks and how much was WVU over-reacting. Their 2 Senators are clearly over-reacting when they don’t have any facts. And its not clear how much is everyone over-reacting to the Louisville stories.

      Like

  77. Stats says:

    Because of the messy, awkward situation, two sources say Big 12 might consider Louisville and WVU together as a compromise.
    about 11 hours ago from TweetDeck

    ChuckCarltonDMN

    Like

    • bullet says:

      3rd story in this link is about B12 Network and more silly OU comments and the expansion situation. Last line is quote from Ok. St. President that Big 12 is likely to do 10 right now, but that doesn’t preclude 12. That is consistent with what Frank has said and is quite logical. There’s no rush to do 12 in October. They could do it in May or the next May.

      OU is saying they are confused by announcement of discussion of a Big 12 network by the conference office. They make public comments instead of picking up the phone and asking. But its not like the schools other than UT and OU haven’t been talking about this same thing since June 2010, a Big12-1-1-?+?-UT-OU network.

      http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/sports/big-132912-texas-football.html

      Like

    • bullet says:

      Also Kent Hance, Tech chairman, was a long time US Representative from West Texas and probably knows Senator McConnel quite well. Tech is supposedly one of the schools supporting Louisville.

      You wonder if stuff that came out in the KC paper was specualtion, made up, or actually leaked. And then were those leaks simply loose lips of confidential discussions or someone trying to achieve something.

      Like

    • vp19 says:

      Probably the most sensible approach is the West Virginia/Louisville tandem. You then go to Brigham Young, give it one more chance, and if BYU says no, go to Cincinnati or South Florida for #12. You can play a nine-game football schedule with 12 members; you can’t with 11. (And doing this wouldn’t preclude adding Notre Dame for non-football sports; a 13-team conference can play an 18-game basketball schedule — face six opponents twice, the other six once. The Big East did this back in the ’90s.)

      Like

      • OT says:

        Rutgers actually sells better in the New York City TV market than Syracuse, as proven last Friday night when the two were playing simultaneously.

        Surprised that the XII hasn’t approached Rutgers.

        (I personally prefer Rutgers over UCONN because Rutgers is the bigger school in a bigger TV market with more football TV viewers, more alums working on Wall Street and in media. However, UCONN has much better basketball than Rutgers. The ACC may prefer UCONN over Rutgers because of basketball if the ACC were to need a 16th school to go with Notre Dame.)

        BYU has a primadonna attitude and way too much baggage in tow (because of BYUtv and because BYU now controls the West Coast Conference.) Texas already has enough trouble controlling the Oklahoma schools and Texas does NOT need to deal with another loose cannon in the XII.

        Like

        • acaffrey says:

          Was the difference in ratings even outside the margin of error?

          As we have discussed above, Rutgers has 3 times as many graduates as Syracuse. The locations allow more Rutgers grads to stay locally. Syracuse is a private school located 400 miles away from NYC. Rutgers’ past several seasons are among its best ever. Syracuse’s past several season are substantially worse than the prior 15. The fact that it is even close shows how little pull Rutgers has in the local market.

          I think the only conclusion is that neither team is going to command a significant rating in the NYC market if they are unranked. Perhaps a top 10 ranking is needed to move the dial.

          Not a UConn fan, but I think they should be deemed better that Rutgers. Aside from the basketball, UConn has at least made it to a BCS bowl. UConn has played Notre Dame and Michigan in OOC games. You can’t be relevant in football if you don’t play the Kings.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            acaffrey,

            Was the difference in ratings even outside the margin of error?

            Yes. It was a significant difference.

            Like

        • vp19 says:

          Scream all you want about New York City and Rutgers’ ratings, but it’s a market that’s both apathetic and ignorant about college football, far more than any other market in the U.S. Rutgers will land somewhere, but its relative lack of big-time tradition and poor overall athletic program (worst among BCS members) will keep it out of the Big Ten and no more than a complementary addition to the ACC.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            I largely agree, although I think Rutgers is still a potential complementary addition if ND joins the B10 due to ND’s pull in NYC and the proximity to Philly.

            Like

      • Ron says:

        @vp19 a reasonable line of thought, but think the B12 wants to stay at ten since ESPN agreed to rework their contract to pay the conference the same amount of money for a ten team conference as they had originally offered for twelve teams. Hard to see schools like Louisville, Cincinnati and South Florida pulling enough of a market in their home states to provide enough additional value to the conference (either short term or long term). West Virginia may be located in a smaller state, but they clearly are dominant in their state (apologies to Marshall…). I offer this opinion with a certain regret. As a fan, would like the B12 to have a conference championship game and, yes, twelve members. As an observer, don’t see that happening anytime soon.

        Like

    • Stats says:

      ChuckCarltonDMN
      Source suggested Big 12 might consider adding Louisville AND West Virginia to go to 11. Not great, but Big Ten lived with it for years.
      about 19 hours ago

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        As stated earlier, the only problem with an 11-team conference is that it locks you into an eight-game football schedule. Since Colorado and Nebraska left in mid-2010, Big 12 members each canceled a non-conference game, and now would have to scramble for a non-league opponent.

        Like

  78. bullet says:

    http://www.rockmnation.com/2011/10/27/2518018/mizzou-links-10-27-11

    Series of expansion news links in 3rd section after “Missouri football links” and “other football links.”
    Quote from blogger, “So the more I hear about how things have played out, the more convinced I am that David Boren did as much as any one person to convince Brady Deaton that leaving the Big 12 might be a good thing.” Boren did the dueling press conference with Missouri Prez who was doing the Big 12 press conference as chairman of the Big 12 board of directors.

    Like

  79. mushroomgod says:

    Anybody else think Wisky choked big-time in the middle of the MSU game? I still think they’re the best BIG team….looking at the potential BIG bowl matups—

    Wisky v. Stanford or Oregon….Wisky better hope Stanford makes it to the BCS title game…

    MSU v. LSU/BAMA……Don’t think MSU wants any part of a BAMA rematch. Might they be competitive against the flakier LSU coach?

    PSU v. Arkansas…..PSU always plays well in bowl games.

    Nebraska v. Georgia…..haven’t seen Georgia. Nebraska’s a wildcard.

    What do you guys think?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      mushroomgod,

      Anybody else think Wisky choked big-time in the middle of the MSU game?

      I don’t. MSU played better and WI made some mistakes.

      I still think they’re the best BIG team….

      Overall I agree, but they aren’t as much better as their easy OOC games made it look.

      looking at the potential BIG bowl matups—

      Wisky v. Stanford or Oregon….Wisky better hope Stanford makes it to the BCS title game…

      Oregon might shred the WI defense, but they also would struggle to stop WI. Stanford is very similar to WI.

      MSU v. LSU/BAMA……Don’t think MSU wants any part of a BAMA rematch. Might they be competitive against the flakier LSU coach?

      No, either team will crush them. MSU would be lucky to score 10 points.

      PSU v. Arkansas…..PSU always plays well in bowl games.

      True, but I worry about their QB situation.

      Nebraska v. Georgia…..haven’t seen Georgia. Nebraska’s a wildcard.

      GA is OK but not great. The GA/UF game this weekend should be interesting. NE seems really dependent on Martinez having a good game, so it’s hard to predict.

      Like

  80. Read The D says:

    Two things about Big XII expansion:

    1. The reason there seems to be so much dysfunction is the lack of good candidates for #10. If there were good candidates they would either be taken by the SEC or there would be more of a consensus about a school, like TCU.

    2. There is no reason to expand beyond 10 in the next 12 months. The Big XII should get their 10, assign their rights for the next 6 years, then hope during those 6 years that the landscape shifts again. Maybe New Mexico or Memphis hires Mike Leach and becomes a legitimate program. Maybe something happens in the SEC or B1G where some of those schools aren’t happy.

    Follow the example of the B1G: Don’t expand for expansion’s sake.

    Like

    • acaffrey says:

      I disagree. West Virginia and Louisville are fine candidates. Both have shown that they are willing to go get the hot coach… be it Holgerson, Kragthorpe (who did not pan out), or Strong. Take a look at what they have done in basketball, with Huggins and Pitino. They are committed to the revenue sports.

      More importantly, however, is that the Big XII is NOT the Big 10. There is a legitimate risk that Texas and Oklahoma some day wander. Where would Kansas, KSU, and Iowa State go? If the Big XII dies, those schools need a cushion to remain above the rest of the fodder. Look at the Big East now. They didn’t have that cushion. It made them weaker. If they had taken TCU, Boise St., Houston, and SMU last year… and then renegotiate with ESPN… perhaps they avoid an ACC raid this time. They went conservative on the adds and are now dying.

      Look at the Big XII… they lost Nebraska & Colorado–did nothing–and now A&M and Missouri are leaving. If the Big XII had added TCU and Boise St. last year to replace Nebraska and Colorado, perhaps there is momentum again. No worries if A&M and Missouri threaten to leave. And so on. If you are a conference that is “prey” you need to be a predator to protect yourself. If you are not desirable within a conference that is prey–you better have a Plan B.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        This is why I’d hope that Kansas/Kansas State/Iowa State/Baylor would be pushing for both Louisville and WVU.

        I’d also hope they’d put all the effort into pushing for a way for BYU to enter.

        Just getting the conference up to 12 makes it safer for if the Texas + 3 group ever leave.

        At that point, they could try to invite Houston and SMU and stay at 10 with 4 schools in Texas. Sure it would be overshadowed by the other conferences, but at least they’d have a decent setup.

        Like

        • ESS EEE CEE says:

          The XII now consists of 3 factions:

          1. Bevo (all by itself)

          2. The “Sooner Faction” – Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and allegedly one other school

          3. The “nowhere else to go” group now that the BIG EAST is a mess: Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor

          Don’t know yet where TCU stands.

          Mizzou is as good as gone. Nothing can keep Mizzou with this sorry bunch when the ESS EEE CEE is calling.

          Like

        • Bo Darville says:

          I think the Big 12 should block the Big East from coming into Texas by taking Houston and SMU. Leave the West Virginia and Louisville stuff alone and let them have their own conference.

          Like

      • bullet says:

        I agree on 12. As long as the money isn’t too much different than 10, they should go for 12. But they could wait until spring. It doesn’t have to be now. The only problem is that Cincy is a poor substitute for BYU as #12 if BYU doesn’t work out.

        Like

        • Read The D says:

          But the point is you start getting diminishing returns when you get to 12 unless you get a good #11 and #12. Big XII is already getting paid for a conference championship game so you don’t need any schools pullnig down value. If BYU is there for #12 then they should go for it.

          If Texas and OU are planning to leave, then they should push for 12 so they can shake TTU and Ok St. If not, stick to 10 and hope for the best in the future.

          Like

  81. Playoffs Now says:

    I bet OU’s David Boren (and perhaps also F. Boone Pickens and/or TTech) is trying to passive-aggressively kill the B12 so as to make another run at the P16. Several of his statements and actions have bordered on bizarre and certainly weren’t helpful to the conference. I bet the Tulane rumor came from his side, a way to make expansion look ridiculous when they were probably never a serious candidate but got a cursory review in the due diligence phase of examining every conceivable candidate before eliminating the obvious weaklings. Sure looks like Boren was pushing MO out the door while pretending to want them to stay. Was WV really decided on, or did someone leak that to then create another controversy? Smells like the typical games Boren played in politics, pretend to be for something while working behind the scenes to kill it.

    Like

    • glenn says:

      the pac is crucial for the sooners for several reasons.  first, forcing texas into the pac would pull the wires out of the longhorn network, and that is priority one right now.  if you want evidence of the potential that network has, you are looking at it.  second, what success the sooners have had lately was largely fueled by western recruits from vegas or cali.  with the vacuum left by usc and oregon committing suicide, the ripe west is perfect for them to exploit, and membership in that conference would be a great inducement.  any and all activities by the sooners needs to be viewed through that prism.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Considering the rapid divergence of Texas’ interests relative to Oklahoma’s interests; I’d wonder if we’ll even see the consideration of a Pac-16 anytime in the next 20 years.

        If it’s not obvious to Texas, they won’t have their 4 team block in a Pac-16. It’ll just be them against the other 15 members.

        Texas Tech is sidling up with Oklahoma on the issue of Louisville (although we don’t know their stance on the 10 year grant). OSU is going to go with whatever Oklahoma wants.

        If that group of three is going to align against Texas, why the heck would they consider a Pac-16?

        This will only become more of an issue in the future if the LHN is successful.

        Like

  82. Marc Shepherd says:

    I am surprised by the total radio silence on the Notre Dame-to-Big Ten front.

    We do know that the Irish are starting to worry that the Big East will collapse. And we also know the Irish have had discussions with the ACC (where they would need to join in all sports) and the Big 12 (where they might get a similar deal to what they have now in the Big East). But the Big East is a poor cultural fit for them, and if they are willing to join a league in all sports, the Big Ten ought to be in the running.

    We are reaching the point where I would expect Delany to make another run at Notre Dame. It is pretty well established that the Big Ten has no good expansion options without including the Irish. If Delany doesn’t get them now, they might not be available again in our lifetimes. I don’t think the Big Ten should bend over backward to accommodate Notre Dame, as the Big 12 seems to be willing to do. But I don’t think the Big Ten should sit it out, either, without at least taking a shot.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Typo: I meant that the Big 12 is a poor cultural fit for ND, not the Big East.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      There’s no run to be made for Notre Dame. If they decide to relinquish independence, they’ll call either the Big Ten or ACC and that’ll be it. There wouldn’t need to be any flurry of dealmaking because there’s no deal to be made.

      Both conferences have transparent invitations on the table if they choose. I’ll post some tweets from Delany after this.

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      I think the presidents and JD are pouting.

      Like

      • acaffrey says:

        Why… because Missouri is now off the table?

        That’s like ordering steak, but being disappointed that someone else ordered bologna.

        Like

  83. zeek says:

    From Delany:

    ChiTribHamilton Brian Hamilton
    Big Ten commish Jim Delany on football independents: “I don’t study that…How difficult it is is a judgment call for them, not me.”
    7 minutes ago
    Brian Hamilton
    ChiTribHamilton Brian Hamilton
    Big Ten commish Jim Delany on expansion: “Everyone else in the country is in the conversation, but we’re not.”
    16 minutes ago
    Brian Hamilton
    ChiTribHamilton Brian Hamilton
    Big Ten commish Jim Delany on expansion: “We’re out of the discussion, except as interested observers.”
    23 minutes ago
    Brian Hamilton
    ChiTribHamilton Brian Hamilton
    Big Ten commish Jim Delany said only convos with #NotreDame AD Jack Swarbrick were on hockey and scheduling, three months ago.
    25 minutes ago
    Brian Hamilton
    ChiTribHamilton Brian Hamilton
    Has Big Ten commish Jim Delany had conversations with #NotreDame? “On the issue of expansion, no,” Delany said.
    26 minutes ago

    Like

    • zeek says:

      TeddyGreenstein Teddy Greenstein
      Delany is among those wanting BCS to allow more than 2 conf teams in bowls – perhaps once ev 4 yrs: “Some of the matchups don’t stand up.”
      3 minutes ago
      Teddy Greenstein
      TeddyGreenstein Teddy Greenstein
      Delany cut off a question about ND, saying: “I’m not going to answer a hypothetical. It’s not in our interests.”
      5 minutes ago
      JeffRabjohns Jeff Rabjohns
      Comish Jim Delany when asked if a school could join B1G in not all sports: The Big 10 is an all-sports league.
      6 minutes ago
      freepwolverines Freep Wolverines
      Delany on potential 8 team FB playoff: “I don’t see that kind of thing in the near future.”
      9 minutes ago

      First tweet translation = bye bye Big East AQ.

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      you have to admit……smug and arrogant.

      Like

      • Todd says:

        Sorry…I don’t get smugness or arrogance at all.

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Seriously?? How about NO conversation with ND about the “issue of expansion”……..not even any general conversation while the ACC is busy talking to them?? Seriously??

          Like

          • acaffrey says:

            What’s he going to say? “Hey, you guys interested yet?”

            I love when people get bent out of shape about public statements. This has nothing to do with whether other Big 10 and other ND reps have talked. Just the two leaders.

            If ND goes to the ACC, then ND was going to the ACC all along. If ND would consider the Big 10, they will approach the Big 10 formally or informally.

            Like

          • Todd says:

            By my count they’ve been rejected by ND twice. Why would they go down that road again? They won’t unless ND initiates the discussion.

            Like

  84. bullet says:

    Dennis Dodd-political lobbying by all 3 senators has been going on for weeks. WV Senators are upset because KY Senator has been doing the same thing they have.

    http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/32959597

    Like

    • zeek says:

      “According to sources and at least one report, Oklahoma wants the 10-year grant of rights and Louisville for the Big 12. Texas wants a six-year grant of rights and West Virginia.”

      Texas and Oklahoma are nowhere near being on the same page.

      For all the talk of the Pac-16 and a 4-block of Texas/Oklahoma schools, it’s obvious that the interests of Texas and Oklahoma don’t match up. But no one else wants to deal with their baggage, LHN and OSU, that they’re stuck together trying to keep the conference afloat.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        With their Pac-12 option dead, Texas and Oklahoma are sure to come to some kind of agreement, because they have no other options. On the other hand, neither one is in any particular rush, because once you sign you lose whatever minimal leverage you had.

        Like

      • acaffrey says:

        8 years and both. Deal. Done Next.

        BTW, tired of the crap like Iowa St., Minnesota, and Washington St. being considered “AQ” conferences, even though they rarely do anything on the national stage. If only there was relegation…

        Like

        • acaffrey says:

          Sorry… meant to say “AQ conference material,” but my fingers took over for my brain. 😦

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Where is the acceptable cut off? How bad and for how long? Does a year or two of success get you off the shit list?

            Why didn’t you list Vandy, Duke, Baylor, NW, IN, RU, KY, WF, IL, KS, OrSU, MS St and PU? Over the past 25 years, they all have lower winning percentages than WSU (list is in order from the worst). ISU would be above Duke while MN is between WF and IL.

            Are you looking at shorter term failure instead? Does the recent successes of many of these teams disrupt your argument too much? WSU was a top ten team for several years in the past decade.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            In all honesty, AQ conference material is just determined by the top teams in a conference.

            Since no one’s getting kicked out of a conference, it all has to do with whether you have enough national brands in the conference to carry it…

            I mean, this isn’t like the NFL. You need schools to lose games so that the national brands can try to run the table …

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            I wasn’t making an all-inclusive list. I wasn’t looking at just football. Schools can put themselves on the national stage via basketball.

            I wasn’t even advocating that somebody actually do something about it. I do not think relegation would work. But wouldn’t it be interesting if there were standards and relegation. The Pac-12 could demote Washington St. and call up Boise St. But if Boise St. didn’t cut it, it could get demoted again. Toledo could get called up to replace Indiana in football. Butler to replace Northwestern in basketball. And so on. IMPOSSIBLE FOR MANY REASONS. But it would be kind of neat if it were possible. That’s all.

            Just an observation that if each conference was narrowed to its top schools… and then filled out its conference based on the criteria that are used to weigh these expansion candidates–how many schools in AQ conferences would still get selected? Would the Big XII want Iowa St. over West Virginia? Would the Big 10 need Minnesota? I have been critical of Rutgers… but has Minnesota accomplished that much more historically than Rutgers? Would the Pac-12 need Washington St? Would the SEC need Mississippi State? That’s part of the shame in this–schools on the outside are deemed “unattractive,” even though they very often would not be the worst school in its prospective conference. In the end, if Iowa St. is Big XII material, Louisville and West Virginia certainly are.

            Like

          • M says:

            “has Minnesota accomplished that much more historically than Rutgers?”

            Is this question meant ironically? Minnesota has as much history as anyone. It’s the present that has been an ongoing problem.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            acaffrey,

            I wasn’t making an all-inclusive list. I wasn’t looking at just football. Schools can put themselves on the national stage via basketball.

            I realize it wasn’t an all inclusive list. My point was that WSU has actually had a decent amount of success until the past few years. WSU had 3 straight 10 win seasons from 2001-2003 and went to 2 Rose Bowls in the past 15 years. There are a lot of FB programs that have done worse that you didn’t list. That’s why I was curious (would you relegate all of those teams or just a handful?). It wasn’t at all obvious that you were lumping FB and MBB together. That would eliminate many of the schools I listed, but not all of them.

            I wasn’t even advocating that somebody actually do something about it. I do not think relegation would work. But wouldn’t it be interesting if there were standards and relegation. The Pac-12 could demote Washington St. and call up Boise St. But if Boise St. didn’t cut it, it could get demoted again. Toledo could get called up to replace Indiana in football. Butler to replace Northwestern in basketball. And so on. IMPOSSIBLE FOR MANY REASONS. But it would be kind of neat if it were possible. That’s all.

            I understood it was a thought experiment. So is half of what we talk about here. I just wondered where you would draw the lines. What level of success keeps you safe? Is one bad year all it takes to get relegated? Even a hypothetical system needs some rules.

            Just an observation that if each conference was narrowed to its top schools… and then filled out its conference based on the criteria that are used to weigh these expansion candidates–how many schools in AQ conferences would still get selected? Would the Big XII want Iowa St. over West Virginia? Would the Big 10 need Minnesota?

            It’s not like there are a lot of great options to fill out the bottom of conferences. An ISU provides wins for the others while being geographically proximate to the others. If the B12 kicked out ISU for WV, that would just slide other teams down the ladder. WV adds some TV value over ISU, but mostly they help replace MO or TAMU. I’m not sure that they would make that trade.

            The B10 just went to 12 by adding NE, so I doubt they want to drop back down to 11 and lose the CCG. Who would they get to replace MN, and why would WI and IA (among others) agree to lose a long time rival? I doubt the traditionalists of the B10 would ever agree to drop a member despite a new school helping them make more money. Besides, MN has 9 National Titles since 2000. They also have 3 NCAA tourney appearances, 4 NITs, 7 WBB NCAA tourneys (1 final four) and 8 bowl games. That’s hardly a bad school to have around.

            I have been critical of Rutgers… but has Minnesota accomplished that much more historically than Rutgers?

            Seriously? Are you aware that sports started before 2005?

            In short, yes MN really has accomplished that much more than Rutgers.

            National Championships
            Minnesota

            Hockey – 7
            FB – 6
            MBB – 3
            Baseball – 3
            Wrestling – 3
            Women’s Hockey – 3
            Men’s Golf – 1
            Men’s Outdoor Track & Field – 1
            Total – 27

            Rutgers
            Cheerleading dance team – 2
            WBB – 1
            Men’s fencing – 1
            Total – 4

            Football
            Minnesota 642-471-41

            #29 all time with 642 wins
            6 National Championships
            18 major conference titles
            14 bowl games* (2 major)

            * – After MI played in the 1902 Rose Bowl, the B10 banned bowl appearances until the 1946 season. From 1946-1974, only one B10 team could go to a bowl and it couldn’t be the same team in consecutive years from 1946-1971 (except 1961 when OSU turned down the Rose Bowl so MN went again). MN would have gone to more bowls if the B10 rules didn’t stop them.

            Rutgers 610-600-42
            #38 all time with 610 wins
            0 national championships
            0 major conference titles (20 years in the BE)
            6 bowl games (0 major)

            Basketball
            Minnesota

            3 pre-NCAA national titles
            1 final four
            4 sweet sixteens
            11 bids
            9 major conference titles

            Rutgers
            1 final four
            2 sweet sixteens
            6 bids
            0 major conference titles

            Like

      • bullet says:

        I’m beginning to think its all ego for Boren. He got tired of being called UT’s lapdog by the fanbase after the summer of 2010 when OU and UT’s interests happened to coincide (as the interests of kings usually do). Sooners are a very proud people and now he’s trying to show he’s independent by being disagreeable every chance he gets (OU to Pac 12, dueling press conferences vs. MU Prez, WVU vs. UL). The 1st two times he ended up looking bad. If ESPN said WVU is more valuable, he’s not going to get votes from the have-nots for UL. Although with WV Senators going public, WV may be blowing it just as BYU has.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I don’t understand why all of these power plays are being done in such a public way that it’s making the whole group look bad.

          And now they have Louisville and WVU fighting publicly over this.

          Like

        • frug says:

          Ehh, everything he has done has probably been in OU’s interests so I doubt its just ego. That said, my guess is that Boren ultimately trades one of its desires (UL and 10 year grant of rights) for the other.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            How was the dueling press conferences in anyone’s interest? Doing an OU press conference at the same time as an official Big 12 press conference led by the chair of the Big 12 Presidents?

            Like

          • frug says:

            Ok, the press conference thing was probably over the line, but the PAC-12, UL over WVU and a ten year grant of rights vs. six years are all legitimate issues.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The Pac thing was that just when everything seemed settled, it got brought up. And it was September. It had long been figured out that A&M was gone, so that wasn’t an argument for why it happened then. And OU had been the least enthused about going to the Pac last year.

            There’s no telling what has happened on UL/WVU. People at WVU or the Big 12 or both have made a mess of this. And it could be Boren agreeing on Monday and changing his mind on Tuesday. We don’t really know what was agreed on Monday.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Some reports, especially from WVU say WVU was invited on Monday. I found that hard to believe since everything has indicated nothing will happen until Missouri finally does something. But WVU clearly believed they were invited and maybe they were given a very strong indication and someone changed their mind.

            Like

          • frug says:

            WVU may have believed they had an invite in the mail, but it’s tough to suggest this was just a case of Boren making a power play, since Texas Tech and, apparently, one other team also want UL.

            Like

        • Brian #2 says: