The More Things Change, the More Things Stay the Same: Thoughts on BCS Bowls as Semifinal Sites and a 12-Team Event

Posted: May 1, 2012 in Big East, Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, Illinois Fighting Illini, Sports
Tags: , , , , ,

In an update to last week’s news that the powers that be in college football are finally instituting (or more precisely, are submitting to their respective university presidents for approval) a 4-team playoff system, both Mark Schlabach of ESPN.com and Stewart Mandel of Sports Illustrated have reported that the early leader for the format for such playoff is the use of the contractual conference tie-ins for the 4 current BCS bowls to slot the semifinal games. For example, if a Big Ten team is ranked #1, it would host the #4 team in the Rose Bowl, while an SEC team that is ranked #2 would host the #3 team in the Sugar Bowl. This is a way to preserve the relationship between the Rose Bowl, Big Ten and Pac-12 (and for that matter, the relationships that other conferences have with their respective bowls) while still having a 4-team playoff. I wrote a college playoff proposal last week that incorporated this concept. Mandel has also reported that the powers that be would like to elevate two more bowls to BCS status (or whatever status we’re going to call it when the term “BCS” is dropped, which is a 99% certainty). In practicality, this would really only add 2 more BCS bowl bids to the system with 12 bids for 6 games (compared to 4 BCS bowls and national championship game currently providing 10 bids).

A few thoughts on this:

1) Get ready for the Big Ten and SEC to start agreeing a lot more – Many of the media reports regarding the formulation of a college football playoff have positioned Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and SEC commissioner Mike Slive to be massive rivals. However, Pat Forde of Yahoo! Sports indicated that they were generally in agreement regarding the major principles of a playoff system during the BCS meetings. In reality, there’s very little reason for the Big Ten and SEC to be far apart. While Delany and Slive might have differences in opinion regarding how to implement the playoff system at a high level, they fundamentally have the same financial and fan base underpinnings (which is why both of those leagues are so powerful compared to the rest)*. For instance, as much as the Big Ten might prefer on-campus semifinals, the use of bowls as semifinals protects the Rose Bowl, which the countervailing interest of the conference. On the flip side, the SEC would have received a larger benefit from the use of on-campus semifinals than any other conference over the course of the BCS era. The point is that the Big Ten and SEC can work well in either format since they both have great home game attendance yet also travel well to neutral sites and bowls.

(* Think of this as the equivalent to competition between Wal-Mart, which happens to be based in SEC country, and Target, which is headquartered in Big Ten territory. They are rivals and the two largest players in their market by a large margin, but when you break it down, they make their money the exact same way by leveraging their large footprints to control costs with suppliers in order to provide discounted prices to their customers. Wal-Mart and Target might be high profile competitors in the marketplace, but on big picture economic, trade and labor issues, their interests are completely aligned. It’s the same way with the SEC and Big Ten regarding the college football postseason. The SEC is Wal-Mart and the Big Ten is Target.)

It’s really the Pac-12 that needs the benefit of the Rose Bowl even more than the Big Ten since the Pasadena connection masks the fact that the West Coast league has the worst bowl lineup top-to-bottom compared to any of the other power conferences. (Yes, even worse than the ACC.) If the Rose Bowl were eradicated tomorrow, the Orange, Sugar and Fiesta Bowls would still fall all over themselves to get a Big Ten tie-in, but the Pac-12 isn’t in that same position. That’s why the supposedly “reactionary” Jim Delany was more open-minded in his comments regarding a playoff last week than the typically-lauded “visionary outsider” Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott (who took a much more strident and hardline view about the Pac-12 protecting its Rose Bowl connection).

Regardless, when the discussion turns to how the playoff revenue is split and which conferences get multiple BCS bowl bids (which will make any differences between the FBS conferences up to this point look like minor spats), the Big Ten and SEC are going to be brothers-in-arms. They have the same approach: “Bowls want us, so we should get the bids and the revenue.”

2) Multiple BCS bowl tie-ins are possible (if not probable) for the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 – Is it possible that the BCS could actually add more bowls yet still cut down the access to the non-power conferences (which may or may not include the Big East now)? Absolutely.

Mandel indicates that there’s a proposal that there would be 6 BCS bowls with at-large bids needing to meet some type of rankings threshold (e.g. top 15 in the final BCS rankings). There would also be a cap of 3 teams receiving bids each year from any single conference. The Cotton Bowl is usually assumed to be next in line for elevated status and I’d bank a Central Florida bowl (either the Capital One or Outback) getting a nod, as well. (See my reasons in point #3.)

Thinking like a free marketer here, is where any reason for the Cotton or Capital One/Outback Bowls to pay a massive amount to receive elevated bowl status but actually get worse matchups (in the eyes of a bowl organizer that needs to sell tickets and a TV network executive that needs viewers) than they do now when they have desirable Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 teams locked in today? That really doesn’t make much sense if you’re actually running those bowls. Outside of a chance at getting Notre Dame every once in awhile, the Capital One/Outback Bowl is going to want Big Ten and SEC teams while the value of adding the Cotton Bowl is diminished almost completely if a Big 12 team isn’t playing there. Access to Pac-12, ACC and non-power conference teams really doesn’t do anything for them (and they certainly don’t want to be losing the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 teams that they would have received in the current system to other bowls in the new system while having to simultaneously increase their payouts).

In fact, the main benefit to the Cotton and Capital One/Outback to getting elevated to BCS status is to be guaranteed the teams that they have been contracting for over the past several years but haven’t been getting in reality. For instance, the Capital One Bowl is supposed to get Big Ten #2 vs. SEC #2 under its contract, yet it has actually received Big Ten #3 vs. SEC #3 every single season since 2005 because both the Big Ten and SEC have sent a second team to the BCS bowls annually. So, the Capital One can pay up to guarantee to get those Big Ten #2 and SEC #2 tie-ins back every year, which is an acceptable trade-off for likely not getting to host any semifinal very often as that’s going to be an extremely high profile bowl matchup. (Under this system, the phantom 2010-11 Sugar Bowl matchup between Ohio State and Arkansas, where the win has since been vacated and both participating head coaches have been fired, would have been played at the Capital One Bowl. Who wouldn’t have wanted that game?!)

On the flip side, why would the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 give up high profile bowl tie-ins that they already have guaranteed in hand today and send them up for grabs in an at-large system? That doesn’t seem too likely, either. Even if the Big Ten and SEC in particular would benefit the most from a flexible at-large arrangement in the majority of seasons, it’s still not the same as having guaranteed tie-ins.

As a result, I’d envision that the BCS bowl system would look like the following:

Rose Bowl: Big Ten #1 vs. Pac-12 #1
Sugar Bowl: SEC #1 vs. at-large
Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 #1 vs. at-large
Orange Bowl: ACC #1 vs. at-large
Capital One/Outback Bowl: Big Ten #2 vs. SEC #2
Cotton Bowl: Big 12 #2 vs. at-large*

(* The Cotton Bowl currently shares the SEC #3/4 tie-in with the Outback Bowl. If the SEC has to choose to drop a tie-in, I believe it would let go of the Cotton as opposed to one of the Florida-based bowls since pairing up with a Big Ten school is more lucrative and the Sunshine State is unambiguously an SEC market. In contrast, the state of Texas has a strong SEC representative in Texas A&M but is still a Big 12 state overall. Now, if the new system allows the SEC to have a third contractual tie-in, then more power to them and they could and should take advantage of that in a heartbeat.)

3) The likelihood of a Central Florida bowl getting BCS status – Expanding on the prior point, here are a few reasons why I believe either the Capital One Bowl or Outback Bowl is going to be elevated to BCS status:

a) Big Ten and SEC tie-ins – These are the conferences running the show and the main common relationship that they have is that they love Florida-based bowls. To the extent that the semifinals are going to be played outside of the Midwest, the Big Ten is going to have a lot less heartburn with using the Central Florida bowls that are the conference’s strongest tie-ins outside of the Rose Bowl compared to, say, using the Chick-fil-A Bowl in Atlanta. Both the Big Ten and SEC can get on board with this (and I’ve said before, when they agree on something, that’s usually what gets done).

b) People WANT to travel to Central Florida during Christmas break regardless of whether there’s a bowl – The Capital One Bowl has had horrific facilities for many years, yet they’ve still managed to attract both of the best conference tie-ins (Big Ten #2 vs. SEC #2) and provide the highest payout outside of the BCS system since the very beginning of the BCS era. Why? Because it’s freaking Orlando! The wife and kids would rather go to Disney World than Dallas, college kids would rather go to Daytona Beach than Atlanta, and retired alums would rather be in warm weather Florida (where they probably already live) than cold weather Indianapolis. Central Florida is the easiest sell in terms of the overall vacation experience during the holidays of any bowl (and that’s why the Capital One has continued to receive such great funding and tie-ins despite the horrible facilities). Just like a mansion in a terrible neighborhood won’t be as valuable as a tiny apartment in a great neighborhood, the greatest stadium in the world in a less than desirable winter vacation destination can only do so much competing against subpar facilities in a place that most people love traveling to. Location, location, location.

c) ESPN (owned by the Walt Disney Company) is likely paying for this new playoff – Why is this important? Well, have you ever been to Disney World on New Year’s Eve? I went almost every year with my family growing up and one thing that you’ll notice is that a significant portion of the people going to the parks, staying at the hotels and generally emptying their wallets on all things Disney that week in between Christmas and New Year’s happen to be football fans attending the Capital One, Outback and Gator Bowls, all of which are an easy drive from Disney World.

So, do you see why ESPN is currently willing to pay a premium for the Big Ten and SEC tie-ins for the Capital One, Outback and Gator Bowls and then have them played all at the same time on New Year’s Day? These are massive fan bases that travel from out-of-town (note that local teams aren’t necessarily the best thing for the primary purpose of bowls, which is to attract out-of-town tourists) and spend tons of money at Disney World while people at home watch the games on Disney-owned ABC/ESPN/ESPN2. It’s a synergy of one big business for Disney (college football on TV) with another big business (theme park admissions and hotel revenue during the holidays).

I think both of the Central Florida bowls already have large enough financial war chests to win a bidding war for a BCS bowl slot regardless of any ESPN consideration, but rest assured that its helps significantly if Disney happens to be pushing one site over another when they’re spending $600 million to $1 billion per year on a playoff. It’s going to be a contest between the better stadium in Tampa and the more attractive vacation destination in Orlando.

4. Revenue sharing will likely be about bids to the “12-team event” overall instead of the semifinals specifically – Let’s have a quick reminder about how much of a bonus that a conference receives when it has a team that makes the national championship game today: $0.

To be sure, such conference will receive an amount equal to a BCS bowl bid (or if such conference already has another BCS bowl bid, then a partial additional share for the national championship game bid), but the point is that LSU garnered the exact same amount of revenue for the SEC last year in the national championship game as Wisconsin got for the Big Ten by going to the Rose Bowl and Alabama netted the exact same payout for the SEC as Michigan earned for the Big Ten by going to the Sugar Bowl.

Thus, when I see proposals from fans online suggesting that a conference that makes it to the semifinals will receive $50 million while a conference that doesn’t make it will only receive $10 million, I shake my head and wonder how many fans actually learned how college sports money works after witnessing massive conference realignment moves over the past two years. Simply put, what has happened in the past is a pretty good guide to what will happen in the future, and what the past says is that the power conferences want very little to do with variable pay based on merit and, instead, want to maximize guaranteed dollars for themselves whether their respective champions in a given year are ranked #1 or #100. Even in the mighty SEC, which would have been a beneficiary of a variable pay system over the past several years, wants guaranteed money as opposed to shooting the moon in a season like last year when it had the top 2 teams. A school such as Mississippi State needs to be able to pencil in x amount of guaranteed postseason dollars at the beginning of every year for budget purposes, which it can’t do if most of it is based upon whether one or more of its conference-mates end up in the top 4 at the end of the fall. Do you think the SEC wants a system where the difference between receiving $50 million or $10 million could be dependent upon a freshman placekicker hitting a field goal in an overtime game so his team ends up at #4 instead of #5? Would the Big Ten want that? Any of the other power conferences?

University presidents are already a risk averse group by any normal standard, so this scenario simply won’t fly, especially when the current system has such clear revenue guarantees. Contrary to the belief of most fans, schools aren’t looking to hit a massive jackpot in the years that they win the national championship. Instead, schools want to know that they are going to receive a large sum of money whether they are 12-0 or 0-12.

As a result, the most likely revenue sharing approach going forward is likely to be effectively the same as today: all bids to the new 12-team event, which encompasses the semifinals will be treated the same financially (just as all bids to the current 10-team event, which encompasses the national championship game, are treated the same financially). This obviously puts a massive premium on having contractual tie-ins, since any conference with a contract with a BCS bowl is going to receive a full share of the new postseason money, whether it sends a team to the semifinals or not. It also shows, once again, the elimination of AQ status is really only a matter of semantics for all of the current AQ conferences except for the Big East (which currently doesn’t have a contractual tie-in with any BCS bowl and most likely won’t be getting one in the future). The Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12, ACC and Big 12 are all going to receive at least one full postseason share annually (and if they have multiple bids or tie-ins, then they’ll get multiple shares) no matter what, while the non-AQ conferences would only receive full shares if they actually make it to semifinals or receive an at-large BCS bowl bid*. The non-AQ conferences will receive more money in total compared to today’s BCS system, but no one should expect the revenue disparity to change much from the current 90/10 split between the power leagues and non-power leagues**.

(* My educated guess regarding the Big East is that it will be treated as a “tweener” for revenue purposes. The Big East would no longer receive an amount that’s equal to the other power conferences since it does not have a contractual tie-in, but still get an amount larger compared to the other non-AQ conferences based upon the fact that the Big East is a “founding member” of the BCS system.)

(** I’ll repeat an analogy that I’ve used before: think of the semifinals as the Oscars and the other BCS bowls as movie theaters. The Oscars should be based upon merit regardless of box office revenue, where movies such as “The King’s Speech” and actors like Daniel Day-Lewis get rewarded. Likewise, the college football playoff semifinals should be based upon merit without regard to conference affiliation or popularity. However, a free market society should also not force movie theaters to show Daniel Day-Lewis movies when Tom Cruise vehicles and terrible Transformers sequels sell 1000 times more movie tickets. By that same token, bowl games that exist for the purpose of selling tickets, drawing TV viewers and bringing legions of tourists into their towns should be able to freely choose teams and conferences that, well, sell tickets, draw TV viewers and bring legions of tourists into their towns. Many fans have tried to assign a higher purpose to the bowls, which is a mistake.)

Now, there might be a bonus for the conferences that make it to the national championship game since that’s technically a separate “bowl” game beyond the 12-team event. However, based on the tea leaves that I see along with past actions, that bonus is likely going to be relatively small compared to the guaranteed revenue in the 12-team event. The very fact that the leading proposal is to use the traditional BCS bowls with their tie-ins supports the notion of guaranteed revenue as opposed to variable pay. The Rose Bowl would only find out in December whether it’s going to be hosting a semifinal or not, so it can’t feasibly come up with a payout that’s worth twice as much within a couple of weeks if a Pac-12 or Big Ten team happens to be ranked #1 or #2. That points to all BCS bowl bids (which includes the semifinals) being worth the same.

Those are all of my thoughts for now. I’ll be back soon with new posts on the WAC being the worst victim of conference realignment (along with shuffling among Conference USA, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt and Colonial Athletic Association) and tweaks to my latest college football playoff “flex wild card” proposal.

P.S. My long-time readers and Twitter followers know that (1) I’m a massive Chicago Bulls fan and (2) Derrick Rose is my man crush to end all man crushes. So, when D-Rose went down for the season on Saturday with a torn ACL, it was legitimately one of the 5 worst sports moments of my life (if not in the top 2). The last time I had ever felt a pit in my stomach that badly sports-wise was when Illinois lost the 2005 NCAA National Championship Game to North Carolina, but even then, I could reconcile that the Illini had their chance to get to the very end without outside factors intervening (along with providing the best sports memory in my lifetime next to the last minute of Michael Jordan’s performance in Game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals). The Bears losing Super Bowl XLI to the Colts was fairly terrible personal experience for me, too, yet I could also comfort myself in knowing that the Colts were the better team overall and that there was the Chicago crutch of Rex Grossman at quarterback. (Unleash the dragons!) My 2007-08 Rose Bowl trip was more like playing with house money – the Illini weren’t expected (and probably didn’t deserve) to be there and even a thrashing at the hands of a bunch of ineligible USC players can’t kill the buzz of actually getting to be in Pasadena at that time of year. (While I’m a playoff supporter, I also fully understand and appreciate why the Big Ten and Pac-12 protect the Rose Bowl so much. Comparing the Rose Bowl to the other BCS bowls is the equivalent of comparing The Masters to the PGA Championship – they might technically have the same major status, but they are no way, shape or form equal in stature and prestige.)

In the case of the Bulls, though, they had a legit championship-caliber squad (which doesn’t come around very often) that won’t even have a chance to even attempt to fulfill its potential. Maybe the Miami Heat would have ultimately beaten the Bulls in the Eastern Conference Finals, but the fact that there won’t be any opportunity at all to see both teams go at it at full strength is shame. (The Bulls could certainly get past the Sixers in the first round and maybe hang with the Celtics or Hawks in the second round. Even without Rose, the Bulls are still the best defensive team in the NBA, which is going to keep them in games. Beating Miami over the course of 7 games without the offensive firepower of Rose, though, would be a miracle. I’ll certainly be cheering for it to happen, but I’m also going to be realistic about it.) Even worse, I’m now going to have to worry whether Derrick Rose is ever going to have the same type of athleticism when he comes back from his injury. Frankly, the only sports-related discussions over the past few days that haven’t made me want to lock myself in a dark room alone and nurse bottle of Jameson have been the comments on this blog, so I thank all of you readers out there for that.

As bad as I might be feeling right now along with other Bulls fans around the world, I could only imagine what Rose himself might be feeling right now with the long road ahead. Let’s pray for his speedy recovery (and somebody somewhere to knock off the Heat).

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

(Image from Yahoo!)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. greg says:

    Hawkeyes.

    Like

  2. bullet says:

    What do you think about New York as a bowl site?
    Any thoughts on what happens financially if a conference with a slot doesn’t have a team in the top 15 (or 16 or 25)?
    I always thought some type of revenue based on participation was a whole lot more defensible (and easier to sell to conferences who don’t play in the Capital One Bowl) than any type of “market” valuation. There does have to be some type of championship game bonus. Schools will spend $1-$2 million (+ coaches’ bonuses) for playing in that game.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      To be clear, I’m saying your revenue split based largely on participation in the 12 bowl slots makes sense.

      Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      The novelty will wear off in a few years.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      bullet,

      “What do you think about New York as a bowl site?”

      I think they have the ego to want to move up, but they’d have to move to the Meadowlands. 45k seats isn’t going to cut it.

      “Any thoughts on what happens financially if a conference with a slot doesn’t have a team in the top 15 (or 16 or 25)?”

      I think everybody gets some guaranteed money to provide a soft landing. I’m guessing tie-ins are only valid if they have an available team that meets the ranking requirements, so the Orange doesn’t even have to take a #20 ACC champ. The same would be true for B10 #2 or SEC #3. I think they’ll use a time-averaging formula like the NCAA tourney does so the budgets won’t change too much from year to year.

      “I always thought some type of revenue based on participation was a whole lot more defensible (and easier to sell to conferences who don’t play in the Capital One Bowl) than any type of “market” valuation.”

      I think they will clearly do this on top of the free money for everybody. That way the little guys know they have some money coming but they can get a bunch more by getting a team in the BCS. In other words, much like the system now except there is no AQ status to guarantee anyone a big payout every year.

      “There does have to be some type of championship game bonus. Schools will spend $1-$2 million (+ coaches’ bonuses) for playing in that game.”

      I think the semis pay more than the bowls and that’s it. Bonuses are the schools’ problem, and the cost of the NCG will be much lower since it won’t involve having 500 people there for a week. The schools gain due to the coverage. Their conferences can choose to give them a bigger chunk of the pot or to cover expenses first and then split it all equally like most do now.

      Like

  3. bullet says:

    Heard anything on what happens if B1G/Pac 12 are #1/#3 or #2/#4 or #3/#4 or #1/#2? Would they alter the pairings to create a traditional Rose Bowl?
    And with only 2 or 3 weeks to “sell” as a semi-final, this proposal reduces the financial benefit of the playoff. Is anyone besides the B1G and Pac 12 going to be interested in leaving so much money on the table (having a middleman in addition to an “unknown until 2 weeks before” middleman)?

    Like

    • hskrfb fan says:

      Along with the #1 vs #4 & #2 vs #3, I think the Rose Bowl should be allowed to host a B1G vs P12 semifinal if it is #1 vs #3 or #2 vs #4. I don’t think the Rose should host a B1G vs P12 of #1 vs #2 or #3 vs #4 because it should be as close to a seeded 4 team playoff as possible.

      Like

      • texmex says:

        A few thoughts:

        1) I couldn’t disagree more about changing the seedings should both a PAC 12/Big 10 team make the top 4. If it’s a true 4 team seeded playoff, it should always be 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. Anything other than that and you don’t have a true playoff, you have a plus-1.

        2) The timing of when these bowl games will be played still seems to be a mystery. For TV purposes, it seems like you couldn’t play more than 3 of these games on New Years Day. Which means you are still going to have games after January 1st, which has been a problem attracting viewership. Putting any of these games on New Years Eve wouldn’t appear to be something that would maximize viewership either.

        Like

        • Nah. The teams are so close in ability between 1-4 (or 1-6, if you are going to a conf. champ preferred system) that 1 vs. 3 and 2 vs. 6 isn’t a crazy big advantage. I hope they keep this scenario loose.

          It would be a bummer if Pac-12/Big Ten are 1 and 2 seeds…because it truly wouldn’t be fair to make them play in a semifinal. They’d have to split up the traditional bowl powers.

          Like

        • Eric says:

          Disagree. A plus one doesn’t have seeding at all. It has bowls (no seeding at all, so maybe #1 vs. #20) and then a championship.

          It’s still a true playoff with 1 vs. 3 and 2 vs. 4. Baseball actually does something similar (well did until this year). The best division winner played the wildcard winner unless both teams were from the same division and then they switched it up.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      bullet,

      “Heard anything on what happens if B1G/Pac 12 are #1/#3 or #2/#4 or #3/#4 or #1/#2? Would they alter the pairings to create a traditional Rose Bowl?”

      There’s no way there is a consensus on this yet. I’m guessing the B10 and P12 will push for it and the others might agree but probably won’t. The reason they might agree is they get to combine the power of the Rose Bowl tradition with the power of a playoff. It markets itself better than anything TV can do, which means more money for everybody. As for the worries about a 1/2 or 3/4 game:

      1. If it’s 1 vs 2, it’s the B10 and P12 taking the “risk” of playing a harder game. That should help everyone else.

      2. If it’s 3 vs 4, the other game is 1 vs 2 and people will realize it doesn’t matter. To win the title, you must beat one of these pairs of opponents:

      1, 2
      1, 3
      1, 4
      2, 3
      2, 4
      3, 4

      If you play #1 first instead of #3, so what? You’ll play #3 or #4 for the title. If you play #2 first instead of #4, you’ll also get #3 or #4 for the title. Saying it’s unfair to play #1 first is silly if you believe you should have a chance to play for the title. This is especially true if they push through that 1-4 plan. The math is a little different if they use the top 4 champs, but the same principle applies.

      “And with only 2 or 3 weeks to “sell” as a semi-final, this proposal reduces the financial benefit of the playoff.”

      How so? It makes the Rose much more valuable in the years both champs make the playoff, which means more money for everybody.

      “Is anyone besides the B1G and Pac 12 going to be interested in leaving so much money on the table (having a middleman in addition to an “unknown until 2 weeks before” middleman)?”

      Can you please explain this, because I’m failing to see the lost money here?

      Like

      • bullet says:

        A non-playoff bowl isn’t going to get the same amount of sponsorship money as a playoff bowl (TV is different since they will sell as a package-at least other than the Rose). So if you don’t know until a couple of weeks before, you won’t get as much money as if its pre-determined. The sales of suites and other things will be by the bowl without knowing what type of game it is. The sponsors are playing the lottery. They would rather have some certainty as to what they are buying. Almost all bonus for being a semi-final instead of a regular bowl is left on the table. And the uncertainty will keep some potential sponsors from participating.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I think more of the risk will be shared system wide than you do. I could see them promising a minimum number of semis to each bowl, though, so the SEC could use up their right to host one in the Sugar if the Orange hasn’t gotten enough, for example. I think the deal will be one where the TV partner gets the sponsorships (bowl must OK them) and the bowls just get a constant revenue stream. The more flexibility in sites the schools want, the less the TV partner agrees to pay.

          Like

        • Eric says:

          While that will hurt in years when you get a playoff, it will help years you don’t. If you are on the Orange Board board, you can sell the possibility of this being a possible semi-final every year and people who might have skipped other years will buy in so as not to lose the chance at a semi-final.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Yes, but they will pay a lot less of a bonus they than will deduct for the lack of certainty. Brian has it right. The more flexibility in sites, the less the sponsor pays.

            Like

  4. Penn State Danny says:

    Frank: would there then only be 3 New Years Day games? Cap One, Rose and one other?

    Also, would the Cap One Bowl change it’s name to something less commercial? Quit laughing.

    Like

    • Ross says:

      Wasn’t it the Citrus Bowl before?

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Former names:

        Tangerine Bowl, Florida Citrus Bowl, CompUSA Florida Citrus Bowl, Ourhouse.com Florida Citrus Bowl, Capital One Florida Citrus Bowl

        The game is played in the Citrus Bowl (the stadium) much like the Rose Bowl game is played in the Rose Bowl, but the game was never just “Citrus Bowl.”

        Like

        • bullet says:

          My 1st reading of the 4th name on your list was the Outhouse Bowl.

          Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            Wouldn’t it be awesome if some company that makes commodes sponsored a bowl game in an old, dilapidated stadium (think the old Orange Bowl stadium before it was torn down) and called it the Toilet Bowl.

            Like

          • jj says:

            @ michael

            It would be even funnier if it was a really awesome bowl.

            Like

          • morganwick says:

            Involving good teams instead of two 6-6 teams.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      Penn State Danny,

      “Frank: would there then only be 3 New Years Day games? Cap One, Rose and one other?”

      Well, they said 6 in 3 days and there are only 3 time slots per day to hit the whole country. I’d guess a 2, 3, 1 or 1, 3, 2 split on 12/31-1/2.

      “Also, would the Cap One Bowl change it’s name to something less commercial? Quit laughing.”

      Maybe they add the Citrus back into the name to sound less like a sell out.

      Like

      • morganwick says:

        I could see them wanting to reclaim New Year’s Day and put two games on New Year’s Eve and one on 12/30. One semifinal is always played in primetime on 1/1 (unless the Cap One and Rose get both semis), the other (if not the Cap One or Rose) on 12/31.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I was just going by what they said, and they mentioned 12/31-1/2. The problem is the 12/31 primetime slot is bad, and most people aren’t sitting around all day so getting 2 games in would be tough. 1/2 has the opposite problem as only primetime is a good slot. Maybe they play 4 games on 1/1 with overlap (12, 3, 6, 9)?

          Like

          • @Brian – My guess is that one semifinal would be played on 1/1 (either the Rose Bowl or the applicable semifinal bowl in the prime time slot) and then the other semifinal in prime time on 1/2. So, there would probably be 2 BCS bowls on New Year’s Eve, 3 on New Year’s Day (with one semifinal) and 1 on 1/2 (the other semifinal).

            Like

    • Eric says:

      Missed this comment before I posted, but agree there should be a requirement for a real name as the base name of the bowl (Capital One can be written before that).

      Like

      • morganwick says:

        The trend in non-BCS bowls seems to be the opposite – see the fate of the Peach, er, Chik-fil-A Bowl.

        This is why I kind of wonder why Frank left the Gator Bowl off his list.

        Like

  5. I think what you’ve laid out makes a lot of sense, but I’d edit a couple things:

    1) I’m pretty sure that there’d be SOME level of extra bonus for making the 4-team playoff. Probably not much, maybe an extra 50% share for the team/conference, but I doubt it’s nothing.

    2) Given the huge amount of flak for the weird, overly convoluted mess of a reimbursement system the BCS used, I’d guess that the new structure simplifies it. I would suggest that something like 10% of the money generated gets evenly split to every 1-A school, and beyond that the rest goes to those who actually make it (either to the team if independent or league if not). This simplifies things a lot, and only Notre Dame (getting a smaller share in non-BCS years) gets hurt, and I’d guess that one of the BCS bowls would agree to some sort of tie-in rule where ND goes there if they pass some relatively easy to achieve mark (something like top 20 or so). Not sure whether ND would be thrilled with that, but it MIGHT be enough of a gift for them to relinquish their current “we get a bunch of money no matter what” status.

    3) Given the huge amount of flak for the weird, overly convoluted mess of a ticket-selling system the BCS used (where ticket allotments were basically used to rip off schools who made it), I’d expect large-scale reform, to the point where specified and REASONABLE ticket arrangements form part of the “New BCS” contracts. It does make sense for schools to have some level of ticket allotments, but I’m thinking either there are:

    relatively tight price controls;
    much smaller ticket allotments;
    or schools have the right to give back unused tickets to the bowl at no (or very small) losses

    I don’t think anyone wins when there are a bunch of unsold tickets because the face value was a massive ripoff, so I would expect this to be addressed in the new system.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I’d like to think they’re smart enough to fix the ticket and hotel issues with the bowls, but they’ve let it slide this long. The TV money will make up the difference, so bowls don’t have to gouge the schools to afford a payout.

      Like

  6. Christian in Texas says:

    Hook ’em

    Like

  7. Denogginizer says:

    Go B1G Red

    Like

  8. bw says:

    From a Big 12 perspective, if this system happens, they should lobby like crazy to end that contract with the Fiesta Bowl and make sure the Cotton Bowl becomes a BCS bowl and their #1 anchor bowl.

    Would make way more sense for virtually every school in the conference from a traveling perspective.

    Like

    • hskrfb fan says:

      I agree. The Big 12 should dump the Fiesta Bowl for the Cotton Bowl. The Fiesta could have a tie-in with the highest rank of Notre Dame, Big East, other Independent, or other conference champ. They could also throw the Fiesta a bone by letting them host one National Championship game during the 8-10 year contract.

      Like

    • Agreed. And from a PSU fan’s perspective…we have a great affinity (as do OSU and Nebraska fans, I think) for the Fiesta. They might want to snag the best Pac-12/Big Ten team not in the semifinals or Rose Bowl over a Big 12 school. It’s the next closest bowl to the Pac-12 too…so I could see them desiring a tie-in there.

      I think the Fiesta can do just fine without the Big 12.

      Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        I think that the Big Ten is the one conference in the country where tie-ins to any location in the country will work, so yes, a Fiesta Bowl tie in to the B1G could certainly work. I would say the same for the SEC, but there’s no reason for that league to take bids to far away bowl games when so many good ones are attainable right in (or near) their conference footprint. The Sugar, Cotton, Cap One, Outback, Orange, Chick-Fil-A, Gator, and even some of the other bowl games in Texas are more than enough to satisfy the SEC’s bowl allotment without requiring SEC fans to venture outside of the South.

        Like

  9. GreatLakeState says:

    MgoBowl! 2013 – Without the goofy jerseys or numbers on the helmets!

    Like

  10. hskrfb fan says:

    I agree that adding the Cotton Bowl and the Capital One Bowl to the “New BCS” is likely. But I really doubt that any conference will have more than 1 official tie-in (if they finish in the top 12) because it would should overt favoritism. I think what Frank is saying is what the “unofficial” tie-ins will be. The Cotton will always want a Big 12 team if they are able. The Capital One would like to have a B1G vs SEC as often as possible. Any team from the Big East, an Independent, or other conference champs will be guaranteed one of the at large spots of the “New BCS” if they finish in the top 12.

    It looks like the new BCS contract will be a longer term deal (8 or 10 years). I bet Delany fights for a B1G city (Indianapolis and/or Detroit) to be guaranteed to host at least 2 of the National Championship games during the new contract.

    Like

    • morganwick says:

      And the Pac-12 and ACC would have a fit if the other three BCS conferences got official second tie-ins and they didn’t. I would expect the Pac-12’s #2 team to inherit the Fiesta Bowl tie-in after the Big 12 moves their #1 tie-in to the Cotton. Big 12 #2 would then be offered to the Fiesta and Sugar in that order. ACC #2 would be a hot potato that would bring down the whole scheme.

      I have an alternate tie-in structure coming in another post.

      Like

  11. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!

    Like

  12. MSlive says:

    Frank I am glad my Horns won a couple of games in the RB before being locked out by you plan. It is an impressive place. I would agree with the sentiment to have the big xii tie in with Cotton Bowl (the real thing not the death star)

    Like

  13. Brian says:

    The B10 really self-inflicts wounds with this semifinal bowl tie-in plan. The ACC (possibly), B12, P12 and SEC get home games out of it, the B10 gets a 2000 mile road trip.

    1. I see plenty of reasons for the B10 and SEC to fight. Game locations is a primary one (despite what you say, others have said it’s only 60-40 in favor of bowls). Top 4 versus champs is another. I don’t buy the “protecting” the Rose Bowl argument, either. The Rose would still lose a lot of stature and become just another major bowl. It would also lose it’s true pairing in many years. At best they are slightly protecting the individual tie-ins to the Rose Bowl. The B10 would be better off pushing for a new midwestern site for when they host.

    2. This is where I disagree with you. I think this is one of two points the little guys make a stand on. Especially if TPTB stupidly do a 1-4 playoff, I think the little guys demand that the next 8 teams get in (with the 3 team limit). No wiggle room for #15 MI to get in while #7 Boise stays home. They’ll see it as a fair trade for never making the playoff since the rankings will always be against them (the plan is to emphasize SOS). They’ll tie it into their point two, demanding equal pay for making a major bowl. No more the AQs get $X million but the little guys get less.

    I don’t see the Cotton, Cap 1 or Outback as having much leverage here. The Peach, Insight and Pinstripe Bowls would probably be happy to step up. The Insight has the Fiesta money to draw from, but being in the same area hurts. The Peach has been very aggressive lately with kickoff games, so I’m sure they’d love to move to the big leagues as a bowl. You know the NYC bowl has the ego to want to be a big game, even if the stadium isn’t well suited to it. Perhaps they’d move to the New Meadowlands?

    As for the bowl matchups, a “BCS” bowl would generally be a step up for the Cotton and Cap 1 and definitely for the Outback. Sometimes the Cotton and Cap 1 have that level of match-up, but they also get some games that are significantly worse. They may prefer having the B10 and SEC fan bases (and B12 for Cotton), but the teams would be better. What I could see is the “BCS” bowls keeping their ties much like the bowls for the semis. If a team in the pool from that conference is available, they go there, but not at the expense of other teams getting into the bowls.

    As for why the B10, B12 and SEC would accept this, it’s all about the money. Staging better bowls is the only chance to get viewers to watch these games in large numbers, and more viewers means more money from TV. So I think the “BCS” bowls can have tie-ins, but they are only honored when those teams are available. In return, the little guys want guaranteed access to the top 8 other teams.

    My guess:
    Rose – B10 #1 vs P12 #1
    Sugar – SEC #1
    Fiesta – B12 #1
    Orange – ACC #1
    Cotton – B12 #2, SEC #3
    Outback/Cap 1 – B10 #2, SEC #2

    3. I agree it seems likely.
    a. OK

    b. Wrong. The Cotton Bowl pays much more than the Cap 1. $6.75M to $4.25M according to Wikipedia. I’m guessing Jerryworld makes the difference over the Citrus Bowl. Based on the facilities, the Outback may jump the Cap 1 because the big wigs don’t want to go to such a crappy stadium. The Cap 1 has more history, but at some point that stadium becomes a factor.

    c. That’s great for Disney, but they aren’t the only bidder. I’m sure Fox wants in on the playoff, and probably CBS/Turner and NBC, too. They’ll probably steer it away from FL just as hard as ESPN pushes it there. I’m not sure this is a factor.

    4. I disagree about the revenue distribution. I think they will have tiered value because they need it to make things seem right. It won’t be horribly skewed, but I think it will be different. My guess is something like $20M for the semis, $15M for the BCS bowls, 2nd team is $10M (semis or BCS bowl), 3rd team is $5M (scale all of these appropriately based on the actual total TV will spend). Just like the BCS, there will also be “free” money for everybody (I-AA, Army and Navy, non-AQs, even ND) every year that assures the little guys of getting about 15% of the total (a small bump from now). I don’t think they will pay for the NCG because if you pay for the NCG, there will be even more fighting about who should get in and that’s the last thing they want.

    I don’t see a problem with variable pay since I believe all the bowls will pool their payouts and then the system will distribute them just like now. The BCS handled paying less to 2nd teams just fine, so I don’t see this being an issue. All they are really doing is handing out TV money.

    Like

    • This hardly has anything to do with what you’ve posted Brian…but your NYC bowl thoughts made me wonder if the Big Ten (and to a lesser extent, the ACC and Big East) might push for this. If you want to make CFB more popular in NYC, bring a big-time bowl game (not Kansas vs. Syracuse) with a marquee big-time Big Ten team against a strong midwest/south/eastern opponent. This is the Golden Goose for TV deals (the mythic NYC market)…so why not push the issue a bit? NYC around Christmas is on par with Disney World in Orlando for tourists, and while you won’t be breaking out the bathing suits (except at the hotel maybe), it still would be easy to sell the thing out if you put a game of top 15 teams in there.

      Like

      • Phil says:

        A retractable roof on the new Meadowlands Sadium would have made it a no-brainer for a big bowl, but I do understand the reason the Giants/Jets didn’t want it.

        The other issue for a big NYC bowl game is hotel room availability. It already attracts enough Xmas season tourism that you CAN find rooms on short notice, but the prices are ridiculously expensive.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        allthatyoucantleavebehind,

        “This hardly has anything to do with what you’ve posted Brian”

        What would the internet be without tangents?

        “…but your NYC bowl thoughts made me wonder if the Big Ten (and to a lesser extent, the ACC and Big East) might push for this. If you want to make CFB more popular in NYC, bring a big-time bowl game (not Kansas vs. Syracuse) with a marquee big-time Big Ten team against a strong midwest/south/eastern opponent. This is the Golden Goose for TV deals (the mythic NYC market)…so why not push the issue a bit? NYC around Christmas is on par with Disney World in Orlando for tourists, and while you won’t be breaking out the bathing suits (except at the hotel maybe), it still would be easy to sell the thing out if you put a game of top 15 teams in there.”

        You’d think they would, but that usually means they won’t. Without a commitment to play in a bigger stadium, it’s a no go. The warm weather folks would fight it anyway, but TV might supply some pressure if they thought they could tap into the holy grail of markets.

        Like

    • @Brian – A couple of things:

      1) We’ll just to agree to disagree about how the non-AQs are going to get treated in the new bowl system. Everything that I’ve seen and heard point to the exact opposite, where the trade-off for the non-AQs is that they get access to a top 4 playoff plus more money in exchange for the bowls other than the semifinals getting to pick whichever teams (almost certainly power conferences teams) that they want with maybe a rankings caveat (probably top 18-20 for a new 6 BCS bowl system as opposed to top 14 for the 5 BCS bowls today). Intuitively, that makes sense. The semifinals should be based on merit, whereas other bowls are dependent upon getting popular teams and are very clear that they do not want to be forced to take non-AQ teams that they don’t want (and the Big Ten and SEC are happy to support that position).

      2) The figure that you’re quoting for the Cotton Bowl is an older total payout for both teams combined, whereas the number that you have for the Capital One Bowl is an older figure for each team. The latest per team payout figures are here:

      http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bowl_games_bowl_schedule.html

      These are the non-BCS bowl payouts that are greater than $3 million per team:

      Capital One Bowl: $4.6 million (SEC #2 vs. Big Ten #2)
      Chick-fil-A Bowl: $3.9675 million (higher payout is just for ACC #2; SEC #5 receives $2.9325 million)
      Cotton Bowl: $3.625 million (Big 12 #2 vs. SEC #3/4)
      Outback Bowl: $3.5 million (SEC #3/4 vs. Big Ten #3)
      Insight Bowl: $3.35 million (Big Ten #4/5 vs. Big 12 #4)
      Alamo Bowl: $3.175 million (Pac-12 #2 vs. Big 12 #3)

      Note that the Insight Bowl has Fiesta Bowl BCS dollars backing it, so that’s why it can afford such a high payout even it’s getting a worse Big 12 tie-in than the Alamo Bowl. It’s also a possible reason why the Big 12 may end having its primary tie-in stay at the Fiesta Bowl – they are really getting 2 high paying bowls out of Phoenix right now and may not want to lose that, so the ties are deeper there than one would think.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Frank the Tank,

        1) We’ll just to agree to disagree about how the non-AQs are going to get treated in the new bowl system.

        It’s all opinion anyway. I just suspect that eventually they are going to take a stand for something and either get it or get paid off. I could see the BE joining them about the top ranked teams must get into the bowls, and the ACC and P12 too. Only the B10, SEC and ND really benefit from giving the bowls freedom of choice, and maybe the B12 to a lesser extent. I just think your plan gives too much credit to the B10 and SEC. With the big bump in TV money coming from a playoff, I see the presidents potentially giving up a few extra dollars to stand on some principles.

        Everything that I’ve seen and heard point to the exact opposite, where the trade-off for the non-AQs is that they get access to a top 4 playoff

        They’ll never get access to that. All the talk is about increasing the importance of SOS in the rankings, and that will only punish the little guys. Even at 12-0 they’ll struggle to make #4.

        plus more money in exchange for the bowls other than the semifinals getting to pick whichever teams (almost certainly power conferences teams) that they want with maybe a rankings caveat (probably top 18-20 for a new 6 BCS bowl system as opposed to top 14 for the 5 BCS bowls today).

        I’m sure they can be bought off, but you didn’t give them any extra money in your plan either. Your post gives them the same cut of the money and keeps them out of bowls, and the SOS plans will also keep them out of the playoff. Why would they be OK with that, and how many conferences can they get to stand with them (BE? ACC? P12?)

        Intuitively, that makes sense. The semifinals should be based on merit, whereas other bowls are dependent upon getting popular teams and are very clear that they do not want to be forced to take non-AQ teams that they don’t want (and the Big Ten and SEC are happy to support that position).

        Maybe you intended to give them more money, but I don’t see that above. I could see them being bought off, but I think it will require more than keeping the same portion of the pie despite the pie doubling.

        2) The figure that you’re quoting for the Cotton Bowl is an older total payout for both teams combined, whereas the number that you have for the Capital One Bowl is an older figure for each team. The latest per team payout figures are here:

        OK. I took them from the same not overly reliable source (Wikipedia) so I don’t claim they’re right. If they were right, they contradicted your point, so I brought it up. It was just an issue of fact. I don’t think the larger point was really changed either way.

        http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bowl_games_bowl_schedule.html

        That’s hardly an official source either, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Does anybody know of an official source for these numbers?

        These are the non-BCS bowl payouts that are greater than $3 million per team:

        Capital One Bowl: $4.6 million (SEC #2 vs. Big Ten #2)
        Chick-fil-A Bowl: $3.9675 million (higher payout is just for ACC #2; SEC #5 receives $2.9325 million)
        Cotton Bowl: $3.625 million (Big 12 #2 vs. SEC #3/4)
        Outback Bowl: $3.5 million (SEC #3/4 vs. Big Ten #3)
        Insight Bowl: $3.35 million (Big Ten #4/5 vs. Big 12 #4)
        Alamo Bowl: $3.175 million (Pac-12 #2 vs. Big 12 #3)

        Note that the Insight Bowl has Fiesta Bowl BCS dollars backing it, so that’s why it can afford such a high payout even it’s getting a worse Big 12 tie-in than the Alamo Bowl. It’s also a possible reason why the Big 12 may end having its primary tie-in stay at the Fiesta Bowl – they are really getting 2 high paying bowls out of Phoenix right now and may not want to lose that, so the ties are deeper there than one would think.

        Isn’t that just one more reason to hate the BCS bowls because the Fiesta is screwing people over enough to afford that payout for the Insight?

        Like

        • bullet says:

          The Capital One has had a bigger payout the the Cotton for a number of years, almost since the Cotton got replaced by the Fiesta in the Big 4. So Frank’s numbers look reasonable. Don’t know if the move to Jerry World has allowed the Cotton to catch up.

          Like

      • Mack says:

        At the BCS level the poor facilities will bite Orlando, as it did the old Orange and Cotton stadiums. Even with SEC backing, the Sugar could not have survived as a BCS bowl if it was still being played in the old Tulane stadium rather than the Super Dome. If the Capital One bowl does get elevated it will be played in Tampa with the Outback in Orlando.

        Like

    • Eric says:

      Brian,

      1. I do think this protects the Rose Bowl as much as possible given we are going to semi-finals. Once the decision to go to semi-finals was made, no realistic move was going to protect the Rose Bowl more than this. Here they’ll be a semi-final and desirable some years and other years be the best of everything else. It’s a step back, but it’s not as far a step as having home field games (with the losers not going to bowls). Overall it’s similar to what adding a CCG did to the Ohio State-Michigan game; it’s still big and important, but a step down from the potential it once had. The Big Ten going for a Midwestern site would be truly devastating to the Rose Bowl though and I never want to see that.

      I do agree that home field is still a possibility though.

      2. I don’t think there is a chance on this planet that they take the top 12 straight up. I think the little guys get the playoff they wanted, the end of official AQ (which they wanted badly), and more money total. That’s all the leverage they had. I do agree we are unlikely to see a direct #2 teams have a direct bowl though (although maybe they get it if they are in the top 15/20).

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Eric,

        “1. I do think this protects the Rose Bowl as much as possible given we are going to semi-finals.”

        Well, that’s the rub, isn’t it? As much as possible doesn’t mean much at all. A piece of bubble wrap will protect me as much as possible from a car crash, but that doesn’t mean it protects me in any meaningful way. That’s why bubble wrap manufacturers don’t advertise it as a way to protect yourself in a crash.

        “2. I don’t think there is a chance on this planet that they take the top 12 straight up. I think the little guys get the playoff they wanted, the end of official AQ (which they wanted badly), and more money total. That’s all the leverage they had. I do agree we are unlikely to see a direct #2 teams have a direct bowl though (although maybe they get it if they are in the top 15/20).”

        I think they’ll be more restrictive than you do. The little guys are tired of getting passed over for bowl slots they deserve. Especially if they decide to take 1-4 for the semis, I expect big restrictions on how far down the ranks the bowls can go. In part this is because I think a lot of money will be on the line for making those bowls, and since the big boys are all but guaranteed 2-3 spots each the little guys don’t want this to be a beauty contest.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          They won’t take the top 12, but the bust that was Michigan/VT openened their eyes. It won’t be only top 14 for 12 slots, but its not going to be top 25 either. They are going to try to get better matchups while still allowing the bowls flexibility.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            I think it’ll be closer to 12 than 20. Any leeway screws over everyone but ND, the B10, B12, P12 and SEC.

            Like

        • Eric says:

          1. I guess no argument there.

          2. The big guys really aren’t guaranteed 2-3 spots though if you go straight up top 12. The Big Ten gets 2 right now almost every year, but that’s with the flexibility of the BCS letting them go up to 14 and with the 2 team limit. If you take the top 12 (or close to it), the Big Ten’s average likely won’t increase at all and it’s possible it would even drop. If we top 12 last year, we would have had:

          4 SEC
          3 Big 12
          2 PAC-12
          1 Big Ten, Mountain West, ACC

          If we assume a 3 team limit, then take 1 away from the SEC and give it to the Big Ten. There’s no way the Big Ten agrees to take that risk though. Putting top 12 in could have meant going from a close to guaranteed 2 bids to 1 bid this year while simultaneously likely taking away its next biggest bowl (Citrus). If they are going to be in favor of going up to 6 BCS bowls and possibly losing one of their own, then it makes sense that they would want at least equal access and probably the possibility of greater access. The non-power conferences don’t have the same leverage, but are still likely to benefit from a greater selection even if it’s not as strict (Boise State for instance looks a lot more attractive in the top 10 with 12 teams in than only 10 even if you increase the at large pool).

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Eric,

            “2. The big guys really aren’t guaranteed 2-3 spots though if you go straight up top 12. The Big Ten gets 2 right now almost every year, but that’s with the flexibility of the BCS letting them go up to 14 and with the 2 team limit. If you take the top 12 (or close to it), the Big Ten’s average likely won’t increase at all and it’s possible it would even drop. If we top 12 last year, we would have had:

            4 SEC
            3 Big 12
            2 PAC-12
            1 Big Ten, Mountain West, ACC

            If we assume a 3 team limit, then take 1 away from the SEC and give it to the Big Ten.”

            Let’s look at the facts first. Based on 2014 conference affiliation because it’s a pain to track when everyone moved, here’s the numbers for the top 12:

            1998
            3 – SEC, B10
            2 – ACC, P12
            1 – B12, other

            1999
            3 – B10*, SEC**, ACC***
            2 – B12
            1 – other

            * B10 actually had 5 of 12 plus #13, so had to use top 15
            ** SEC actually had 4 of 15 but BCS poll stopped at 15, so added next from AP
            *** The 16th team was ACC

            2000
            3 – B12, ACC, P12
            1 – SEC, B10, ND

            2001
            3 – P12*, SEC**
            2 – ACC, B10, B12

            * P12 had 4 of 12, so used top 13
            ** SEC had #13

            2002
            3 – B10*, B12, P12**
            1 – ACC, SEC, ND

            * B10 had 4 of 12, so used top 13
            ** P12 had #13

            2003
            3 – B12, SEC
            2 – B10, ACC
            1 – P12, other

            2004
            3 – P12, SEC
            2 – B12, BE
            1 – ACC, B10

            2005
            3 – SEC
            2 – P12, B10, ACC
            1 – B12, BE, ND

            2006
            3 – SEC*, B10
            2 – BE, B12**
            1 – P12, ND

            * SEC had 4 of 12, so used top 13
            ** B12 had #13

            2007
            3 – SEC*, B12
            2 – P12, B10**
            1 – ACC, other

            * SEC had 4 of 12, so used top 13
            ** B10 had #13

            2008
            3 – B12*
            2 – SEC, P12, B10, BE
            1 – ACC**

            * B12 had 4 of 12 and #13, so used top 14
            ** ACC had #14

            2009
            3 – SEC
            2 – B12, BE, ACC, B10
            1 – P12

            2010
            3 – SEC*, B10
            2 – P12, B12
            1 – BE, ACC**

            * SEC had 4 of 12, so used top 13
            ** ACC had #13

            2011
            3 – SEC*, B12,
            2 – P12***, B10**
            1 – BE, ACC

            * SEC had 4 of 12, so used top 13
            ** B10 had #13
            *** USC was ineligible or P12 would have had 3 and the B10 only 1

            Summary:
            ACC
            Ave = 1.6 per year, 1 – 6 times, 0 – once

            BE
            Ave = 0.8, 2 – 4 times, 1 – 3 times, 0 – 7 times

            B10
            Ave = 2.3, 1 – only once, 0 – none

            B12
            Ave = 2.3, 1 – only twice, 0 – none

            P12
            Ave = 1.9, 1 – 3 times, 0 – once

            SEC
            Ave = 2.7, 1 – only once, 0 – none

            ND
            4 times

            other
            4 times

            Totals:
            SEC – 38
            B10, B12 – 32
            P12 – 27
            ACC – 22
            BE – 11
            ND – 4
            other – 4

            Conclusions:

            The SEC, B10, B12 and even P12 are almost guaranteed 2 teams each year, and the rare years with one are more than balanced by the years with 3. The ACC can expect 1-2 every year.

            OK, now that we have the facts, let’s continue.

            “There’s no way the Big Ten agrees to take that risk though. Putting top 12 in could have meant going from a close to guaranteed 2 bids to 1 bid this year while simultaneously likely taking away its next biggest bowl (Citrus).”

            It’s not much of a risk based on history. And please stop acting like the B10 can get whatever it wants from these negotiations. It hasn’t worked so far on anything.

            What I look at is the 4 times a non-AQ (not Boise or TCU or Utah) would have made it – Tulane, Marshall, Miami (OH) and Hawaii. Those schools would have near-zero chance of getting picked over an AQ team if the rules allow it, and that also applies to BE teams and half of the ACC. I think these schools see so much TV money available for a playoff that they want no chance of being passed over.

            I think they end with a compromise that isn’t quite top 12, but is pretty close and does lock in the top 8 or top 10 no matter what (if #14 gets in over #11, it’s not as big of a deal as skipping #7).

            “If they are going to be in favor of going up to 6 BCS bowls and possibly losing one of their own, then it makes sense that they would want at least equal access and probably the possibility of greater access.”

            The difference is the payouts are going to be way up. The B10 was getting $18M for #1, $5M for #2 in the BCS and $4M for #3 in the Cap 1. If the new system is paying more for those games, they’ll demand better teams. The B10 can still lock in a bunch of good bowls outside of the series.

            “The non-power conferences don’t have the same leverage, but are still likely to benefit from a greater selection even if it’s not as strict (Boise State for instance looks a lot more attractive in the top 10 with 12 teams in than only 10 even if you increase the at large pool).”

            If the bowls have choices, the non-AQs and BE and ACC get screwed. That makes 4 conferences (plus ND) it helps and 7 (soon to be 6) it hurts.

            Like

          • Eric says:

            Not that it mattered much, but there were 2 years rather than one year on your list that the Big Ten only got 1 (2000 and 2004). The numbers going back admittedly help the conference more than I would have guessed. Thank you for searching.

            That said, I think you are way over emphasizing the power of the current non-AQs. Beyond that, I think the other power conferences, especially the ACC and PAC-12 will want consideration beyond 14 and not a guaranteed for top 10.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            You’re only discussing the 1st battle. The ranking process is the 2nd battle. Adding more of an SOS factor while still not allowing margin of victory is a way to squeeze out the little guys.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Eric,

            “Not that it mattered much, but there were 2 years rather than one year on your list that the Big Ten only got 1 (2000 and 2004).”

            Sorry about that. I screwed up my tally. The point remains, though.

            “The numbers going back admittedly help the conference more than I would have guessed. Thank you for searching.”

            I always prefer to have the facts on these issues. The data might have supported you, so I went looking to see.

            “That said, I think you are way over emphasizing the power of the current non-AQs.”

            I don’t think they have much power per se, but if they band together and also get the BE and/or the ACC on their side on an issue, that’s a lot of people. The big 4 can’t just run roughshod over everybody on everything. In addition, I think they are all concerned about the PR during this process, so making a few compromises to prevent a string of negative stories is worth it.

            “Beyond that, I think the other power conferences, especially the ACC and PAC-12 will want consideration beyond 14 and not a guaranteed for top 10.”

            I’m not sure about that. Everyone knows that any leeway will go to the teams with the best brand name and travelling fan base. In other words, the B10 and SEC. A tighter rule means non-AQ, BE, ACC and P12 teams don’t get passed over for a lower ranked team. In addition, they can sell it to the public as being more fair.

            Like

    • morganwick says:

      “That’s great for Disney, but they aren’t the only bidder. I’m sure Fox wants in on the playoff, and probably CBS/Turner and NBC, too. They’ll probably steer it away from FL just as hard as ESPN pushes it there.”

      Why? Because Disney would benefit from it? Where would they push it to? Would Turner (who I don’t see as much of a factor anyway) push it to the Peach Bowl because they’re headquartered there, or the same with NBC and an NYC bowl?

      Like

      • Brian says:

        morganwick,

        “Why? Because Disney would benefit from it?”

        Exactly because of that. What’s good for Disney is bad for them, because it helps Disney bid more for the games.

        “Where would they push it to? Would Turner (who I don’t see as much of a factor anyway) push it to the Peach Bowl because they’re headquartered there, or the same with NBC and an NYC bowl?”

        It doesn’t really matter where to them, since they can’t make much off the tourism side. They just don’t want Disney to have an edge.

        Like

        • A big advantage with Florida is that it’s a locale that both the Big Ten and SEC agree on if conferences can have #2 tie-ins. Florida might still pose a bit of a home field advantage for the SEC, but not anywhere near to the extent that an Atlanta bowl would be. There are so many Midwestern transplants, snowbirds and winter break vacationers in Florida that time of year that it’s the Sun Belt location that at least levels the fans in the sears playing field. Even if there aren’t Big Ten and SEC tie-ins, a Central Florida bowl is good for the ACC and the Big 12 wouldn’t mind it since it has had a Gator Bowl tie-in in the past (plus the old Big 8 champ went to the Orange Bowl). Basically, the only power conference that wouldn’t care for a Florida bowl is the Pac-12, but they can’t really say much since they already have 2 BCS bowls in its home markets (despite not being a very good traveling fan base league).

          The only issue with Orlando is the stadium itself. Its location is a positive for the widest range of conferences and fan bases compared to any other location (and that includes current BCS bowls). To the extent that the stadium situation is unworkable, Tampa is right there with a suitable alternative.

          P.S. Remember that Comcast/NBC owns Universal Studios, so they have a big-time interest in Orlando bowl travelers just as much as Disney (and maybe even more so since Universal is more popular with the college aged crowd). I recall an NBC personality (I think it was Bill Hader of SNL) talking about how the network brought a bunch of its TV stars down to the Super Bowl in Tampa in a year that NBC was broadcasting the game, but all of those stars had to stay in Orlando at Universal Studios by executive mandate in order to maximize all of the corporate synergy opportunities. As a result, all of those TV stars were put on a bus from Orlando to Tampa on the morning of the Super Bowl.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Frank the Tank,

            “A big advantage with Florida is that it’s a locale that both the Big Ten and SEC agree on if conferences can have #2 tie-ins.”

            If it’s good for them, doesn’t that mean the B12 and P12 plus many non-AQs would be against it? The BE and ACC wouldn’t fight it, but FL wouldn’t be a slam dunk. I agree it’s still the most likely site with the confluence of conferences in the east, alumni in FL and such.

            “Florida might still pose a bit of a home field advantage for the SEC, but not anywhere near to the extent that an Atlanta bowl would be.”

            I think people would travel to Atlanta about as well as any Florida bowl, personally. They can spend most of the bowlcation at beaches or theme parks and hit Atlanta for the game. There is no lack of hotels and flights are easy.

            Like

  14. Brian says:

    The final winter results for the Sports Directors Cup:

    1. Stanford 1029.75
    2. OSU 807.75
    3. PSU 793.00
    4. FL 702.00
    5. MI 666.00
    6. MN 661.25
    7. FSU 626.50
    8. NC 625.00
    9. TX 583.00
    10. WI 582.00

    Spring results start being available 5/31.

    Like

  15. BigTenFan says:

    I COMPLETELY disagree that this proposal protects the Rose Bowl….any proposal where the Rose Bowl could potentially have to compete with the semi finals on January 1 or 2 is NOT protecting it. Hell,using the Rose Bowl as a semi final (along with the other BCS bowls) isn’t even maximizing revenue – using the bowl hosting model makes no logical sense or financial sense. The best two models, without a doubt, would be:

    1. Host semi final games on the campus of the higher rates schools campus the 1st week in December (and start the season a week earlier so the semi’s can be played the first week in December). This proposal protects the Rose Bowl in two major ways: 1. The losers would be allowed to play in the bowl games. The only time the Rose wouldn’t get both the B1G & PAC champs would be if one or both of them were in the NC game – most years the Rose would at LEAST get one of the two. 2. The NC game would be played after January 1, therefore all the bowls on January 1 would benefit by NOT having to compete with the semi finals for TV ratings. A couple of other benefits here: all the bowl games would be stronger if the losers in the semi finals were allowed to participate &, the biggest benefit, without any doubt, would be alleviating travel issues – the semi’s would be played in a jam packed full stadium every time & people would only have to travel once to watch their team in the postseason (the majority of fans anyway). Obviously the one dig at this model would be that it wouldn’t maximize revenue – option #2 would do that.

    2. Host the semi finals (and national championships game) on neutral sites the week after the CCG’s & let semi final losers compete in bowl games. This is the way to maximize revenue & strengthen the bowls. Bid it out and let the highest bidder have at it.

    Either way, the bowls are the bowls & a playoff is a playoff. I don’t see how combining the bowl games with the playoff protects the Rose Bowl, produces more revenue, or is better for fans. It seems like, all around, it would be much better to separate the two entirely.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      The Christmas week semi-final has a side benefit for playoff proponents. It makes expanding to 8 fairly easy. Move the schedule up a week and add quarter-finals at home sites the 1st week of December. The semi-finals and finals don’t change. President Adams plan to use the 4 major bowls as quarter-finals would require more changes in timing and leave open the travel issues with 3 games in January.

      Like

  16. Michael in Raleigh says:

    I think Frank is probably pretty much on for his details about the idea of a 12 team event. The only differences I expect would be some of the tie-ins.

    The Cotton, for one, ought to have an excellent shot at the Big 12 #1. The league had to foot the bill for Oklahoma’s unsold tickets for the game against UConn because OU fans probably were tired of making lengthy trips to Phoenix to watch their team play in a non national championship game. With the Cotton, that trip is not so demanding for Sooner fans, or anyone in the league, really, besides maybe Iowa State and WVU (whose fans are going to have to make long trips for bowl games no matter what in this league). I understand that the Fiesta covets that Big 12 #1 spot and is second only to the Rose Bowl in financial resources, but I still think the Cotton will have the edge.

    The Fiesta could wind up with a pair of not-so-bad tie-ins. One of the tie-ins could be its choice of a top 15 Notre Dame/Big East champion, or a best-of-the-rest if neither of those qualify, or, if none of the above are top 15, then it could take a straight up at large. The other tie in could be the Big Ten’s #2 because the Fiesta would certainly be
    able to outbid the Cap One or Outback, or if all else fails, it could take the Pac-12 #2 or Big 12 #2.

    I agree that the Sugar will get the SEC #1 and will likely have no tie in for the opponent.

    The Cotton and Cap One/Outback will likely engage in a bidding war for the SEC #2 but the loser of that bidding war will probably end up with the SEC #3, anyway.

    The Orange will keep the ACC #1, but will try its hardest to get a Big Ten or SEC #2 tie in. The Cotton will probably beat it out for the SEC, and the Fiesta would have a better shot at the B1G, but who knows?

    It’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

    Like

    • bamatab says:

      @Michael – I agree with you on the Cotton Bowl being the better fit for the Big 12 champ. I bet that the 4 Texas teams and the 2 Oklahoma teams would prefer the Cotton over the Fiesta, and since the tie-in bowl for the old Big 8 was the Orange and not the Fiesta, I don’t see what the Kansas or Oklahoma teams would care if the Cotton was switched for the Fiesta other than a preceived home field advantage for the Texas teams.

      As for the SEC’s #2 tie-in, it wouldn’t suprise me for the Cotton to want the 1st available SEC West team (after the Sugar Bowl and/or Semi-final bids), and the Capitol One wanting the 1st available SEC East team (after the Sugar Bowl and/or Semi-final bids), especially now that the SEC is at 14 teams. I know that most of the SEC West teams would prefer the Cotton bowl (especially aTm, LSU, Arky, and probably the MS schools). Now that would mean that the SEC would get 3 BCS Bowl tie-ins and the other conferences wouldn’t like that at all. But if the B1G could get a 3rd tie-in with the Fiesta (if the Cotton got the Big 12 #1), that might lessen some of the outrage. But even if the 3 SEC tie-in wasn’t official, I bet it would end up that way anyways with the Cotton getting at large bids.

      Like

  17. Aaron says:

    What happens if:

    Notre Dame finished No.1 or No.2? What bowl hosts the semi-final? Or, what happens if a Big East or Mountain West team is No.1 or No.2. Does the Champs Sports Bowl or Las Vegas Bowl get to host a semi-final?

    What happens if:

    As unlikely as it is, what happens if, say, LSU finishes No.1 and Alabama finished No.2? Does the sugar bowl get to host two semi-final games?

    Like

    • well played mauer says:

      I thought about that too. What if a unaffiliated Independent or conference champion cracks the top 2? I think there may have to be a few more caveats put in the system just in case that unlikely hood happens. Also I think they may still be a “shoot the moon” provision of some sort for the non affiliated conference champions that have a fairy tale season. Not so much for the mid majors but as a halfway point between letting the Big East keep AQ and throwing them completely to the dogs.

      Also I don’t think giving the PAC-12 & Big Ten and Rose Bowl a exception that if they both have teams in the top 4 that they always play in the Rose Bowl is such a bad thing. And in fact I think it may be a necessary compromise to get the PAC-12 on board for reasons outlined by Frank. This same exception could benefit the other conference too. Look back at 2003 if I remember right if there would have been a flex seeding system, then by a quirk of the final rankings that year Kansas State would have played in the Fiesta Bowl as the Big 12 Champion, #1 ranked Oklahoma the 2nd place B12 team would have hosted LSU in The Cotton Bowl in a Semi Final [a cotton bowl wet dream match-up] and USC would have played Michigan in the Rose Bowl in the other semi final. Hollywood could not right a better set-up.

      When everyone’s wishes and compromises are taken into account I think we could end up with something like what I wrote below. It would not be my first choice on how to do things but I think I could live with something that looked like this:

      The BCS will be replaced by the BIS [Bowl Invitational Series]. The BIS will consist of the Sugar Bowl, Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Tangerine Bowl and National Title Game. The top 4 ranked teams in the final BIS standings will have guaranteed at large bids to the BIS bowls. All other slots will be filled at the discretion of the bowls from of pool of conference champions and Top 15 ranked teams. There will be no Automatic bids to bowls, but conferences may have historic tie-ins to the bowls for their eligible teams. These will be respectively:

      SEC Champion & Sugar Bowl
      ACC Champion & Orange Bowl
      Big 12 Champion & Fiesta Bowl
      PAC-12 & BIG Ten Champions & Rose Bowl
      Big 12 2nd Pick* & Cotton Bowl
      Big Ten* & SEC* 2nd Pick & Tangerine Bowl

      * In order to be eligible for a second tie-in the 2nd pick from the affiliated conference must be ranked in the Top 15 of the final BIS Standings, otherwise those slots will be filled by at large teams from the pool of conference champions and Top 15 ranked teams

      Those bowls will have first priority to those conferences champions. The bowls may elect to forgo their historic tie in order to host a #1 or #2 ranked team provided they do not poach another bowls tie-in. i.e. if a 12th ranked Kansas finishes 2nd in the Big 12 and BYU is ranked #2 in the final BIS standings the Cotton Bowl may elect to invite BYU rather than Kansas if they wish. No other BIS bowl is under any obligation to invite Kansas, but the Big 12 will also not receive a reduction in their BIS payout [see below]

      In most cases the #1 ranked team will host the #4 ranked team and the #2 ranked team will host the #3 ranked team. The #1 & #2 ranked teams will host at their historic bowl tie in sites. If a Team is ranked 1 or 2 and does not have a historic tie in they will work with all the bowls and the BIS to be placed in an appropriate bowl. [see above]

      There will be no limit on the number of teams a conference may send to the BIS.

      3 exceptions can be made to the straight seeding procedures outlined above. 1st allowances can be made in order to avoid a regular season rematch in a bowl regardless of ranking. 2nd if both the Big Ten & Pac-12 have a team ranked in the top 4 they will always play each other in the Rose Bowl regardless of ranking. 3 If a match-up would result in a better regional pairing [i.e. SEC vs. Big 12 in the cotton etc] and the two play-off bowls can come to agreement, the match-ups may proceed regardless of seeding.

      If a team is ranked in the top 10 of the final BIS standings and that team is a independent or from a conference that does not have a historic tie in to a BIS Bowl they will be granted a guaranteed at large bid to a BIS Bowl. Only the top ranked unaffiliated team will be award a guaranteed at large bid. Any other conference champion or team finishing in the top 15 of the final BIS Standings will still be eligible for a at large bid to a BIS Bowl.

      BIS TV money, title sponsorships, BIS bowl payouts, gate receipts and any other revenue generated from the BIS will be placed in the BIS fund and distributed as follows after operating cost:

      75% to the SEC. Big Ten, PAC-12, Big 12, and ACC
      15% to the MAC, MWC, CUSA, Sunbelt and WAC^
      7.5% to the Big East
      1.5% to Notre Dame, BYU & Army
      1% to the FCS Tournament

      ^provided the WAC Still Sponsors football in 2015

      The distribution of funds will be set for the life of the BIS Contract and will not be based on participation in the bowls. i.e. if a conference fails to place a team in the BIS in a given year that conference still receives the set payout as outlined in the terms of the BIS contract. Conversely if a conference places more than 1 team in the BIS that conference will still only receive the set payout as outlined in the terms of the BIS contract.

      Bowls and conferences may switch, cancel, and manage their tie-ins as they see fit in any timetable they choose. The bowl tie-in contracts will be independent of the BIS Contract.

      After the BIS Bowls are played the winners of the two play-off bowls will play each other in the National Title Game The 1st Monday at least 7 days after the last BIS Bowl is played.

      There may be a finical podium bonus for the 2 teams that play in the National Title Game.

      BIS TV Schedule [more or less]:

      1-1 1pm Tangerine Bowl
      1-1 5:30pm Rose Bowl
      1-1 8:30pm Sugar Bowl

      1-2 1pm Orange Bowl
      1-2 5pm Cotton Bowl
      1-2 9pm Fiesta Bowl

      1-9 8pm National Title Game

      Like

      • bullet says:

        That name still includes BS.

        Maybe it will be something like “the Allstate Sugar Bowl, a Delta Airlines Premier Bowl, the Fedex Orange Bowl, a Delta Airlines Premier Bowl….

        Like

      • Eric says:

        Other than the dates (they are planning on using 3 dates for the BCS bowls last I heard, presumably 2 each day), I like it a lot. I think flexible scheduling is definitely needed beyond the Rose Bowl if for no other reason than to avoid conference rematches.

        I think we should use an updated BCS formula to find the teams (with preferences to champions) and then have a small committee set-up the bowls. #1 and #2 would get their home bowls and they couldn’t do 1 vs. 2 and 3 vs. 4, but otherwise could arrange how they wanted to preserve historical match-ups and/or avoid rematches.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      Aaron,

      “What happens if:

      Notre Dame finished No.1 or No.2? What bowl hosts the semi-final? Or, what happens if a Big East or Mountain West team is No.1 or No.2. Does the Champs Sports Bowl or Las Vegas Bowl get to host a semi-final?”

      Obviously we don’t know for sure, but the best guess is that the Fiesta would get those teams (if they aren’t the B12 bowl), or maybe the Orange. Maybe even the 2 new ‘BCS” bowls would get a shot at them.

      “What happens if:

      As unlikely as it is, what happens if, say, LSU finishes No.1 and Alabama finished No.2? Does the sugar bowl get to host two semi-final games?”

      No. The Sugar would get #1, and then the other would be hosted at the #3 team’s bowl most likely. That honors the most tie-ins which is the goal of this system.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      It’s hard to see where it will fit in.

      First, the two conferences already play too many bowls against each other to add another. That means they’d have to bump one of the FL bowls, and even the Gator pays $2.7M per team. Why would the SEC want to head to MO on 1/1 when they can go to FL?

      I could see B10/B12 or B10/P12 there, but I don’t think anybody would prefer MO to FL or TX for a game site besides the B10, and even then only from a fairness standpoint. I think they’d be better off trying to stage a kickoff game between B10 and SEC teams and bid for the NCG.

      Like

      • Phil says:

        The Pinstripe is going to make a major run at a Big Ten tie-in as well. Even though it is outside and only 45M seats, they already pay $2mm a team for a bad BE#4/B12#7 matchup and i have read that they cover their costs (by leveraging the Yankees sponsorships) before they sell one ticket. Getting the payout to the $4mm area could get them something like the B10 #5-7.

        Like

    • Eric says:

      I don’t want to see this unless a different Big Ten-SEC bowl goes away. We have enough already.

      Like

  18. Michael in Raleigh says:

    As a proud former resident of Indianapolis, I’m really happy for Butler to be getting into the Atlantic 10. This move is very much analogous to TCU and Utah’s moves from the Mountain West to their new conferences in that they were truly earned on the field of play. It had just made no sense to me that, after not just one but two straight trips to the national championship game, there were not stronger leagues taking an interest in them. Sure, it would take decades of winning in order for Butler to become a TV darling like the powerhouses of the AQ leagues, but Butler had earned a bigger stage than what the Horizon League was able to offer. Theyre certainly deserving of this “promotion.”

    Louisville’s 2005 move to the Big East, Va. Tech’s and Miami’s moves to the ACC, Boise’s moves to the MWC and later the Big East, and a handful of others have been rewards that were based on the merits of the football and/or basketball programs.

    I’m happy as can be for Butler and others I’ve mentioned who earned their way in one way or another. But while I shouldn’t still be shocked that these moves aren’t simply about merit, but, rather, on leagues perception of who will bring them the most money, I still can hardly believe how ECU and Appalachian State can’t get into their conference of choice (Big East for ECU, C-USA or even the wasteland of the Sun Belt for App State).

    Attendance must tomean nothing. ECU has a higvvgher atte ndance than all the new entrants of the BE, plus some of the existing members and every non-AQ except BYU. App State has a higher attendance than all remaining non-AQ teams besides ECU and UTSA.
    Winning must mean very, very little, either. App State has won three FCS national titles. App also puts players in the NFL WITHOUT the extra 22 scholarships. Last year ASU had three players drafted, and three more signing as free agents. his year ASU had the first pick of the second round, Brian Quickto St. Louis. As for ECU, they’ve had their share of NFL players and they have more than proven their ability to win. What’s baffling is that schools like Old Dominion get into CUSA despite having played for only 3 years, Charlotte hasn’t even played a down yet and has no stadium,yt they’re CUSA bound. Then for ECU, well… Greenville, North Carolina might as well be Afghanistan, apparently, in the eyes of the Big East because everything else indicates ECU would make the Big East a stronger league.

    I better stop now, Brian, before my head does explode. I’ll just focus on the positives… it’s a good day for Butler.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Yeah, ECU surprises me. But the Big East seems to be making its decisions on basketball. ECU has actually been on TV a lot.

      Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      “Louisville’s 2005 move to the Big East, Va. Tech’s and Miami’s moves to the ACC, Boise’s moves to the MWC and later the Big East, and a handful of others have been rewards that were based on the merits of the football and/or basketball programs.”

      —-Just one small quibble – VPI move to the BEast was based on strong arm tactics by the VA State legislature. VPI certainly earned the right on the gridiron…but that’s not ultimately why they bumped Syracuse out of the spot.

      Like

  19. Craig Z says:

    Michael in Raleigh says:
    May 2, 2012 at 7:37 am

    Wouldn’t it be awesome if some company that makes commodes sponsored a bowl game in an old, dilapidated stadium (think the old Orange Bowl stadium before it was torn down) and called it the Toilet Bowl.

    Put it in the Metrodome and the Big Ten gets its midwestern site.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      Often two equally bad teams can be a good game to watch. Competitive scores, and lots of fumbles / interceptions.

      Like

  20. duffman says:

    @ Frank,

    a) Condolences on Rose

    b) Thanks for bringing up the Disney / Orlando + ESPN / ABC thing. I really think people keep forgetting just how many ways the mouse can squeeze the wallets, and how much that affects decision making in modern college football.

    c) 12 is a bad precedent, but I get your bowl approach

    from Frank’s post above :
    Rose Bowl: Big Ten #1 vs. Pac-12 #1
    Sugar Bowl: SEC #1 vs. at-large
    Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 #1 vs. at-large
    Orange Bowl: ACC #1 vs. at-large
    Capital One/Outback Bowl: Big Ten #2 vs. SEC #2
    Cotton Bowl: Big 12 #2 vs. at-large*

    might look more like :

    Sugar = SEC #1
    Fiesta = PAC #1
    Orange = ACC #1
    Cotton = B12 #1
    Mouse/Orlando = B1G #1

    with the Rose getting first refusal when B1G #1 and PAC #1 are both in the four, otherwise imbalance reverts to primary bowl of #1 and #2 in the country. Last year would have given you LSU with #1 bowl, so they go to Sugar. Alabama would get to choose #2 bowl, but would be limited to Cotton (with #3 Oklahoma State) or Fiesta (with #4 Stanford) as to where they play. This incorporates some home field advantages for being #1 in the country, and makes “draft” like status for #2 in picking where they want to play, if their “home” conference game is spoken for.

    Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      duff – I think the wildcard, if its a conference non-champ, should be treated the same way MLB treats their wildcard teams. The wiildcard is the 4th seed and plays the #1 seed in the semifinal unless the #1 seed is from the same conference. Using last year as an example with BCS #1 LSU, #2 Alabama, #3 OK State, and #5 Oregon, the Semifinal seedings would be as follows: #1 LSU, #2 OK State, #3 Oregon, and #4 Alabama, but since LSU and Bama can’t play until the NCG, then the Sugar would host #1 LSU v. #3 Oregon, and the Fiesta would host #2 OK State v. #4 Alabama.

      Regarding the other bowls in the “12 team event”, here’s how I think it could have shaken out using the BCS rankings:

      Sugar semi: #1 LSU v. #5 Oregon
      Fiesta semi: #3 OK State v. #2 Alabama
      Rose #4 Stanford v. #10 Wisconsin
      Orange #8 K-State v. #15 Clemson
      Cotton #6 Arkansas v. #12 Baylor
      Cap One/Outback: #11 VA Tech v. #13 Michigan

      #7 Boise State, #9 South Carolina, and #14 Oklahoma get left out, as do MWC Champ #18 TCU, CUSA Champ #21 Southern Miss, and Big East Champ #23 West Virginia.

      Like

  21. m (Ag) says:

    For payout, they can borrow a concept from the NCAA tournament, shares based on previous appearances. That keeps the payout for any conference from jumping up or down in a particular year.

    Say, 1/4 of the money is divided between every school in FBS (perhaps paid to the conferences) to give the non-AQ schools a stake.

    The other 3/4 can go to conferences based on how many teams they’ve placed in the BCS bowls + the new system over the previous 10 years, with a double share for any team that made it to the finals.

    This throws a bone to the Big East. They’ll start out with much more money than their current conference is worth, since they had an automatic bid every year previous. Unless they regularly place teams in the new setup, however, that will slowly decline over time.

    Like

  22. frug says:

    Jon Wilner:

    Like

    • frug says:

      If this goes through Idaho would be left alone in the WAC. That probably forces them to drop down to FCS. I feel bad for them.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Is it really dropping down for them or more realizing the level they are actually at?

        Like

        • bullet says:

          That may be the level they are at, but they’re still better than 3 or 4 of the 5 remaining MWC schools. Its funny to watch UNLV and UNM and Wyoming (ok program with no market) talk smack about WAC and CUSA schools.

          Like

      • morganwick says:

        What about the teams the WAC tried to add from FCS after the first round or two of teams leaving?

        Like

    • Brian says:

      And the hits just keep on coming to Michael in Raleigh. NMSU over ApSU is choosing hoops and a 2000 mile road trip over CFB and playing in NC.

      Like

  23. Generally agree with everything Frank, although I’m a little less certain they’ll let added tie-ins. I’m guessing they might just raise the upper limit on eligible teams to #20 and figure the Big Ten/SEC will get more that way. Hope you are right though.

    If 2 bowls are moved up, I would like the rule added that the bowl has to have a permanent, non-corporate base name. If they must add a sponsor on top fine, but if we are talking about moving the Capital One Bowl up, it should go to being the Capital One Citrus Bowl.

    Like

  24. bullet says:

    Frank;
    Is that Polish/Chinese guy just a cover? Are you really Jim Delany? I just saw where Delany liked a version of your flex wildcard-champs but only if in top 6.

    Like

  25. Playoffs Now says:

    Ya know, I’ve never given much credence to the FSU/Clemson to B12 rumors, primarily because there just hasn’t been any legitimate smoke to that supposed fire. Everything always traces back to a few WV bloggers of questionable accuracy, or a handful of gullible Utopian internet nobodies who supposedly have ‘insiders’ but no real track record. Circular sourcing by the easily seduced. In contrast, other than with Pitt/Syracuse to the ACC, all the major moves have been preceded with legitimate smoke, chatter, and at least 1 reputable reporter being fed leaks.

    But the atmosphere may be starting to prime for potential storms:

    http://www.tallahassee.com/proart/20120502/fsu03/120502024/fsu-athletics-faces-2-4-million-shortfall-budget?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|frontpage&pagerestricted=1

    The Florida State University athletic department may be forced to trim as much as $2.4 million from its 2012-13 budget in part because of sagging football ticket sales…

    …FSU athletic director Randy Spetman presented a proposed budget for the upcoming year that included a 10-percent cut in recruiting and travel.

    Jim Smith, formerly the chairman of the university’s Board of Trustees…added that, “there is something fundamentally wrong” with reducing the budget as other athletic departments around the southeast are increasing their budgets…

    Now let me add, there is more to conference affiliation than just money. Regional proximity provides many advantages and academic reputation, lawsuit risks, and plain ol’ inertia all matter. I also don’t put too much weight in arguments that joining the B12 would increase FSU’s odds of making the playoffs, since making it into one of “12-team event” bowls is likely how the money will actually be obtained, the primary concern of the presidents regarding the post-season. But over the last decade the B12 would have put far more schools in an unrestricted “12-team event” than the ACC, and if FSU flips that gap will likely grow far more. At what point does the financial gap become too much to ignore?

    So with a huge grain of salt, here are some of the current rumors, all with very questionable (or made up) sourcing:

    Texas wants to add only FSU/Clemson, maybe more later. Does not want Miami and its cheating. Fear of lawsuits if the ACC breaks up or the conference contracts are hit too hard by too many teams leaving.

    FSU wants to bring Miami and prefers GA Tech along with Clemson, the CCG rotated, and a B12 tie in to the Orange Bowl. Wants a conference equivalent in size, power, and perception with the SEC. That would do it, especially if VTech could somehow break the bond with UVA and substitute for GA Tech.

    Setup might include annual cross-division rivalries of UTx-FSU, OU-Clemson, and TCU-WV. Maxing TV $. (Seems like if Miami was added OU-Miami would make more sense and have history.)

    B12 would create a rough equivalent to the B1G’s CIC.

    Like

    • Playoffs Now says:

      Now for B12 fans salivating over that possibility, careful what you wish for. If the B12 does poach some ACC schools and that does lead to a raid by other conferences, whose to say that FSU doesn’t end up in the SEC or B1G? The SEC certainly might bend their gentleman’s agreement and force UF to accept FSU if it locks a potential equal conference out of lucrative Florida.

      FSU may not be AAU, but they aren’t that far away and are aggressively pursuing it. The BTN gets a big boost in revenue if they have a member in the FL markets. If expansion hell breaks loose I could see them pursuing FSU, NC, Duke, and VA. B12 couldn’t match the $, but perhaps could get close enough and allow enough regional rivals to MAYBE win the bidding. Would B1G offer FSU, Miami, NC, and VA/Duke? Miami has an excellent academic reputation.

      ND isn’t joining a conference for football, unless somehow the P12 went to 16. Based on what is likely to come out of BCS negotiations, there is no way they can be forced into a conference and shut out of a playoff and “12-team event” bowls. Think about it, the worst case scenario would be for 4 superconferences of 16 to form, reach a new BCS agreement for a playoff among themselves using pods, and pull away from the NCAA. But how does the P12 get to 16? They don’t, and officially pulling away from the NCAA and/or locking out outside conferences from the playoffs/BCS-esque bowl would invite too many lawsuits and political interference. But as long as the P12 stays at 12, they 4 superconferences will still have an outsider access point even if they go to a playoff based on each conference having 4 pod champs. The 4th spot on the P12 side for their nonexistent 4th pod can be designated to go to the highest ranked outsider/independent/super conference wildcard, a figleaf loophole that keeps it technically inclusive enough. And allows ND to remain independent.

      Not that I anticipate 16 team super conferences forming. Even if FSU moves to the B12, the more likely event is the B12 stays at 12 or 14, the B1G and SEC stand pat, and the ACC settles for 12 or adds Rutgers and UConn for 14. Though at this point I wouldn’t rule too much completely out.

      Like

      • Playoffs Now says:

        Yes, I should know when to use who’s instead of whose. Blog could really use an edit button, perhaps time limited.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Playoffs Now,

        “Now for B12 fans salivating over that possibility, careful what you wish for. If the B12 does poach some ACC schools and that does lead to a raid by other conferences, whose to say that FSU doesn’t end up in the SEC or B1G? The SEC certainly might bend their gentleman’s agreement and force UF to accept FSU if it locks a potential equal conference out of lucrative Florida.

        FSU may not be AAU, but they aren’t that far away and are aggressively pursuing it. The BTN gets a big boost in revenue if they have a member in the FL markets. If expansion hell breaks loose I could see them pursuing FSU, NC, Duke, and VA. B12 couldn’t match the $, but perhaps could get close enough and allow enough regional rivals to MAYBE win the bidding. Would B1G offer FSU, Miami, NC, and VA/Duke? Miami has an excellent academic reputation.”

        I don’t think the B10 wants to grow, but UNC, Duke and UVA are all academically acceptable. Miami might be an issue with the NCAA looming, but the FL market is huge. FSU would basically be like adding NE but in a populous state that is growing. The academics would be an issue.

        “ND isn’t joining a conference for football, unless somehow the P12 went to 16. Based on what is likely to come out of BCS negotiations, there is no way they can be forced into a conference and shut out of a playoff and “12-team event” bowls. Think about it, the worst case scenario would be for 4 superconferences of 16 to form, reach a new BCS agreement for a playoff among themselves using pods, and pull away from the NCAA. But how does the P12 get to 16?”

        If they had to, the P12 would have to add some FB only affiliates or hold their noses and treat it as an athletic conference only. Then they’d basically have to add Boise, BYU, SDSU and AF/ND. There just aren’t many other west coast/mountain options. In other words, it ain’t happening unless they are forced into it.

        Like

      • Eric says:

        Very interesting thoughts. I still doubt it happens, but you are right that if conference realignment reemerges, others might not let the Big 12 get Florida State so easily. That said, a conference that is still dominant in Texas and powerful throughout Florida would be one to be a strong one.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      Playoffs Now,

      “Ya know, I’ve never given much credence to the FSU/Clemson to B12 rumors, primarily because there just hasn’t been any legitimate smoke to that supposed fire. Everything always traces back to a few WV bloggers of questionable accuracy, or a handful of gullible Utopian internet nobodies who supposedly have ‘insiders’ but no real track record. Circular sourcing by the easily seduced. In contrast, other than with Pitt/Syracuse to the ACC, all the major moves have been preceded with legitimate smoke, chatter, and at least 1 reputable reporter being fed leaks.

      But the atmosphere may be starting to prime for potential storms:

      http://www.tallahassee.com/proart/20120502/fsu03/120502024/fsu-athletics-faces-2-4-million-shortfall-budget?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|frontpage&pagerestricted=1

      The Florida State University athletic department may be forced to trim as much as $2.4 million from its 2012-13 budget in part because of sagging football ticket sales…”

      For once, this is a topic we can basically agree on. There hasn’t been much support for these rumors, but financial trouble is always a sign of potential instability.

      “So with a huge grain of salt, here are some of the current rumors, all with very questionable (or made up) sourcing:

      Texas wants to add only FSU/Clemson, maybe more later. Does not want Miami and its cheating. Fear of lawsuits if the ACC breaks up or the conference contracts are hit too hard by too many teams leaving.”

      It seems odd that UT wouldn’t want FSU and Miami. NCAA issues are one thing, but getting 2 of the 3 powers in FL is a coup. I’d think Miami is worth a lot more to them than Clemson, but maybe Miami has indicated they have no interest (as a private school, they may not want the B12).

      “FSU wants to bring Miami and prefers GA Tech along with Clemson, the CCG rotated, and a B12 tie in to the Orange Bowl. Wants a conference equivalent in size, power, and perception with the SEC. That would do it, especially if VTech could somehow break the bond with UVA and substitute for GA Tech.”

      This makes sense from the FSU POV. Certainly the Orange would love to get B12 #2 (maybe a split like the SEC does, where the Cotton gets #2 from the west and the Orange gets #2 from the east) in this scenario. That gives them WV, Clemson, FSU and Miami as options that would pack their stadium, plus UT and OU on occasion. I doubt they could get the #1 away from the Fiesta/Cotton.

      Even with these additions, the B12 won’t be quite on par with the SEC. They have a little more CFB deadweight.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        I’d bet the only thing FSU wants from the B12 is the leverage they can provide to the ACC, SEC, etc.

        Like

      • vp19 says:

        If the Big 12 picked Clemson and Florida State from the ACC, leaving it vulnerable to raids from other conferences, might Maryland’s current array of athletic problems leave it out in the cold for Big Ten expansion? If North Carolina, Duke and Virginia, College Park’s three chief ACC rivals, wound up in the Big Ten and left Maryland behind (which would be ironic, since it most closely resembles the Big Ten land-grant model), it would be utter disaster for the Terrapin athletic community.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I can’t imagine the B10 would hand MD out to dry like that. MD fits too well with PSU and is a B10 type of school. I’d think Duke (small, private, no FB), NC (NCSU problem) and/or UVA (VT problem?) would get left behind. The B10 would have to consider RU and asking ND again, too.

          Like

    • bullet says:

      Actually there have been some non-WVU “insiders” claiming there is smoke. Kansas, Clemson, Texas. There are a couple from Texas who have had info before. The difference is that the non-WVU people haven’t been saying much different than Brett McMurphy did-FSU/Clemson is possible but not likely. The only ones I’ve seen saying it is probable trace back to WVU.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        I think it’s most likely that the Big 12 adds Louisville and either BYU or Rutgers. But if by some chance the Big 12 was able to raid the ACC, then I think the ACC would be raided by the B1G and SEC as well.

        Maybe something like this:

        B1G: Maryland, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame
        SEC: North Carolina, Duke
        B12: Florida State, Miami, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Pitt

        Of course it could shake out some other way, but something along those lines.

        Like

        • Ross says:

          I would be shocked to see UNC and Duke in the SEC, especially with NC State sent to the Big 12. If NC State was being placed in a top two conference from a financial/stability standpoint (B1G/SEC), then this would be a bit more believable. Even so, UNC/Duke joining the SEC seems like a very remote possibility; they have fundamentally different priorities (basketball vs. football, and UNC/Duke are going to be concerned about academic associations). Plus, I am not sure the SEC really wants Duke all that much. They are a small private school that is terrible at football.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            You have to remember that in this scenario staying in the ACC would not be an option. The choices for UNC and Duke would be the B1G, the Big 12, the SEC, and the Big East.

            I could see UNC and Duke going to the B1G, in which case the SEC would likely pick up Maryland and Virginia.

            The B1G and SEC would be the prime options in this scenario and would get the top 5 or 6 choices. The Big 12 would be left with the next 6 picks, with the Big East picking up the leftovers.

            Like

          • Ross says:

            I think, if UNC/NCSU/Duke have to be split up, that UNC/Duke would head to the B1G with NC State in the SEC. That is a more comfortable fit for all schools involved (the SEC would love UNC, but I doubt the feelings are mutual). I really think if the ACC fractures and sends those big fish scrambling (Virginia, Maryland, UNC, Duke, Miami, FSU), the B1G stands the most to gain, by far.

            Virginia, Maryland, UNC, and Duke would likely all prefer the B1G. I think the B1G would also be open to them coming as a group, meaning they have the comfort of some of their longtime ACC brethren/rivals to ease the transition. If NCSU became an issue though, I think the Big Ten would turn the Tobacco Road schools down. Three schools is just too much to get the state of North Carolina. I could see the SEC getting FSU/Miami, but I am not sure how comfortable everyone is about that. Three Florida schools? The SEC is at 14, NCSU and FSU would not be a bad set of reasonable additions for them.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            There is no way UNC and Duke end up in the SEC. In that scenario, VT and NCSU are reasonable for the SEC. There is no way the SEC could win vs. the Big 10 on MD, UVA, UNC, Duke or GT. UVA and UNC would almost certainly be the top 2 ACC choices for the Big 10. I can’t see the SEC inviting Duke or Georgia Tech.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            If the ACC is weakened to the point that it’s powers are jumping ship, the B1G can only gain so much. They’re already at 12, and presumably they’re saving a spot for Notre Dame, so they only have three spots to give. There are 14 schools currently in the ACC. Also, one would have to think that while many ACC schools might choose the B1G over the SEC, probably none would chose the B12 over the SEC. I’d rank the ACC roughly in this order as far as desirability. Even if you assume that every ACC school would prefer the B1G, then they can still only take the top 3, leaving picks 4 and below for the SEC to choose from (these are just rough estimates, any of these schools could be moved up or down a couple spots):

            1. North Carolina
            2. Virginia
            3. Maryland
            4. Florida State
            5. Georgia Tech
            6. Duke
            7. Virginia Tech
            8. NC State
            9. Clemson
            10. Miami
            11. Syracuse
            12. Pitt
            13. Boston College
            14. Wake Forest

            The logic I used in my estimation is that perhaps the SEC would offer to take Duke and North Carolina in order to convince UNC to come to the SEC. From everything I’ve heard, UNC is priority #1 for the SEC if they can make it happen, kind of like Notre Dame has been for the B1G. But maybe the B1G would make that offer and UNC goes to the B1G. If they do, they’ve already used up two out of their three spots. I would guess that in that case the B1G would use the third spot on Georgia Tech, leaving Virginia and Maryland to the SEC.

            Like

          • Ross says:

            Ah, yeah, I forgot about Virginia Tech. Tech plus NCSU or FSU is also possible, but I tend to doubt Tech’s value. VTech has been substantially better than Virginia recently, but I still think Virginia has more name recognition/fans than Tech. In addition, Virginia’s academics are in line with Michigan’s, VTech does not bring the same academic reputation to the table.

            I mean, if you’re looking at it from the Big Ten presidents’ perspectives, you can have a conference of Michigan, Northwestern, Wisconsin, and Illinois (generally considered the top 4 when combining undergrad and graduate programs in the B1G) plus UNC, Duke, Virginia, and Maryland. Substituting Tech for Virginia is a noticeable difference. Several of the best public schools would be in one conference if Virginia joined over Tech.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Again, it could work any number of ways, but the point is, the B1G would get 3 good choices, and the SEC would get 2.

            Maybe B1G: UNC, Duke, GT, SEC: Virginia and Maryland
            or
            B1G: UNC, Duke, Virginia, SEC: Maryland and Florida State
            or
            B1G: Virginia, Maryland, GT, SEC: UNC and Duke

            Any way you slice it, the SEC will get two very good additions out of this, if it were to happen.

            Like

          • Ross says:

            I think you’re overestimating two things. First is the Big Ten’s desire for Notre Dame. I have no doubt the Big Ten wants Notre Dame, but even if we were to assume ND is the most valuable single university, a set of four including Duke, UNC, UVA, and Maryland blows ND out of the water for a myriad of reasons:

            1. Opening up recruiting in the Mid-Atlantic. This is a huge plus for the B1G, as North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland produce a lot of football recruits. Notre Dame does very little recruiting-wise for the Big Ten, as they recruit largely on a national scale and on their religious affiliation.

            2. The BTN. This point is debatable, but I think the Mid-Atlantic wins again. The BTN with Notre Dame would get a lot of individual subscribers in a number of states, but it would likely fail to get any basic carriage without the addition of another school (most likely a Northeastern one). The Mid-Atlantic schools, on the other hand, essentially guarantee each of their states. Even if each individual school could not guarantee its state, bringing in a 4-team bloc would; I have no doubt about this. I am not sure how carriage in D.C. works, but you can bet the BTN would be basic there as well.

            3. Basketball. I don’t think this even needs explaining, beyond the point that more quality basketball inventory gives the BTN greater value and national appeal.

            4. Academics. Notre Dame is no slouch, but its profile is different than that of your average Big Ten school. Without an emphasis on research, ND is an academic outsider in the Big Ten, whereas the ACC schools bring quality graduate programs to the CIC, as well as AAU membership.

            Second, I am not sure why you think the Big Ten would balk at Duke. Duke is a valuable school in its own way. It is essentially the ND of basketball, with a national following. People see Duke, and they either love them or hate them, for the most part. That is rare. Combine that with top academics and the fact that UNC would likely never separate from Duke, and the Big Ten would jump at the Duke/UNC combo.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            I’m not saying the B1G would balk at Duke, I’m saying their number of spots is limited and they can’t take everyone. Maybe they take the Virginia/Maryland/UNC/Duke combo and forget about Notre Dame. I suppose that’s possible. But I tend to think they’re going to want to hold out for Notre Dame. Notre Dame + Georgia Tech is at least as good and probably better for the B1G as UNC + Duke.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Andy

            Duke to the SEC is a complete non-starter unless both sides have literally no other viable options. Duke is the only AQ school to make more gross revenue (not just profit) from its MBB team that its football team which makes it an atrocious fit in the most football dominant conference in the country. Add in the fact that Duke is a northern school that happens to be located in a southern state and it’s pretty clear that there is a mutual disinterest between Duke and the SEC.

            A more likely scenario would be Duke and UNC going to the Big 10 and NC-State going to the SEC. (While UNC is not quite as BB dependent as Duke they still have the third most valuable MBB program in the country so they are better fit in the Big 10. They are also a better academic fit in the Big 10)

            Like

          • Andy says:

            frug, again, what I’ve been saying all along is that this only happens if the ACC completely falls apart. And I don’t even think that’s going to happen, but if it did, Duke would need to go somewhere.

            If the ACC is completely collapsing, the SEC is not going to have to settle for NCSU or anyone like that.

            The B1G will likely only have 3 spots to give plus Notre Dame. No ACC school is going to pick the B12 or the Big East over the SEC. So that means that after whichever three schools the B1G takes, the next best two will go to the SEC.

            The SEC may offer UNC and Duke as a package deal if the B1G does not.

            Or maybe the B1G does, and then they’d have one more open spot, which would go to either Maryland, Virginia, or Georgia Tech.

            After that, the SEC gets their pick.

            I agree that Duke is not a good match for the SEC, but they might be brought in as a package deal in order for the SEC to get UNC. And I don’t doubt for a second that Duke would prefer SEC membership over B12 or Big East if the Big Ten didn’t offer them because of a lack of spots.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Ross

            The Big 10 isn’t going to 16 without ND. Until Notre Dame joins a conference the Big 10 will always leave a seat at the table for them.

            @Andy (again)

            Looking at your list I think you need to remember the fact that the Big 10 still considers AAU membership a necessary condition for future members except for Notre Dame. As great an addition as FSU might be on paper, it is not going to happen.

            I think that the Big 10 would also be hesitant regarding G-Tech. I think institutional pride might prevent them from adding any states B-Team.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            The Maryland/UVa/UNC/Duke quartet would be the optimal ACC to Big Ten move, but does the Big Ten want to take four, which would mean taking Notre Dame would enlarge the conference past 16? Don’t see that happening. You can’t take three in a group without ND as the 16th at the same time, so taking two would probably make the most sense. But how to break up that four? An NC/Duke combo limits you to one state. Virginia/Maryland might work, but UVa has close ties to UNC and probably wouldn’t want to lose that. Perhaps the Big Ten would bring Rutgers back into the discussion (if it’s not locked into the Big 12) to team with Maryland.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Andy,
            The odds of Notre Dame joining the Big 12 are much higher than UNC joining the SEC. And those odds are very, very slim. For the ACC to fall apart, the Big 10 has to be attacking, in which case UNC would choose the Big 10. They are no more likely to join the SEC than Texas. It is just not an acceptable option. From the FSU president’s public remarks over the last year, FSU feels the same way. To paraphrase his remarks about the SEC, “I’m sure glad we aren’t in that mess.”

            If the FSU/Clemson to Big 12 were to happen, the odds are it will be like 2010. There was a lot of talk, but not a lot of schools moving.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            I think the B1G’s options are:

            1. Maryland/Virginia/Georgia Tech/Notre Dame
            2. Virginia/North Carolina/Duke/Notre Dame
            3. Maryland/Virginia
            4. Maryland/Rutgers

            I don’t see the B1G going to 16 without Notre Dame

            I think the SEC’s options depend on who the B1G takes. I think their order of preference would be:

            1. UNC/Virginia
            2. UNC/Maryland
            3. UNC/Duke
            4. Virginia/Maryland
            5. Virgnia/Florida State
            6. Virginia/NCSU
            7. Maryland/Florida State
            8. Maryland/NCSU
            9. Maryland/Virginia Tech
            10. NCSU/Virginia Tech

            I think it wil be one of those 10, probably one of the top 5, if the ACC actually crumbles, which as I said, I don’t think it will.

            And if it doesn’t, I think the SEC stays at 14 indefinitely.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Bullet, your feelings about the SEC have been made abundantly clear. This is just a hypothetical discussion. “What would happen if the ACC collapsed…” I agree that it probably won’t. But if it did, UNC may very well end up in the SEC if only because they’d want to stay in the same conference as Duke and the Big Ten may have other plans. But if the Big Ten did take a UNC/Duke combo that would just free up other good schools to join the SEC.

            ACC schools are all well and good to look down their noses at SEC academics when they are able to stay in the ACC, but if the ACC were no longer viable, such considerations would have to be reconsidered. Also, the SEC’s academics are improving. They now have 4 AAU schools instead of 2, and if they were to add 2 more they’d have 6, which isn’t any different than what the ACC has now.

            Also, the SEC may be a “mess” in your eyes, but they’re doing much, much better financially than the ACC at this point, which is what prompted this conversation in the first place.

            And it’s not like the Big 12 hasn’t been a mess lately, although your longhorns seem to be sitting pretty as always.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Andy

            I agree that UNC is priority number one for the SEC but you have to remember two things.

            A) UNC is going to prefer the Big 10 to the SEC.

            B) More importantly, UNC and NC-State share a BoR so they effectively have veto power over each others movements barring apocalypse. Which means if the SEC really wants to add UNC their better option is to add UNC and NC-State.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            frug, I agree it would be tricky for the SEC to get UNC. But a key point may be that it would actually be their priority to do so, where as the B1G’s priorities might be different. North Carolina isn’t contiguous with Big Ten states. There is Maryland and Virginia between them. One might think that the Big Ten would prioritize schools like Maryland and Virginia at least as high as North Carolina. Notre Dame would also be a priority. And the B1G only has so many spots. The SEC could offer a spot to either Duke or NCSU to sweeten the deal so that they can get UNC. And if that doesn’t work out, they’ll still be able to grab a couple of good ACC schools, whichever ones are left after the B1G takes 3 of them.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Andy

            My bigger issue was with Duke not UNC (though I still think they are more likely to go to the Big 10). The UNC system BoR is not going to sign off on a deal that sends NC-State to the Big XII if they can force the SEC to take them. As I noted, Duke has lower marginal value to the SEC than they do to the Big 10 or Big XII so the difference between Duke and NC-State is lower to the SEC than it is to those conferences and the folks that run make the decisions know that.

            If the SEC is hellbent on getting UNC they will have to swallow NC-State.

            (Regarding your other point, UNC is nearly as valuable to the Big 10 as they are to the ACC. While they are not priority number one, they rank behind only ND (and Texas but they are locked in the Big XII into the middle of the next decade). Yes Maryland and Virginia are closer, but distance means more to the schools being added than the it does to the current schools and UNC will bring more money in TV revenue and ticket sales than UVa or Maryland.)

            Like

          • Ross says:

            I still think the Big Ten would go to 16 without ND if the right options were available. The quartet of Mid-Atlantic schools would be the grand slam to the Nebraska home run, in my opinion. It has so much value in a variety of ways to the Big Ten, and there only two negatives to me:

            1. Going to 16 teams is a negative in itself; teams see each other less often.

            2. Losing out on Notre Dame

            Those reasons might be enough to stop the Big Ten from expanding in the foreseeable future, but if the 4-team plan was available and the conditions were right, I don’t doubt the B1G would take it.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I’ve seen some sources having UVA and UNC challenging Michigan and Cal as the best public schools in the country. They are in big growing states (bigger than Maryland), have good all-around athletic programs and good fan support (much better than Maryland). I would think they would be the top two choices out of the ACC for the Big 10. Delany would certainly have sympathy for Carolina(his school). Maryland would probably be #3. And I just don’t see Duke and the SEC as a match. The Big 10 might take them, but that’s not certain.

            If the SEC can’t get UVA, UNC, FSU or MD, they have limited options. I don’t think the SEC would take GT, Clemson, WF, Duke, Pitt, SU or BC. So their options would be 1. VT 2. NCSU 3. Miami (maybe #2). And all of those are valuable additions, but there aren’t a lot of schools dying to be in the SEC. Slive found that out last fall.

            Like

          • frug says:

            UNC and UVa are starting to catch up to Cal (which has been number one is virtually ever ranking released in the past 50 years) but both still lag behind in graduate programs (particularly research). Incorporating graduate programs UNC and especially UVa, still have a ways to go before they catch Cal, Michigan and UCLA (and arguably U-Dub, a couple of the other U-Cal campuses, maybe a half dozen Big 10 schools and Texas who is benefiting from high oil prices (PUF money) and an exploding local population)

            Like

  26. Andy says:

    Let’s say, theoretically, that the ACC did break up, and the schools were divided up the way I listed them above. Here’s how the AAU universities would break down by conference:

    B1G (14): Iowa, Minnesota, Wiconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia Tech
    Pac 12 (8): Colorado, Washington, Arizona, Oregon, UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford
    SEC (6): Vanderbilt, Florida, Missouri, Texas A&M, North Carolina, Duke
    Big 12 (4): Texas, Kansas, Iowa State, Pitt
    Big East (1): Rutgers

    I think there’s an outside chance that the SEC would end up with only 5 if the B1G ends up taking UNC, Duke, and either Maryland or Virginia. I don’t think the SEC would take Georgia Tech, so they would fall to the B12. This would mean the SEC would take 1 AAU school (either Virginia or Maryland) plus one non AAU school (probably either Florida State or Virginia Tech or maybe NCSU).

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      If Clemson and Florida State were Big 12-bound, would that in itself encourage the Big Ten to raid the ACC? I’m a bit skeptical. The Clemson/FSU scenario probably would prevent the Big 12 from pursuing Rutgers, which is why I think a Rutgers/Maryland combo would be the Big Ten’s preference (strengthen the BTN along the eastern seaboard, while leaving room for Notre Dame and a partner for a 16-team conference). Putting Virginia, North Carolina and/or Duke in the mix presents problems (you can’t take UNC without Duke, you can’t take UVa without UNC, and there’s that N.C. State matter to boot).

      In the past, we’ve viewed UNC as the ACC equivalent of Texas, an alpha dog (at least in its sky-blue mind). The five core ACC schools (UNC, NCSU, Duke, Wake and UVa) would be difficult to pry from each other, and barring a disaster where most of the rest of the conference was broken off, they would remain as a unit. Losing Clemson, FSU and Maryland wouldn’t cause the ACC’s demise; if Rutgers was no longer a possible candidate, it might present a way for Connecticut to become member #12.

      Finally, Virginia Tech and UVa, unlike NCSU and UNC, are not tied that closely — as long as Tech continued to play Virginia in all sports, it could leave for the SEC.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        Rumor was that the Big 12 may take FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, AND Clemson. (or maybe Virignia Tech)

        That would leave the ACC with only 10 schools, and very little in terms of football.

        This may leave the remaining schools desperate and send them running to the B1G and SEC.

        In that case, I see the SEC taking 2 and the B1G taking either 2 or 3.

        top targets would be UNC, Virginia, and Maryland, plus tag-a-longs like Duke, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, and NC State.

        I think it’s all wishful thinking by UT, OU, WVU, and Clemson fans. This whole discussion is just a “what if”, I don’t think it’s very likely at all.

        But if the Big 12 were to make a massive raid on the ACC, then I think the schools left would be desperate to find a new home, if only because their TV dollars would likely be less than half of their neighbors in other conferences.

        Like

        • Brian #2 says:

          “I think it’s all wishful thinking by UT, OU, WVU, and Clemson fans. This whole discussion is just a “what if”, I don’t think it’s very likely at all.”

          Agree Andy. UT is trying to make the Big 12 look attractive again, OU is trying to ignore the wallflower embarrassment, WVU is still hurting over getting turned down by the ACC and SEC before limping to the Big 12, and Clemson fans are extremely jealous of the football pageantry of the SEC.

          The reality is that the Big 12 is viewed nationally as a ticking time bomb and no one with options would join it. Hence, this is why schools like Louisville, Cincinnati, and Rutgers are actually realistic expansion possibilities for the Big 12 – they have no better options.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            The Big 12 with the grant of rights and new competitive TV contract is very stable. The Presidents understand that. The SEC couldn’t get any ACC schools and it makes geographic sense. The Big 12 isn’t likely to get schools from the ACC because they really do like it there and it makes sense for them-as long as the TV $ don’t fall too far behind. The TV $ are the question. How much is too much behind?

            Like

      • Brian says:

        vp19,

        I doubt the B10 would attack then. More likely is the ACC raids the BE again.

        Like

        • Andy says:

          Assuming the Big 12 only takes 2, and assuming the ACC raids the Big East again, this would be a very weak football league, and couldn’t command much in TV dollars, which would leave them very vulnerable to further raids by the B1G, SEC, and B12. A conference like this really shouldn’t make any more than 15-17M per school per year, while the 3 power leagues surrounding them would be making in the mid to upper 20s.

          UConn
          Rutgers
          Syracuse
          Boston College
          Pitt
          Maryland
          Virginia
          Virginia Tech
          UNC
          NCSU
          Duke
          Wake Forest
          Georgia Tech
          Miami

          Like

          • bullet says:

            South Florida probably gets into this theoretical lineup instead of, or in addition to, UConn/Rutgers.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Andy,

            “Assuming the Big 12 only takes 2, and assuming the ACC raids the Big East again, this would be a very weak football league, and couldn’t command much in TV dollars, which would leave them very vulnerable to further raids by the B1G, SEC, and B12. A conference like this really shouldn’t make any more than 15-17M per school per year, while the 3 power leagues surrounding them would be making in the mid to upper 20s.”

            Yes, it would be the BE 2.0. A basketball-centric league spread over the east coast but with enough formerly-top level CFB programs to get treated like a big boy, sort of. The SEC, B10, B12 and P12 would all be fine with less competition for playoff and top bowl spots. If they can achieve that without expanding to 16, so much the better. It also means ND won’t feel pressured to join one conference, which is a concern for the others.

            If you send FSU and Clemson to the B12, how many of the others really have sufficient value that it’s worth upsetting the apple cart and diluting your league to get them (take into account who else you have to add to get them, too)? The schools still get decent money and will continue to grow away from the little guys while being able to remain competitive with the big boys.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            I would say that UNC, Virginia, and Maryland are high quality targets.

            Georgia Tech is solid: Atlanta market, AAU school, decent history.

            Virginia Tech is a decent get for someone.

            NC State and Duke both have some upside.

            Pitt is AAU and have a decent following and market. They’re probably not a good fit for the Big Ten or SEC, but they would be good for the Big 12.

            There are a lot of plumb targets left in the ACC. I could definitely see conferences making moves to get these schools under the right circumstances.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Not to mention Miami, who, for all their problems, is still a decent academic institution in a great market with a great recruiting area, and has one of the winningest football programs in history.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Don’t forget to factor in location to their value. Proximity increases value to a certain point. All these schools have less value to the P12 than the B12, for example. Different schools have different values to the B10 and SEC, too. The real question is how many of them add significant value, enough to risk the turmoil and potential negative dominoes?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Brian;
            not only do the conferences value schools differently, but they add different value. FSU adds much more to the Big 12 than the SEC. Not just because the SEC is already in Florida, but because Big 12 tier I is often regionalized while the SEC is national. The SEC would get better matchups with a state they already are in. The Big 12 would get better matchups, interest in a new state and coverage in a larger area. The Big 12 competes with the Pac 12, Big 10 and ACC for regional coverage. The downside of a school like Cincinnati for the Big 12 is that they still won’t win the regional battle vs. the Big 10 unless Cincinnati is in the game and then only in a small area. The Big 12 is benefitted by going into SEC and ACC states.

            Like

      • frug says:

        I gotta disagree on V-Tech being able to leave for the SEC. V-Tech owes UVa a blood debt for rescuing them back in 2003 which means barring conference apocalypse the Virginia pols. who forced UVa to come to Tech’s rescue originally are not going to let the Hockies leave without UVa’s blessing.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          This wouldn’t be a rescue. but a step up for Tech (remember, in 2003, the Big East’s future as a football conference was very much in doubt). As long as an SEC move didn’t cause the ACC to fall apart — which I don’t think it would in and of itself — I don’t think UVa would care that much. Remember, unlike NCSU and UNC, they don’t have much of a history of being in the same conference.

          Like

          • frug says:

            As long as an SEC move didn’t cause the ACC to fall apart — which I don’t think it would in and of itself — I don’t think UVa would care that much.

            That was my point. V-Tech could leave but only with UVa’s blessing. Really it’s no different than UNC and NC-State. They have veto power over each others actions (at least as long as the ACC is viable), but if they mutually approached the UNC System BoR and explained they felt it was in the best interest of both schools that they split up (say UNC to the Big 10 and NC-State to the SEC) do you really think the BoR would turn them down? I mean they wouldn’t like it, but I doubt they would kill the deal as long as both schools were taken care of and continued to play each other OOC.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Actually to clarify a more accurate situation would be if NC-State got an SEC offer and UNC either didn’t or turned it down. The BoR would likely, if begrudgingly, let NC-State go but only if UNC signed off on the deal.

            Like

    • Mack says:

      I do not see Ga Tech ever getting a SEC (overlap w/GA) or B1G invite. If ACC went away it would probably wind up in B12. If NC wanted to go to B1G it willl probably strike a deal to place NCSU with the SEC or B12 rather than try to bring it along. FSU went to the ACC becasue they like to win. The East of an expanded B12 fits that objective better than the SEC East. FSU also does not expand the SEC footprint, although FL is big enough that I think the SEC will be interested in FSU along with NC and VA schools. The SEC will have no interest in Clemson.

      Like

  27. Eric says:

    By the way Frank, you are correct, it is pop 🙂

    It’s a losing battle though. Pop was still the dominant term when I was in school, but Soda is the term in New York City and in Hollywood and thus is what is said on TV and what will win out long term.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      It’s definitely a regional thing. Everything’s a Coke down here.

      Soda is the carbonated water. The final beverage including the syrup should be called something else, and it is for the basics like “grape soda.” Using it as a generic term for all the soda-based beverages make some sense.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Pop is a northern thing. They used it in Indiana, but I don’t remember it in the Dayton/Cincy area. And Kentucky south and at least as far west as Texas, its Coke.

        And I thought they only drank perrier in Hollywood.

        As for who will win out? Pop and soda are NEVER used in the south. I’d bet on soft drink. That seems to be universally understood. But don’t count out the Polar Bears.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Usage by county

          http://popvssoda.com:2998/countystats/total-county.html

          Looking at the overall map I was surprised I had never lived in soda (my preferred term) area growing up, but when I looked at the county specific numbers it made more sense. When I lived down south Coke was the most common term, but we were a Pepsi household (I prefer Coke but my mom did the grocery shopping) and soda was the second most popular term so I gravitated towards that.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            The “soda” bubbles around St. Louis and in eastern WI are curious, especially since the WI bubble ends exactly at the MI border.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Yeah, I was wondering about that. I actually remember watching an episode of How the States Got Their Shapes that addressed this very issue, but for the life of me I can’t remember why the soda bubble developed around St. Louis.

            (If I had to guess, it is likely a result of being a railroad hub (The Gateway to the West) that brought an influx of people from the Northeast and West Coast)

            Like

          • Eric says:

            I looked at the website back in high school. The terms are changing though. Columbus used to be solid pop territory. Now I hear more kids use soda than pop.

            Also look at anything national. They use soft drink or soda, but almost never pop and never Coke. I think the biggest thing that will slowly change it. If everything on TV says soda and a lot of advertisement says it, then more and more kids accept it.

            That said, it will always be pop to me no matter where I am.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            I grew up in the “soda” island near St. Louis (though I actually referred to everything as “Coke” when I was a little tyke). Never encountered the term “pop” for soda until moving up to Chicagoland during HS (as another southern Illinois kid put it, “pop” isn’t a term for soda, it’s what your dad does to your mom).

            StL is an island in more ways than one; linguistically, it’s a northern/north Midlands island surrounded by south Midlands speech (think KY, AR, or OK cornpone). In fact, I’d say that the reason why Standard American (what almost all TV broadcasters speak) is the Chicago dialect of the ’30’s is not only because WGN had a very powerful signal, but because KMOX in StL had a very powerful signal (and back then, the English spoken in both cities were the same). Add in the fact that the west was originally settled by Midwesterners (the English dialect spoken in SF in the ’30’s was the exact same as the English spoken in Chicago in the ’30’s), and, as WGN and KMOX reached most of the populated parts of the country east of the Rockies, outside of the East Coast and Deep South, virtually all Americans, regardless of their native dialect, started to regard the Chicago dialect of the ’30’s as the most neutral Standard American dialect. The irony is that, due to the Northern Cities Vowel Shift, youngsters in Chicagoland and the rest of the Great Lakes region don’t really speak that type of Standard American dialect any more. St. Louisans, though, still do.

            Like

    • hskrfb fan says:

      I can’t believe Missouri was invited to the SEC. They are the only Pop/Soda state in the conference. That doesn’t seem like a good “cultural fit” to me.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Missouri fans-if you go on any road trips and ask for a Pop you may end up with a tootsie roll pop. If you ask for a soda, you may get a Canada Dry Club Soda.

        Its interesting that Texas is such solid “Coke” country when Dr. Pepper was invented in Waco and for many years, Big Red was the solid #2 soft drink in San Antonio.

        Like

  28. Pablo says:

    Expanding the BCS with two additional games is going to create additional problems amongst the commissioners. Although this aligns the B1G and SEC, most other conferences will view greater BCS games as a means of institutionalizing bowl selection biases. The BCS’ 4 team event addresses an opportunity to create revenue by increasing casual fans’ interest…this is a common interest of commissioners. A 12 team event merely gives power to the already powerful…it’s going to take some sort of bribery to convince the majority to go along.

    Like

  29. I know that I’ve been a wet blanket regarding any Big 12 raiding the ACC rumors and, FWIW, Chip Brown is in that group, too. In his behind-the-paywall chat yesterday, he fielded a number of expansion questions and said that if he were to predict what the Big 12 would look like in 2015, it would be with the same 10 teams as today. He said that there are a couple of Big 12 schools that want to go to 12, but Texas is definitely against expansion. Considering that Chip wasn’t shy about letting Orangebloods readers dream about the Big 12 adding Notre Dame and even poaching Arkansas from the SEC in the past, I don’t think he would make a statement that he doesn’t see the Big 12 doing anything expansion-wise lightly (especially since there’s probably no one in the media that benefits more professionally from as much Big 12 expansion speculation as possible as he does).

    Like

    • Andy says:

      All Chip’s words ever mean is this is officially what DeLoss Dodds wants the public to think.

      I don’t buy for a second that only a couple of Big 12 schools want to expand. From what I’ve read, almost all of them do. There are only a couple that don’t. WVU definitely does. OU definitely does. KU, KSU, ISU seem to want to expand as well. I’m not sure on TT, BU, or TCU.

      There has been a lot of talk and interest in adding Louisville. I think they are a more likely of an addition than FSU.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Andy;
        I don’t doubt that Chip gets used to put out the party line at times, but he was a reporter previously and does have non-UT sources.

        Like

        • Brian #2 says:

          Whatever credibility Chip Brown may or may not have had, he lost virtually all of it in the last realignment frenzy where he was wrong countless times and it became abundantly clear that he was simply a media puppet for Deloss Dodds.

          Like

    • bullet says:

      There’s no doubt that Texas is not particularly interested in expanding. Dodds has repeatedly said that. OU, Oklahoma St., TCU and WVU all have spoken favorably. But there were some schools interested in staying at 9 when they added WVU (per Neinas). I think its all in the $ for Texas and the other 5. Show them the money! If FSU and Clemson were interested, I think the money would be there.

      Chip does have sources outside Texas. I wouldn’t be surprised either if the Big 12 is still 10 in 2015 as he says. Personally, I think they need to go to 12 even if they just come close to break even. WVU is too much on an island and being 10 with a bunch of 14 team conferences puts you at a visibility and influence disadvantage. The question is who makes sense besides Louisville if you can’t get ACC schools. Everything recently I’ve read indicates noone is interested in stretching the conference west as well as east. In any event, BYU seems to present too many complications for the broadcasters. So that leaves Cincinnati and Rutgers, both of whom have drawbacks.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        The Big 12 has taken the 1st step apparently. Per Frank’s tweet Stanford AD Bowlsby (who assisted Scott in the Pac 12 office and was formerly at Iowa) will be the next commissioner.

        Like

      • @bullet – I agree with that. If FSU and Clemson are legitimate options, then I don’t think Texas is going to have any problems with expanding. So, the issue is Deloss Dodds doesn’t believe that’s likely, which means that they’re looking at Louisville plus someone else, which is a scenario where Texas could take it or leave it.

        From my perspective, the lack of a clear #12 team to pair up with Louisville is a real roadblock to any non-ACC-based Big 12 expansion. BYU may or may not be willing to provide TV rights concessions to the Big 12, and the Big 12 may or may not want BYU in the first place. I’ve stated before that Rutgers would be a solid option for the Big 12, but I’m finding that those within the Big 12 don’t really share my opinion.

        Like

      • frug says:

        My guess (and that is all it is) is that BYU would join the Big XII of they were convinced the conference was definitely going to expand. I think they have finally accepted that there only options are join the Big XII or be forever shut out of joining a major conference (at least for non-football sports) and if the Big XII takes 2 eastern schools they will not go back west.

        I know they like the exposure they get now, but the prestige of being in a major conference and more nationally televised basketball games likely counters that and they are finding that scheduling as an independent is really hard (even Utah won’t commit to keep playing them long term.)

        Like

    • frug says:

      …he fielded a number of expansion questions and said that if he were to predict what the Big 12 would look like in 2015, it would be with the same 10 teams as today.

      I didn’t see the chat so I don’t know the exact phrasing, but predicting the status quo is the safest bet since even if expansion is more likely than staying pat, standing still is still more likely than any specific expansion scenario.

      Like

    • The playoff is nearly in place. The Big 12 is a big player at the table (usually referred to third, ahead of the Pac-12 and ACC). Why do they need to expand? The CCG money is nice, but their TV deals already seem solid and lucrative.

      Some argued that the Big 10 would risk their second BCS bid when they added the CCG (and now we’ll never really know if that would have happened, since the two-team limit disappears–I don’t think it would have hurt anyway–look at VaTech last year getting an undeserved spot.). Would the Big 12 risk an at-large spot by having an extra loss for their #2 team from a CCG? Maybe. As someone who will be fighting against the SEC and Big Ten getting THREE “BCS spots” in the future…maybe that extra loss would hurt their cause.

      Like

      • frug says:

        You do realize that the CCG increased the number of BCS bids that the Big XII received don’t you? It cost them a couple of shots at the NCG, but gave them more at large bids.

        Anyways, I personally believe (as do others) that the Big XII would be better off expanding so they want be in a minority position when they start negotiating revenue distribution.

        Like

        • To utter “Texas” and “minority” in the same sentence is blasphemy. 🙂

          I see your point, but if the Big 12 expands to 12, how is Texas ever going to make it into my Big Ten? I still believe…(you did this to me, Frank)

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Unlike many, I think Texas is absolutely right where they want to be. President Powers made the comment about not wanting to fly the women’s softball team all over the midwest. Texas also believes in having a limited number of sports, but being nationally competitive in all of them. The Big 10 would hurt them in that regard as the Big 10 is not strong in some of the Texas spring sports and strong in different ones that Texas doesn’t play. As for the Pac, he talked about how both sides of the Pac 16 wanted to minimize travel for the student-athletes, but when they did that, they were just creating two conferences linked by a TV contract. They figured they could stay in the Big 12 and do the same thing.

            Texas has in recent years traditionally had Presidents with Big 10/Pac 12 degrees and thinks like those schools. They really aren’t interested in flying their athletes all over the country every week if they can be nationally competitive right where they are

            Now if the Big 10 comes up with a $40 million/school TV contract in 2016, Texas will listen.

            Like

          • frug says:

            As long as the LHN remains viable Texas isn’t going anywhere. Remember, the BoR refused to grant Bill Powers unilateral authority to determine conference alignment last year (which A&M, WVU, OU, OSU and Mizzou had all done) precisely because they were not ready to give up on the LHN.

            Like

        • Eric says:

          It depends on who, but I think there’s actually a lot of advantages to staying at 10. 10 lets them keep round-robin and avoids the risk of separating the conference in 2 again. I think the conference may have been healthier earlier if you didn’t have the north/south divide and divisions aren’t going to be easier this time.

          Like

          • Mack says:

            Since OK and TX do not want to be split 10 works better unless the XII can pull in some power teams like Clemson and FL St. to put in the other division. Those two with WVU, TCU, IA St., and TX Tech would put some balance in the divisions. Adding Lousiville and Rutgers will not. Now if Delaney’s proposal that 4 conference champs in the top 6 gets Notre Dame to move, then there might be some more realighment. Barring that, I think the XII is likely to stay where it is. It is not like the XII is the only conference with a misleading name. If conferences were renamed for their present football membership then:
            B1G 10 becomes Big 12; Big 12 becomes Not so Big 10; SEC becomes SEC+MO; Big East becomes CUSA; Mountain West becomes WAC; ACC becomes BEACC.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            A Clemson fansite has a piece about the advantages and drawbacks of leaving for the Big 12, but by a more than 4-to-1 margin, Clemson fans would support such a move if the ACC can’t promise a similar payout. They are angry at the ACC for inviting Syracuse and Pittsburgh instead of “some real football schools,” as one person put it (I’m sensing the reference is to West Virginia, which has no national title as opposed to SU, Pitt — and Clemson; also, I don’t think any of them put academics into the equation). Their ideal landing spot would be the SEC, but that’s not happening. The story is at http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2012/5/2/2995047/how-does-the-death-of-the-bcs-affect-clemson.

            Like

    • metatron5369 says:

      I just don’t see how any ACC team would view the Big XII in a favorable light.

      They’re third on the shortlist of potential suitors, and after the SEC had to settle for Missouri, I don’t think they’d pass up the chance to gobble up a school that can only increase their prestige.

      Like

  30. Brian says:

    http://www.dailymail.com/Sports/201205010278

    Some interesting results from a poll of West Virginians about WVU’s move to the B12. They break out the numbers by age, gender and income level.

    Base result:
    In favor: 40%
    Opposed: 19%
    Indifferent: 41%

    More in favor:
    Men
    Younger adults
    The wealthy
    WVU fans

    Like

  31. cutter says:

    Interesting discussions about more possible realignment. I was surprised to see Florida State’s athletic department having some financial troubles based on a lack of football ticket sales.

    It the trends continue and the major conferences grow in membership, where is the logical set point? While conference realignment has taken place in the past and will in the future, what structure will we be seeing among the Division 1-A schools?

    I assume that somewhere down the line, Division 1-A/FBS will break off with anywhere from 72 to 80 schools forming their own association (out of the 125 programs that will soon be in the division). The five major conferences plus two primary independents have 64 schools among them. Adding anywhere from eight to sixteen more from the current membership of the Big East, etc., into this new entity certainly seems plausible.

    Then what? If the ACC does fall apart, then we could well be looking at a four conference entity with 18 to 20 teams apiece. If it remains at five conferences, then it could be some combination of 14- and 16-team entities within the “new” 72 to 80 member Divison 1-A.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      It would seem that 18 would be about the max (8 game round robin in division), and even that is essentially two separate conferences that only share a CCG. The SEC is already struggling conceptually with 14 since they want to preserve rivalries but stay at 8 games, and 16 is only great for pods.

      I don’t see an impetus for growing that big. They can separate from the little guys now.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        Agree that’s probably the max in the current set-up. If they find a way for conference semi-finals with smaller divisions, that could change, but I think we are hitting a new equilibrium for a while otherwise (after the last few pieces move around).

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I think anything above 12 is inherently unstable. And things do change and seem to be changing at a faster and faster rate. The relative stability of the 60s-80s probably won’t happen again. Frank’s children will be able to take over his blog and write about realignment.

          And its not predictable. Who knows, in a year President Adams may celebrate his retirement from Georgia by moving to the ACC with UF and Notre Dame to fill the void left by FSU/Clemson/GT to the Big 12. And then everyone starts picking on the SEC’s carcass!

          Like

        • cutter says:

          The other side of the coin is that these 72 to 80 teams could be put into 6 or more conferences as well. You could go with six 12-team conferences or eight 10-team conferences, for example, and organize college football’s regular season scheduling and post-season around that structure.

          That would mean the SEC and ACC would actually have to lose teams to other conferences in order to set up such a structure. If two ACC teams were to go to the Big XII in the short-term, for example, then the four of the five major conferences would be 12-team entities. The sixth conference could end up being an amalgamation of the major programs from the Big East, Mountain West and C-USA.

          Like

          • Everything is pointing in the opposite direction though, cutter. Consolidation is the name of the game. I haven’t heard anything (except for the mutt conference, Big East, kicking out Temple a few years ago) about anyone jettisoning a major conference team. TV entities like working with fewer conferences…they’re not going to reward the SEC for kicking out Vandy and Miss St.

            Like

          • frug says:

            TV entities like working with fewer conferences

            No they don’t. Fewer conferences means higher prices. Supply and demand.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            @frug – In a world of finite teams of national interest, more conferences mean an increased likelihood of no national interest. Consolidation among those teams will lessen the risk of having a product no one wants to buy. IMHO networks would rather have larger conferences of compelling teams, knowing that there will be a high likelihood of a quality product that their customers would like to buy.

            For example, imagine the pre-raid nine team ACC. If Florida St had down years, what exactly would they be paying for? In the last years of the Big 8, Oklahoma went into a funk. Had Nebraska gone with them, how excited would network execs be about Big 8 football?

            Like

          • the networks would rather have more small conferences. larger conferences have market pricing power and can make the networks pay more, taking a chunk away from their margins. This (plus the demonstrated success of the BTN) has been a big reason why TV rights fees have exploded over the last few years.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            And the networks would have offered far less in anticipation of that possibility. And would reap the benefit if OU, Neb, etc are up.

            Like

          • frug says:

            If the TV networks preferred fewer conferences, they wouldn’t have agreed to pay the Big XII an extra $30 million a year as part of the 2010 rescue package.

            A handful of large conferences are going to generate more money per school than a bunch of small ones.

            (That’s why Larry Scott’s longer term goal is for the top 64-72 teams mutually negotiating their TV contracts together as either one giant conference or 4-6 smaller that form an alliance)

            Like

  32. Todd says:

    Since the discussion has veered to conference realignment somewhat, has our friend PurpleBookCat had anything to say recently? Sorry if this was already asked. I haven’t read all the comments.

    Like

  33. Great Lake State says:

    North Carolina
    Duke
    Maryland
    Notre Dame
    Welcome to the B1G!

    Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Jim and the B1G’s plan B:

      http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/brett-mcmurphy/18938708

      It guarantees entry for the 4 highest ranked conference champs if ranked in the top 6.

      Like

      • bamatab says:

        So would Delany’s plan of 4 highest ranked conference champs if in the top 6 be enough to force ND into a conference? The way that article describes it, the only way ND would be eligable is if no other conference champs were in the top 6, and they are the top non-conference champ on the board. It seems like the chairs would be stacked against them pretty heavily in that scenario.

        Like

        • @bamatab – I don’t think that’s the intent of Delany. What will likely happen is what I had proposed before, where a top 4 independent gets into the playoff, but a #5 or #6 independent can’t take a spot away from a #4 conference runner-up (whereas a #5 or #6 conference champ is able to do so).

          Like

          • bamatab says:

            That isn’t how Brett McMurphy took Delany’s comments according to his article. Now I’m not saying that Delany had an alterior motive in his scenario, but that was one of the first questions that popped into my head.

            I also don’t see why the conferences would be willing to give ND an advantage like that that over their member schools. I understand why some of the other conferences would want to limit the field to conference champs, but why risk having one of their member schools be knocked out of the field for a lower ranked ND team? I’m not sure why the conferences would be willing to risk that for an independant school.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @bamatab

            Because no wants to do the Big 10 or (less likely) the ACC a big favor by pushing Notre Dame into their arms.

            Like

          • Phil says:

            The ACC commissioner supporting the “top 4 teams get in, champ or not” proposal certainly isn’t acting like he thinks Notre Dame can get pushed his way. That is the best playoff solution for an independent team.

            Like

          • bamatab says:

            @frug

            I don’t think that the SEC, Pac 12, or any other conference that is out of the ND sweepstakes cares enough about keeping ND out of another conference at the expense of risking the shafting of one of their member institutions out of a playoff spot (and potentially shafting the conference out of the playoff money) for the coming years. Now granted I guess the SEC, Pac 12, and the other conference might prefer ND not to join the B1G or ACC, but I think they’d cut off their nose to spite the face (so to say).

            Like

          • frug says:

            @phil

            I agree. Like I said, it is highly unlikely that ND would join the ACC but if you squint you can envision the scenario.

            @bamatab

            Personally, I agree that independents deserve no special treatment. If a conference champs model is adopted they should be treated like any other non-conference champ (since that is what they are).

            That said, if it is give up a playoff bid once a decade to ND or give the Big 10 financial windfall every year (and right before they are set to start renegotiating their TV contract to boot) the other conferences will gladly cut a deal with the Irish.

            Like

          • I rarely disagree with Frank, but bamatab, I’m with you on this one. No one is so ‘worried’ about ND joining a rival that they are going to cost their teams money and exposure to make concessions for ND anymore. ND has been derided in the past for their cushy bowl deals…people are sick of that and I think the conferences are too. In Frank’s last proposal, I can just hear the rest of college football groaning at yet another “easier” road paved specifically for ND. I think those days are over. There will be a way for runner-ups and independents and small schools to make this playoff…but it will be the same method rolled into one. (A straight top 3 maybe?)

            And imagine the outrage in Ann Arbor if Big Ten champ and #4 Michigan is denied a playoff spot for #6 Notre Dame…or in Austin if Big 12 runner-up and #3 Texas is shut out by #4 Notre Dame. How much longer would that commissioner keep his job in those scenarios!?!?

            Like

          • BigTenFan says:

            I actually think the new “12 team bowl event” will be extremely favorable toward ND making major bowls. I don’t find it to be too unlikely that an 8-4 ND could make a “BCS Type” bowl game in the new proposed bowl system.

            That being said, it will also likely be harder for them to qualify for a national championship so there is a trade off.

            Frankly, I don’t think the new postseason model will push them to a conference.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          bamatab,

          “So would Delany’s plan of 4 highest ranked conference champs if in the top 6 be enough to force ND into a conference?”

          No. Maybe hell freezing over would be, but only because they’re a Catholic school.

          Like

    • BigTenFan says:

      I’d much prefer Virginia to Maryland, and so would UNC.

      If you throw Virginia in there, that would be my dream Big Ten scenario w/ pods of:

      Great Plains

      Iowa
      Nebraska
      Wisconsin
      Minnesota

      Central

      Notre Dame
      Northwestern
      Purdue
      Indiana

      Great Lakes

      Ohio State
      Michigan
      Michigan State
      Illinois

      Colonial

      Penn State
      North Carolina
      Duke
      Virginia

      The beauty of this setup is that you have at least 1 traditional power in each division – the Central & Colonial are a little weaker than the others, but that is balanced out by the fact that, in 4 out of 6 years, they will be playing a tough “sister division”. The year that the colonial division plays the central division, there would be a definite imbalance there probably, but the beauty of rotating divisions is that you never know what schools are going to be good in what seasons – it ensures good balance in most years.

      Like

      • Great Lake State says:

        I flipped a coin on Maryland or Virginia. Virginia is a rock solid institution, I just thought Maryland fit the mold of the B1G a little better.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          And Maryland would be easier to pry from the ACC than Virginia would, as UVa’s football rivalry with North Carolina is among the longest running in the history of the South. (For several decades, even into the early years of the ACC, that game was their traditional season finale, a surprise to many UNC fans who might think that honor belonged to State or Duke.) Unless the Big Ten could get UVa, UNC, Duke and Notre Dame in one fell swoop, Maryland makes more sense for any potential expansion.

          Like

          • BigTenFan says:

            My point is, in the scenario I described above, you have to take Virginia, not Maryland.

            Like

      • That is the most beautiful thing I’ve seen in a long time. Probably since my Notre Dame/Texas to the Big Ten proposals…

        As a basketball fan, I weep a bit. But that’s a powerhouse academic/sports conference that demands a reckoning.

        Like

        • BigTenFan says:

          This has been my “dream” scenario now for a while. Right now, the only possibility where I can see it happening would be if the “football” schools in the ACC have grown tired of their smaller TV contracts due to the “tobacco road” schools staying so loyal to basketball.

          If there were a major exodus from the ACC where, say, FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, & Pitt said “we’d rather be in a football first conference”, and the Big 12 were willing to go to 16 in order to stabilize the conference for the long term, I could see the remaining members not willing to try to put the pieces back together – I could then see UNC/Duke/UVA migrating to the Big Ten where they’d be a natural fit.

          Like

          • In that scenario, I could see Maryland and VaTech easily filling out the SEC’s roster. They aren’t home run schools, but they’d at least get the SEC into the DC/Baltimore area and that’s a solid northern expansion.

            Like

          • bamatab says:

            @allthatyoucantleavebehind, I’m would think that the SEC would prefer NCST over Maryland. The state of NC has a pretty good population growth rate right now, and they are probably a little better cultural and location fit.

            I think their wishlist for ACC schools would look something like this:

            1. UNC
            2. UVA
            3. VT (probably more like 2b)
            4. NCST
            5. MD
            6. FSU
            7. Clemson
            8. GT

            Now if the ACC started falling apart, I agree with most on here that UNC and UVA would probably prefer the B1G do to the research partnerships. Plus the B1G would probably be more willing to take Duke (which I don’t see the SEC desiring a whole lot due to being a private basketball school, unless for some reason they wanted to give Vandy a partner). But I would think that VT & NCST would be a pretty easy get for the SEC if the ACC imploded, and I think that the SEC would be pleased with getting them. JMHO

            Like

  34. greg says:

    CIC presidents would pick Virginia by a long shot over Maryland. Virginia’s endowment is ~18th in the country with all the big names. Maryland not $1B+.

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

    Virginia #25 on USN&WR rankings, Maryland #55.

    Like

    • Kevin says:

      Are we sure those Endowment figures are accurate? I know Wisconsin’s endowment is over $4 billion but the list only includes 1 source. Wisconsin has the WARF (Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation) and the UW System where other endowment funds are parked.

      Like

      • greg says:

        Considering that all endowments valuations change on a daily basis, I’m 100% sure that every one of them is not 100% accurate.

        Like

      • frug says:

        The entry for Wisconsin-Madison is for UW Foundation only. System wide it is closer to $4 billion.

        Like

        • greg says:

          System-wide it supports something like 20+ schools. Its apples and oranges, although I agree there are some other schools on that list with similarly arranged endowments.

          Like

          • frug says:

            Yeah, if you are looking for individual campuses this is probably the easiest list:

            http://mup.asu.edu/research2010.pdf

            Go to page 192.

            Like

          • frug says:

            I should add that those endowment numbers are for 2009 when every school’s numbers were suppressed by the recession.

            Like

          • Kevin says:

            UW- Madison has an Endowment parked at the UW -System that is solely for UW- Madison. The UW -System also has other endowment funds for the other schools that are earmarked directly for those schools so to speak. The WARF is a separate entity that significantly supports graduate research at the UW.

            Like

    • vp19 says:

      However, greg, Maryland better fits the land-grant philosophy of the Big Ten than Virginia does. UVa is more along the lines of southern state flagships such as UNC or UGa — slightly smaller in enrollment, not quite as research-oriented.

      Like

      • greg says:

        I still think the COP/C would prefer Virginia.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Virginia is mostly undergrad focused, while Maryland and the Big Ten are more grad focused. If you look at the Shanghai Express (formally ARWU) and Times Higher Education Maryland is ranks higher than Virginia by a decent (though not huge) margin.

          The CIC’s biggest advantage is the ability to jointly bid for research grants and Maryland would be more useful in that aspect (Maryland’s 2008 research expenditures were $395 million, UVa’s were $257.7 million)

          Like

  35. loki_the_bubba says:

    Announcements scheduled for tomorrow:

    Announcing moves to CUSA:
    Charlotte 11:30am ET
    Texas-San Antonio 11:30am ET
    Florida Int’l 12:00pm ET
    Louisiana Tech 1:00pm ET
    North Texas 4:00pm ET

    Announcing move to MWC:
    Utah State 11:30am ET

    Still waiting on SJSU and Old Dominion.

    Like

  36. redsroom3 says:

    Per CBS sports, the IU – Kentucky rivalry will end for now. The schools and their AD departments could not agree on a venue. Kentuck wants to play at neutral sites, while IU prefers to play on campus.

    I wonder if this is an IU mandate, or if the BIG is making a point about its preference for campuses hosting games (I know this is a stretch, but the timing of this announcement is interesting).

    If this series ends, that will be a tragedy.

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/18953807/indiana-wont-renew-contract-to-play-kentucky-ends-43yearold-rivalry

    Red

    Like

    • frug says:

      Coach Cal said that one of their OOC rivalries was going to have to go and this was the one the fans were least interested in maintaining. That said, I find it odd that they end it over a disagreement over venues.

      Like

      • Of course, it appears that UNC won’t be playing Kentucky next year, either, so their fans are now losing 2 of those games.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Yeah, I talked about that in a lower post. For months I was convinced that Indiana was going to be dropped until I read either Williams or UNC’s AD express ambivalence about continuing the series.

          If it’s true that they are going to halt the UNC series then I find it particularly odd that they would discontinue the Indiana series over something as trivial as the site of the games, especially since the relative weakness of the SEC means UK has always been dependent on OOC games to boost their SOS (I’m guessing they wanted neutral sites to make upsets likely)

          Like

    • Ross says:

      This is definitely just an IU thing, not a Big Ten point. The series has been home and home, neutral, and home and home, in that order. As a Kentucky fan, I personally wanted to retain Louisville and UNC more than I wanted IU, so, if we had to drop one of the three, IU was who I preferred.

      Fact of the matter is, Louisville was never going to be dropped. Once it came down to UNC and IU, I think UNC’s consistency won out. This past decade really took a lot of the luster out of the rivalry with Indiana.

      The one thing I will add though is that if we were truly interested in a neutral site game with a top opponent, then I hope we still pursue that with someone else. As it stands, we have road games @Louisville and @UNC, as well as the game in Atlanta against Duke. I am not sure if we are taking part in one of the early season tournaments or not (though the quality of teams in those tournaments varies quite significantly). A neutral game against another B1G team or a Pac-12 team would be ideal to me. UCLA and Arizona should both be decent this year, though their schedules may be full at this point.

      Like

      • frug says:

        The interesting question is going to be whether UNC is going to want to keep the series going. Either Williams or the AD said that while they would like to keep continue to play Kentucky ever year, the ACC expansion might make that impossible (especially if UNC and NC-State were forced to use an OOC to continue to play each other twice a year)

        Like

      • As Stewart Mandel pointed out, Indiana is refusing to play Kentucky at neutral site Lucas Oil Stadium, but had no issues with playing a “home game” in football against Penn State in Washington, DC.

        Really sad if they can’t resolve this. I understand why recent IU struggles might have temporarily made UNC a more attractive opponent, but UNC-UK is really just two big names playing each other (like Ohio State playing Texas in football) as opposed to a real rivalry like UK-IU. There’s a difference. Plus, we’re not talking about a lower tier school trying to cling onto game against a traditional power – these are both legit blue blood programs.

        Like

        • frug says:

          I don’t think you can really equate KU-UNC with UT-OSU. Kentucky and North Carolina is a regional rivalry so it would be something like ND and Michigan who decided to become rivals in 1978 despite only playing 5 times previously.

          Like

        • redsroom3 says:

          Frank,

          I think comparing a basketball location decision for an ooc game is very different to a football conference game location for IU. IU football does not draw fans, yet. Hopefully that will change, but that game against PSU at a neutral site made more money for the IU athletic department than a home game would (this is sad, but true).

          IU basketball is very different. I don’t know exactly how th economics compare, but I think a home and home series is more advantageous for IU than any neutral site game, so I understand their desire to protect that revenue stream (assuming that above is true).

          Red

          Like

      • redsroom3 says:

        Ross,

        I understand about the last decade of IU basketball contributing to the series losing some luster, and the fact that Louisville wasn’t going to be dropped, but since IU is on the rise, wouldn’t UK want to keep that, especially with the proximity of both schools?

        Having said that, it would be hard to turn down UNC. They are a perennial power, as well as, an historic one too. The IU – UK game kick-started the season last year, and I think a rematch would be just as compelling for the upcoming season.

        While I would love to believe this is just an IU thing, Delany is one smart, strategic, shrewd dude. He knows how to “generate” alternate touch points that support his overall thinking on managing collegiate athletics. I would not be surprised if he had some input into this decision being made and announced now…

        Red

        Like

        • @redsroom3 – It just would be really strange (and unlike Delany) to weigh in on this. Most Big Ten basketball schools have games away from campus. My Illini play Missouri in St. Louis and a game at the United Center every year. IU and Purdue themselves are in an annual event with Butler and Notre Dame at Conseco Fieldhouse.

          My impression is that this is about the two egos of the coaches involved. Seeing that the IU AD has agreed to plenty of other neutral site games (including moving a home football against Penn State to Washington, DC), I don’t think it’s even him. This seems personal between Crean and Calipari.

          Like

    • bullet says:

      UNC is a more recent thing. I’m disappointed that isn’t the one that got cancelled and turned into a less frequent game. Of course, I don’t know why either must be. There was a time UK/IU/UL/ND all played each other. UK’s ooc schedule has a number of teams it has no business playing. Excluding KU, IU, UNC and UL, Kentucky’s ooc wins were by 50, 38, 10, 48, 24, 22, 25, 32, 24, 22 and 22. 9 of those 11 were against minor conference teams. And most of those weren’t really that close. With KU, IU, UNC and UL, UK still did ok last year.

      Indiana and Kentucky are the most basketball crazy states in the country. They’re neighbors. They should play annually. They should be able to figure something out.

      Like

      • Ross says:

        I would certainly prefer all three, or at least another top program in place of a current one. Losing UNC and IU would be really unfortunate, if true. That would leave us with Louisville, Duke, and our Big East draw this coming season. I guess there could be a preseason tournament, but the good ones tend to be drawn up already.

        I think those minor programs you mention will get better. Calipari used to schedule a lot of those mid-major teams that stood little chance to beat you but would be valuable SOS/RPI-wise. Thus far, I don’t think we have seen his effect upon that aspect of the scheduling, but I imagine we will.

        Like

  37. ccrider55 says:

    Wilner: former Iowa and current Stanford AD, Bowlsby, to become B12 commish?

    Like

  38. greg says:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/49484/nebraskas-perlman-plus-one-still-preferred

    But don’t count out the so-called “plus-one,” where the top two teams are selected after the bowl games and face one another for the national championship about a week later.

    The plus-one is still very much alive, University of Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman told ESPN.com on Thursday. Perlman, who serves on the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, said that during informal discussions between Big Ten and Pac-12 presidents and chancellors, the plus-one model has the most support.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Interesting all the other evidence seems to be pointing the other direction, but he is president and should be somewhat in the know. This is probably a case of the conferences pushing one way and some of the presidents willing to push back. I doubt there is enough of them to stop a playoff at this point though.

      Like

      • Perlman did mention that the second choice would be the 4-team playoff inside the bowls, so while he may be correct that the presidents (and particularly Perlman himself) would all prefer the unseeded plus-one (and I’m not surprised by that at all), he wasn’t saying that the Big Ten and Pac-12 leaders wouldn’t ultimately get on board with a playoff. What was more interesting to me was that he flatly rejected everything else, such as neutral site or on-campus semifinals separate from the bowls. I interpret Perlman’s quotes to mean that the Big Ten ADs must have been much more enthusiastic for an on-campus semifinal plan than the presidents.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          The thinking is a prioritization of preserving the bowl system.

          A true plus 1 just magnifies the inequities of the current system. Its main advantage is helping the bowl system.

          Like

          • cutter says:

            I agree–this is bowl system uber alles. Despite the managerial problems, crony capitalism, reduced attendance/interest and overpriced tickets, it sounds like he’s still welded to the bowls.

            I found it intersting that he acknowledged a Plus One would be a burden on the fans, but rejected the idea of playing the semi-final games at campus sites. Taken in isolation, that seems to be an outright contradiction.

            I also wonder what he would say to Cornhusker fans if a #2 Nebraska team was compelled to play a #10 ranked Pac 12 team in the Rose Bowl while the #3 and #4 ranked teams played better matchups that gave them the potential to leapfrog UN-L into the Plus One. In a 4-team playoff option with semi-final games at campus sites, Nebraska would have been hosting the #3 team in the country in Lincoln instead.

            I also found it interesting that he favored conference champions when selecting the teams in the playoffs. In a Plus One situation last year, LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State and Oregon might well have played in different sites (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta and Rose). What if all four of those teams had won? Would the Cowboys or the Ducks get preference over the Crimson Tide because they were conference champions?

            Can you also imagine the jockeying that would take place by LSU and Alabama to try and match up with the highest ranked team available (Stanford) for their bowl games in order to better insure getting selected into the Plus One championship game? Does the team that doesn’t get Stanford then lobby to have a bowl game with Arkansas (the next best available team in the BCS rankings) in a replay of a SEC regular season matchup or do they move on to Boise State (ranked after Arkansas in the BCS) or Kansas State? Are these the kind of compelling bowl matchups he was talking about? What would #4 Oregon feel about playing #10 Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl and placing themselves at a competitive disadvantage for getting into the Plus One championship game?

            It seems like a broad overstatement to me that a four-team playoff would reduce the bowl games to the NIT. A four-team playoff would remove two teams from the bowl system if the national championship game were at a bowl site. That doesn’t strike me as a seismic change that would cripple the bowl system anymore than the original BCS did.

            There may be some other things in there I missed, but for a man who can’t see a good reason for a playoff, I wonder what exactly he’s looking at.

            Like

          • Eric says:

            I think he does actually have a good point about the bowl system in general. If the bowl system is going to survive long term, the notion of going to a bowl at all can’t be seen as a negative. If we set-up a system where we have teams we think about as bowl teams and teams we think of as playoff teams, that will lessen even the big bowls over time.

            In that sense, I think he is mostly right. If we want to preserve the bowl system and put importance on it, I think home sites only works if the losers still go to a bowl along with the winners (with that set-up you can call the national championship a bowl as well as whatever bowls the loser are in). Otherwise home sites will be very bad long term. Neutral sites outside the bowl system are even worse.

            If we must go to a playoff (I still prefer the current system or a true plus one), then I think I’ve come around to hoping we do use the bowls.

            Like

    • bullet says:

      Good guy, bad guy? Delany as a good guy. That’s a hard sell. But then Perlman sure didn’t make many friends at the AAU. Perlman was never a fan of a playoff of any sort.

      Its certainly possible that the presidents feel different than the commissioners, but I just don’t see Delany and Scott supporting this without some feel of what their presidents were thinking. Delany definitely talked to them after the 1st meeting and before this last one.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        And Perlman is not above deceipt to get what he wants. He spouted off a bunch of nonsense about Texas when announcing he was going to the Big 10 which had nothing to do with his decision. He was just laying the groundwork for reducing the exit fees. Later when that was settled he told a different story to the Omaha paper.

        Like

        • frug says:

          To be fair, Perlman is hardly the only one. In fact you would have a hard time finding someone in college athletics who hasn’t at least “massaged” the truth over the past 2 and half years.

          Like

          • Mike says:

            Pearlman’s a lawyer. We all know about lawyers here….

            Like

          • bullet says:

            What was bad about Perlman, though, was that instead of celebrating joining the Big 10 which was a good thing for Nebraska and a historic change, he spent the whole press conference whining about Texas (we’d still take them back in the Big 12 in a minute-Aggies, not so much).

            Like

          • Mike says:

            Spending the whole press conference whining about Texas?


            “Some of the schools that were urging us to stay, we found some of them had talked to not only one other conference or two but even three,” Osborne said.

            Perlman responded to the ultimatum by firing off a few questions of his own to his fellow Big 12 chancellors and presidents.

            After all, there were reports out that six other Big 12 schools were looking to go to the Pac-10.

            OK, Perlman asked, what if Nebraska stayed and potential Big Ten target Missouri left? Would those six schools stay in the Big 12? Yes, was the answer.

            OK, Perlman then asked, if Nebraska stayed and Colorado left for the Pac-10, would those six schools stay in the Big 12? Yes.

            OK, how about if both Colorado and Missouri left? The answer: The six schools could not make a commitment that they would stay in the Big 12.

            Strike one.

            “I then asked what would be the nature of the commitment that they would expect from an institution in order to stay in the Big 12,” Perlman said. “And what they talked about was a public statement; unequivocal commitment to the Big 12 by the president and chancellor of the university.”

            In response, Perlman said there’s only one way you can fully commit long term to a conference, and that is you assign the media rights to your athletic contests to the conference for the long term.

            Perlman asked if the Big 12 members were willing to do that.

            “The University of Texas made it clear they were not able to do that,” Perlman said.

            http://huskerextra.com/sports/football/article_fe8afacf-5a48-5b6e-9cb9-95b2fd09c7b9.html

            He had to justify the move the regents (and didn’t have an offical B1G invite at the time). This, however, was the extent of the comments about Texas. Not exactly whining.

            Like

        • Frank the Ag says:

          Why am I not surprised that poor little bullet is bitter at A&M?

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Read the posts STILL coming in on Frank’s mistake about mad Aggies not being enough to get into the SEC and see why almost no Texas fans are torn up about A&M leaving. That stuff just gets old.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        bullet,

        “Good guy, bad guy? Delany as a good guy. That’s a hard sell.”

        Really? He disagrees with you about the postseason, so he’s a bad person? That seems like an incredibly unfair judgment of somebody’s character.

        Like

        • frug says:

          I think he meant it more as “good cop, bad cop”.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Right. Good cop, bad cop. And you don’t read much if you think Delany uses the soft sell very often. Sounds like you are getting too worked up about the postseason again. They haven’t settled the financial side, so its not done yet.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “Right. Good cop, bad cop.”

            Well, that isn’t what you said.

            “And you don’t read much if you think Delany uses the soft sell very often.”

            I never said he did. Driving a hard bargain doesn’t make you a bad person, though, and that characterization was all I objected to.

            “They haven’t settled the financial side, so its not done yet.”

            They haven’t settled anything yet.

            Playoff format – unknown (plus one, 4 team playoff, other)
            Ranking process – unknown (current, no humans, no computers, committee, add SOS, other)
            Team selection – unknown (top 4, top 4 champs, 3 champs + 1, champs within a limit, other)
            Game locations – unknown (campus, neutral, bowls)
            Game schedule – unknown
            Revenue sharing – unknown

            Like

    • frug says:

      While my personal preference is a playoff with the semi-finals on campus, I vastly prefer a plus-one to conducting the semis within the bowl system.

      Like

  39. Andy says:

    The word out of Columbia is that Missouri will be expanding its stadium soon. Missouri currently has 63k permanent seats plus an additional 8k standing room only “hill” seats that are sold on game days. The plan is to add 20.5k permanent seats and get the number up to 83.5k.

    The move to the SEC has been very good for Missouri ticket sales. Attendance at Missouri has fluctuated between 61k and 64k over the last few years. Right now there is a waiting list for tickets, and Missouri expects to sell out all 63k seats for the season (it would be the first sellout in decades).

    After the Missouri expansion, as well as other planned expansions, here is a ranking of what the largest stadiums in the country will be:

    1. Michigan 109,901
    2. Penn State 107,282
    3. Tennessee 102,455
    4. Ohio State 102,329
    5. Alabama 101,821
    6. Texas 101,624
    7. USC 93,607
    8. Georgia 92,746
    9. LSU 92,542
    10. Texas A&M 90,000* (after expansion)
    11. Florida 88,548
    12. Auburn 87,451
    13. Nebraska 87,000* (after expansion)
    14. Missouri 83,500* (after expansion)
    15. Florida State 82,300
    16. Oklahoma 82,112
    17. Arkansas 81,000* (after expansion)
    18. Notre Dame 80,795
    19. Wisconsin 80,321
    20. Clemson 80,301
    21. South Carolina 80,250
    22. Arizona State 73,379
    23. Washington 72,500
    24. Iowa 70,585
    25. Kentucky 67,606
    26. Virginia Tech 66,233
    27. BYU 63,725
    28. North Carolina 62,980
    29. Cal 62,717
    30. Purdue 62,500

    Like

    • cutter says:

      That’ll be one less stadium Bill Hancock has to worry about in terms of on campus sites being able to host a semi-final game. 🙂

      Of course, he’ll probably wonder how the hotels imediately around Columbia, MO will be able to support the crush of press to cover the game. One hopes the idea of driving to the site from Kansas City or St. Louis the day of the game might cross his mind.

      Good for Missouri though. One wonders if they would have made a move like this if they were still in the Big XII. I also wonder if the Big Ten will have regrets in the long run about not brining in Missouri along with Nebraska when the opportunity presented itself (along with another program to get to 14 schools like the SEC or ACC. I suspect the answer to the latter is no in terms of the financial numbers (unless the 14th school was Notre Dame), but Mizzou did have the potential of being a good fit for the B10.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        I think either Nebraska or Missouri would have worked for the Big Ten. Nebraska has the stronger football tradition, but Missouri is decent at football. Missouri had the better basketball and the stronger TV markets. In the end I think it was a wash. Missouri couldn’t draw the kinds of numbers needed to justify stadium expansion in the Big 12. Iowa State, Baylor, Okie State, Texas Tech, KU, KSU, those just aren’t very big draws. Put Mizzou in the Big Ten or SEC and you’ll see attendance grow by a good 20% at least.

        As far as hotels, yes, people will likely have to stay in neighboring cities like Jefferson City and the Lake of the Ozarks, or drive in from St. Louis or KC. But it’s not like Columbia is all that small for a college town. 100k people. That’s bigger than most SEC towns, and several Big Ten towns.

        Like

        • Andy says:

          One area where I think the Big Ten likely regrets taking Nebraska over Missouri is academics. The Big Ten currently has 11 AAU schools. If they had taken Missouri, they’d have 12.

          Like

          • Mike says:

            Had the B1G taken Notre Dame instead of Nebraska they would have 11 AAU schools. By most objective measures, Notre Dame is a much better school than both NU and MU. Just because Nebraska lost its AAU status doesn’t make Nebraska any more academically inferior than it was when the B1G added it. With or without the AAU designation, Nebraska was acceptable academically to COP/C.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Nebraska is generally considered to be a bit worse academically than Missouri. Many years ago Missouri on par with schools like Iowa, Michigan State and Indiana, but fell off a bit because of budgetary issues and was more in line with Nebraska. Missouri has regained some standing in recent years, climbing about 25 spots in recent years in the USNews rankings for example (while Nebraska has fallen back and also lost their AAU membership), but Missouri still has a ways to go before being considered on par with much of the Big Ten, and I wouldn’t claim otherwise.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            A building named after Ken Lay and the ill fated Paige center. Mizzou has terrible luck naiming buildings.

            Like

          • Frank the Ag says:

            A&M didn’t take a loan from the university to cover for the cost of Kyle Field expansion. That’s inaccurate (like most comment regarding A&M by Mr. Bullet). They took the loan to offset facility improvements in non-revenue sports (indoor track primarily). The A&M AD greatly enhanced spending in multiple Olympic sports and failed to appropriately budget for the increase.

            BTW, A&M’s expansion (or tear down and rebuild of Kyle) will increase capacity to exceed 95K. The SEC spike in interest has created a large wait list of season ticket and suite requests. The initial proposal should leak to the media prior to the start of the 12/13 football season.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Frank the ag
            If A&M had filled the stadium, they wouldn’t have needed those loans. Money is fungible. If A&M hadn’t spent quite so much on the addition, they would have had more funds for the non-rev facilities.

            A lot on the stadium expansion has already leaked. Mr. SEC had something on it a week or two ago.

            Like

        • bullet says:

          I don’t think UK, Vandy, Ole Miss, Miss. St. and S. Carolina are going to do much for attendance unless you win. Big 10 would have been better for Missouri for attendance. Tennessee, UGA and UF aren’t going to do much for you either if you aren’t at least a bowl team. Mizzou was low 50s in attendance until the relative success of the last 5 years or so. Pinkel’s going to have to continue to perform to fill up those new seats.

          That’s a really big jump-20,000 seats.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            Time will tell. No shortage of demand right now. They’ve upped their donation requirements for seats, and there was so much interest in season tickets that they’ve set up a waiting list for the first time. Apparently SEC fans travel well. Mizzou will have annual games with Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Vandy, plus a West team like Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, etc. Of that group, the only teams I’d expect not to travel well to Columbia would be Vandy and maybe South Carolina. Apparently tickets for the Georgia and Alabama games are going for hundreds of dollars right now.

            Like

          • Brian #2 says:

            So you’re saying that Missouri’s attendance could suffer if they don’t win consistently? Shocking revelation there.

            No offense but that seems fairly obvious for any non-blue blood program.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Its a pretty aggressive jump, 1/3 more seats. I’m sure for the next 3-4 years there will be a big bump. It will be a combination of the new stadium/stands effect and new conference. The question is whether it can be maintained. Mr. SEC was questioning an Aggie expansion plan as maybe being too early. SEC fans do travel well. The question is whether they will travel to Missouri. Its not just outside the traditional territory, but its further away. The local Georgia Bulldog clubs can charter a bus and easily get to Knoxville, Jacksonville, Tuscaloosa, Auburn, Oxford, Nashville, Starkville, and Columbia South Carolina. Columbia, Missouri is a bigger trip.

            Like

          • Brian #2 says:

            It’s really only about a 15% increase in capacity, as Andy said they are replacing about 10,000 “seats” that were really just spots on a grass hill with actual seats.

            The SEC visiting team ticket allotment is about twice the Big 12’s, so that will gives you another few thousand right off the top (SEC teams always fill up their visiting team allotment; the real question is how many extra beyond that travel to Missouri). At the least, I imagine demand will be very high for the annual series against Arkansas and the annual West division opponent (due to the novelty effect).

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Brian#2
            Going to a new conference doesn’t automatically mean you will sell 20,000 more seats indefinitely. That’s the point. And Missouri does have pretty variable attendance compared to SEC neighbors like Kentucky and Arkansas. Probably has to do with the bigger metro areas and pro sports competition in the major metro areas in the state.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Brian2
            Going back to 1996, the best average attendance Missouri had in Columbia was 64,120. So while individual games got over 70k, overall they’ve got neary 20,000 seats to fill over their best previous year.

            Like

          • Brian #2 says:

            “Going to a new conference doesn’t automatically mean you will sell 20,000 more seats indefinitely. That’s the point. And Missouri does have pretty variable attendance compared to SEC neighbors like Kentucky and Arkansas. Probably has to do with the bigger metro areas and pro sports competition in the major metro areas in the state.”

            Where did I say it did? Are you assuming Missouri’s leadership did not conduct significant research and projections when developing this expansion plan?

            Andy specifically said there is a season ticket waitlist already and the season is supposed to sellout for the first time in decades. That is fairly impressive in itself, and I assume Missouri’s decision-makers have a better grasp on their potential for significant ticket increases than people on the internet. It’s unlikely they threw a dart on a board to come up with this exact figure.

            The reality is that annual home games against elite programs such as Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, and Arkansas are going to be huge draws for the casual fan, much more so than Big 12 teams outside of UT or OU. Missouri might not sellout an 83,500 capacity for a full season immediately, but the potential is clearly there as the only BCS football program in a state with a population of 6 million.

            Like

          • Kevin says:

            I have a hard time believing Missouri will consistently fill a 83k seat stadium. Once the SEC buzz wears off they will be back to drawing similar crowds.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Kevin, I think you’re really underestimating the difference in drawing power of Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina vs Texas, Oklahoma, KSU, ISU, Baylor, TT, OSU, TCU. There will be a minimum 3-5k increase in traveling fans alone, plus a minimum increase of another 3-5k due to increased interest because of the quality of competition.

            Sure, if Missouri starts losing badly interest will drop. But Missouri has been to bowl games in 8 out of the last 9 seasons and is one of only 6 BCS programs to win 8 or more games for the last 6 straight years. They’ve been consistently good for a while now, and recruiting has gone well. They just recruited the #1 player in the country this past year.

            Missouri likely can’t sell 80k+ for every single game, but they’ll likely do it 2 or 3 times per year for the big games.

            Like

          • Kevin says:

            Andy, I agree with your statement that Missouri can sell out 80k for a few games a year but not every game. My question is why expand for just a few games? I’ll use Wisconsin as an example since I am most familiar. UW could sell 100k plus for a few games a year but they would rather have the stadium sold out for every game whether that’s Northern Illinois or Ohio State coming to town. Camp Randall also has physical space limitations due to its location but AD officials studied the issue and have determined that expansion doesn’t really generate a significant return on investment.

            From a revenue standpoint some times it better to create a little scarcity in terms of ticket availability. In return they then can likely charge more for season tickets. If tickets are easy to come by many will not by season tickets. See Penn State currently.

            I think Missouri would be wise to only add 10k seats but it’s probably SEC pressure as that conference is in a stadium expansion bonanza.

            Like

          • My feeling is that Missouri’s football fan base is very much like the Illinois football fan base: very fairweather. We (Illinois) can sell 70,000-plus seats even against MAC opponents when we’re riding high, but all of the great brand name opponents in the world like Ohio State and Michigan wouldn’t sell out our stadium when we’re in down periods. Missouri is probably experiencing a nice spurt in ticket sales right now with the new novelty of the SEC, but it wasn’t as if though the old Big 12 was lacking for marquee opponents that travel very well (Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas A&M, etc.). It’s a common argument that I see among fan bases that More Exciting Conference A will result in more sellouts than Current Conference B, but that’s usually very short-term (just like new baseball stadiums only provide an attendance boost for a year or two if the home team isn’t actually competitive). TV exposure and revenue will certainly better in the SEC, but the old Big 12 wasn’t a dog when it came to filling up seats in stadiums (which is why the new Big 12 still looks in good position for bowl tie-ins despite losing great traveling Nebraska and Texas A&M).

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Brian2
            Do you not get the concept of message boards? Its primarily for anonymous internet posters to question the decisions of those with more information and expertise.

            Seriously, I’ve had lots of experiences with projections and studies and, while they are better than totally relying on instinct, I’ve yet to see one that really accurately reflects anything beyond a year. And the assumptions come from the person buying the study who may already have a predetermined notion about the outcome.

            There are a number of facts, that are generally available:
            1 Missouri generally averages in the low 50s and its attendance is pretty variable. Since 1996 it has been as low as 39,000 and as high as 66,000 (which was only about 63k in Columbia as KC and SL games raised the average). The highest average in Columbia was 64,120.
            2. They’ve apparently never had a sellout season.
            3. They are basing the need to expand primarily on demand in a season that has yet to occur.
            4. Most entities wait until they have sold out for several years before expanding.

            And for trusting brilliant people with lots of information to make a good decision, I’ve got one word for you: Enron.

            It may turn out to be a brilliant decision to capture income by building now instead of being more conservative. But there is no doubt that the decision is risky. A&M expanded a few years back before they were really ready and their athletic department is still suffering.

            Like

          • Brian #2 says:

            “Do you not get the concept of message boards? Its primarily for anonymous internet posters to question the decisions of those with more information and expertise.”

            Of course I get the concept of message boards. It’s where people gather to critique the decisions of others despite the significant information asymmetry.

            “Seriously, I’ve had lots of experiences with projections and studies and, while they are better than totally relying on instinct, I’ve yet to see one that really accurately reflects anything beyond a year. And the assumptions come from the person buying the study who may already have a predetermined notion about the outcome.”

            Projections aren’t meant to be 100% accurate for 20+ years out. They are intended to form a rough estimate that incorporates the probability of various outcomes. That’s why most projections also include a sensitivity analysis to estimate bull, base, and bear cases. To ignore all long-term projections because they are rarely 100% accurate implies that you have no clue about how to actually use projection models.

            “There are a number of facts, that are generally available:
            1 Missouri generally averages in the low 50s and its attendance is pretty variable. Since 1996 it has been as low as 39,000 and as high as 66,000 (which was only about 63k in Columbia as KC and SL games raised the average). The highest average in Columbia was 64,120.
            2. They’ve apparently never had a sellout season.
            3. They are basing the need to expand primarily on demand in a season that has yet to occur.
            4. Most entities wait until they have sold out for several years before expanding.”

            1. I’d actually interpret the data as Mizzou generally averages in the low 60’s, with a clear upward trend since the start of the Pinkel era in the early 2000’s. This appears to be roughly in-line with what Andy said is the actual amount of seats in the stadium, not including “seats” located on a grass hill.
            2. Apparently they are expecting one this year, which correlates with the move to the SEC. I wonder if they could be related?
            3. I think the need to expand is based more on the expected demand from playing in the tradition-rich SEC, which features much more attractive programs on a weekly basis than the Big 12 did. For comparison’s sake, Arkansas increased capacity over 40% a few years after joining the SEC. However, these expectations were likely formed from detailed projections, and we know you how you feel about that type of nonsense.
            4. Do you know these plans have not been discussed for awhile, and the SEC move simply provided the catalyst to put the plan into action? If there is the potential for significant increases in revenue, I think Missouri would be silly not to do it even if it still takes a few more years to routinely hit 80,000+. Revenue from 70,000 attendance at an 83,500 capacity stadium is higher than 64,000 at a 71,000 capacity stadium, especially if the additions include high-margin corporate suites, club seating, etc.

            “And for trusting brilliant people with lots of information to make a good decision, I’ve got one word for you: Enron.”

            You lost me here. Are you actually comparing Missouri’s decision-makers to Enron’s?

            Let’s see – Enron’s leadership had significant financial incentives to conduct massive financial fraud. What are the incentives for Missouri’s leaders to lie? Do they get stock options in Wal-Mart by hitting stadium capacity vesting levels?

            “It may turn out to be a brilliant decision to capture income by building now instead of being more conservative. But there is no doubt that the decision is risky. A&M expanded a few years back before they were really ready and their athletic department is still suffering.”

            I’d be curious to know more about this. How exactly did A&M’s AD directly suffer by expanding the football stadium too fast? Was the expansion financed by high-interest bonds that the athletic department struggled to maintain? I don’t follow.

            Personally I see no harm in Missouri expanding to 80,000+ even if they do not regularly hit that capacity for a number of years. The revenue increase still stands to be significant, and the net impact is negligible since funding apparently will be coming from donors. Missouri is investing in their future in the SEC and apparently they are dreaming big. Good for them.

            Obviously a string of 4 win seasons would kill attendance just like it would for 90% of BCS conference programs, but plowing additional revenue into the program is a way of helping to ensure that does not happen. Programs that spend big on facilities, recruiting budgets, and the coaching staff tend to perform better in the long-run. Funny how that works.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Frank – according to the 2011 NCAA accumulated attendance report (see below), in a down year Mizzou was still #25 in attendance, averaging 62,095 fans per game with the stadium at almost 91% capacity. Just the extra 5,000 visiting SEC fans per game would raise Mizzou to 98% capacity. For reference, last season Illinois was #42 and at 81.67% of capacity. Based on Mizzou’s numbers, added interest from joining the SEC, and travelling SEC fans, I think an expansion is justified. Whether 20k is or not, I don’t know as I haven’t seen the results of their survey, don’t know how long their current wait list is, and don’t know how many seats will be premium seats. My experience as a season ticket holder for LSU which is going through its third expansion since 2000, is that a school will look at its survey and wait list, and expand at about 2/3s of the demand.

            http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2011/Internet/attendance/FBS_AVGATTENDANCE.pdf

            Here’s last year’s top 40 attendance leaders by conference.

            SEC (11) – 3. Alabama, 6. Tennessee, 7. LSU, 8. Georgia, 9. Florida, 11. Auburn, 16. South Carolina, 22 Arkansas, 27. Kentucky, 33. Ole Miss, and 36. Miss State.

            B1G (7) – 1. Michigan, 2. Ohio State, 4. Penn State, 12. Nebraska, 15. Wisconsin, 20. Michigan State, and 21. Iowa.

            Big XII (7) – 5. Texas, 10. Texas A&M, 13. Oklahoma, 25. Mizzou, 30. OK State, 37. Texas Tech, and 38. Iowa State.

            Pac-12 (6) – 19. USC, 24. Washington, 28. Oregon, 29. Arizona State, 31. UCLA, and 39. Colorado.

            ACC (5) – 17. Clemson, 18. Florida State, 23. VA Tech, 34. NC State, and 35. North Carolina.

            IND (2) – 14. Notre Dame and 26. BYU.

            Big East (1) – 32. West Virginia.

            CUSA (1) – East Carolina.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Brian2
            Enron=groupthink. Noone questions the leader. They didn’t realize they were about to collapse until it was upon them, even though they were “the brightest guys in the room.”
            A&M AD had to borrow money from the academic department to meet their obligations.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Now that you mention it, Ken Lay was a Missouri grad, and had a business school building named after him on campus until he went to jail.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Andy
            Funny. I didn’t remember that. I guess he was a “show me” guy. Until someone really showed him it was bankrupt he wouldn’t believe it.. Fastow the CFO was a Northwestern grad and Watkins the Accountant who told the emperor he had no clothes was a Texas grad. I didn’t know her, but she was there the same time as me. Several of the Enron people lived in my neighborhood in Houston and we’d see Watkins in restaurants periodically after it all became public. I had a headhunter suggesting a position at Enron a year or so before it blew up and prefaced it with, “Its not as bad as most of the divisions of Enron.” Yet the Enron people were all convinced it was the best place in the world to work. Groupthink.

            I imagine its tricky taking the name off a building. Do you give the money back?

            Like

          • Andy says:

            No, Mizzou kept the money.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            @bullet – When Ohio State completed Ohio Stadium in 1922 there were many critics claiming it was a massive boondoggle because Buckeyes would never be able to fill it to capacity (66k at the time).

            Like

          • Frank the Ag says:

            I posted this under the wrong reply link above. Adding it here, so it is read in the right context:

            A&M didn’t take a loan from the university to cover for the cost of Kyle Field expansion. That’s inaccurate (like most comments regarding A&M by Mr. Bullet). They took the loan to offset facility improvements in non-revenue sports (indoor track primarily). The A&M AD greatly enhanced spending in multiple Olympic sports and failed to appropriately budget for the increase.

            BTW, A&M’s expansion (or tear down and rebuild of Kyle) will increase capacity to exceed 95K. The SEC spike in interest has created a large wait list of season ticket and suite requests. The initial proposal should leak to the media prior to the start of the 12/13 football season

            Like

    • BoilerTex says:

      Where did you get this list? Spartan Stadium is missing.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        I used this list and took out the NFL stadiums, only using college stadiums

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

        Looks like I screwed up and skipped MSU. Sorry about that. They’d come in at #22 with 75,025.

        Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          Andy – regarding future planned stadium expansions, LSU will soon be at 100k, Ole Miss at 70k, and Miss State at 61k. Ole Miss is also constructing a new basketball arena.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            I didn’t know that. I included as many expansions as I was aware of. I’d edit the list but there is no edit feature in this forum. Looks like it would be something like this:

            1. Michigan 109,901
            2. Penn State 107,282
            3. Tennessee 102,455
            4. Ohio State 102,329
            5. Alabama 101,821
            6. Texas 101,624
            7. LSU 100,000* (after expansion)
            8. USC 93,607
            9. Georgia 92,746
            10. Texas A&M 90,000* (after expansion)
            11. Florida 88,548
            12. Auburn 87,451
            13. Nebraska 87,000* (after expansion)
            14. Missouri 83,500* (after expansion)
            15. Florida State 82,300
            16. Oklahoma 82,112
            17. Arkansas 81,000* (after expansion)
            18. Notre Dame 80,795
            19. Wisconsin 80,321
            20. Clemson 80,301
            21. South Carolina 80,250
            22. Michigan State 75,025
            23. Arizona State 73,379
            24. Washington 72,500
            25. Iowa 70,585
            26. Ole Miss 70,000* (after expansion)
            27. Kentucky 67,606
            28. Virginia Tech 66,233
            29. BYU 63,725
            30. North Carolina 62,980

            Like

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            Rice should pull the tarps off the end zone seating and go back to having 72,000 seats, just to get on lists like this.

            Like

        • frug says:

          You also forgot the Rose Bowl where UCLA plays its home games. It would be 7th.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            Yes, but does the Rose Bowl belong to UCLA? I was under the impression that it did not. Maybe I’m wrong?

            Like

          • frug says:

            No, the Rose Bowl doesn’t belong to UCLA, but the LA Coliseum doesn’t belong to USC so I assumed you were just listing where they played.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            They keep talking about changing the latter. However, that changes about as often as realignment. Latest was that USC would do a long term lease on the Coliseum, do improvements and help bail out the state.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Hm, ok, well, feel free to make a list yourself. I don’t really know which stadiums are university owned and which aren’t. I was just going by my best guess. I didn’t want to include NFL stadiums or public bowls like the Rose Bowl.

            Like

          • mnfanstc says:

            One key to college football attendance and this list… Only one (yes that’s ONE) school on this list has an NFL team directly in their backyard… That’s the Washington Huskies. The only other school with an NFL team moderately close is Michigan. The commonality between the Huskies and Michigan is that the NFL teams in their backyards have historically been perennial doormats, thus, the college teams have bigger followings… You have to look no further than Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh to see the dominance of the NFL team over EVERY other sport in those cities…

            In Mizzou’s case, best of luck… you are 125 miles from the population centers of KC and St Louis (both pro-towns)… If the Tigers don’t win, there will be many empty seats, whether in the “mighty” SEC or not…

            Like

          • mnfanstc says:

            Oops… Arizona State also has NFL nearby—the perennially mighty “Cardinals” ha!ha!

            Like

          • frug says:

            @mnfanstc

            U-Dub’s other big advantage is that 70% of their alumni live within 100 miles of Seattle. You would have a tough time finding another NFL city school with that kind of local alumni base.

            Like

    • Brian #2 says:

      Hard to believe OU only can support ~80,000 despite being one of the best programs of all-time.

      I guess that’s where the weak Big 12 schedule really hurts them. Fans aren’t flocking to see games against mid-tier programs like Texas Tech, Baylor, Kansas State, and Iowa State. Holding the premier game of the season (Texas) off campus is also likely a big negative for season ticket sales.

      Like

      • Playoffs Now says:

        Wow, someone really, really wants the title of “Most ignorant poster.”

        Like

      • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

        Gaylord Family – Oklahoma Memorial Stadium:
        Largest Crowd 85,646 (Nov. 22, 2008)
        Sellout Streak 80 Games (1999-Present)
        Capacity 82,112

        #16 on the list of largest stadiums, but only ONE larger is from a state with less population (Nebraska with 5,000 more seats)

        Like

  40. duffman says:

    Combining the realignment talk, and the playoff talk, I still say it is going to be four 16 team conferences before it is said and done with, with four power conferences sending their chosen rep each year (via regular season winner or CCG winner) to contend for the MNC. The hire of the Stanford guy for the B12 seems like an insurance exit strategy for Texas to jump to the PAC in 6 years if they can not get the LHN to work.

    ACC has 2 slots = ND + ????
    B1G has 4 slots = ND + ???? + ???? + ????
    B12 has 6 slots = ND + (5) x ????
    PAC has 4 slots = ND + ???? + ???? + ????
    SEC has 2 slots = ???? + ????

    As is history, all this rests on what the folks in South Bend do if Dependence Day (D Day) arrives and the folks at Notre Dame are finally forced to take a side in the realignment war. As such, I will approach it as WWNDD?

    The ACC option :
    Actually makes the most sense with current Big East membership as many of the schools in a 16 member ACC will be schools the ND folks know, and share common bonds with. It would become the default Private School Refuge with ND + SU + Duke + WF + BC + “U” and multiple “public” schools with a “private” feel like UVA.

    The B1G option :
    It would cement the midwest and get the BTN with a better grip on the east coast, but it would make Northwestern the only other Private School and this may be the stumbling block for Notre Dame in the final decision. Since Pitt and Syracuse have already accepted the ACC, it further limits who Notre Dame could bring with them as additional security blankets

    The PAC option :
    Granted distance would be a major hassle, but if Texas jumped to the PAC with Notre Dame and two solid midwest schools I could see it happening. While well behind in as a third place option, I just leave this here to hold space as a possibility

    The B12 and SEC option :
    Slim to none for either as I just can not see ND trading IND status for the asylum of the B12 and all the instability. As if this were not enough, ND is not going to pin its long term well being on 2 schools only. Sorry B12 dreamers, but the folks in South Bend have no desire to see the states of OK, IA, KS, WV, TX unless it is Austin or Norman – and even then given historic Domer scheduling it is on a limited basis. The SEC is even slimmer as the Borg of college football, as they assimilate all others to their culture, and ND just does not seem to fit that particular hive state of mind.

    .

    This means you basically have the B1G + PAC + SEC and the survivor of the ACC vs B12 battle. 2 years ago I would say the B12 was winning, but now I think the ACC has shifted their power to be the last of the 4 in. Sure there is much talk about several ACC schools going to the B12 like FSU and Clemson, but why would either do it if they have to sell tickets for teams like ISU + KU + KSU + BU + TCU + TT + oSu halfway across the country. At least WVU is closer, but their stadium is still about 20K less than the other 2 which indicates limited demand. Florida State and Clemson have to win some hardware, and get back to where they were before making a jump. 3 of the last 4 SEC adds were former B12 / SWC / B8 schools so not sure Clemson would risk losing the USC game, or Florida State would risk the Florida game if they jumped to the B12.

    The other ND option might be to the only true IND in a playoff conversation by agreeing to play games with all 6 remaining conferences with this sort of format during the regular season :

    3 B1G games = PU + MSU + UM/NU rotation, say 3 wolverine series for each wildcat one
    3 ACC games = Pitt + Miami/FSU/GT/BC/???/??? rotation
    2 PAC games = USC + Stanford
    1 B12 game = UT/OU/WVU/???? rotation
    1 SEC game = VU/?? rotation
    1 BigE game = ???? who knows who will be in the BE in 5-10 years
    2 OTR games = Navy + ????
    playing the 13th regular season game as compensation for not playing a CCG

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Notre Dame might have to choose some other “security blankets.” The talk from earlier this year about it joining the Big Ten alongside Rutgers, Maryland and Georgia Tech (GT being the only one of the three with a significant football relationship with ND) would give Notre Dame some East Coast access for its large alumni base and fans along the seaboard, and GT would provide some recruiting ties into the South.

      Like

    • Mack says:

      I do not think what the Domers do has any effect on getting to 4 superconferences. As long as TX/OK do not bolt for a PAC16 (and ND will NOT be part of the package) you will still have 5 conferences since they will keep the B12 relevant and the ACC is not likely to implode. The only good opportunities for the PAC to get to 16 schools include TX and OK. Even if the ACC imploded I do not think the PAC will make offers to FSU, VT, et. al. and change it name to the Great A&P conference.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        @ Mack,

        Just my opinion, is that any future realignment shakeup depends on what just 2 schools do, and those schools are Texas (due to size) and Notre Dame due to national scope. That said, and Frank has alluded to, the ACC is getting stronger, and the B12 is getting weaker. You can not get rid of Nebraska & TAMU (with 80K stadiums) + Colorado (academics and flagship) + Missouri (single state school with population) and replace them with a small poor state school and a private city school in your existing footprint, and not decrease your value. Many on here have discussed the past to years that incremental additions must exceed linear value and approach exponential value.

        Oklahoma has a football history, but they have lessened academics, a sister school in Oklahoma State, and a smaller base population. Nebraska had a small state and football history, but being the only college or pro team in the state just sweetens the pot. Notre Dame is like Stanford in that they have been around long enough, and have enough money that folks will still invite them to the party. The point in this is that I really think the ACC is no longer in fear of implosion because they have more than just 1 or 2 schools and a limited market.

        The B12 will get their team into the 4 if they are named Texas or Oklahoma, but as this past season proved, the same may not be true for the Oklahoma States, and the Kansas States in the league. the issue is what happens in the years when UT and OU can’t make the final 4 cutoff? If your last spot is between a second B12 or SEC team, Oregon, Florida State, and a secondary B12 team like Baylor. I am willing to bet Baylor finishes in 5th place every time to the other 4. Just look at who played in January bowl games this year :

        B1G = 6
        SEC = 6
        ACC = 2
        PAC = 2
        B12 = 2
        BigE = 1

        The big money bowls are in january, and if your conference is not heavily engaged, you are just on a slowly leaking ship.

        Like

        • Mack says:

          The problem the XII has is not ranking for its no-name champions, but bowl commissioners like the Sugar going way down the list to pick VaTech (how did that work for them) and MI. With a 4 team playoff, it is the ACC champion that is likely to be left out even if the XII champion is Baylor. As far as bowls, the XII is favored by the Texas based bowls while the ACC loses out to the SEC for FL bowls.
          XII is weaker, but compared to SEC and B1G, Pitt and Syracuse did not make the ACC stronger.
          : ND to B1G.. Will B1G taking 1 ACC school make others likely to go to XII? ND to ACC.. makes ACC stronger, but not going to effect PAC,SEC,B1G or XII. ND to XII .. makes it more likely for ACC to be #12 in the unlikely event this happened. Now TX moving is likely to cause XII implosion, therefore, it is more a key than Domers… but may be a long time coming if there is a 13 year TV rights lockup.

          Like

  41. John says:

    Whatever the Playoff system that’s adopted I think it would be appropriate to award an automatic invite in Year 1 to the Idaho Vandals. Absolutely screwed through no fault of there own.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I wouldn’t say that its no fault of their own. They are playing in a 16,000 seat domed stadium 15 years after they made the jump to I-A. That’s totally their fault and the biggest reason noone is interested. From what I’ve read, they were halfway doing Pac membership as well and that’s why they effectively got kicked out of there 50 years ago. If they had committed then they might still be in the Pac. If they had committed to a better stadium, they very well could be in the MWC. They had a more competitive program than Boise when both moved up in 1996. I read they are leading the WAC all sports competition. But they have a I-AA stadium.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Did the NCAA eliminate the attendance rule, because you shouldn’t be able to be I-A with a stadium that small?

        Like

        • bullet says:

          They only have to get 15k every other year. And noone really seems concerned about it anymore. They did eliminate the 30k stadium rule. I believe the 1st year they had to play in WSU’s stadium (or maybe the rule changed just before and they planned to play there).

          Like

  42. Playoffs Now says:

    I wouldn’t read too much into this, in fact the ACC may have also been there and just not mentioned in this tiny quip, but:

    http://wvgazette.com/Sports/todayssportscolumn/201205030325

    Luck’s schedule is jammed…But he had just returned from Big 12 meetings in Phoenix. It was the first such get-together for WVU.

    “It went well,” Luck said. “What’s kind of interesting is there were also those from the Pac-12, SEC and Big Ten there. So there were chances to visit with other ADs.”

    Luck said in regard to the Big 12, ESPN and Fox networks were present to talk about logistics, but “there was no discussion of a longer TV deal or extension.”

    OBTW, Chip Brown says, “The school to watch as we go forward appears to be Florida State…” He isn’t saying it is going to happen, but rather that there may (or may not) be some smoke to the fire.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Apparently the Fiesta Bowl sponsors an annual group of meetings and many of the conferences hold their spring meetings in Phoenix at the same time. I had previously seen it mentioned that both the Big 12 and Pac 12 meetings were in Phoenix last week.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        If it was Fiesta Bowl-sponsored, the ACC likely wasn’t invited. I can’t think of any members the Fiesta Bowl would like to have in its game, unless that team was unbeaten and ranked third…and even then it would have to be one of the schools that travels well.

        Like

  43. Read The D says:

    From comments and links on this board it seems that Clemson FANS may want to leave the ACC. If there’s anything I’ve learned from realignment it is that fans and alumni are often the spark that starts the administrations fire.

    Nebraska and A&M fans felt slighted by UT. Missouri fans felt slighted (wrongly) by the Big 12 for not helping them into the Orange Bowl over Kansas.

    The Board of Regents at these schools usually gives final approval and those boards are usually composed of some die hard fans.

    That said, if Clemson wants to go to the Big 12 would they go alone without other ACC members? Louisville will jump if asked so #12 is no problem.

    Also – remembering back when WVU was turned down by the ACC (can’t find links), I seem to recall Georgia Tech being the deciding NO vote. I can’t imagine them changing conferences to join WVU and Kansas State, Oklahoma State, etc.

    If Clemson and Florida State join, then Virginia Tech has to be next on the list. I think they would be preferable to Miami and Georgia Tech in the Big 12’s eyes.

    Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech and Miami and an Orange Bowl tie in would be a dream scenario for the Big 12.

    Like

    • wmtiger says:

      VT seems pretty bonded to the ACC and Virginia; I can’t see them leaving without the ACC imploding but your scenario is one where the ACC pretty much does just that. Still seems pretty unlikely at this point but there is some momentum (albeit very small) for most of these teams towards leaving the ACC.

      Like

    • JOG says:

      If Clemson, Florida State, are looking for greener pastures (see http://www.cemetery-hill.com) perhaps they should gauge VT, Texas and ND’s interest in forming a brand new conference consisting primarily/exclusively of football powerhouses with as few as 6 schools.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      FSU holds the key. If the ‘Noles leave, the ACC disintegrates. As for VTech, both the SEC and B12 have VTech “next on their list”. Doesn’t mean the Hokies are going anywhere. In the Tidewater region, UVa, UNC, and Duke are big academic brands, and the Hokies have been trying to associate themselves with UVa for close to a century now.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Also, if the Hokies leave, it’ll be for the SEC. No sense for VTech to go to the B12 when the SEC wants them.

        Like

        • Andy says:

          Feel free not to believe me, but I’ve heard that the SEC doesn’t want VT. They looked into it and decided against VT for two reasons: 1) they found that VT doesn’t really deliver the Virginia TV markets, and 2) VT is not an AAU school. They want to get more AAU schools and become a respectable league academically.

          I’m sure that if the SEC had to expand to 16, VT would be a possibility, but they’re probably 7th or 8th on the SEC’s list.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            Trouble is, the AAU members of the ACC (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech) would largely be aghast about joining the SEC (many Ga. Tech alums, particularly older ones who remember the SEC years, might feel differently, but that ship has sailed). For UMd, UVa, UNC and Duke, joining the SEC would be perceived as jumping into a swamp of corrupt football recruiting and dropping 20 points from your IQ.

            In short, the ACC schools the SEC wants don’t want the SEC, and the ACC schools whose fan bases want the SEC (Clemson, Florida State) really aren’t wanted by the SEC. (Sort of goofy, but true.) Add that N.C. State would be very difficult to pry from the UNC system (much more so than trying to pull Virginia Tech away from UVa), and the Gobblers may be the only ACC member the SEC could realistically get.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The SEC has invited FSU before. The gentlemen’s agreement to keep them out is fiction. FSU would be crazy not to invite FSU if they were interested. Georgia Tech and Louisville don’t add anything to a conference with UK and UGA. Clemson doesn’t add enough to a conference with S. Carolina, but FSU with Florida’s population and FSU’s tradition is a valuable add.

            #1 is important, but VT has more students and more football success over the last 20 years. If they can’t deliver Virginia, can anyone? The Big 10 knew Nebraska was at risk of losing AAU. They’ve considered Notre Dame. I find it hard to believe VT not being AAU would cause the SEC not to be interested. They are probably closer to AAU status than any of the 10 non-AAU schools in the SEC other than UGA.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            vp19, I agree that the SEC is unlikely to get the ACC AAU schools unless the ACC falls apart, which is unlikely. I don’t think the SEC will expand again any time in the foreseeable future short of an ACC collapse.

            bullet, it’s not just that VT isn’t AAU, it’s also because the SEC’s market research showed that it wouldn’t deliver the markets they wanted, namely DC, Richmond, etc.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Andy,
            delivering markets is what it is all about. But if VT can’t deliver, that probably means Virginia is like NY City and noone can. I would be surprised that either VT or UVA couldn’t deliver a good portion on their own. Both normally average 60k+, so its not like they fit the profile of the new Big East schools.

            Like

          • Bob in Houston says:

            bullet:

            If the SEC had no problems with FSU or Clemson, how did Missouri get in? If it was a new-market play, that’s fine, but why not fill out? You whack the ACC — it becomes irrelevant in football and completely lock up the southeast.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Because FSU didn’t want to join the SEC. They didn’t 20 years ago. They chose the ACC. The FSU president also made some remarks last year when the Cam Newton and other things were going on to the effect that he was glad he wasn’t in the SEC.

            FSU is a definite step above Clemson in the hierarchy, both for football success and for the Florida market. So the SEC probably wouldn’t take Clemson (given that they already have S. Carolina).

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            FSU is a definite step above Clemson in the hierarchy, both for football success and for the Florida market. So the SEC probably wouldn’t take Clemson (given that they already have S. Carolina).

            Florida State staying in the ACC wouldn’t preclude Clemson from leaving. It would probably mean that its expansion partner would instead be Louisville.

            Like

    • vp19 says:

      I don’t think the partner would make any difference for Clemson, as long as it was from the east. Certainly the Tigers have more ties with Florida State, even post-Bowden, but Louisville is roughly the same distance from Clemson.

      Like

    • Andy says:

      Read the D, Missouri leaving the Big 12 wasn’t about the Orange Bowl. Missouri has been trying to leave since the 90s or earlier. They had long wanted to be in the Big Ten, and saw the SEC as the next best thing. The Big 12 is an afterthought league in the flyover filled with subpar schools with smallish fanbases. They saw the Big Ten or SEC as a way to get more national attention, more money, more fans, more prestige. Any rhetoric about this being about Texas or unfairness is just a smokescreen. Missouri was using it as an excuse to get what they wanted all along.

      Like

  44. Mike says:

    I missed this yesterday, but this could be great for the college baseball:

    http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on-baseball/18955297/ncaa-mlb-in-talks-for-partnership-to-help-college-baseball


    The NCAA and Major League Baseball are in active discussions to develop a broad partnership that could result in a boom to the game at the collegiate level, according to a report obtained by CBSSports.com.

    The partnership is aimed at expanding the importance of college baseball and is expected to result a significant investment by MLB that could include funding scholarships across the sport. The NCAA Board of Directors was briefed on the matter last week at their annual meeting.

    [snip]

    In addition to providing monetary support, the NCAA and MLB will explore joint efforts to improve diversity in the sport at both levels. According to the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports, the percentage of black players in the major leagues last year increased to 8.8 from 8.5, which had been the lowest level since 2007, while the percentage of Latino players remained at 27 percent. NCAA data shows that just five percent of baseball players in the 2010-2011 school year were black at the Division I level, while six percent were Latino.

    Other talks have centered on adjusting the timing of the College World Series and the MLB draft to line up better and the possibility that college switches to wood bats throughout the sport.

    The NFL has got a free minor league system for years, and maybe MLB is realizing that college could be beneficial to them as well? Not only are the players not paid, but facilities for Strength and Conditioning, nutrition, and support are better (at football schools anyway) than most minor league sites.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Could this lead to a change in the college baseball season that would move the College World Series to August, with a resulting change in the time of year for the MLB draft? Remember, the Big Ten has toyed with moving baseball to summer, and playing college baseball later in the year would make competition more equitable for schools outside the Sun Belt.

      Like

      • Mike says:

        I have to think it’s a possibility. If (a big if) MLB starts allowing its best prospects stay in college (like the NHL does) they will not want them playing in the snow in Ann Arbor in March.

        I think keeping the best players in college is a great move for MLB. People watch games they wouldn’t care about because a player that played for their school plays for that team. If they are trying to build interest, then why not better the product that already has thousands of people who will identify with the school if given a reason to do so. People will watch Ohio St. vs Michigan baseball if the quality of the game is good enough.

        Like

  45. Carl says:

    add

    Like

  46. duffman says:

    Alan,

    congrats on that road win last night in 13

    1 run games are becoming the norm this season

    Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      duff – thanks. My Tigers went 3-1 last week, defeating Tulane and taking 2 of 3 in Oxford. Ole Miss usually brings out the worst in LSU, and the Rebel Black Bears have a very talented team, so winning that series was an accomplishment.

      As always, winning close games is the difference between a great season and one that sucks. Last year, LSU was 7-10 in 1 & 2 run games. This season, the Tigers are 14-5 in 1 & 2 run games.

      Like

  47. duffman says:

    Boiler Tex,

    Good luck on that doubleheader today, show the west coast the Purdue team is for real

    Like

  48. Eric says:

    I think people have underestimated the Big 12 for a long time and that it is going to continue to be looked at as better than the PAC-12 and ACC competitively for awhile going forward.

    With that said, I think the key ingredient’ missing from moving Florida State and Clemson to the Big 12 is a strong institutional desire or need. Let’s look at the moves so far: Colorado wanted to be associated with the PAC-10 forever. Nebraska was initially worried about stability, but the Big Ten was a big move up academically. Texas A&M saw a chance to fulfill what the vast majority of its fans were demanding and a chance to differentiate themselves more (before all the realignment, the president said something about people outside Texas lumping them and Tech together, I was one of them). Missouri also saw a ton of instability and had a fanbase that would have revolted with a no. West Virginia and TCU both saw the chance to move up into one of the five tie-in conferences and no questioned that was a move up. All the Big East additions were given the chance to play in an AQ conference and no one doubted that was a move up.

    This bring me back Florida State and Clemson. What are the reasons for leaving the ACC? Money is probably clearly number one. A growing desire to leave in their fanbase is number 2 and that can be very significant, but unlike Missouri and Texas A&M I don’t think this is completely united and think solving the money issue would end a lot of the complaints.

    If money really is the main issue then, I don’t see the two schools leaving. If it really gets close to that point, both the ACC and ESPN would be willing to work with them. The ACC might really want to keep equal revenue sharing, but if the choice comes down to keeping Florida State or giving it up, I think they give it up in a heartbeat. ESPN meanwhile has the ACC contract for 11 more years. They would much rather increase the ACC’s pay somewhat to keep Florida State than lose them, still have to pay the ACC, and then have to bid more for the Big 12. In short, I think the ACC and ESPN together (or separately) would be willing to offer just enough to make leaving and the $20 million exit fee not worth it.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I don’t know if its true, but a number of people have said FSU and Clemson are unhappy with the unwillingness of the ACC to work with them on football scheduling. Things like bye weeks before Thursday game and, tough conference games right after or before tough ooc games.

      But if the money is big enough its sufficient on its own. If they fall behind their SEC neighbors, it hurts their program. If the Big 12-2-1+1-1+1 becomes the Big 14, then geography isn’t that big a detriment anymore. The ACC is pretty spread.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        I do get general unhappyness on things. I guess I just think the ACC will compromise if it’s really at risk of losing them.

        If they have to end equal revenue sharing to keep Florida State, I think they’ll do it. They won’t like it, but at the end of the day, a conference without equal revenue sharing and with Florida State is more valuable than the reverse (especially since it could spiral into other teams leaving).

        If they have to come up with concessions on scheduling to keep the Noles, again I think they do it.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          Put another way, with all the other defections, it felt like the raiding conference offered something that the raided conference couldn’t. It might be difficult, but I think the ACC can offer the things Florida State wants. The only way I think the Big 12 pulls them in is if they can convince Florida State’s president to fall in love with the idea of a superconference that dominates Texas and Florida (or at least is very powerful in both).

          Like

    • vp19 says:

      The problem is somewhat money, more so the ACC’s lack of a viable football culture, which leads to less than optimal recruiting. The ACC can find a way to take care of the first problem, but short of dumping basketball to second-class status (anathema in the Research Triangle), it can’t solve the second. All things being equal, I think Clemson and Florida State are outta there if the Big 12 can prove its viability.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        A further explanation: In the Big 12, Big Ten and SEC, Kansas, Indiana and Kentucky are viewed as basketball-oriented outliers. In the ACC, that status belongs to Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech (and to a lesser extent Georgia Tech and Miami), football-oriented schools, even though football brings in far more money than basketball. Is it any wonder Clemson and FSU fans are frustrated, especially with cross-state rivals in the football uber alles environment of the SEC?

        Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          I hope that FSU is very careful what it wishes for. Joining the Big 12 as a way to keep from falling too far behind the other national powers financially is one thing; the Big 12 would certainly provide a substantial boost from the ACC’s payout.

          But I doubt a typical Big 12 home schedule would be all that more interesting of a schedule than the ACC provides. First all, the Big 12 divisions would almost certainly put FSU in the opposite division from OU and UT. That would put FSU in the same division with Clemson, WVU, and, most likely, Iowa State and the Kansas schools. Iowa State and Kansas dont seem all that more appealing than Wake Forest or Boston College, except at least with BC and with Wake, there’s at least some sense of familiarity and doesnt feel like some randkm team from a completely unrelated region.A nine game conference schedule is here to stay for the Big 12, so, short of a successful Miami invitation to the Big 12, that great rivalry would have to be dropped. (The Florida game is a higher priority.) Let’s not forget, either, that affiliating with other ACC schools provides a degree of academic notoriety that the Big 12 simply does not offer.

          vp19,

          I agree with you that certain factions of FSU’s fan base (and Clemson’s for that matter) are envious of their in-state opponents’ conference’s superior football culture. But I think it would be a tremendous mistake to try alleviating that jealousy by joining a league many hundreds of miles west that is only marginally more enthusiastic, on the whole, about football than the conference it’s been a member of for 20 years.

          Like

          • duffman says:

            football culture is a two tier deal in the B12 :

            TX and OK schools = yes
            the rest = not so much

            The best sign of football culture is the schools with stadiums over 70,000 – 80,000 seats

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            football culture is a two tier deal in the B12 :

            TX and OK schools = yes
            the rest = not so much

            The best sign of football culture is the schools with stadiums over 70,000 – 80,000 seats

            If Clemson and Florida State left the ACC for the Big 12, the members with on-campus stadiums that size would be Big 12 four, ACC none.

            Like

    • vp19 says:

      This bring me back Florida State and Clemson. What are the reasons for leaving the ACC? Money is probably clearly number one. A growing desire to leave in their fanbase is number 2 and that can be very significant, but unlike Missouri and Texas A&M I don’t think this is completely united and think solving the money issue would end a lot of the complaints.

      It’s not united only in terms of Big 12 vs. SEC; both fan bases would prefer the SEC, all things being equal. If Clemson and Florida State’s fans are ultimately convinced that the SEC won’t take them under any circumstances, support for the Big 12 will grow considerably. To be fair, some of them are hoping to use this as a gambit in order to persuade the SEC to take them out of fear they would go to a more competitive conference than the ACC.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        In other words, even if the money issue was resolved, the anger both schools’ fan bases have for the ACC and its perceived basketball-first attitude wouldn’t dissipate. It’s comparable to Missouri’s feelings for the Big 12, and when its fans realized the Big Ten was no longer an option, support for the SEC grew. If administrators at Clemson and Florida State don’t realize this and remain in the ACC, the fans will revolt.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          The anger is growing and I think we have certainly seen what that can cause in the last 2 years. With that said, if the ACC announces a few changes I don’t think we are to the point the fanbases would be completely united behind a move yet and it will take a very large majority to push this through if other issues can be resolved (if that is even enough)

          Like

      • I see two possible political reasons behind the rumors.
        1. For reasons stated above, FSU and Clemson would be geographical islands if they were teams 11 and 12 to the Big 12. Their fans would NOT be pleased with the new opponents, especially after 20 years of building rivalries with regionally close teams in the ACC in all sports. But…if the tremors created by these rumors can dislodge more ACC teams, then the Big 12 might be able to seriously poach the ACC. FSU and Miami would be huge gets…add Clemson and Louisivlle and now you have 14 teams, with a nice block of 5 teams from West Virginia to Florida on the east coast. That’s a solid division.

        2. Any push from the Big 12 into the south could impinge on the SEC stranglehold on the deep south. The SEC pushed into Texas and up into Missouri, but I can’t imagine they want more competition in their home turf. So, if Clemson and FSU wanted to grab the SEC’s attention, this would be the IDEAL way to do it. There are two spots left in the SEC at this point…and while the Tigers and the Seminoles wouldn’t expand any geographical markets, it would certainly add two programs of equal or greater football prowess than Mizzou/TAMU.

        Like

        • To elaborate on point 2…
          SEC East
          Clemson
          South Carolina
          Florida State
          Florida
          Tennessee
          Georgia
          Kentucky
          Vanderbilt

          SEC West
          Missouri (more natural in the west)
          TAMU
          Arkansas
          LSU
          Alabama
          Auburn
          Miss St
          Ole Miss

          That would be a sick, sick football conference. Short of Texas, OU, and ND to the Big Ten, I can’t even imagine another possible combination of teams to rival it.

          Like

          • Phil says:

            Weren’t there stories after the first ACC raid of the Big East (Mia/BC/VTech) that one reason for it was as a preemptive strike to improve the strength of the football conference because FSU/Clem/GTech were unhappy and possible candidates to jump ship?

            If so, that means there have been factions within these ACC schools that have been unhappy for LONG time, and their feelings have probably only been strengthened be watching schools like Neb, A+M and Mizzou improve their situations.

            Like

          • But those teams all moved OUT of the Big 12…not into it. 🙂

            Like

          • Brian #2 says:

            I like this look for potential four-team pods:

            West:
            LSU
            A&M
            Missouri
            Arkansas

            Southwest:
            Alabama
            Auburn
            Ole Miss
            Miss State

            Southeast:
            Georgia
            Tennessee
            Florida
            Vandy

            East:
            Florida State
            South Carolina
            Clemson
            Kentucky

            Like

        • vp19 says:

          For reasons stated above, FSU and Clemson would be geographical islands if they were teams 11 and 12 to the Big 12. Their fans would NOT be pleased with the new opponents, especially after 20 years of building rivalries with regionally close teams in the ACC in all sports. But…if the tremors created by these rumors can dislodge more ACC teams, then the Big 12 might be able to seriously poach the ACC. FSU and Miami would be huge gets…add Clemson and Louisville and now you have 14 teams, with a nice block of 5 teams from West Virginia to Florida on the east coast. That’s a solid division.

          What rivalries? While Clemson has a rivalry of sorts with N.C. State (the Textile Bowl) and one with Georgia Tech, both pale beside the Tigers vs. South Carolina. In that vein, Florida State’s chief rival is Florida. (What about Miami, you say? That rivalry has seen better days, and in the wake of Miami’s recent scandals, I seriously doubt Miami it would currently be interested in leaving the ACC, especially since the conference is bringing in former Big East cohorts Syracuse and Pittsburgh.) A 14-team Big 12 could be on the table, but with Brigham Young, not Miami, as member #14.

          Yes, Clemson and FSU might be using the Big 12 as threats to wedge their way into the SEC, but even if that conference wouldn’t bite, their fans would view the Big 12 as a far better option than being associated with the basketball-oriented ACC’s pallid, impotent football brand.

          Like

          • Maybe I just don’t understand FSU’s fans then. Miami joined the Big East and just destroyed them. (Then moved on to the ACC and can’t get its mojo back) FSU joined the ACC and just destroyed them. But now, neither team can win the conference, let alone dominate it. How is that the league’s fault? If Wake Forest and Maryland were better teams with better fans, then suddenly FSU would be awesome again? Huh? Like I said, I don’t get it.

            As a PSU fan, I understand not “loving” the conference you are in, but if you told me that the Big 12 or SEC were the possible places PSU was thinking about jumping, I’d laugh at you. FSU is real excited about the budding Texas Tech and Iowa State rivalries…. weird. Way better, they say, than Virginia and Georgia Tech.

            Like

          • Brian #2 says:

            FSU fans may not be excited about the Texas Tech or Iowa State games, but they surely are excited about potential games against Texas, OU, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, etc.

            The Big 12 is a football conference. The ACC is a basketball conference with 2/3 football members, and that is illustrated in their terrible TV contracts.

            FSU cannot compete over the long-term with the power teams in the SEC if they are receiving over $10-15 million less in revenue per year. The other ACC schools don’t mind as much because basketball is less capital-intensive than football. If FSU can increase their revenue significantly by joining the Big 12 – and they get a final verdict from the SEC that they will not get an invite – they would be crazy to not strongly consider it.

            Like

        • Brian #2 says:

          “2. Any push from the Big 12 into the south could impinge on the SEC stranglehold on the deep south. The SEC pushed into Texas and up into Missouri, but I can’t imagine they want more competition in their home turf. So, if Clemson and FSU wanted to grab the SEC’s attention, this would be the IDEAL way to do it. There are two spots left in the SEC at this point…and while the Tigers and the Seminoles wouldn’t expand any geographical markets, it would certainly add two programs of equal or greater football prowess than Mizzou/TAMU.”

          I think this is EXACTLY what FSU and Clemson are attempting to do. Up until now, the SEC has been able to hold them off and focus on expanding into new states. They went into Texas and Missouri, and there has been talk of focusing on Virginia and North Carolina for future expansion.

          But FSU and Clemson are threatening to allow the Big 12 to come in and plant its flag in the Southeast region, a threat the SEC likely never thought was realistic. This is FSU and Clemson basically telling the SEC now or never. Is the SEC willing to let these two schools go to the Big 12 simply on the off chance that they may be able to add other ACC schools at some point down the line? Seems like a big gamble to let a king in your own backyard get away.

          Like

    • Peter says:

      Competitiveness isn’t the (biggest) issue with the Big 12. West Virginia is good and the TCU team that beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl could well have won the Big 12 (never mind stomping A&M). The biggest issue for the Big 12 is that they have the state of Texas feeding 10 schools financially. Losing Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri devastated the conference’s geographic footprint, taking out one of the three national football brands and over 12 million people. Adding West Virginia did next-to-nothing to change that loss; the state is the size of Nebraska but without any of the football tradition, national cache or ABC distribution weight.

      TCU doesn’t bring anything to the table other than a generally competitive team. They have no national interest as a power-conference member and they are located in, well, Texas.

      The Big 12 still exists and is reasonably solid as an entity because it has Texas & OU, and neither one can really go anywhere else. The other four conferences either don’t want Texas’ political BS, won’t take financial & academic dead weight schools as tag-a-longs, or both. The B1G, for example, would be interested in Texas but there is NO ONE else in the Big 12 they want, including Oklahoma. Football fans always underestimate how prestigious university boards feel about academic prestige; the backlash Oklahoma got from the PAC would be dwarfed by the Wisconsin & Michigan-led opposition from the B1G. Those two of course care about football, but it’s not what pays for the party. Their billions in research dollars do that.

      If the Big 12 expands, it’ll be strictly for money. And that means that any #11 needs to more than pay for itself and pay for a #12 if necessary. FSU/Clemson would need to be absolutely blockbuster in $$$ value because if it doesn’t substantially raise what Texas gets, Texas won’t do it.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I think the primary Pac opposition to OU was due to scheduling. Access to LA (i.e. playing USC and UCLA) is essential to everyone in the Pac. Noone, not even CU is willing to give up visits to LA to play OU. Stanford and Cal may have had academic complaints, but that’s only 2 votes.

        Like

      • Mack says:

        The XII would expand for FSU / Clemson, but those schools are not likely to leave the ACC within the next few years. For the reasons you state the XII is not likely to get back to 12 because the $$$ for Louisville / Rutgers / Cincinnati etc. do not work for TX. . . . . . There will never be a PAC16 unless TX and OK are members, and if TX was willing to ditch the LHN it could get an invite to any conference. Besides big footballl $$ TX is also AAU with a large endowment.

        Like

        • vp19 says:

          You vastly overrate the unity in the ACC. The conference simply has too weak a football brand (if it has a brand at all) to satisfy Clemson and Florida State, and anything short of a complete change in ACC philosophy will force them out. They are plain sick and tired of being led by basketball-oriented people in Greensboro. The SEC would be their optimal landing place, but since that likely isn’t available, the next best choice is the Big 12.

          Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            I think you vastly overstate how basketball-driven the ACC is when it comes to expansion decisions. Do you think Florida State was added for basketball? How about Miami or Virginia Tech? No, they were all added for football. BC was added with the intent of capturing a market, not necessarily for their strength in either sport. Pitt and Syracuse were added over West Virginia not because of basketball but because of academics and market. If things were as basketball-driven as you’re suggesting, Louisville would have gotten in over Pitt.

            I don’t think the disgust from FSU or Clemson fans is as great as you suggest. For Clemson, they’re still getting a great home schedule with non-conference games and good rivalries with FSU and GT. For FSU, that ACC tournament title was extra special because it was in the ACC, which historically is the most prestigious basketball conference. Also, as mentioned before, leaving the ACC for the Big 12’s 9-game league schedule would require giving up the Miami or Florida rivalry. (I, for one, don’t think it’s worth trading annual games against one of them for two-on, two-off against Oklahoma or Texas. Kansas and Iowa State aren’t much of an improvement from Wake and BC, and the latter data least provide some geographical sense.)

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Yes, ACC expansion decisions have been football-driven, but at least in recent years (aside from Virginia Tech) they haven’t worked. Miami has been a major disappointment, Boston College fair to middling, and in the current environment I honestly don’t see Florida State returning to a perennial national powerhouse as an ACC member. SEC dominance these past half-dozen years has severely weakened the ACC football brand, which was never strong to begin with, and makes Clemson and FSU recruiting all the more difficult. They would have more value in a Big 12 environment.

            Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Mack:
          If UT would ditch the LHN (which they can’t because its espn’s) they could get into any conference…that would take OU (with OkSU in tow) and probably TT.

          Like

    • Steve says:

      I would love to see this rivalry resurrected; Long overdue thanks to JoePa’s pettiness. But, I’m not sure if Pitt would want to play both Notre Dame and PSU each year, plus nine ACC games. That would be a tough schedule. Look’s like the West Virginia rivalry is dead, at least for the next few years.

      Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        How would Pitt rank the teams it would most want to play annually non-conference among Penn State, West Virginia, and Notre Dame?

        Like

        • Steve says:

          1. Penn State
          2. Notre Dame
          3. West Virginia

          There was some talk back in January of Pitt setting up a rotation with Penn State and West Virginia where PSU would play Maryland for two years while Pitt played WV. Then, Pitt would play PSU for two years and WV would play Maryland. Pitt and ND would play 4 of 6 years. However, it sounds like things have changed and Pitt and WV may take a hiatus for several years due to WV moving to the Big-12 and complaints from Pitt fans of rowdy WV fan behavior, especially at games in Morgantown. I believe Pitt’s top priority is an annual rivalry game with Penn State, even if it’s in September rather than the last game of the season. There have also been rumors that the relationship between Pitt and ND has cooled a bit since Pitt joined the ACC. ND was caught by surprise and was very disappointed by the move of Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC because it will probably complicate ND’s scheduling in the future.

          Like

    • largeR says:

      As a state alum from the eastern side of Pa., I have no desire for PSU to play Pitt on an annual basis. I think it is common knowledge that PSU has offered to play Pitt annually on a two for one basis which is what Temple has been doing for years. I can understand Pittsburgh not likeing or accepting that. That said, I would much rather have PSU rotate one and ones with Maryland, Rutgers, Syraacuse and Pittsburgh. I personally feel our annual Ohio State, Wisconsin and Nebraska games, and four out of ten with Michigan and Michigan State (which I wish were six out of ten, instead of the PAC 12 deal)far overshadow anything a Pitt rivalry brings. I would think PSU fans from the west side, probably don’t agree with me. Any thoughts, Nitts?

      Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        Grew up 45 minutes east of Pittsburgh…zero desire to see Pitt on a yearly basis. In fact, I was at a PSU home game last year where the stadium actually cheered Pitt when the scores were announced…that rivalry has fallen completely off the map of most PSU fans.

        Like

    • Eric says:

      If this series does resume, I don’t think completely annual is likely, but maybe they could do it like Notre Dame-Michigan looks to be going. Plan on it most years, but leave the option open for other opponents every few years.

      If the idea of rotation is serious, maybe Penn State would want Notre Dame in on that too. I think they’d be very open to the possibility of playing Notre Dame some years and Notre Dame might be willing to exchange Pitt for Penn State some years. Not sure there would be interest in Maryland-Notre Dame though.

      Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        When you do the math I don’t think PSU would ever go for it.

        1 MAC-rifice game to open up with
        1 PAC School starting in a couple years
        1 Temple game, since they give 2-1 home-away, give better exposure to PSU’s historic recruiting grounds
        1 “Random Old Eastern Independent Foe”

        IMO, Pitt could be on the rotation, along with ND, Syracuse, BC, Rutgers, Maryland, etc, on that last game, but short of really making it worth Penn State’s time to get rid of a MAC-rifice or slide into the Temple slot I just don’t see Pitt / PSU playing more often.

        Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          Mean to say PSU would never go for a yearly Pitt game. You’re suggestion of a rotation does fit similarly with what I see PSU doing already.

          Like

        • Steve says:

          If strength of schedule is added back into the BCS poll computation PSU may need to drop one of their OOC cupcake games to remain competitive with other schools. Also, if B1G expects a big $$$ increase for new TV contract in 2017 they may need to provide more compelling match ups than Temple or a MAC opponent.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            You’re assuming that PSU would value playoff possible seeding (once every few years?) over the money and wins from hosting cupcakes. Will SOS even trump wins in the new formula?

            As for the TV money, my understanding is the TV deal is based on conference games because that’s what is guaranteed. Maybe locked in rivals count some. The BTN may have more influence, but it clearly hasn’t influenced PSU so far. PSU will already be providing at least 9 decent games (8 B10, 1 P12), and they also usually play another eastern AQ (kinda 2 now that Temple is BE). That’s 11 of 12 games, so I don’t think anyone’s going to say much to them.

            If anyone in the B10 gets pressure, it should be WI.

            Like

        • Richard says:

          The rotation really only has to be Pitt, Rutgers, and Maryland. BC and ND don’t really bring recruiting exposure to places that have a lot of recruits and where PSU doesn’t visit in conference anyway, and the same is true for ‘Cuse as well unless Syracuse is willing to play their home games in the Meadowlands. Still, that doesn’t add up to 7 home games, unless the “Random Old Eastern Independent Foe” is played only 1/3rd of the time (or are willing to play a 2-for-1). PSU may want to look to schedule Navy more often. Possibly Army as well.

          Like

  49. Pat says:

    Michigan wants to play PAC-12 team in 2014. Stanford or USC?
    A night game at the Big House with USC would be sweet!
    http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120505/OPINION03/205050382/1361/U-M-wants-to-play-Pac-12-team-in-2014–how-about-Stanford-or-USC?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Personally I think they should play OR again. Maybe UW if they get their act together. Stanford if they show they can stay good without Harbaugh or Luck.

      Like

    • wmtiger says:

      I’d like to play the California teams more; USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal… Been along time since we played in Northern California…

      Like

      • Brian says:

        MI seems due for another once per decade UCLA series. MI has little regular season history with Cal, Stanford or USC.

        Like

    • duffman says:

      Can you link the first part of that PSU site post along with part II on your own site? I linked it but did not want to search for part I. also, I would add Wilner for PAC stuff even tho he is a newspaper guy more than a blog source. There are some decent B12 and ACC sites, but too much bandwidth gets chewed up in fantasy that supported by links and hard facts. You might want to add Dosh site to your list as well as we seem to use it on here quite a bit.

      Like

      • joe4psu says:

        duffman,

        If you’re talking about the expansion threads from the Scout site Part I is gone. Threads can’t be accessed after so long and since it had the max number of posts I couldn’t keep it updated. Thus Expansion II. There is a link to the first post on the first page of the current thread, which takes you to the Audibles board instead of the thread, but I’ve messaged a mod to see if there’s a way to access the older one.

        http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=8148941&p=1

        And thanks for the tip on Wilner. I’ve found occasional tweets and articles from him but don’t follow him specifically.

        I spoke too soon on the blog. I haven’t had time to get it going but I guess just keeping a list of articles like to thread on the Scout site will be my first goal.

        Like

    • Mike says:

      FWIW, I remember a post on Mr. SEC where he said he had Mr Big Ten (and Mr B1G?) copyrighted. Something to look into, I Don’t want you to get sued.

      Like

  50. wmtiger says:

    Really like the proposal of the 4-team playoff with the top 4 conference champions getting in, provided they are in the top 6… Hosts for semis are tied in to the conferences bowls; e.g. Rose is B10/Pac 12, Sugar is SEC, Orange is ACC & Fiesta is Big XII…

    Now the hard part is dividing up all the revenue. As much as I’d like to see all the 5 major conferences get an equal share (and ND getting its share), that is tough to do without anti-trust issues and the minor conferences objecting vehemently.

    I think we’ll have much like we have now, major bowls will have tie-ins instead of AQ (Oranges to Tangerines). Current major bowls will be expanded with 2 more major bowls; Cotton and maybe Capital One who will have to pay more revenue to host their bowls. All the major conferences will get a tie-in to a BCS/major bowl (5 major conferences tied to the 4 bowls).

    I think in the major bowls we’ll see tie-ins based more upon revised BCS rankings than conference rank; e.g. Cotton gets tied in to #2 Big XII but only if they are ranked in the top 16 in the country. There will HAVE to be a couple open spots for the best overall, we’ll have to throw the minor conferences a bone and guarantee any team ranked in the top 8 a spot in one of the now 6, major bowls.

    Like

  51. Brian says:

    http://cfn.scout.com/2/1184154.html

    CFN is giving their post-spring rankings of where they expect teams to finish at the end of the year, including talent and schedules. The top 30 come out Tuesday, but here’s a look at the middle and lower ranks.

    B10:
    40. IL 7-5
    41. IA 7-5
    44. PSU 6-6
    50. NW 6-6
    52. PU 6-6
    70. MN 5-7
    85. IN 3-9

    I think IL, MN and IN fans would all happily take those seasons as they show progress. I’m guessing PU and NW fans won’t be thrilled with another 6-6 year, and PSU fans would be really upset. IA fans will start to turn up the heat on Ferentz if another 7-5 season happens, I think. At some point he needs to earn his $3M+ per year and that would be 3 mediocre years in a row. It’s good to see the B10’s worst team projected to be only #85/124. That’s a lot of quality depth if 10 of 12 are in the top 52.

    That leaves OSU, WI, MI, MSU and NE in the top 30, which seems right. It looks like they predict a cakewalk for WI in the East (nobody but OSU with 8 wins). They must expect a three-way battle for the West like most people. I’m guessing they have MSU just ahead of MI with NE a little behind.

    Worst AQs:
    ACC
    67. WF
    74. MD
    79. BC
    90. Duke

    BE
    76. UConn
    101. Temple

    B10
    70. MN
    85. IN

    B12
    68. ISU
    100. KU

    P12
    61. WSU
    72. AZ
    75. CO
    78. OrSU

    SEC
    84. MS
    87. UK

    That’s a pretty weak bottom for the ACC and P12, and the B10’s bottom looks the best of the lot by just a touch.

    Solid depth:
    ACC
    36. Clemson
    46. UNC
    54. Miami

    BE
    37. UC
    47. USF
    51. Pitt
    57. SU

    B10
    40. IL
    41. IA
    44. PSU
    50. NW
    52. PU

    B12
    42. KSU
    43. TT
    60. Baylor

    P12
    34. Stanford
    38. Cal
    48. UW
    56. UCLA
    59. ASU

    SEC
    31. TAMU
    33. TN
    35. MO
    55. Vandy

    Teams left for the top 30:
    ACC – 5/12
    BE – 2/8
    B10 – 5/12
    B12 – 5/10
    P12 – 3/12
    SEC – 8/14

    It looks like they project another year dominated by the SEC and B12 with the B10 a clear 3rd. Still, it’s progress as the B10’s middle and bottom looks to be getting better, and the new coaches should improve some teams from 2012 to 2013. I think the ACC would be happy to have 5 top 30 teams, too.

    Like

  52. acaffrey says:

    Marinatto asked to resign? Proof that the Big East Presidents are the problem, IMHO. Not that he was some uber-competent commissioner, but how can they fire him after what he has pulled off twice to keep the conference at least somewhat relevant? Boise St, San Diego St., Memphis. The damage was caused by Gavitt (Penn State) and Tranghese (loss of Miami). Again, it just smells wrong to me.

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/brett-mcmurphy/18983292

    Like

    • Phil says:

      Wow. Most Big East fans couldn’t disagree with you more, and instead of going off on a long-winded post I will just leave two things for their benefit:

      1. Villanova football
      2. “He’s schooling me”

      Like

      • acaffrey says:

        I am a Big East fan and have been since its formation. Idiot fans blame the wrong people all the time. The Big East is, by design, inherently flawed. It is a basketball conference masquerading as a BCS football conference. The refusal to take Penn State and the failure to keep Miami/Va Tech doomed the conference from a football perspective. From there–a joint vision was simply impossible. The football schools had to have a wandering eye. At best, the diverse interests of the member institutions could only be placated periodically. Providence and Louisville simply do not have the same athletic goals–yet are fused together awkwardly.

        If the Presidents thought Marinatto was the problem, why not get rid of him BEFORE making any school additions? If those were the best additions possible, he succeeded in getting them added–mission accomplished. So why get rid of him now? Is that an admission that the additions were somehow a problem? Then why did you do it?

        But go ahead and follow the knee jerk reaction that the guy in front of the podium should take the fall for following the directions of the guys behind the curtain.

        Like

        • Phil says:

          I don’t hold the presidents blameless, and they had to vote for Marinotto to even get the job.

          To everyone else in the world it was obvious a while ago that football drives the bus, and even a divided conference like the Big East could have survived if the basketball schools were made to accept that and enjoy the ride. Instead they were allowed to control decision-making and were talking about adding a football team playing in an 18M seat soccer stadium just to avoid adding another football school and losing control.

          This isn’t an admission that the new additions are a problem, just that the meatball we had isn’t the guy to oversee implementing those additions and handling negotiations of the TV deal.

          Like

          • acaffrey says:

            “Marinatto also wanted to accept a TV deal a year ago but was shot down by a 12-4 vote with Georgetown leading the charge not to accept.”

            Who knows how differently things go if the TV deal was accepted?

            Like

          • Phil says:

            Would the ACC still have expanded, who knows? Maybe they would have if that is what was needed to get another look at their TV deal.

            Bottom line though, the Big East still would have been the lowest paid of the 6 conferences, with a lot of their games relegated to internet streaming (ESPN has contractually obligated most of their TV time slots to more powerful conferences) so they would have always been at risk for a raid.

            Don’t get me wrong, Marinotto is not at fault for 30 years of bad decisions. He was, however, over-matched in the job and kept the conference going full speed in the bad direction originally steered by Gavitt/Tranghese.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Villanova is a perfect example. 1st, he should have told the Presidents they would be a laughing stock for inviting Villanova. 2nd, the way Villanova was handled was totally unprofessional and unfair to Villanova. He should get plenty of blame for both of those failures.

            Like

          • Eric says:

            I agree Marinotto is a scapegoat here if the past is why he is being fired. Let think about what’s happened since he got there.

            1. The conference was 8/16 when he got there. It was going to take a majority vote at least to expand and expanding was going to cut out money short term as there was unlikely any member who added value beyond the current average football school in the conference. Also expanding out west would have been a much tougher sale then.
            2. After years of peace, massive conference realignment happens. Fortunately, the Big 12 stays at 10 and the Big East isn’t hurt.
            3. TCU shows its potential. Texas is beyond the Big East footprint, but enough schools, including basketball schools (who will likely gain nothing financially from this, in fact they’ll probably lose out) are brought onboard to add them as an all sports member.
            4. Big East offered a good contract, but seeing what the PAC-10 gets, they decide to wait out for true market value.
            5. Villanovia is offered a move up.
            6. Texas A&M, less than a year after deciding it was fine with the Big 12, bucks most experts opinions and leaves for the SEC. This will set off a chain reaction that will leave the Big 12 needing to add 2 and the ACC feeling insecure and also adding 2.
            7. The basketball and remaining football schools are able to come together and agree to a daring strategy to keep the conference going which includes members on the west coast and expansion into several states.

            At the end of the day, not much of this would have been different with a different leader. Could anyone have convinced the presidents to expand seriously before realignment picked up when it looked like the value of the conference was going up and it could be divided fewer ways with fewer members? At the very least, it seems doubtful anyone in the west was going to be added and that is where the teams of the most value lied. Getting TCU even seemed like a big accomplishment given it didn’t help most the basketball schools at all. Beyond that, the strategy almost worked out. The only thing you need to do is change Texas A&M’s decision to leave for the SEC and the policy of slower growth for the Big East (just taking the best eastern non-AQs as they emerged) might have worked fantastically.

            I also understand complaints against Villanovia, but at the end of the day Villanovia isn’t all that different from Temple and Villanovia could at least claim to have already being a Big East member meaning if the conference was going to expand into Philadelphia in anything besides a rush, they pretty much had to be part of the equation.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Eric

            I don’t know about that. Maybe another commissioner does what Larry Scott did with the PAC and convince the Big East that they needed to be more open minded (and in some cases hold there noses) and try aggressive expansion even if it meant a break with tradition and a compromise of values. Maybe a different commissioner tries to negotiate a better TV deal after his original deal was rejected (remember everyone said Larry Scott was insane when he said the PAC would accept no less that $200 million a year only to finalize a deal for $220 million). Maybe a different commissioner tries something really radical like pushing for assignment of TV rights instead of just higher exit penalties and a 27 month pledge that have done absolutely nothing to stop members from leaving.

            And yeah maybe none of these things would have worked, but the point is Marinotto didn’t even try and he deserves full responsibility for that.

            Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            I can’t help but wonder how Slive, Delany, or Scott would’ve handled the Big 12 or Big East jobs. Do those men truly have such superior leadership capabilities thag they would have prevented the defections sustained under Beebe and Marinatto?

            Like

          • Eric says:

            Frug,

            I get what you are saying, but I can’t blame him for not trying things if he knew they wouldn’t work and think some of the things he did would be remembered as a genius for in different circumstances. I give him three defences here.

            1. There were way too many members who wanted out for it to be realistic to expect the members to sign over rights. Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, and probably West Virginia weren’t going to sign away their rights if there was even a reasonable chance one was going to be given an offer.

            2. As for the offer last year, it was a great offer and the conference decided not to settle for it and was going to try for more just as the PAC-10 essentially did. Rejecting it then meant waiting until this year though as the only reason there was an offer last year was ESPN was given an early option according to the contract. If it wasn’t taken, it meant waiting until this fall (if the PAC-10 had similar language, then it waited to the same points).

            3. Maybe a really strong commissioner could have convinced the conference to expand, but in the end, does it really make a difference? Let’s say that TCU, SMU, Central Florida, and Memphis entered the conference 2 years ago to give the conference 12 teams. Sure they’d have had an extra year or two to settle in, but I’m not sure the end result is really that different. The same members are still coming and in the meantime, the conference didn’t have split up the extra money with them. Given how things played out it still would have been better, but it was a gamble either way at that point in time. If the Big 12 had crumbled as it came close to doing, people would have been calling for his head for settling for those members when it was possible they’d have been able to raid the left-overs from the Big 12.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Eric

            I don’t know man. Gavitt tried 5 times to get the Big East to add Penn St., and while he wasn’t successful he still kept trying.

            I think my overall point is that Marinatto was just way to passive to lead a league in transition. He grew up in the city of Providence, went to Providence College, worked in their athletic department and then in the Big East front office in Providence. In short, he was the ultimate Big East insider having been there since the leagues founding. Because of that he was unwilling to shake things up at all, simply trusting things would work themselves out like they had in the past. The guy didn’t even learn about Pitt’s and Syracuse’s departure until less 48 hours before the official announcement when a reporter asked him for comment. Does that really sound like a guy who has the respect of the schools he is representing?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “Maybe another commissioner does what Larry Scott did with the PAC and convince the Big East that they needed to be more open minded (and in some cases hold there noses) and try aggressive expansion even if it meant a break with tradition and a compromise of values.”

            Uh, Frug, the Pac Presidents didn’t need to be convinced of anything. They were desperate for more money, which is why
            1. they hired Larry Scott in the first place.
            2. they told Larry Scott that he was allowed to do virtually anything to maximize revenues so long as a handful of key limits were not violated (such as bringing in a sectarian school).

            Scott did a great job of branding and negotiating, but ultimately, it is up to the presidents to decide which direction a league should go. The BE was directionless and passive not so much because of the Commissioner as much as the member schools being at cross-purposes and not having their priorities aligned.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Richard

            I get what you are saying, but that doesn’t address the central issue; the fact that even if Marianotto wasn’t the cause of the conference’s problems he clearly wasn’t the solution. Maybe a commissioner with a more dynamic approach would have succeeded. Maybe he would have failed. No one knows.

            What we do know is that Marinotto’s passive-reactive approach didn’t work and there is no reason to believe it will in the future.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Frug:
            I believe Scott’s negotiation was to beat 171 M (the level that would negate a couple years of extra pay to UCLA and U$C). I believe comcast group was at 220 when Fox/ESPN made a joint offer of 250 (comcast then said “no mas”).

            Like

          • Phil says:

            Eric above stated that the only reason ESPN made a renewal offer to the Big East last year is because they had an option to do so then. That is not the case. ESPN has an exclusive negotiating window and the end of this contract before the Big East can go to market (similar to how MLB teams have a few days after the season when they are the only ones that can sign their free agents).

            If you look at the timing of ESPN’s approach to the BE, it was after the Pac12 negotiations started but BEFORE that huge deal became public. ESPN was trying to lock in an extension of the Big East before the BE could find out how much the rights market was moving.

            To imply that there would have been more stability if the Big East accepted what they quickly would have found to be a lowball offer is naive to me. Schools still would have seen they could make much more $$ by jumping.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            But would the $12.9 million of the ACC vs. $11 million be worth moving for PItt and SU? TCU would have moved to the Big 12, but would WVU? The money may have been enough, but a stable BE and the possibility of ACC or SEC down the road may have encouraged them to stay.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Bullet, for Pitt and SU, stability was as much an issue as money — and as long as the core of the ACC (which I define as UNC, NCSU, Wake, Duke and UVa) are in the conference, the ACC will be stable. Compare that to the Big East, which year by year is mutating into Conference USA 2.0.

            Like

    • frug says:

      Not that he was some uber-competent commissioner, but how can they fire him after what he has pulled off twice to keep the conference at least somewhat relevant?

      For the same reason that the Big XII fired Dan Beebe after he held the conference together twice in less than a year; even if he wasn’t the problem, he sure as hell wasn’t the solution. The fact the conference keeps getting attacked is a sure sign that he isn’t a long term answer even if he keeps managing to hold it together with Scotch Tape.

      Also, while Penn St. was turned down during his time in charge, Gavitt himself supported their addition and brought the matter to a vote 5 times in an attempt to corral enough votes but never could.

      Like

      • acaffrey says:

        The Gavitt situation goes back to my original point–the Presidents do what they want. Even the universally respected Gavitt could not persuade them to avoid a decision that would and certainly did prevent the Big East from ever being an elite conference.

        We have all talked about this ad nauseum. Once Marinatto took over, what was the perfect move that would have saved the Big East? I don’t think anyone can come up with one.

        So, while the guy may not have been great, firing him now bothers me.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Listen I’m not disputing that Marinatto inherited a lot of issues when he took over, but the point remains that even if he wasn’t the cause of all the Big East’s problems, he clearly wasn’t the solution. Yes the timing could have been better (they should have either done this months ago or waited until after the playoff negotiations concluded), but the conference needs some fresh blood at the top and getting a new commissioner is way easier than replacing 16 university presidents.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            I think acaffrey’s point is that with the BE schools being such a dysfunctional group, no one person can be the solution. The BE Presidents f*cked up, and they needed a fall guy. Simple as that.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The Villanova decision alone ticked off the football schools, especially Pitt-and may have been a direct cause of them approaching the ACC (and maybe ESPN being sympathetic to ACC expansion). The way they got dumped afterwards left Villanova mad. The ECU fans say he wouldn’t even return their ADs calls. Pitt and SU left him blindsided when they left. I think he clearly mishandled a LOT of situations.

            Now I have long felt the BE was disfunctional with Providence, Notre Dame, Louisville, Pitt and Rutgers all in the same league and a lot of what happened would have happened anyway, but the conference could have been in a lot better shape and not left to scramble.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            The problem is that nobody knows exactly what was happening. Syracuse was ticked off that 12 schools turned down the TV contract. Apparently, Syracuse was OK with Marinatto on that. But that didn’t stop Syracuse from leaving. Who cares about Villanova? Apparently Rutgers and Pitt–two schools with the most to lose if Villanova became viable? Pretty objective. I have never heard that Pitt contacted the ACC. The unofficial story is that the ACC contacted Pitt and Syracuse and said take it or leave it. ECU fans? What do they know? Pitt and Syracuse left him blindsided because they left EVERYONE blindsided. Just because Missouri and Texas A&M took forever to get to the SEC does not mean that it has to be that way. The whole point for that round of ACC expansion was stealth and speed.

            The whole thing is a bunch of needing to blame someone for a situation that nobody can fix. Nobody can tell me exactly what Marinatto should have done. My own thought is that he should have recognized earlier on that the BTN was going to be a success and tried to latch onto that somehow. Even if a BEN would have been 20% as successful as the BTN, that’s a raise for the member schools. But It’s not like he just needed to give great speeches and BC and Maryland would have joined the Big East. It’s not like “vision” would have kept the conference together. The best commissioner in the world could not have prevented the inevitable here.

            In any event, my point is that if the Presidents truly thought he was the problem, get rid of him BEFORE making the expansions. Why wait until after it is done? If you are displeased, why vote in favor of it? I really think it highlights the inherent problem with the Big East. The basketball schools resent him for being pro-football, the football schools resent him for being pro-basketball. They can’t both be right, can they? Of course not.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I heard exactly the opposite about Pitt. Shortly after the Villanova invitation blew up (with their help) they contacted the ACC. They had been talking to the Big 12 but decided to go to the ACC if possible.

            Marinatto got asked by a reporter about Pitt and SU. The reporter knew more. None of the Big 12 stuff was secret. The UT President told the Nebraska President about the potential Pac 16 long before it became public. People don’t get blindsided when there is a good relationship. The CUSA President knew exactly what was going on with his schools. Marinatto’s whole public approach to WVU leaving was confrontational. Everyone knew they would leave before 27 months. He didn’t know that Villanova would get voted down and that schools would be angry about them being invited. All of those things rest on him, not on the Presidents.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @acaffrey

            Pitt and Syracuse left him blindsided because they left EVERYONE blindsided.

            And that alone was reason enough for Marinatto to be dismissed. That two schools would depart was bad, but the fact Marinatto didn’t even know about it was unacceptable. The fact that Marinatto had to learn about Pitt and ‘Cuses’ defection from a reporter two days before the official announcement is a sign that A) Marinatto had no idea what was going on in his own conference and B) the member schools he represented had absolutely no respect for him.

            Like

    • gregenstein says:

      I’m not real sure there’s much Marinatto, Tagleabue, or Tranghese could have done to truly keep this conference together once PSU joined the B1G. A true Big East could never have happened without Penn State. Maybe Miami and Va Tech don’t leave if PSU is there, maybe they are the first to get some of these big paychecks from ESPN, maybe Notre Dame would have bellied up to the bar. Maybe then Penn State anchors the north, Miami anchors the South, ND anchors everything else. I doubt they get ND just because how much ND likes being independent, but you get the idea. Maybe they would have agreed (on paper, for real) to play 5-6 “Super BEAST” opponents every year as part of their slate if PSU and Miami are there. Whole lotta maybe in there.

      It’s too bad too because, as PSU fan, the Big Ten was a great neighborhood to build a home, has some great neighbors, good schools, access to everything…BUT…it’s not the same. Nebraska is the first school I felt connected to from the old days, and even that was brief. The Big East with Pitt, Miami, WVU, Syracuse, Boston College, hell even Rutgers, was the conference I personally wanted PSU to get in with. Alas, it turned out that conference was the prom queen that you ended up running into 20 years later, and her life includes struggling to make ends meet with a husband/significant other that isn’t home, 6 kids that ignore her, and 4 cars that don’t work out in the lawn, while we’ve now got a place in the Hamptons with a great family. Great place, but you just wonder how much different it all might have been had JoePa & Gavitt been able to come to some middle ground all those years ago.

      I won’t dare speak for every PSU fan on this or any blog, but I can say that was my first preference. Maybe Nebraska turns into our new rival…hard to say since the first game was played like 5 days after JoePa was fired.

      Like

  53. Brian #2 says:

    Big 12 reaches a deal with ABC/ESPN on its first tier television contract.

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/18984821/big-12-verbally-agrees-to-new-espnfox-deal

    If my math is correct, this bumps the per school payout to approximately $20 million, not including school-owned third tier content. A little underwhelming considering some of the lofty figures that had been floating around. After the SEC’s renegotiation, the Big 12 should have the fourth-highest conference payout behind B1G, PAC, and SEC, which seems fair.

    Is this enough to get FSU and Clemson to join the Big 12? The ACC payout is only expected to go up $1-2 million, so around $15 million total per school.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Is that just 1st tier or does it include 2nd tier too? I was thinking the 2nd tier was sold a year or two ago (also to ESPN and Fox).

      Like

      • joe4psu says:

        It’s $20Mil per school total. *SPN’s contract ran to 2016 but was extended to match the Fox deal. The conference has agreed (I believe) on a 13 year grant of rights which will also match up with tv contracts.

        Like

        • frug says:

          The current grant of rights in only for 6 years, but the league has said once the new deal is finalized they plan to extend it to the life of the TV contract.

          Like

    • texmex says:

      The Big 12’s contract should be behind the B1G, PAC, and SEC as it only has 10 teams and by far the smallest population footprint. The 20 million is actually very good for a 10 team league considering the following:

      1) This is before possible additions of FSU/Clemson
      2) This is before any conference championship is rolled in
      3) This does not include 3rd tier rights which can be negotiated separately by each university

      The ACC deal of 15 million would include 14 teams, conference championship and 3rd tier rights. The gap between the two conferences would widen should FSU/Clemson make a move as well as take advantage of their 3rd tier rights.

      ESPN owns both Tier I content for the ACC and Big 12 and indirectly will have a huge say in who goes where. I’m not sure what ESPN thinks about all this.

      Like

      • frug says:

        2) This is before any conference championship is rolled in

        Minor nitpick. As part of the 2010 Big XII bailout package Fox agreed to continue paying for the CCG even though it is not being played. It is worth about a million bucks per schools per year.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Fox didn’t pay for something it didn’t have. It agreed NOT to reduce the contract. Since it bumped it up 450% when it renewed, it would have had a hard time arguing that it should reduce the contract. I think TexMex’s point is that there is the potential to increase the value.

          At the time it was being reported that Fox and ESPN rode to the Big 12’s rescue. Its become obvious that they couldn’t have justified any reduction. The only contribution they made was giving them an indication of how big the Fox increase would be.

          Like

          • frug says:

            Its become obvious that they couldn’t have justified any reduction.

            Sure they could have. It was in the contract. Maybe it would have been a bad business decision (reducing the contract would have resulted in the south schools bolting), but they were within rights to reduce their payments by $10 million for the loss of each of Nebraska, Colorado and the CCG.

            But yeah, I do agree with the overall point that their is still money on the table through expansion.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            If it was a separate contract they could. If the contracts were connected as seems likely, they could only reduce it if losing the schools meant they were paying more than fair value. In fact they were paying well under fair value.

            Like

          • frug says:

            The Fox contract flatly stated a $10 million deduction for the loss of the CCG, and I believe (though I couldn’t swear) that the ESPN deal allowed them to reduce the payout to the conference by $10 million for each school that left regardless of market value.

            Like

      • Christian in Texas says:

        Great post, texmex. Too many fans on the message boards are comparing apples to oranges with these TV contract numbers. The $15MM ACC number shouldn’t be likened to the $20MM Big 12 figure, it should be compared to $25MM for the smaller schools like Baylor and KState, and $40MM for Texas ($15MM for LHN), with Florida State falling somewhere in the middle.

        $25MM is the conservative estimate I’ve seen for adding FSU, Clemson, and a championship game (at least $25MM for the championship game with likely annual UT/OU vs. FSU/Clemson matchups, and at least $35MM for adding FSU and Clemson – on top of the $20MM each to pay for themselves, of course – because if adding Pitt and Syracuse can add $2.1MM/team to the ACC deal, then $3MM/team sounds right for FSU and Clemson). I’ve seen others speculate a top end of $30MM, but that seems overly optimistic.

        Like

        • texmex says:

          The potential is there for FSU/Clemson to substantially increase their revenue intake from media rights. Why is this important? ESPN had an article out where their outside the lines group did a study on athletic department profits without university used funds. That means, which athletic departments would have the largest operating income IF they didn’t have to use money from the university. This is where these athletic departments want to get to….not having to dip into university funds. 10 of the top 12 schools in this regard were from the Big 12 and SEC. Not a single ACC team was in the top 19 schools.

          But back to my main point, all of this points back to ESPN and what their grand plan is. They own content for both conferences. Is it in their best interests to have FSU/Clemson to partner up with Texas/OU? Only they can answer that. We do know ABC/ESPN greatly values the Big 12 product they own Tier I content of. They have gone out of their way to make sure this league stays together….They stuck to their word when it came to the Big 12 contract and assurances they gave the conference in 2010. They forked over a network to UT making it difficult to mobilize to another conference with full ownership of 3rd tier rights.

          Like

        • Brian #2 says:

          I don’t quite see the math that adding FSU and Clemson to the Big 12 would increase the per team payout by $5-15MM – that seems like internet fantasy dreamed up on Shaggy Bevo. FSU and Clemson, combined with every other school in the ACC, is only rumored to be worth $15MM per school in its post-expansion deal. If their brand values and viewership were that valuable, the ACC’s deal would be larger and/or the SEC would make them #15 and #16.

          Since ABC/ESPN owns the first tier rights in the Big 12 and the first/second/third tier rights in the ACC, they would be bidding against themselves for no reason if FSU/Clemson left the ACC and went Big 12.

          Like

          • acaffrey says:

            C’mon. Why ruin things for the FSU and Clemson fans? Obviously, the reason why their teams underperform every year is because they do not make the same $$$. After all, look how Indiana and Mississippi State use their monetary advantage to dominate the football landscape. And you really expect Clemson to compete on the field with uber-wealthy West Virginia?

            Simply stated, money does not equate wins. Anyone suggesting anything to the contrary is making excuses. FSU, Clemson, and Miami could be elite football teams, but have made poor football decisions along the way. If they were top 10 teams every year, the ACC contract would be far more lucrative. Nobody to blame but themselves…

            Like

          • bullet says:

            More of the value in the ACC (and Big 12) is in certain schools. So Clemson and FSU are worth more than $15 million. In addition, the Big 12 would expand its regional coverage into populous Florida whereas the ACC is getting that coverage. So there is room for growth. Still, going from $200 million a year (10X20) to $392 million a year (14X28-as has been suggested in places) seems a bit of a stretch. If those 4 schools were FSU, Clemson, USC and Notre Dame maybe….

            Like

          • greg says:

            FSU may be worth more than the average ACC payout, but Clemson surely isn’t. Clemson is in the branding ballpark of WVU/Iowa/OkSU, not FSU/UT/OU.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            Of course money doesn’t equal wins, but if you’re Clemson or Florida State, wouldn’t you prefer to be in a middle-class neighborhood (the Big 12) than one of shotgun shacks (the ACC)? Just as the Yankees can compensate for mistakes far better than the Brewers can, so could CU and FSU survive poor football decisions better in the Big 12 than the ACC. Merely being in the ACC, and the football stigma it carries, makes it difficult to become a perennial top 10 team.

            Like

  54. greg says:

    Jumping ACC to B12 isn’t the financial windfall you are portraying. Good luck getting ESPN to give the B12 a bump when ESPN already owns the rights to FSU/Clemson via the ACC contract.

    Like

    • joe4psu says:

      It’s not a choice that *SPN and Fox would have. These contracts have standard clauses dealing with the addition or subtraction of two or more schools. As has been not multiple times in SBJ articles. You can ague that *SPN and Fox may try to lowball the B12 and only offer $15mil per year for FSU and Clemson because that’s (approximately, reportedly) what they will pay for them in the ACC. I’d say that opinion is wrong though, as others have noted, FSU and Clemson are much more valuable to the B12 because both add new markets. FSU is also a national brand whose value goes beyond geography.

      Like

      • joe4psu says:

        Then you add in CCG and the money those schools could make on their third tier rights, which *SPN owns in the ACC.

        Like

      • greg says:

        Standard clauses that they need a “look in” as Slive would call it, not a clause that guarantees huge increases. ESPN may be willing to increase the B12 package to make the FSU/Clemson add revenue-neutral. But why would they damage their own ACC package to do pay out more money for teams they already have?

        Like

        • joe4psu says:

          If the networks and the conference don’t agree it goes to arbitration. The networks don’t have ALL the leverage. Why would *SPN pay out more? That’s why conferences sign contracts. It’s not up to *SPN.

          Like

        • GreatLakeState says:

          Grain of salt alert! -but here goes….
          Optimization. Both Florida State and Clemson are undervalued in the ACC. The moment Clemson starts playing Texas, Oklahoma etc. in a football conference they become a much bigger brand, and in the long run will reap greater rewards for everyone involved. The Big12 has great potential. The ACC will them absorb the Big East and be the Basketball conference it’s always wanted to be.

          Like

      • Brian #2 says:

        That said, we rarely (ever?) have seen a network decrease its payout to a conference to account for member schools leaving, but I have to think the networks will have to draw a line here at some point. And if they do, we could see the increased threat of litigation, similar to what Ken Starr and Baylor threatened A&M and Missouri with. If FSU and Clemson are significantly involved in the ACC’s current TV negotiations (common sense would tell me they are), then they could be liable for dealing in