For long-time readers of this blog, you know how important that I consider TV rights to be in shaping the world of sports, both college and pro. It has driven conference realignment the past couple of years, convinced the reactionary leaders of college football to finally institute a playoff, turned the NFL into a financial juggernaut and exacerbated the differences in the fortunes of franchises in the NBA and Major League Baseball. From the first post that I had in writing about Big Ten expansion, I emphasized how important that the TV revenue from the conference’s deals with ABC/ESPN and the Big Ten Network would be in luring a football power when most fans only thought about geography and historical rivalries.
However, it feels as though the world has gone in the other direction where even hardcore football fans seem to believe that TV revenue is all that matters in conference realignment. That’s not quite correct, either, as I also tried to indicate in that original Big Ten Expansion post. Factors such as academics and cultural fit matter if a conference wants to be strong for the long-term as opposed to just the length of the current TV contract.
So, it was quite amazing to me to witness Andy Haggard, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Florida State spew out inflammatory comments against the new ACC television deal with ESPN and suggest that the school should explore options with the Big 12. Never mind that Haggard was wrong about the details of that TV deal that he was complaining about, which was subsequently corrected by Florida State president Eric Barron and caused Haggard to somewhat backtrack from his initial comments. The damage is done – the Florida State blog and message board crowd, to the extent that they didn’t already believe that they weren’t getting screwed by the Tobacco Road crowd, are now wholeheartedly ready to sign over the deed to their athletic department to DeLoss Dodds.
Before I get into my opinion, I’ll give credit to The Dude from Eerinsider.com for writing about his belief that Florida State would be going to be Big 12 for several months. Frankly, I still don’t know how people from West Virginia could know more about the intentions of schools such as Texas, Florida State, Clemson and Louisville than those schools’ own respective insiders and beat reporters, but The Dude has certainly been unwavering in his beliefs and deserves some kudos for, at the very least, socializing the idea that Florida State going to the Big 12 is viable. I know that I and many others have been dismissive of that speculation, so I’ll need to eat some crow for that.
As for my opinion: if Florida State is seriously considering leaving the ACC for the Big 12, then that would be incredibly short-sighted. This is the ultimate “penny wise and pound foolish” move. Eight months ago, the world was discussing whether the Big 12 would even exist going forward. Texas or Oklahoma sneezing gives the entire Big 12 pneumonia and that’s something that’s never going to change. Regardless of how large and long the new Big 12 TV contract might be, the one thing that you know about the ACC is that its core of North Carolina, Duke and Virginia aren’t interested in going anywhere. Maybe the ACC can be weakened on the football front by defections by the likes of Florida State, but the league is going to live on. In contrast, the biggest flight risks in the Big 12 are the members of its core itself: Texas and Oklahoma. A blue blood athletic program like Kansas was talking to the Big East back in 2010 for fear of not having a place to land. As a result, any complaints from Tallahassee about the supposed power of Duke and UNC over the ACC ring hollow for anyone that can remember only eight months back to the primary example of what happens when a school truly runs a conference. The Big 12 is a power conference that has cheated death twice in two years.
This isn’t a criticism of Texas: the Longhorns have the most powerful college sports brand outside of Notre Dame, so they’re wisely leveraging the assets that they have. Any school would have taken ESPN’s offer for the Longhorn Network in a heartbeat. The skepticism comes in as to whether the “third tier” TV rights that are now the subject of so much consternation really have that much value for schools other than Texas. As Matt Sarzyniak noted, the definition of “third tier rights” is vastly different depending upon the conference. (Note that it is difficult to find accurate information about the value of third tier TV rights alone. Many third tier media rights calculations include radio rights, coaches’ shows and Internet streaming capabilities, which all of the major conferences, including the ACC, allow schools to keep for themselves.)
Is it reasonable to assume that Florida State would automatically garner $5 million extra or more per year from selling its third tier TV rights, or is that number going to be mixed in with radio rights that the Seminoles are already selling, so the additional dollars that would be garnered in theory by going to the Big 12 isn’t as much as it would seem? I don’t have an answer to that question, but it’s not nearly as simple as, “Texas is getting $15 million for its third tier rights, which means that Florida State has got to be able to make at least half of that amount.” The Longhorn Network is such an outlier for third tier TV rights that it can’t really be used for comparison purposes. In fact, the best comparison for Florida State would be what Texas A&M made off of its third tier rights in the Big 12 as school that is #2 in its home state with a large and loyal fan base. My understanding is that amount really wasn’t that much (which is partially why the Aggies had such an issue with the Longhorn Network in the first place). The third tier TV rights disparity ended up driving Texas A&M away from the Big 12 and now it’s being argued as a lure to draw Florida State in. (Note that the SEC still reserves third tier rights for individual schools in a similar fashion as the Big 12, so A&M might be seeing better revenue from those rights in its new home.) It’s fascinating to see that turn of events.
The bottom line: Florida State would be leaving the ACC for the Big 12 solely for money. That’s the entire argument. Now, that certainly can be a persuasive argument that will rule the day. However, in every other major conference move, there was something more than money at stake. Nebraska got a better academic home in the Big Ten, Colorado culturally fits better in the Pac-12, Texas A&M and Missouri received stability in the preeminent football conference in the SEC, and Pitt and Syracuse and West Virginia and TCU left even more unstable situations in the Big East for the ACC and Big 12, respectively. Even if you were to argue that money was the driving factor in all of those moves (and without a doubt, it mattered a ton), there were still other holistic arguments that could be made to respective universities that could convince the ivory tower types that there were positives beyond the value of the current TV contract. That simply isn’t the case when comparing the situations of the ACC and Big 12. Academically, the ACC is higher-rated than the Big 12 and is the only power conference besides the Big Ten with a research consortium*. Stability-wise, the ACC has stayed together since 1953 with only one defection (South Carolina to the SEC became independent in 1971**) compared to the musical chairs in the Big 12 over the past two years. Geographically, Florida State goes from a contiguous coastal conference to one that starts looking like a big budget version of the Big East. Market-wise for recruiting and TV, Florida State would get access to Texas but lose all of the other fast-growing states in the ACC’s southeastern footprint. Culturally, for all of the talk about the ACC being a “basketball league” and the Big 12 being a “football league”, the ACC added Miami and Virginia Tech purely for football purposes (and drawing the ire of the supposedly almighty Duke and UNC) while pure football schools Nebraska and Texas A&M couldn’t leave the Big 12 fast enough.
(* EDIT 1: The SEC also has an academic consortium.)
(** EDIT 2: South Carolina joined the SEC in 1992.)
I know that plenty of fans will continue to believe that factors such as academics don’t matter and that it’s simply about the money. Heck, even Haggard himself believes that when he said, “No FSU graduate puts on his resume or interviews for a job saying they are in the same conference as Duke and Virginia. Conference affiliation really has no impact on academics.” That’s an understandable position and considering how much university presidents are searching for every penny these days, it’s not surprising. However, the people running universities day-to-day certainly don’t believe that, as Barron stated in a memo that the “faculty are adamantly opposed to joining a league that is academically weaker.” My much more connected SEC expansion counterpart, Mr. SEC, also says that academic prestige is a massive issue with actual decision-makers in conference realignment.
Look – I have no skin in this game. I’ve stated many times before that few things would make me happier than Duke being relegated to the Southern Conference. There is no personal affection for the ACC from my end at all. I’m just looking at this from an outsider’s point of view. If Florida State absolutely needs the short-term revenue boost from the Big 12 (and that could certainly be the case with the school’s athletic department deficit), then I understand the Seminoles jumping. I’m past the point of being shocked that a school would move for a few extra TV dollars. However, I would still be surprised if they defect on the basis that every single other factor for Florida State (academics, stability, geography, markets) points to staying in the ACC, which is unlike any of the other power conference moves over the past two years. Long-term, the TV money difference between the Big 12 and ACC on its face isn’t enough to discount all of those other factors.
The irony is that for all of the complaints that Florida State fans might have about the supposed basketball focus of Tobacco Road, if the Seminoles had performed half as well in football as they have had in basketball recently (four straight NCAA Tournament appearances, a Sweet Sixteen run and an ACC Tournament championship), no one would be talking about a “weak” ACC football league and ESPN probably would have thrown even more money toward the conference. Regardless, don’t just look at the TV money, as important as that might be. Nebraska would have gone to the Big Ten even if there wasn’t a clear increase in TV money. For that matter, West Virginia would have gone to the Big 12 regardless of the TV contract. However, the answer isn’t clear that Florida State would ever choose the Big 12 over the ACC if the TV money wasn’t a factor. There’s a difference between taking money for the short-term (and in college sports parlance, a 13-year TV contract can definitely still be “short-term”) and determining the best choice for the long-term.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from KC College Gameday)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
We Are…
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
irrepressable!
LikeLike
BUCKEYES
LikeLike
Go Hawks!!!
LikeLike
If FSU was leaving by themselves you have an argument. They’re not. They’re going to have regional conference mates and also be in a conference that cares about football. Also if this new playoff system involves some type of RPI/SOS component they stand a much better chance of making it to the playoffs in the Big 12 than the ACC. The Big 12 will also consistently play in the in the playoffs where the ACC won’t meaning more money for the member institutions.
The whole academics argument is a red herring. Nebraska didn’t move to the Big 10 b/c of academics. They moved b/c of money and that’s not a bad reason to move. The cost of college football and athletics is rising. The disparity between the haves and have nots will grow and if FSU, VTech, GTech and Miami would like to die on the vine than by all means they should stay in the ACC.
If they want to compete they need to move.
LikeLike
That does not make sense to me. How are FSU, VTech, GTech and Miami going to “die on the vine”. Outside of OU and UT, does the Big 12 really offer anything? It seems all the good football teams are leaving the ACC to join….the other football teams leaving the ACC. The more they change, the more they stay the same. Well, plus Oklahoma and Texas. TV wise, no one cares about the other schools, all eight of them. K-State is usually good at football. Texas Tech fell apart post Mike Leach. OSU is bound to regress post Weeden. Baylor will probably crawl back into a hole post RG3. Missouri, A&M and Nebraska, three consistent bowl teams, are gone.
LikeLike
Uh, when has Aggy been a consistent bowl team? Also, your other points are pure speculation. If you go off of last years record, the Big 12 was the best conference in football top to bottom, and certainly the second best after the SEC in terms of power ranking.
LikeLike
A & M has made 11 bowls since the Big 12 formed roughly 16 years ago. That’s pretty good. In the same timeframe Baylor’s made 2 bowls, Iowa State’s made 7, Kansas’ has made 4, and Oklahoma State has made 8.
Making a Bowl game a majority of the seasons and more than most of the non-Texas/Oklahoma league mates certainly speaks to their football level of play
LikeLike
John,
Wow, that’s a lot of assumptions on your part. Let’s look at them.
1. “If FSU was leaving by themselves you have an argument. They’re not.”
Says who? FSU isn’t even leaving yet, and you already know that another school is going?
2. “They’re going to have regional conference mates”
Miami officials have said they have no interest in the B12. VT said they were happy in the ACC when SEC rumors came out. GT is highly unlikely to go to the B12 (lack of desire on both sides). None of the NC schools are going. At best they might have Clemson as a “regional” conference mate, but we haven’t heard anything from either side to show interest in Clemson to the B12. WV is almost 900 miles away and certainly not regional.
3. “and also be in a conference that cares about football.”
The ACC cares about it, and brought in FSU, Miami, VT and BC to prove it. Maybe the hoops schools would care more if the “football schools” would win more and thus inflate the value of the TV contract. In fact, half the ACC are football schools right now (Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, BC, VT) and several more have decent football history. Even the upcoming additions have strong football resumes despite being better at hoops recently.
The B12 is more football focused, but it’s not like hoops aren’t important to many of the schools. The real difference is that the B12 has 2 FB kings and 1 hoops king while the ACC has 2 hoops kings and 1 FB king. Both have plenty of bad FB programs that don’t seem to make much effort to compete for titles.
4. “Also if this new playoff system involves some type of RPI/SOS component they stand a much better chance of making it to the playoffs in the Big 12 than the ACC.”
You can’t possibly know how good all the teams in both leagues will be in the future. Playing 10 ACC teams (including CCG) plus 1 strong OOC opponent should be just fine in terms of SOS.
What’s more important is winning 12 or 13 games, and they haven’t lost only 1 regular season game since 2000. SOS won’t matter if they lose 2 or more games every year. In fact, if you believe the B12 would provide a harder schedule then FSU is better off winning the ACC and hoping their SOS is OK than not winning the B12.
5. “The Big 12 will also consistently play in the in the playoffs where the ACC won’t meaning more money for the member institutions.”
Again, you have no idea how various teams will do. FSU and Miami could return to their peaks while UT and OU fall back into their 90s lulls. Then everyone would be saying the B12 was weak compared to the ACC.
6. “The whole academics argument is a red herring.”
Proof? There are a lot of people involved in these decisions and clearly academics matter to some of them.
7. “Nebraska didn’t move to the Big 10 b/c of academics. They moved b/c of money and that’s not a bad reason to move.”
Proof? Statements from NE indicate the lack of stability and perhaps some issues with TX were major motivators, and that the strong academics and cultural similarities of the B10 were important factors in choosing to join. Not losing money in the deal was significant, but getting a raise wasn’t the important thing. NE has to vest into getting full B10 money anyway, buying their way into the BTN. They could have asked the SEC and gotten full money right away.
8. “The cost of college football and athletics is rising.”
True, but not nearly as fast as the optional expenditures on CFB and athletics have been increasing. Schools don’t need to spend nearly as much as they have been to be successful based on the results at TCU and Boise and Utah.
9. “The disparity between the haves and have nots will grow”
People have been making this argument for 50 years. What’s so different about now?
10. “and if FSU, VTech, GTech and Miami would like to die on the vine than by all means they should stay in the ACC.”
You have zero basis for this. What those 4 teams really need to do is win more games, especially on the national stage. The ACC being 2-13 in BCS games, winning the Orange over a BE champ in the 2008 season and winning the NCG in the 1999 season over the BE champ (and now an ACC member), is what’s killed them nationally. Being in the B12 won’t magically change that.
11. “If they want to compete they need to move.”
Moving won’t make them competitive if they can’t win in the ACC now.
LikeLike
What in the world makes you think the ACC is going to be shutout from the playoffs? If FSU goes 11-1 I guarantee they would be in a playoff most years, if not every year.
it is hilarious to me watching FSU fans try and blame the ACC for their program being mediocre the last decade.
LikeLike
FSU has not won 11 games sine the early 90’s. They have won 10 games twice in the past 10 years. FSU making the playoffs should be the last of their concerns. If they can’t win 10 games in the ACC what makes them think they could win 10 in the Big 12 or even go .500 in the SEC. FSU should stay right where they are and in the end that is what they will do.
LikeLike
Great post! One thing: USC left the ACC to be independent. They joined the SEC in the early 90’s.
LikeLike
@Tommy – You’re correct. I’ve edited the post to reflect this. Thanks!
LikeLike
Frank – the SEC also has an academic consortium.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/SECSPORTS/THESEC/AcademicConsortium.aspx
LikeLike
… Penn State!
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
This move is madness. Makes zero sense.
LikeLike
Other top teams have slides much longer and deeper than FSU’s. However, USC has Oregon or Washington or even Stanford to step up their game. Why is it all on FSU to win or its another ACC team getting blown out in a BCS bowl?
I am unaware of any money the ACC provides FSU for academics. There is no CIC for the ACC in any real sense. If you could point out money that will actually be lost, please do. The ACC academic reputation is mostly based on that bogus USNWR ranking that is nonsense. Truth is, by being in the ACC, FSU gets mentioned in a negative light as the worst school there a lot when we’d be in middle and higher in nearly any other conference. How is that really helping FSU? The only athletic association that provides a real academic benefit is the B!G because of the CIC and the Ivy League because it hasn’t been about athletics for nearly a century. That’s it.
If you read Wetzel (the only sensible one on this subject) you know its a lot more than that bogus 3 million number President Barron put out there. I have heard rumor that the Big12 pays travel costs, there a lot of factors here. The ACC contract is not only back loaded but look how long it goes. The Big 12 will renegotiate twice before that thing ends. How badly will we be outspent by then? How do you expect us to keep assistant coaches, much less a HC, in this present environment when not only are the Florida and Bamas of the world outspending us but Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, and Washington St can hire away our people? When you guys rail against this do you think out how its really going to work out or is it just some romantic notion of the academically minded ACC keeping thier prize pig?
Texas and OU are locked into a 13 year grant of rights and that does change everything. Unlike A&M we don’t care how much Texas outspends us, we care about how much the Bama’s and Floridas outspend us.
People repeating these talking points are basically asking us to die slowly and quietly.
LikeLike
everybody here needs to read this post. cogent stuff, issy.
LikeLike
Agreed. FSU needs to keep up with Bama and Florida.
LikeLike
“I have heard rumor that Big12 pays travel coats”
Well if you have heard a rumor it must be true, just ask the Chairman of your BoT!
LikeLike
A conf can pay costs, or it can distribute that money to the schools so they can pay those costs? I’m not seeing the gain here.
LikeLike
“If you read Wetzel (the only sensible one on this subject) you know its a lot more than that bogus 3 million number President Barron put out there”
Without reading the actual contract no it isn’t. On face value, Wetzel’s math doesn’t make sense.
“I have heard rumor that the Big12 pays travel costs, there a lot of factors here.”
They don’t.
“The ACC contract is not only back loaded but look how long it goes”.
If the ACC contract is back loaded, every single contract is back loaded. 15 years seems long, but in the grand scheme of things it isn’t that bad. The SEC deal was signed as a 15 year deal and it doesn’t looks like anyone from among the serious players getting away with less than a 12 year deal anymore (see Pac-12 12 years, Big XII 13 years).
“The Big 12 will renegotiate twice before that thing ends”
How do you figure? They’ll re-negotiate two years earlier than the ACC. 15-13=2.
“How badly will we be outspent by then? How do you expect us to keep assistant coaches, much less a HC, in this present environment when not only are the Florida and Bamas of the world outspending us but Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, and Washington St can hire away our people?”
If you’re athletic department is dependent on that extra $3 million a year to be successful you have bigger issues.
LikeLike
isachar,
“Other top teams have slides much longer and deeper than FSU’s. However, USC has Oregon or Washington or even Stanford to step up their game. Why is it all on FSU to win or its another ACC team getting blown out in a BCS bowl?”
It’s not. But I don’t recall USC or UT or OU talking about leaving their conference when they were down, either. It’s pure chickenshit for FSU to punish the ACC because FSU has stunk for the past few years and sunk the value of the TV contract, though. With everyone else being down, FSU has no excuses not to win.
“The ACC academic reputation is mostly based on that bogus USNWR ranking that is nonsense.”
No, it’s based on the academics (school presidents and professors) who know the quality of education various schools provide. The USNWR ranking are a convenient way to pass some of that info on to laymen.
“Truth is, by being in the ACC, FSU gets mentioned in a negative light as the worst school there a lot when we’d be in middle and higher in nearly any other conference.”
Here’s some bogus USNWR rankings:
Schools equal to FSU:
ACC – NCSU
BE – none
B10 – NE
B12 – KU, OU
P12 – OR
SEC – TN
Schools below FSU:
B10 – none
ACC – none
BE – UC, Temple, UL
B12 – OkSU, KSU, TT, WV
P12 – WSU, AZ, Utah, ASU, OrSU
SEC – SC, UK, LSU, AR, MS, MSU
FSU would be at the bottom of the ACC and B10 and near the median of the BE, B12, P12 and SEC. There is no major conference in which FSU would be above the middle.
“How is that really helping FSU?”
The worst house in a great neighborhood has more value than the best house in a bad neighborhood. By being in the ACC, FSU has improved their reputation some. It helps hire better faculty and recruit better students. Ask PSU about the improvement of the school’s reputation in the past 20 years, and they weren’t a bad school when they joined the B10.
“If you read Wetzel (the only sensible one on this subject)”
That’s all I need to see to know you’re a whack job.
“I have heard rumor that the Big12 pays travel costs, there a lot of factors here.”
Well, if you heard a rumor then that’s different. I’d certainly want my alma mater to determine their conference affiliation based on a rumor I heard.
“The ACC contract is not only back loaded but look how long it goes.”
So what? Would you complain if the deal was for $1B per year average for the next 50 years? Of course not, because the length doesn’t matter. It’s the value that matters. At least stay on point.
“The Big 12 will renegotiate twice before that thing ends.”
No, they won’t. Their deal ends 3 years before the ACC’s. The B10’s BTN deal is 25 years.
“How badly will we be outspent by then?”
TV deals are about revenue, not expenses. There’s no promise any extra money would be spent on FB.
“How do you expect us to keep assistant coaches, much less a HC, in this present environment when not only are the Florida and Bamas of the world outspending us but Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, and Washington St can hire away our people?”
Right, losing a HC has been a big problem for FSU. You’re on your second HC since 1976. As of 11/2007, Jimbo was the 15th highest paid coach in CFB (#1 in ACC) and he hasn’t won anything yet. How about you save the sky is falling routine for when it actually becomes a problem?
“When you guys rail against this do you think out how its really going to work out or is it just some romantic notion of the academically minded ACC keeping thier prize pig?”
If FSU was still a prize, the TV deal would have been worth more. That’s the whole problem.
“Texas and OU are locked into a 13 year grant of rights and that does change everything. Unlike A&M we don’t care how much Texas outspends us, we care about how much the Bama’s and Floridas outspend us.”
Right. Fans will have no issue with a rival for the conference title having millions and millions of extra dollars each year. It’s much more important to compare to neighbors in another conference that can’t prevent you from winning conference titles.
“People repeating these talking points are basically asking us to die slowly and quietly.”
Yes, that’s exactly what we’re doing. Everybody is trying to literally kill off all FSU fans by disagreeing with you on the internet.
LikeLike
“It’s not. But I don’t recall USC or UT or OU talking about leaving their conference when they were down, either. It’s pure chickenshit for FSU to punish the ACC because FSU has stunk for the past few years and sunk the value of the TV contract, though. With everyone else being down, FSU has no excuses not to win.”
For one thing none of these schools have their expectations of winning an MNC some day soon being dashed by lack of money. As I said their conferences don’t fall apart because one team isn’t winning 10+ games a year for a decade. This isn’t about punishing the ACC, its about money. Those romantic days of upstarts winning MNCs are gone, just look at who has won this last decade. You need money to compete. What about Boise St you say? They play other small $ schools and don’t get a shot at a MNC even if they play 2 tough games in a year.
The fact that the TV contract is terrible is more on Swofford than FSU. How is it that the ACC has the 2nd highest Nielson ratings and yet is in 5th place (by a long shot) in terms of money. How is the Big 12 and PAC getting more money with less viewers? For one thing the ESPN deal values exposure over getting cash. That is, the ACC says “hey, more of our games are on TV and so that has value even if the dollars aren’t as high.” If you are UNC or UVA and already have money that’s great. You see, these complaints about UNC aren’t just basketball and wine and cheese snipes they do have a basis. They negotiate what’s good from their interest, not ours. And how about the fact that Raycom is in the deal with Swofford’s son as a top executive there?
Then you follow up my contention that USNWR is bogus with a list of USNWR applied to athletic conferences which shows that FSU would be in the middle of the pack in nearly every conference. Beyond the silliness of using made up numbers to prove something, you pretty much proved what I was saying in the first place. If you used a different metric that didn’t include the vague “academic reputation” we would do even better.
Wetzel isn’t the best college football journalist, he’s for cranks. I really love ESPN’s coverage. They completely ignore this issue that every other sports new site has been all over for days up until they have Barron’s letter that fits their spin. Why is that? Because they stand to lose money if FSU leaves an all ESPN conference for one in which FOX has half the games. Now is that great journalism or a predatory business using its resources for its own interests?
“Well, if you heard a rumor then that’s different. I’d certainly want my alma mater to determine their conference affiliation based on a rumor I heard.”
I was simply pointing out that you cannot asssume travel costs will be higher because of the distances. Different conferences do pay for their schools travel costs to varying degrees so stating that they will be higher in the Big 12 compared to the ACC because of the distance is not necessarily true. Plus if the closest ACC teams bolt even the distance part of this argument could disappear.
“No, they won’t. Their deal ends 3 years before the ACC’s. The B10′s BTN deal is 25 years.”
The Big 12 will sign one shortly and then 3/4’s of the way through the ACC’s 20 year deal they will sign another. That is very important when these things keep going up in value and when they are backloaded. The B!G owns half of the BTN, its not the same thing. The bottom line is real numbers do need to be investigated by our BoT and I can promise you they won’t be as low as 3 million. People repeating that are even crazier than the first wave of pro Big 12 folks that were claiming 30+ mill a year if FSU were to switch.
“Right, losing a HC has been a big problem for FSU. You’re on your second HC since 1976. As of 11/2007, Jimbo was the 15th highest paid coach in CFB (#1 in ACC) and he hasn’t won anything yet. How about you save the sky is falling routine for when it actually becomes a problem?”
What kind of logic is that? Hey, houses are always going up in value, why don’t you drop that negative attitude about real estate investing until they’re actually losing money! I suspect Jimbo Fisher might stay even if there was more money from LSU or some other big $ school, but that’s hardly a guarantee these days, and being able to put money down for assistants is arguably more important. I have no idea what to say about using Bowden as a measuring stick. Penn St won’t have to hire another coach until the 22nd century then?
“Right. Fans will have no issue with a rival for the conference title having millions and millions of extra dollars each year. It’s much more important to compare to neighbors in another conference that can’t prevent you from winning conference titles.”
There is no way we can beat Texas in money, or Florida or Alabama for that matter, but you might be able to keep it close enough its not the deciding factor, and you certainly don’t want to be worse off than Washington St, Vanderbilt, and really just about any of the big 4 conferences now making nearly twice the TV dollars than what ACC schools get. Again, you seem to suggest FSU just doesn’t bother trying. We should ignore the money problem even though all the MNC winners for the last decade have been big $ schools, hope that our recruiting grounds and high spirits just get us those wins. And, yes, beating Florida is more important than a conference title.
“Yes, that’s exactly what we’re doing. Everybody is trying to literally kill off all FSU fans by disagreeing with you on the internet.”
Look at your point of view through your whole response. You seem to believe that it is FSU’s job to win football games so other ACC schools can get more money. No one else needs to field a competitive football team? All the while sticking your nose up at its academic credentials. Now, do you see why its not in our interest to stay associated with you?
If 3rd tier is a 1-2 mill, the difference in value between the 2 contracts as they presently are written is 4 mill, and the escalation the Big 12’s contract will get with expansion is 4 mill that could be 10 mill a year and that would be 150 million more for FSU over the course of the ACC contract. That is a very possible number. 3rd tier is not the 15 million Texas gets but a football game and some basketball games aren’t worth nothing. The Big 12 next contract is most likely going to be higher and so the last 3 years of the ACC contract will be
LikeLike
isachar,
“It’s not. But I don’t recall USC or UT or OU talking about leaving their conference when they were down, either. It’s pure chickenshit for FSU to punish the ACC because FSU has stunk for the past few years and sunk the value of the TV contract, though. With everyone else being down, FSU has no excuses not to win.”
For one thing none of these schools have their expectations of winning an MNC some day soon being dashed by lack of money.
Right, because money is the only factor. That explains the dominant run of IN lately since they’ve been out-earning FSU. Boise has been elite spending a fraction of what FSU spends and they have no natural recruiting grounds. Cry me a river for a brand name team in a populous state with great recruiting that plays in a power conference because another school might make a few dollars more than them.
USC was dominant long before the P12 signed their new deal. Miami and FSU were dominant when other schools were making a lot more money. The contract is just an excuse for underperforming.
As I said their conferences don’t fall apart because one team isn’t winning 10+ games a year for a decade.
The ACC isn’t falling apart either. It’s just like the P10 was when USC was down. But USC didn’t cry like a little girl about other teams possibly making more money than them.
This isn’t about punishing the ACC, its about money.
I didn’t say it was about punishing the ACC, I said that FSU moving would be punishing the ACC for FSU’s recent failures.
Those romantic days of upstarts winning MNCs are gone, just look at who has won this last decade.
When were those romantic days, exactly? When upstarts like FSU and Miami were winning you mean? CFB has been dominated by the same 10-12 programs for most of its history. Ten schools have combined to 51 of the 76 AP titles, with each having 3 or more.
AP national titles
8 – AL, ND
7 – OU
5 – USC, Miami
4 – OSU, NE, MN
3 – UF, TX
2 – 8 schools (youngest: FSU with ’93 and ’99)
1 – 9 schools (last: CO in 1990)
You need money to compete. What about Boise St you say? They play other small $ schools and don’t get a shot at a MNC even if they play 2 tough games in a year.
Boise has played just fine against power schools, too. But beyond them, WV has greatly out-performed FSU recently and they have done it on BE money. VT has outperformed FSU on ACC money. You can play the Boise plays other little guys card, but the obvious response is FSU similarly plays other ACC schools so there is no money disadvantage.
On a much easier schedule than FSU plays, Boise came pretty close to the top 4 several times. With the same record in the ACC, FSU would have been fine. The problem for FSU is that they haven’t lost only 1 game since 2000.
The fact that the TV contract is terrible is more on Swofford than FSU.
You keep telling yourself that. What was he supposed to sell to ESPN in a bad economy, 2 “brands” that are mediocre in performance or the brandless repeat champ that can’t win a BCS game?
How is it that the ACC has the 2nd highest Nielson ratings
Facts not in evidence. You don’t get to just throw out a claim like that without significant proof and explanation. Second highest in what metric, and why is that the relevant metric? The data I’ve seen generally says the most viewers watch the SEC then the B10 and then B12/P12/ACC.
and yet is in 5th place (by a long shot) in terms of money. How is the Big 12 and PAC getting more money with less viewers?
Because your ratings information is wrong? Because the B12 and P12 signed new deals after the economy improved and new competitors entered the TV rights market? Because the ACC had to make the first new deal, and that set the bar for others to exceed?
For one thing the ESPN deal values exposure over getting cash. That is, the ACC says “hey, more of our games are on TV and so that has value even if the dollars aren’t as high.”
It’s called advertising, and it has a lot of value.
If you are UNC or UVA and already have money that’s great.
So woe is poor FSU, but UNC is rich off of the same TV deal? How about you try selling out some home games and use that ticket revenue to pay some bills? You’ve been 5-10k seats below capacity on average for the past few years:
Capacity = 82,300
2011 ave = 77,842
2010 ave = 71,270
2009 ave = 74,345
At 7814 seats per year on average, that’s about $400,000 per game (assumed $50/seat) available or almost $3M per year. That would have covered the deficit FSU has been talking about. Even last year, FSU’s best for attendance in 3 years, FSU was only 5th in the ACC in percent of capacity filled on game day (http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2011/Internet/attendance/FBS_AVGATTENDANCE.pdf).
You see, these complaints about UNC aren’t just basketball and wine and cheese snipes they do have a basis.
Yes, in the insecurity of fans of a team that used to be good but hasn’t been for a while. I’ve heard ND fans defense their lack of success, too.
And how about the fact that Raycom is in the deal with Swofford’s son as a top executive there?
How about it? Do you know of anyone willing to outbid them for the ACC rights?
Then you follow up my contention that USNWR is bogus with a list of USNWR applied to athletic conferences which shows that FSU would be in the middle of the pack in nearly every conference. Beyond the silliness of using made up numbers to prove something, you pretty much proved what I was saying in the first place. If you used a different metric that didn’t include the vague “academic reputation” we would do even better.
You have a bad memory. You said FSU would be in the middle or above in most conferences, and that clearly isn’t true. FSU would peak at the middle, and would be in the cellar in 2 of the 6 power leagues. I used USNWR because it’s easy to find and because I don’t care that you think it’s bogus (it’s amazing how many people say that if their school ranks poorly), but there are many other rankings that generally agree with it. Nobody thinks FSU is a top flight academic school. It’s average for an AQ at best, not that there’s anything wrong with that. What you seem to forget is that that is exactly why FSU wanted to join the ACC in the first place, and being in the ACC has helped their reputation.
I really love ESPN’s coverage. They completely ignore this issue that every other sports new site has been all over for days up until they have Barron’s letter that fits their spin. Why is that?
Because they have an obvious conflict of interest, no matter how much they claim their business and news sides are separate? This is hardly the first story ESPN has been negligent in covering, and it won’t be the last.
The Big 12 will sign one shortly and then 3/4′s of the way through the ACC’s 20 year deal they will sign another. That is very important when these things keep going up in value and when they are backloaded. The B!G owns half of the BTN, its not the same thing.
You said deal length is the problem. The BTN deal is longer. Either length is the problem or it isn’t. What we both know is that length isn’t the problem. If the ACC deal was triple what it is, you wouldn’t bitch about the B12 renegotiating sooner. Complain about the real problem instead of sidetracking on non-issues like length.
The bottom line is real numbers do need to be investigated by our BoT and I can promise you they won’t be as low as 3 million.
Of course they should look into the real numbers, but you can’t promise anything. You don’t know what all the real numbers are either.
If you paid attention, you’d notice that I haven’t actually advocated for FSU to stay or for them to go. I don’t think anyone knows the financial details well enough to make an informed opinion right now, let alone the academic pros and cons.
What kind of logic is that?
Your the one claiming retaining a coach is an issue for FSU. How many coaches have left FSU for a sideways move just to get a raise? Until that number is greater than zero, you’re just Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. You’re manufacturing a problem to try to make your case sound better.
There is no way we can beat Texas in money, or Florida or Alabama for that matter, but you might be able to keep it close enough its not the deciding factor,
It’s not the deciding factor. And as for keeping it “close enough” with Texas, good luck. They crush everybody. That doesn’t seem to have bought them too many wins lately, though. UT out-earned AL by over $25M and out-spent AL by over $28M last year. UT basically doubled FSU’s revenue and outspent them by over $50M. With the LHN deal, FSU isn’t closing that gap, especially since you can’t even sell out your stadium.
and you certainly don’t want to be worse off than Washington St, Vanderbilt, and really just about any of the big 4 conferences now making nearly twice the TV dollars than what ACC schools get.
If you expect anyone to believe that WSU will start beating FSU because of the money, you’re crazy. FSU has tons of advantages over WSU. I don’t see IN running roughshod over the ACC, and IN has been pulling more TV money for a while. TV money does not equal success.
Again, you seem to suggest FSU just doesn’t bother trying.
Right. Saying you should man up and fix the problems in your team instead of whining about fake money problems is saying you should just quit. Those are exactly the same thing. There are over 100 I-A schools that would love to trade places with FSU, so save me your pity party.
We should ignore the money problem
You don’t have a money problem, you have a winning problem. FSU’s recent lack of success probably is costing FSU $5-7M a year (ticket sales, merchandising, etc), and that’s before the deflated value of the TV deal now. Blaming anyone else is crap.
even though all the MNC winners for the last decade have been big $ schools,
FSU outspends OR, and OR was in the NCG and has been top 5 for several years. TCU and Boise and UC made the top 5 with much less money. VT has been dominating the ACC despite earning less than FSU. Money is just an excuse FSU fans use to console themselves about their recent lack of performance.
hope that our recruiting grounds and high spirits just get us those wins. And, yes, beating Florida is more important than a conference title.
Recruiting grounds will help, but some real school spirit would help more. Fill your stadium before complaining about a lack of money. And I said nothing about beating UF on the field, I talked about comparing wallet sizes with them. Money doesn’t equal winning, or ND would have a string of recent titles.
Look at your point of view through your whole response. You seem to believe that it is FSU’s job to win football games so other ACC schools can get more money.
No, I think it’s FSU’s job to win games so FSU can get more money.
No one else needs to field a competitive football team?
Other ACC schools have pumped about BCS worthy teams, even if they did all lose their games. FSU had an 8-3 2005 team that won the CCG in an upset, and nothing else since 2003. I suggest you get out of your glass house before throwing too many stones.
All the while sticking your nose up at its academic credentials.
FSU is average. Yay FSU!
Is that better?
Now, do you see why its not in our interest to stay associated with you?
I’m not a fan of an ACC team, so FSU really isn’t associated with me in any way. I’m neutral in this, I just think you gave crappy arguments.
LikeLike
Why are you arguing the point about USNWR? I said its a bogus ranking, its the worst metric for us because of the academic reputation part and you’re still not showing anything that disputes what I said. FSU is in the middle of 4 of the 6 major conferences with a bad methodology. How would we do we if it was ARWU or a different ranking system? Do any of them result in more $$ for academics or make students learn anything more?
Using percent of stadium full is a laughable stat to use. Why don’t other ACC schools build stadium that fit more than 55k? Anyways, wins and $$ are chicken and egg, they both lead to each other.
And you’re claiming VT is significant because they can win a weak conference and then get blown out in a BCS bowl or lose to Kansas. I dunno what to tell you if you think that’s significant. Oregon? You mean Phil Knight Oregon? They might show slightly less expenditure in some years but they aren’t going in the red and aren’t raising student fees to do it. They can keep that pace, and add some more with a new TV deal. Along with Oklahoma St they are a perfect example of how money translates to wins.
You can say suck it up and its your fault and anything else you want, but we still have to do what is in our best interest just like everyone else has these last couple years. The fact is the TV deal we have is much less than what others have. Money and winning go hand in hand in CFB, always have to some degree, but there won’t be some little school like Miami blowing up out of nowhere in this modern era. If there’s an imbalance in what we are getting and what we can get then we should, and hopefully will close it. While the rest of the ACC can stick around and cry about how its all our fault for not winning enough over a 12 year period.
LikeLike
To be fair to the US News rankings, the academic reputation rating is actually very useful for our purposes: it specifically shows what other university presidents think of that school. That’s basically what we’re trying to assess when we talk about academics and college conferences.
I honestly don’t think the US News rankings are that bad with respect to undergrad and they definitely have a lot of influence in law. I’ve worked in several firms (both general business and law) and their hiring practices all have a strong correlation to the US News rankings. That’s not necessarily on purpose, but it shows that the US News rankings at least pass the “smell test” in the real world compared to a lot of the other rankings out there (e.g. WSJ, Forbes), which is why those are the rankings that the public pays attention to.
LikeLike
Further to my last post, I know that when I was a senior at a competitive suburban Chicago high school, everyone in the top 20% of the class or so pored over those US News rankings. You could apply that to all of the similarly situated high schools in the area. That was 16 years ago and, by all accounts, that obsession is even more magnified today with websites like College Confidential. Those high school seniors deem the US News rankings important, and since they are the future customers of universities, the universities deem them much more important than they want to admit. The number of university administrators that have lost their jobs over criteria used in the US News rankings (e.g. yield, which is *truly* a useless metric compared to academic reputation) is very large.
LikeLike
Still doesn’t convince me that that academic reputation gets transferred by being in the same athletic conference. My original argument was that the only time FSU academics do get mentioned in connection with the ACC its about being at the bottom even though it is high compared to the rest of America, and has been gaining ground. Why have FSU’s admission standards steadily been going up the last few decades? Winning at football has been a big part of it. Same reason ND is the highly selective school it is today. Its one of the ways a middle / working class college can get ahead. The rich school way is to start off with big endowments from cigarette companies or sugar and orange plantation owners. Of course, they might have a different point of view, but that’s mine.
In short, we have an unsubstantiated claim that Duke’s high rating will rub off on FSU versuses things we know are real like the CIC and football creating enthusiasm which drives application standards up. Was it Ohio St that had the ad with kids saying its only a little about the football? One of the more honest commercials out there. I do think the faculty might believe the ACC is better but I haven’t seen anything claiming you get better professors because of that, unlike the other 2.
And as a side argument – I don’t much care for this country’s obsession with trying to boil complicated things down to inane lists. Does an engineering degree from FSU carry the same weight as one in fine arts? What state are you going to be working in?
LikeLike
I don’t think academic reputation does get transferred by being in the same conference.
But the Presidents like hanging out with the Presidents of a Stanford or Duke instead of hanging out with the President of Troy State. So it matters to the President. It matters to the faculty. I don’t think it matters much to the school, but it still influences conference realignment.
Now the CIC has a tangible benefit, but no other conference has something as developed as that.
The one tangible factor is admission standards. A highly selective school would prefer not to be in a conference with a bunch of open admission schools as they would be more limited in who they could recruit. That doesn’t improve the academic standing of the school, it just keeps a more balanced playing field.
LikeLike
You make several good points, Brian, but I absolutely have to disagree with you on a few things.
You said, “FSU moving would be punishing the ACC for FSU’s recent failures.” This is incorrect. As others have noted, things are cyclical. No team is “up” forever. But every other conference has multiple teams to carry the banner: SEC (Bama, LSU, UF, Auburn, UTK have all won BCS titles, UGA has won BCS games); Big 12 (OU, UT have won BCS titles, KSt, OkSt, Neb, Kans have won BCS games); Big Ten (OSU won a title, Wisc, PSU, Iowa, Mich have all won BCS games, Neb before joining); Pac 12 (USC has won a title, Oreg St, Wash, Oreg, and Stanford have won BCS games, as well as Utah before joining). The ACC? VT beat Cincy once; UM won a title before joining. That’s it. Why is FSU responsible for carrying the ACC, like it did in the 90s? Why has no other team stepped up on a nationally relevant level? To say that FSU would be punishing the ACC for FSU’s own failings is to admit that the ACC cannot support itself in college football without FSU. That’s bad reasoning for criticizing FSU. You said other ACC teams have had BCS teams? Duh. The champ gets an autobid to a BCS bowl – but again, VT is the only other team to have won a BCS bowl (against, ahem, Cincy). All other major conferences have had at least 5 teams win BCS bowl games. The ACC has two (three, in a sense, but UM’s wins were pre-ACC).
Also, you deflect blame from Swofford: “You keep telling yourself that. What was he supposed to sell to ESPN in a bad economy, 2 ‘brands’ that are mediocre in performance or the brandless repeat champ that can’t win a BCS game?”
Larry Scott was able to sell the Pac for more money by offering up less product (fewer games, no tier 3); he was able to start a network system (with regional channels). The other guy’s rating numbers were pretty close: the ACC is #3 in football and #2 in basketball in the Nielsen ratings. What rating system would you prefer (this one helps decide what tv shows will be renewed and cancelled, so it should be good enough here)? The Pac finished 5th and 6th, respectively. Swofford specifically insisted on retaining the ACC’s relationship with Raycom, and thus avoided putting us on the real open market; his son works at Raycom, and Raycom admitted it probably could not survive without the ACC’s business. I have no proof someone would have paid a lot more for the ACC, but it is a fact that Swofford restricted the open market bidding by insisting that Raycom be a partner. That’s practically criminal, certainly morally questionable – he certainly did not act on the best interest of the ACC’s membership, which is his primary responsibility. The SEC left Raycom because it could not offer them competitive money; the ACC should have as well.
Plus, for more incompetence, FSU is poised to have its best season since 2000. Yet instead of waiting to finalize the renegotiation, Swofford went ahead and signed it. He did not wait to see what the new post season (and its revenue sharing format) would be. He did not wait to see what the SEC would get for adding A&M and Mizzou. He did not wait to see if FSU could make a title run, thus giving the ACC more leverage. How is that not a stupid move? There was no rush, as Pitt and Syr won’t join until 2013 (at the earliest). He also did not secure the return of 3rd tier rights, which would enable a network – that, I might note, he decided against pursuing a couple years ago (much to Raycom’s benefit). (Reportedly the SEC’s previous contract restricted the possibility of a network, but they are renegotiating that aspect and plan to launch a network as early as 2014.)
Third, you say, “So woe is poor FSU, but UNC is rich off of the same TV deal?”
No, UNC is wealthy regardless of the tv money. Its endowment is 3-4 times larger than FSU’s. FSU got screwed by the Buckman Act of 1905, which made it the woman’s college and UF the man’s college. FSU did not become coeducational again for 40+ years. It missed out on decades of alumni from medical, law, business, and engineering schools. It is one of the poorer major schools in the nation because of this (instead of doctors, lawyers, etc., its alumni were teachers, secretaries and nurses, whose husbands sent donations to their own schools).
I’ll also point out that you allow some leeway for the ACC signing its deal when the economy was down, but you chastise FSU for not selling out its stadium during the same economic downturn that apparently hindered the ACC’s negotiations. Consider that Tallahassee is pretty isolated from major metropolitan areas. Gainesville, for example, is within 2-3 hours of Jacksonville, Tampa and Orlando. It’s a bigger school, with more alumni, and many of them live within easy driving distance. FSU is about 3 hours from Jacksonville – and no other major city is within that range. Local hotels stupidly require a two-night stay on game weekends, significantly raising the cost for out of town fans. With the economy down – and, of course, the win totals not as high as they used to be – is it any wonder the stadium has not been selling out? Attendance will rise, I think, as the win total increases and the economy improves.
In general, I think FSU would be within its rights to move not only because of the prospect of much more money, but also because of the ACC’s lack of effective leadership. The original contract was bad. Insisting on Raycom was awful. Subsequent contracts and ratings info suggest the contract was significantly undervalued. The new contract is not really better (heavily backloaded, extended). Not waiting to finalize was stupid. Eliminating the possibility of a network was stupid. Etc. My ideal would have been for the ACC to become one of the four power conferences, but Swofford proved incapable of making that happen (you can say FSU didn’t help, but neither did any of the other 11 members – something that does not happen in any other conference). If FSU leaves the ACC, it is not doing so primarily because of its own failings. It’s the failings of the other institutions to step up and of the leadership to make good strategic moves.
(Why has the ACC not promoted itself as the best conference, athletically and academically – using the Director’s Cup standings and the USNWR rankings? Why not set up an ACCN to promote its amazing olympic sports and its academic achievements? Why not make a more serious play for ND, or for UT which was rumored to have approached the ACC when the B12 seemed about to collapse last year? Rumors say the NBC and LHN deals were something the ACC didn’t want – but why not work around them? Etc. There are a lot of things the ACC could have tried to do, but it seems it did not. There’s no reason FSU shouldn’t explore its options.)
LikeLike
Florida and Bama won’t go to any lengths to screw y’all if you start getting good. Texas can and will.
Plus, just wait for the LHN to start showing HS games of ya’lls best recruits. I have no doubt UT and OU want FSU to be ranked cannon fodder and have no interest in a real resurgence in FSU’s fortunes.
You would be better off in the SEC if you guys just HAVE to move.
LikeLike
The SEC would be my first choice. I think it should offer us. As I’ve read elsewhere, the possibility of getting three new markets (A&M, Mizzou, a third like VT or NCSt) along with a national brand like FSU would be an excellent expansion tactic. If markets were all that mattered, the ACC would be an awesome conference. It’s not. When the Big Ten expanded, it chose a national brand over a larger market. The SEC would be wise to use a two-pronged market and brand/ratings approach to expansion, should it go to 16 (though indications are that it won’t, which I think is a mistake).
I think VT would be mediocre in the SEC. It rarely gets any 4-5 star athletes, and it would not compete against the elite SEC schools. NCSt would do worse. Both would end up diluting the product, and the SEC’s strength is its depth of teams capable of winning national titles. FSU would help balance out the B/C-level teams it would otherwise add. Geographically, the conference would be tighter, which aids in the rivalries (and ticket sales). Think of the short-term ratings boost FSU would bring because of the story lines, including:
– Bama (Saban/Jimbo connection)
– UF (Jimbo/Muschamp connection)
– UGA (Richt/FSU)
– UT (Jimbo/Dooley, both Sabanites)
– LSU (Jimbo/LSU)
– SC (Spurrier/FSU)
FSU has some established history with UF, Auburn, LSU, SC (and a potential expansion partner, either VT or NCSt – and add either one to the “story lines” section above).
Overall, I think FSU would add immediate interest like no other team, and it would build long term rivalries to an extent not likely to happen with any other potential targets.
Quality, ratings and rivalries are what you want; markets alone do not win the day (or the ACC would be one of the top two conferences). I see no reason the SEC should not accomplish both adding new markets AND the best “fit” out there, which would bring quality, ratings and rivalries (FSU).
LikeLike
Frank,
How about the fact that money aside, the Big 12 far and away plays better football than the ACC? Do you not think that the relative difference might not be a consideration to the Seminoles?
Check your 2012 preseason rankings. Once again, there are 6 Big 12 teams in the top 25.
I suspect you are going to see Florida State and others react “like football fans” and make the logical move and take the huge upgrade in league quality and cash. Smart choice, and look for others to follow.
LikeLike
Wern’t UT fans saying aTm was making a competitive mistake going to a stronger FB conference? If FSU has under achieved in the ACC how is moving to a stronger conference now a good thing?
LikeLike
That’s because A&M’s last top-five poll finish was in 1956. FSU did it 14 years in a row. FSU has a track record of achieving at the highest level. A&M doesn’t.
LikeLike
FSU had that track record under one coach. It wasn’t good before him and hasn’t done much since. There’s no reason to assume FSU under Fisher is capable of anything approaching that sort of run, especially with more competition in conference.
LikeLike
Fisher in two years has more season-ending AP poll rankings than the Aggies have in the new millennium.
LikeLike
Belmont learns fast. UT has a much more coordinated response in blog comments than in the last two go arounds.
LikeLike
No. Texas fans were saying A&M had an overinflated sense of there football significance and now derive there athletic worth from their conference mates (sec sec sec.) FSU may be down but they have demonstrated a capacity to succeed. A&M not so much.
FSU All-time record 473–235–17 (.664)
Postseason bowl record 25–14–2 (.634)
BCS Bowls: 1-5
BCS National Championship Game 1-2
Bowl Coalition 3-0
Bowl Alliance 2-1
aggy All-time record 681–450–48 (.598)
Postseason bowl record 14–19
Claimed national titles 1
Claimed conference titles 15
BCS Bowls: not applicable
BCS National: not applicable
Bowl Coalition: not applicable
Bowl Alliance: not applicable
LikeLike
*In fairness, A&M was 0-1 in the Bowl Alliance (lost to Ohio State in the 1999 Sugar Bowl, which followed their famous 1998 Big 12 Championship upset over previously unbeaten Kansas State), and they were 0-1 in the Bowl Coalition (lost to Notre Dame in the 1994 Cotton Bowl).
LikeLike
Not all Longhorns say that aTm to the SEC was a bad move for the Ags. (And there are plenty more that are happy to see them leave…)
FSU and aTm’s situations have some parallels, but really the schools are very, very different. We’ve been trying to counsel our SEC friends and best prepare them for dealing with their new ‘special’ little brother.
Here’s a primer:
http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/94931-Tell-me-about-Texas-A-amp-M
LikeLike
It is downright creepy how obsessed UT fans are with A&M.
LikeLike
yep
if “obsessed” is a new synonym for “tired of” then yes we are
LikeLike
What jtower said.
Personally, I don’t start anything about Aggies. But when they start talking, there’s almost always something that needs correcting.
LikeLike
It is Brian. Glad that fact has come to light for more fans across the country. We left the B12 for a better conference but many of their fans (t-shirt types like playoffs now especially) can’t get over it.
LikeLike
Bear,
“How about the fact that money aside, the Big 12 far and away plays better football than the ACC?”
They didn’t used to be better than FSU and may not be in the future, but right now FSU can’t even win a league of weak teams. Maybe they should join the BE so they can win their own conference again and put up 12-0 or 11-1 records like the old days.
“Do you not think that the relative difference might not be a consideration to the Seminoles?”
Are you saying FSU is masochistic and wants to lose more often and by more points, so they should upgrade their competition?
LikeLike
The only move that makes any sense for FSU, if it were to leave the ACC, is the SEC.
FSU to XII makes no sense, as it would be trading a North Carolina-centric league for a Texas-dominated league.
LikeLike
Clearly, they believe that won’t happen, or Andy Haggard wouldn’t have said what he said.
LikeLike
Or he’s willing to be in a TX-dominated league as long as it pays better than a NC-dominated one.
LikeLike
FSU doesn’t seem particularly interested in the SEC. But then Barron doesn’t seem particularly interested in the Big 12 either.
FSU actually makes far more sense in the SEC geographically than the ACC.
LikeLike
Go Green!
LikeLike
Interesting hypothetical: Let’s say that the Big 12 does add Florida State, and then Louisville gets offers from both the ACC and Big 12. Which do you think they choose?
LikeLike
The ACC won’t take Louisville. They passed on WV, so why take Louisville? That’s the problem though, they don’t think its an athletic conference even though they provide no actual academic benefits to their members, its all for show.
LikeLike
Exactly. Louisville’s only shot at a major conference is the Big 12. Same as WV. The Big 10, SEC, and ACC aren’t touching these schools.
LikeLike
The Big 12 and they don’t think twice.
LikeLike
FSU is not going to the B12 without bringing ACC partners. In fact the only way I think they go is if both the money is close to $10 mil per year more and they bring 3 nearby/ACC schools.
(Well, relatively nearby, only GA Tech is within driving distance in the ACC. 6.5 hours to Clemson, 7.5 to Miami, 9.5 to the NC schools.)
If FSU brings Miami, GA Tech, and Clemson, the B12 is academically even with the SEC. 13 year grant of rights means the B12 is also just as stable as the SEC. Adding those 4 schools would put them quite close to the SEC financially. So it is a bit odd to hear that FSU would be crazy to leave for the B12 because of academics, but the SEC might be ok.
BTW, can we stop with the oversimplification bullshit? I think FSU to the B12 (or SEC) might make sense, but I still understand that academics matter. Most people open to FSU moving feel that way. And plenty of us think like a President, not just as fans. But decisions are often made in complex political environments.
FYI, the B12 is planning to start their own CIC equivalent. Academically they did take a big hit losing CO, MO, and aTm, but this may be a chance to rebuild that somewhat. I hated the WV addition because of their lower academic standards, but as DeLoss Dodds noted the conference was in a pickle and needed a quick addition. That is no longer the case.
I think a lot of people are struggling to fathom that parts of their worldview might have been wrong.
Got any more PurpleBookCat scoops?
LikeLike
I should clarify:
All of us at one time or another struggle with having our worldview challenged, and usually have to adjust. Just a part of life, we’ve all been there.
LikeLike
A lot of people have trouble with the concept that the Big 12 is not still falling apart. And many people can’t accept the possibility that Texas might actually be right where they want to be. I don’t see Texas ever choosing to move unless circumstances substantially change.
LikeLike
In regards to WVU’s academic reputation, our chronically poor ranking in the U.S. News and World Report rankings stems from the fact that we are bounded, by law, to accept basically any high school graduate from the State of West Virginia. Penn State and Ohio State have fairly similar standards, but they have plenty of other campuses to send off their less desirable students. WVU does not.
What really sticks in my craw though is that WVU also gets docked points for having a high dropout rate. So basically we get punished for giving kids a chance and then GET PUNISHED MORE when many of those kids can’t handle the coursework. That has never made any sense to me.
LikeLike
mountainerd,
“In regards to WVU’s academic reputation, our chronically poor ranking in the U.S. News and World Report rankings stems from the fact that we are bounded, by law, to accept basically any high school graduate from the State of West Virginia.”
That’s not the only reason. You make it sound like WV is Harvard but with open admissions.
“What really sticks in my craw though is that WVU also gets docked points for having a high dropout rate. So basically we get punished for giving kids a chance and then GET PUNISHED MORE when many of those kids can’t handle the coursework. That has never made any sense to me.”
Admissions and graduation rate aren’t completely linked. The theory of open admissions is that rural schools may not always have all the resources needed to provide a great education, so the state university shouldn’t hold that against the students. If these were all dedicated students with all the inherent abilities needed to succeed in college, then a strong faculty would be able to turn them all into strong graduates (like Kirk Ferentz coaching up 2 star recruits). There are many other factors for drop out rate beyond admissions policy, too. That said, a high drop out rate usually indicates a lot of teaching resources being “wasted” on those who don’t graduate. That means classes aren’t teaching as efficiently as they can because the bad students hold up progress and siphon off resources that would help the real students. You learn better in a course that isn’t full of dead weight.
LikeLike
“That’s not the only reason. You make it sound like WV is Harvard but with open admissions.”
Where the hell did I imply that? My defense of WVU is that it’s on par with most major Land Grant Universities, but gets docked points in bogus academic ratings for it’s correlating low admission standards/high dropout rate.
“The theory of open admissions is that rural schools may not always have all the resources needed to provide a great education, so the state university shouldn’t hold that against the students. If these were all dedicated students with all the inherent abilities needed to succeed in college, then a strong faculty would be able to turn them all into strong graduates (like Kirk Ferentz coaching up 2 star recruits).”
Ah, so not only should WVU be punished for following state law by accepting lousy high school students , we should also be punished for not allocating limited resources to helping them pass.
“That said, a high drop out rate usually indicates a lot of teaching resources being “wasted” on those who don’t graduate. That means classes aren’t teaching as efficiently as they can because the bad students hold up progress and siphon off resources that would help the real students.”
Ok, so you’re assuming that the professors and TA’s at WVU are forced to spend a ton of extra time helping struggling students. That’s absolutely not the case, from what I understand, but even if it were, the vast majority of the dropping out happens within the first two semesters. Only the entry level courses are really going to be effected.
I’m not saying that WVU is the Oxford of Appalachia, but it’s a damn fine school that unfairly gets docked points in academic rankings systems that are skewed to being with. It’s frustrating to see these rankings used to attack WVU, especially during the whole conference realignment debate, which has had practically nothing to do with academics.
LikeLike
The real problem leading to WVU’s low academic ranking is that a significant portion of the metrics are based on subjective reputation surveys of nationwide faculties (I know this is the case for grad schools, and I think it’s the case for undergrad as well). West Virginia as a state has had an image problem for well over a century, and when people who know nothing about the University other than the state in which it is located rate it, the results are not pretty. Obviously I don’t have all the US News data in front of me, but I’d conjecture that bias against West Virginia as a state is responsible for a few dozen spots in the rankings compared to similar schools located in states with innocuous reputations.
And I don’t think anyone is arguing that WVU is a “Harvard with open admissions.” But it isn’t such a stretch to say it’s a school with facilities and faculty comparable to other mid-ranking sub-AAU universities that is irrationally over-penalized in the rankings because it doesn’t have a huge reserve of regional campuses to which it can farm out its marginal applicants like, for example, Penn State. That is a function of the small size of the state more than anything else.
In any event, whether the 164 ranking is really deserved or not, I hardly think that associating with WVU, Louisville, or other schools with triple digit rankings is going to meaningfully degrade educational outcomes at higher ranked institutions. Nor had those two schools being in the same conference as Pitt and Syracuse somehow elevated them by association.
LikeLike
Just because my “alma mater pride” has been pricked…from the same site for consistency & ease of reading, but I did double check on the universities’ websites:
PSU Altoona (Branch), Incoming Freshmen Admissions:
http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=601
PSU Erie (Branch), Incoming Freshmen Admissions:
http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=62
WVU, Morgantown (Main), Incoming Freshmen Admissions:
http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1589
Long story short, the two branch campuses PSU typically shuffles kids off to have higher incoming high school GPA, SAT, and ACT averages than WVU main.
I work with plenty of WVU grads and can easily say they are good workers and no dummies, but lets not “hand wave” away the problems WVU, and the WV public education system in general, has and it subsequent national rankings because of it (even if I think it understandable to say the “mountain hick” stigma still remains…PSU itself had to over come that at one point).
LikeLike
PSUGuy –
Those are two out of 19 “commonwealth campuses” that are part of the PSU system, and constitute about a fourth of the satellite campus enrollment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_State_University_Commonwealth_Campus
Now, for all I know, every one of those campuses has higher entrance requirements than WVU. That would not be surprising, because WVU has statutory entrance requirements that basically open the doors to any high school graduate in the state. As far as the quality of high school graduates coming out of West Virginia’s public education system- tomes could be written concerning the problems facing that system. Most of them can be traced back in one way or another to poverty and associated critical under-funding.
Anyway, I’m not arguing that WVU is a better school than PSU, or provides a superior education to its students, or attracts a more qualified pool of applicants. I’m merely arguing that US News’ subjective reputational surveys, combined with a bias in the formula — in favor of states with a more robust lower echelon of public school options, and against WVU’s academic mission of providing WV high school graduates with an attainable route to a quality postsecondary education — serve to make WVU appear to be a worse school than it is compared to other mid-level flagship state schools.
LikeLike
mountainerd,
“That’s not the only reason. You make it sound like WV is Harvard but with open admissions.”
Where the hell did I imply that?
When you blamed WV’s rankings solely on the admissions policy.
My defense of WVU is that it’s on par with most major Land Grant Universities, but gets docked points in bogus academic ratings for it’s correlating low admission standards/high dropout rate.
How did you decide it’s on par? What was your objective measure? You do realize that some schools have to be below average from the group of “major Land Grant Universities” and WV may be one of them, right? It doesn’t mean you can’t get a good education there.
Ah, so not only should WVU be punished for following state law by accepting lousy high school students , we should also be punished for not allocating limited resources to helping them pass.
Rankings aren’t punishment. It’s not USNWR’s problem that WV has to obey that law. They are attempting to give an honest assessment of every school in the country, not soothe the egos of the locals.
Ok, so you’re assuming that the professors and TA’s at WVU are forced to spend a ton of extra time helping struggling students. That’s absolutely not the case, from what I understand, but even if it were, the vast majority of the dropping out happens within the first two semesters. Only the entry level courses are really going to be effected.
It’s not an assumption. Struggling students at every school take up more time from the TAs/profs. The only difference is in how hard the material has to be, or how fast the pace, to make them struggle.
You don’t think hurting the intro courses is important? That it shouldn’t impact an evaluation of the school? The first two semesters are 25% of the time you should be there. That seems important to me.
I’m not saying that WVU is the Oxford of Appalachia, but it’s a damn fine school that unfairly gets docked points in academic rankings systems that are skewed to being with.
The problem is you view the rankings in the wrong way. WVU is #164 in the nation in 2012. That’s a good thing. Only the top 200 national universities get a ranking, and then there are regional schools below that. USNWR ranked 1600 schools this year. WVU may be on the lower end of the AQ schools, but someone has to be. There is a worst school in the Ivy League, too.
As for unfair, that’s just you being defensive. Admitting that WVU has those weaknesses doesn’t make WVU a bad school, just one that could improve. The education you get at any school is largely dependent on the effort the student puts in.
It’s frustrating to see these rankings used to attack WVU, especially during the whole conference realignment debate, which has had practically nothing to do with academics.
All schools/teams are attacked for their weaknesses. For WV that was academics and the state population. For other schools it’s been the quality of the teams or the lack of fan support. Would you prefer that?
LikeLike
@ Brian
“When you blamed WV’s rankings solely on the admissions policy.”
And that automatically implies that WVU is on par with Harvard how, exactly?
“How did you decide it’s on par? What was your objective measure?”
Total subjectivity on my part. But the Princeton Review and U.S. News rankings are largely subjective as well, so screw it.
“Rankings aren’t punishment. It’s not USNWR’s problem that WV has to obey that law. They are attempting to give an honest assessment of every school in the country, not soothe the egos of the locals.”
No, but they are used to dismiss WVU as an educational institution on message boards and it just gets annoying. I tend to get bent out of shape because WVU provided much of my family a high-quality, affordable education (not to mention a one-way ticket out of the Ohio Valley). Us Mountaineer fans have earned the right to be hyper-defensive and paranoid over the years.
“As for unfair, that’s just you being defensive. Admitting that WVU has those weaknesses doesn’t make WVU a bad school, just one that could improve. The education you get at any school is largely dependent on the effort the student puts in.”
I think the rankings are faulty. But otherwise, you’re totally right.
“All schools/teams are attacked for their weaknesses. For WV that was academics and the state population. For other schools it’s been the quality of the teams or the lack of fan support. Would you prefer that?”
I would rather disembowel myself with a wooden spoon than be a Pitt fan.
And WVU has arguably gained more than any institution during the realignment sweepstakes, so yes, us Mountaineer fans should probably stop being so defensive, shut our neurotic hillbilly traps, and relax on a bed of money while making hotel reservations in Austin and Stillwater.
LikeLike
Playoffs Now,
“FSU is not going to the B12 without bringing ACC partners. In fact the only way I think they go is if both the money is close to $10 mil per year more and they bring 3 nearby/ACC schools.”
The B12 isn’t sure they want to go to 12, and you have them at 14 at least? I don’t see that.
“If FSU brings Miami, GA Tech, and Clemson, the B12 is academically even with the SEC.”
If FSU brings Harvard, Yale and Princeton, the B12 would better than the SEC, too. GT isn’t going to the B12, period. Miami said they weren’t interested (could be standard spin/lies, but they said it), and as a private school with a strong academic reputation staying in the ACC makes some sense. I haven’t heard Clemson say much at all, and I’ve heard many say the goal would be VT instead. I don’t see VT going to the B12 when they said no thanks to the rumors of SEC interest.
So maybe FSU and Clemson would go, and I don’t see that making the B12 better than the SEC. Both have a weak bottom half.
“13 year grant of rights means the B12 is also just as stable as the SEC.”
Not really. It means the B12 will stay together for another 13 years, but as the expiration date approaches the rumors will start up again until the GOR is extended. Nobody thinks the SEC is likely to splinter without a contractual obligation holding teams there.
“Adding those 4 schools would put them quite close to the SEC financially.”
Maybe. This is all based on rumors about a deal that hasn’t even been signed yet, and on top of that the SEC is in negotiations to improve their deal. The bigger problem is your assumption that those 4 schools will go.
“So it is a bit odd to hear that FSU would be crazy to leave for the B12 because of academics, but the SEC might be ok.”
The SEC makes sense in other ways that the B12 doesn’t. It would still be bad for their academics, but the geography and rivalries would make more sense.
“BTW, can we stop with the oversimplification bullshit?”
Sure. Just get us copies of all the contracts involved (ACC, B12 and SEC) as well as transcripts of all the negotiations, detailed budgets and TV ratings for all the relevant schools so we have actual facts to work with.
“I think FSU to the B12 (or SEC) might make sense, but I still understand that academics matter.”
Do you understand it, or do you agree with it (and to what degree do they matter)? You can reach very different conclusions from the same evidence based on things like that.
“Most people open to FSU moving feel that way.”
Not from what I’ve seen. I’ve seen most of them say academics don’t matter, or are a red herring, etc.
“And plenty of us think like a President, not just as fans.”
Have you ever been a college president? If not, do you know any personally? If not, how do you know that you think like one?
“But decisions are often made in complex political environments.”
Yes, but that has nothing to do with anything. You can make simple decisions in complex political environments, too.
LikeLike
What does being a private school have to do with wanting to remain in the ACC? There are two private institutions in the Big 12.
LikeLike
BC, Duke, WF and Syracuse plus smaller state schools like UVA and GT and not-quite state school Pitt, plus public ivies like UNC. Those schools are different from standard state schools. It’s a different fit culturally.
LikeLike
So basically:
Frank = pre-war French
ACC = impenetrable Maginot Line
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now – Ha! I’ll give you props there – that’s a good one.
LikeLike
Napoleon laughs at Russia.
LikeLike
Hey now, there is no reason to go comparing FSU to Nazis!
LikeLike
(Actually now that I think about it, the Big 12 would be Germany, but you are succumbing to Gomer’s Law either way)
LikeLike
You mean Godwin’s law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
LikeLike
Notre Dame will play in Red Square and it will be televised on NBC. Domer’s Law.
LikeLike
Damn autocorrect. Yeah, I meant Goodwin.
LikeLike
@Bear, you’ve got me stumped. Why would a team that can’t win the ACC want to move to a stronger football conference? So they can finish fifth instead of third?
LikeLike
A team that can’t beat Wake Forest needs to worry about being in the top 4 in the country.
Oh yeah, its North Carolina State’s fault that Florida State cannot win with more talent than all but a handful of teams in the country.
No, wait, it’s Swofford’s fault. You know, the guy that brought in the ACC-carrying Va Tech Hokies, as well as Boston College (better record in the 2000’s than FSU), and Miami (another supposed elite).
No, wait, it’s ESPN’s fault. You know, the network that will apparently pony up for FSU to swap conferences.
No, wait, it’s the fault of Clinton, Bush, or Obama.
Etc….
LikeLike
i don’t know why people seem to think fla st is static. it is not. take a look at the recruiting they are doing these days. and that’s as an acc school. how are they going to recruit in a football conference that features barn-burner games every weekend and plenty of high-level exposure for the seminoles?
if jimbo doesn’t cut it, somebody will. and attracting a top coach will be much easier in a football-centric conference.
don’t look at what they did the past ten years. look at what they are putting together now. the big 12 might be foolish bringing them in and encouraging their growth.
LikeLike
glenn,
“i don’t know why people seem to think fla st is static. it is not. take a look at the recruiting they are doing these days. and that’s as an acc school.”
They’ve been recruiting that way for 20 years. It didn’t stop them from becoming average the past 6 (last championship) – 11 (last 1 loss regular season) years.
“how are they going to recruit in a football conference that features barn-burner games every weekend and plenty of high-level exposure for the seminoles?”
Barn-burners like their annual games with ISU, KSU and KU? Or the 50% of the time when they play OkSU, TT, TCU and Baylor? The biggest exposure for FSU in many years is the Miami game, and going to the B12 may well cost them that series (UF is a higher priority).
At best they have WV annually and a regional partner (or 3) plus UT and OU 50% of the time (maybe locked, but I doubt it). Clearly that’s much better than Miami, Clemson and VT/GT 50% of the time, plus UF annually.
“if jimbo doesn’t cut it, somebody will. and attracting a top coach will be much easier in a football-centric conference.”
No it won’t, at least not directly. There are other factors that are much more important.
“don’t look at what they did the past ten years. look at what they are putting together now.”
Nothing different than what they had before, highly ranked classes that may or may not pan out. Get back to me when FSU actually wins something besides the off season.
LikeLike
@Bear, you’ve got me stumped. Why would a team that can’t win the ACC want to move to a stronger football conference? So they can finish fifth instead of third?
In sports, teams often play up, or down, to their level of competition. For whatever reasons.
Additionally, teams in a conference perceived to be strong often get the benefit of the doubt and artificial boosts in ratings from the media/voters. Witness Bama’s mulligan and the annual SEC Free Pass. To be fair, the B12 has also benefited from this. Sometimes in the computers, witness the embarrassing BCS back ins of OU and Nebraska, or Texas jumping Cal to get to the Rose Bowl.
Easier to recruit.
Pride. A new start fuels new hopes and dreams. See aTm and Nebraska. Which usually means big new boosts in donations and attendance. Witness TCU’s stadium expansion (paid in donor cash, not credit) and a near tripling of their season ticket sales. Aggies are claiming a similar boost, so does U. Houston for their move to the Big East.
Those who perceive themselves as undervalued, underperforming, and/or under appreciated are often willing to take greater risks. That’s why I have always held that aTm’s move to the SEC was the best thing they could do (and I’m a Longhorn.) FSU moving is a tougher call, primarily because of academics, but it might pay off.
LikeLike
I do think you are looking at it simplistically Frank. We are talking potentially massive amounts of money, not pennies. We are talking about the health of the athletic programs. And there is also competing at the highest level in football in addition to other sports (ACC does well other than fb, so does the Big 12).
And while the ACC is contiguous, it does stretch from Miami to Boston. Tallahassee is 1100 miles from Boston. Its only 1049 miles from Lubbock and 801 miles from Austin. Tallahassee is a long way from the Atlantic Coast of Florida.
If the FSU President put together a rational list of objections, I would suspect that it would be extremely unlikely that FSU would go. But with such a set of weak arguments, I suspect there is a decent chance the BOT will overrule him. He really has no credibility. There were a lot of us who didn’t believe he actually wrote the letter. It looks like something a poster from a threatened ACC school would write who didn’t have much knowledge of the matter. I couldn’t believe a President of a major university would make himself look so bad on such an important matter.
LikeLike
And while the FSU president talks about issues with academic $, Texas athletics is giving $11.6 million a year to academics. They were already committed to $6.6 million. With the LHN, they have committed at least another $5 million.
LikeLike
bullet
Weak set of arguments = wish list / negotiation points
LikeLike
Good analysis, but I think the ability to play for a Nat Championship in Football is a factor. The death of AQ status and the importance of RPI will likely doom the prospects of any ACC football team. Of course it is about money, but Big XII membership can have exponential impacts on the money equation, even if Tier 3 money is the red herring for departure. FSU apparently has material infrastructure needs and needs the kind of marquee matchups that bringing in UT or OU on an annual basis could bring along with an extra 5 to 7 million per year…that’s a lot of debt service $ if you ask me. Besides whose to say that they don’t bring along a few regional friends…like Miami, GT and/or Clemson?
LikeLike
The devil’s advocate is two fold on that. If qualification to the championship is so important, wouldn’t FSU rather be Team 1 in the ACC rather than Team 3 in the Big 12? And who’s to say FSU plays either Texas or Oklahoma annually? What if they’re stuck in the Kansas/KSU/Iowa St/WV division? And what if they have to give up Miami and/or Florida each year? Or are both of them coming too? Along with GT? and Clemson?
I mean there are a lot of what ifs that could break well for FSU. But if they went Big 12, wouldn’t any non-OU/UT game be a pretty crappy draw? Is it really all that different from their current ACC schedule?
And don’t get me started on RPI and the BCS. They changed that formula every two seconds once they get a result they don’t like. You can’t make long term decisions off something that may not last two years.
LikeLike
i don’t think fsu intends to be Team 3 in the Big 12.
LikeLike
I don’t think they intend to be that in the ACC either, but that’s what they have been.
LikeLike
Jay,
“Good analysis, but I think the ability to play for a Nat Championship in Football is a factor. The death of AQ status and the importance of RPI will likely doom the prospects of any ACC football team.”
Based on what? First, we have no idea what the new postseason will look like (top 4, 4 champs, 4 champ if highly ranked, etc). Second, we have no idea how they will rank teams (human poll, computers, RPI, SOS bonus, committee, etc).
Last year, 11-1 VT was #5 in the BCS and sure to move up if they won the CCG (idle Stanford was #4, and VT would have passed them). As a conference champ in the top 4, they would have made it in the playoff. In previous years, a 1 loss ACC champ has always been highly ranked. The problem is that the champ usually has had 2 or 3 losses lately, not that the ACC gets no respect.
“Besides whose to say that they don’t bring along a few regional friends…like Miami, GT and/or Clemson?”
Who’s to say they will? They can’t make a decision like this hoping someone else joins them. They need to know about it in advance or act like nobody special is joining them.
LikeLike
I still believe they are going to go and rightfully so. The time to position yourself for the future is now. There are only so many slots in what will eventually be the four power conferences and once they’re locked in, the conferences are going to insure their members stay put or leave their rights behind. Football will never be popular on the East coast. It is critical for FS to keep up with the Jones’ in the SEC/B1G etc. or their ‘brand’ status will crater and their conference proximity to Duke won’t mean much. Interesting article from Staples at SI.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/05/14/florida-state-realignment/index.html
LikeLike
Am I really supposed to believe that there’s only x amount of spots in this “new elite college football” and if FSU does not go now to the Big 12 to appease the blogsphere that their spot will permanently and forever given to someone else, like Louisville? I don’t find that claim very convincing…
LikeLike
Silly me for thinking conference membership might not go on infinitum. I look forward to the day when a 32 team SEC plays a twenty eight game conference schedule. I knew that oversigning would come it handy. Now if only I could convince Jericho, my ‘new elite college football’ would rule the world!!!!
LikeLike
Silly me for thinking that the entirety of college sports does not have to be aligned in 4 neatly filled 16 team super conferences that some people want. Also, silly me for thinking that “all the spots” will apparently not be gone within the next 6 months.
LikeLike
GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!
LikeLike
We’re not talking penny-wise, pound foolish here Frank. We’re talking serious cash here.
Money:
Let’s start with a long-dated, back-loaded contract the ACC has signed with ESPN. Even with the look-ins its going to be hard for the ACC to increase the contract because again, the contract’s length.
13MM vs 20MM from either the SEC or Big12 for the next 8 years. So there is 7MM there
Let’s be real conservative and let’s call it $2MM for FSU 3rd Tier
So there is 9MM for the next 8 years and we haven’t even gotten to the wild cards yet.
Big 12 + FSU + Clemson = CCG and bigger contract. Tack another 2 – 3 MM a year
Playoffs: the difference between the Big 12, a perrienial BCS player vs ACC – an also ran is probably between 3 – 5 a year.
So now we are talking closer to 14MM on the low-end and possibly as high as 17MM on the high end. That’s not 2.9MM dollars; and in an environment when universities need all the money they can get; how can you stare at your BOT and say your not interested.
The SEC:
This is another trouble spot for FSU. Yea, stay in the ACC. That doesn’t hurt the Big 12, but it will hurt FSU as the programs all around them grow stronger with bigger wads of $100 bills. How is FSU going to keep up with the rest of the folks around them with that contract given the dollars coming to Tuscaloosa, Athens, and Gainsville shortly?
FSU and the new contract:
Its not all on FSU to field and prop up an entire conference and Bowden was allowed to stay way too long. Fisher has them pointed in the right direction.
Culture:
Having spent time in both Texas and Florida, I don’t think the culture between the Big 12 and FSU is that different. In fact, I would say FSU has more in common with UT, TT, OU, oSu then they do with the rest of the ACC. In fact, if you took all the ACC schools which two stick out the most different? Clemson and FSU and I don’t think its a shock that those are the two schools we’re talking about at this point. Personally, I think the SEC would be closer fit, but nobody is talking about the SEC at the moment.
Academics:
IMHO, unless you are moving to the CIC the difference between conferences is negligible. If you removed Mizzou and TAMU from the equation of both the Big 12 and SEC – both conferences were just about even. How much is the “prestige” of the ACC worth while being the whipping boy and looked down upon by the UVA’s and the rest of Tobacco Road?
FSU is valuable to both the Big 12, SEC, and ACC. FSU has more in common and can make more money is the SEC and Big 12. If I was the BOT I would be hunting for an invite to the SEC, but we have not heard anything from the SEC in terms of being interested and the silence is deafening. That means FSU has one option if wants to remain competitive in the state of Florida, the Southeast, and the country, join the Big 12 and bring their friends.
LikeLike
If I was the BOT I would be hunting for an invite to the SEC, but we have not heard anything from the SEC in terms of being interested and the silence is deafening.
I’d say it is still pretty early. There’s a heck of a lot of chess yet to be played.
LikeLike
Agreed. If “16 teams” is the end game, as many of us believe it is, then who would the SEC want as teams 15 and 16? In the footprint, FSU and Clemson and Miami are the best football schools. Outside the footprint but near…Texas and Oklahoma and Virginia Tech.
LikeLike
But what is the goal of the SEC? Filling the conference with football superpowers, potentially cannibalizing the league, or simply making more money?
The SEC could be allowing FSU to go to the Big 12 to hopefully create ACC instability so they can pick off schools they really want (UNC? NC State? Va Tech? UVa?).
I think it is a faulty assumption that the SEC’s goal is to grab every football power in the South. They want to build their brand through their current powers (Bama, LSU, Florida, UGA) and then expand exposure.
LikeLike
I have long thought that moving Alabama and Auburn east while adding, say, OU & UT to go along with A&M and Missouri would be a disaster for everyone. I think the Big East basketball is an example of what can happen to individual programs when a conference is too strong in a sport.
LikeLike
Good point. Makes sense. The names I keep hearing are Virginia Tech and NC State to move the footprint north. Maybe that is their “end game”….
LikeLike
These numbers don’t seem remotely accurate. The rumored Big 12 deal would average $20 million a year, but it surely would not start there. These deals typically have escalator clauses. I don’t believe it will be at $20 million for next season (isn’t the rumored deal for 13 years?). The Tier 3 money also seems grossly inflated. Plus, not sure how you can allot the BCS money without a definite plan (and revenue sharing) in place.
LikeLike
Jerricho,
the big 12 deal will be at 20 mil in 3 years.
LikeLike
At 3 years? Does it then flat line for almost 10 years? That would be an odd deal, though certainly not impossible
LikeLike
I’m pretty much in line with your numbers. Its hard to know without seeing the actual payouts each year, but the ACC is not only heavily backloaded, but it also extends for about 4 more years. So that $17.1 million would probably look more like $14-$15 if over the same term with a smaller escalation factor (as I demonstrated with sample numbers in the last thread). In addition, the ACC sold naming rights to championships that the Big 12 keeps for itself. So I think the Tier I & II difference is $5-$6 million. KSU just signed a new Tier III deal for $3 million a year. OU is talking in excess of $5 million in new $. While its hard to compare, I would expect there would be $5 million or more in new $ for FSU. Otherwise you are saying all these schools were leaving massive amounts of money on the table. So that gets to $10-$11 million + $2-$3 million for the team additions and ccg. So I’m at $12-$14 million a year before factoring any differences in the new BCS money.
Their President is complaining about a $105 million cut in funding and then leaving $120 million or more on the table in the next 10 years?
LikeLike
Academics matter to the Presidents, but is he giving up $120 million so he can go to Ameilia Island 4 times a year with the Presidents of Duke, UNC and Miami instead of WVU, KSU and Texas Tech? Is he worried that if he goes to the Big 12 with academic lightweights that he will have to hear of their athletes having wild parties with strippers and getting accused of raping them; or athletes hanging around with agents and having a department give students credit for classes that didn’t even exist; or having a booster act as a pimp for the athletes while spending hundreds of thousands of $ on them? Wait! That was the academic heavyweights of his current conference!
LikeLike
Again, your Tier 3 stuff is way off. FSU already makes $6.5 million on its Tier 3 stuff. Is it supposed to make an additional $5 million (to bring it to $11.5) million on the small differences between ACC Tier 3 and Big 12 Tier 3?
LikeLike
Bullet’s numbers are all off. I agree with nostradamus’ estimate that FSU’s 3rd tier could go up $1M to $2M in the B12.
LikeLike
Texas makes $21+ million. Florida is making around $10 million on an old deal.
If you don’t think FSU can make the additional $3 million Kansas State is making, you are saying that FSU is maximizing its potential (right-$2.4 million deficit and an AD who was already viewed as incompetent by many FSU fans) and Kansas State didn’t know what it was doing. I can’t say I understand how 1 fb game, a dozen basketball games, Olympic sports and replays are worth so much, but its happening.
LikeLike
Link for KSU deal? Its certainly covers more than their extra football and basketball games.
I didn’t realize that the B12 would make the FSU athletic department competent.
LikeLike
@ Bullet,
If Florida is making $10 million off of an “old deal” Ohio State has a $11 million a year deal with IMG, Nebraska $8.65 million/IMG, and Michigan a $7.16 million a year deal it suggests that at least in the past The value of the football game and assorted basketball games isn’t as high as most are making it. What remains to be seen is if the Longhorn Network is a one-off fluke or not.
LikeLike
@Nostradmus
I think the Pac 12 deal is showing that these things have more value now than in the past.
LikeLike
@greg
Couldn’t find an official link on the KSU deal or the source where I got that number. There was something on it this summer. They have a PPV streaming HD on-line video along with a number of other initiatives, so its possible that $3 million may be their estimate.
LikeLike
“I think the Pac 12 deal is showing that these things have more value now than in the past.”
I’ll agree that the Pac-12 deal shows that media rights in general have more value than they did in the past. We’ve seen that in all of the contracts starting with the Big Ten’s 2007 deal on. I’ll preface this by saying I agree the 1 football game and assorted basketball games a Big XII like schools receive will likely increase in value as well. It stands to reason that is the case. One of the problems though is that other than Texas we haven’t seen anyone massively cash in on this yet. And I’m not sure that anyone is going to see a Texas like deal anytime soon.
But back to the Pac-12 example. The Pac-12 obviously signed a $3 billion 12-year deal. That deal includes 44 football games 68 basketball games and assorted Olympic sports, etc.
$3 billion over 12 years is an average of $250 million a year. Ignoring the basketball games and other content included in the ESPN/FOX deal, the implied value of a Pac-12 football game is $5.7 million ($250 million/44 games annually). Although the Pac-12 network will occasionally be allowed to pick ahead, by-and-large these 44 games are your premium, above average, and average inventory. The other obvious factor is that the Pac-12 contracts do cover more than football. Your average Pac-12 football game may be worth $3.5 to $4.5 million to the contract.
I have a hard time getting from there to somehow having one football game against your worst opponent and some basketball games getting you a significant paycheck. Like I said, I have a feeling the 3rd tier rights are increasing in value along with the primary contracts. But we really can’t say with any certainty what is happening until we start seeing more schools IMG or Learfield contracts up for renewal.
LikeLike
Bullet: “Couldn’t find an official link on the KSU deal or the source where I got that number. There was something on it this summer. They have a PPV streaming HD on-line video along with a number of other initiatives, so its possible that $3 million may be their estimate.”
You’re guessing then. Show me a link where an individual school (other than Texas) has been able to sell its one additional fball game and OOC bball games for significant money. The proven method is to combine these rights and let the conference sell them in a block (see B1G and P12). The B12 will never be able to do that since the LHN excludes the most marketable content. So what you are seeing is programs like KSU and ISU looking at marginal revenue streams created by streaming these games over home grown internet tools. The ACC model has opted instead to go for national exposure (vs. a marginal revenue source) via ESPN. I think many fans would prefer that option.
LikeLike
ISU’s tier 3 game every year is either not televised or shown on the cable access channel reserved for high school sports. They are probably making $25k for that game.
I’ve yet to see any real number for B12 Tier 3 broadcast content. It includes all the other stuff (coaches shows, etc.) that teams from B10 and other conferences also make money on.
LikeLike
Florida is the example. They have a deal with SunSports for their Tier III that’s several years old. I’ve seen $8.2 million, but I don’t know if that is all their Tier III or just that deal.
There are lots of models. The Pac 12 is unproven. The LHN is unproven. The BTN, while doing well, I would say is still unproven. Its just beginning to make profits. And it might be a special case as the Big 10 has a lot of huge state universities with alumni all over. This stuff is all in its infancy and the cable market is changing. If a la carte pricing is mandated, the BTN model has to completely change. In the Pac 12, they are partnering with cable companies, but essentially taking all the risk themselves. The Big 10 is sharing risk with Fox. Texas put all the risk on ESPN but still has the opportunity to make more if it does well. Florida’s model puts all the risk and all the reward on SunSports, much like a traditional Tier I and II deal. Long run who knows? In the short run there seems to be a lot of money available.
OU is close to a deal. It will be interesting to see what their financial side is.
LikeLike
The Florida deal is like all the other deals that include lots of stuff, not just broadcast content.
LikeLike
Bullet:
BTN has been increasingly profitable and last year almost reached the primary contract payout.
P12N is not partnering with cable, other than carriage agreements. It is BTN 2.0 ( learn and improve on others inovation). And it’s said to be in the black before it even starts.
LHN is an ESPN channel created to keep UT from moving while not requiring payment to the rest of the conference.
LikeLike
Frank the ag: Kansas makes a bundle off of Tier 3 basketball.
LikeLike
bullet,
Florida is the example. They have a deal with SunSports for their Tier III that’s several years old.
I posted this on Frank’s last post, but you may have missed it.
“The University of Florida and Fox’s Sun Sports have signed a media rights deal that is not only one of the most lucrative in the country, but also could end the likelihood of an SEC channel being created any time soon.
The deal will pay Florida’s marketing arm, the University Athletic Association, roughly $10 million a year for the next 10 years.”
“To help manage the Gators’ property, Sun Sports has brought in IMG College, created when IMG acquired Collegiate Licensing Co. and Host Communications. The overall value of the deal is believed to be just less than the 13-year, $112.5 million agreement that IMG College recently guaranteed the University of Nebraska for its rights, making it among the most lucrative college rights deals. “
http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2008/07/14/daily4.html
That SBJ article makes it pretty clear that it is $10 million all-in.
LikeLike
Concerning the “flight risk” of Texas and Oklahoma leaving the Big 12 in 2025:
If the Big 12 expands to create a sizable eastern lobe, the idea of UT and OU departing becomes a lot less devastating than the dire outlook facing Baylor, ISU and the Kansas schools last year. A conference with some combination of FSU, Clemson, Louisville, WVU, Notre Dame (in the optimistic scenario) and two or three other ACC schools, combined with whatever remained out west, would still be a more formidable conference than the ACC/Big East conglomeration that would result from the defections.
LikeLike
That’s not true. It’s really arguable if the current Big 12 would actual get more than the ACC on a true open market (remember that the Pac 12 and Big 12 deals came after NBC entered the picture and upped the fees. The ACC can only renegotiate their existing deal). But that conference is held together by OU and UT. If both leave, then conference, even with FSU, turns worse than the ACC by a significant margin. There’s not one other school that another BCS conference wants among the remaining 8. So the “strength” of this remodeled conference is whomever joins it now.
LikeLike
Right- your last sentence is accurate. I didn’t say just the remaining eight. My point is that if the Big 12 expands by 4-6 teams in the east (most of which would be from the current ACC), that eastern nucleus on its own would be superior to whatever would be left of the ACC, and hence UT/OU leaving would no longer be as catastrophic a prospect as it is now.
LikeLike
But my point would be instead of all the best ACC schools joining the Big 12 (as in your scenario), why don’t they just stay in the ACC? Cause if they’re choosing who fills out their conference, a UNC/NC State/UV/VT/Duke/Maryland group beats out a KU/KSU/ISU/UWV/TCU/OSU group
LikeLike
Why does the ACC group beat the Big 12 group? You can’t just go on making assumptions and not list facts and arguments. People don’t just automatically assume that your opinions are true.
LikeLike
I’m looking at this from the perspective of a WVU fan, so I’m seeing a potential ACC exodus as something that will be caused by a desire to associate with UT and OU, but will have the beneficial secondary effect of creating a solid eastern football nucleus even without those two schools. But I agree that if the ACC schools are anticipating UT and OU leaving the Big 12, they would almost certainly want to remain in the ACC.
LikeLike
Because the ACC group has attractive properties. UNC, UVA, Maryland, VT, and possibly even one of Duke/NC State would garner attention from other conferences.
No one from the existing Big 12 outside out Oklahoma/Texas garners any attention.
That’s not my opinion. That is a fact.
LikeLike
What the ACC could get on the open market is irrelevant, because that open market is 15 years away.
LikeLike
Texas wants what ND and BYU have. Trouble is there is no WCC or Big East type home for their non football sports in the region.
UT will always be a unreliable partner because they more than any other school understand what it means to be shackled to ne’eer do wells that are a drain on a conference.
LikeLike
Texas never has had any interest in being an independent. Dodds and Powers have repeatedly dispelled that myth.
LikeLike
Wait. Are we supposed to believe them at their word? Cause didn’t Dodds also say FSU wasn’t on the table. Or are we only supposed to believe what we want to believe? CAuse the whole thing seems confusing….
LikeLike
If you had actually seen them say it and heard it dozens of times over several years, its pretty convincing. Its not like they are saying it during the middle of a negotiation. Besides that, it really doesn’t make sense. Texas doesn’t have the Irish Catholics’ or Mormons’ or militaries’ national draw. We’ve been in a Texas centric conference. It doesn’t work with today’s media. The days of many independents is over.
As for Dodds comments about FSU, while you have to be suspect of statements in a time like this, I think he is pretty much telling the truth. There are no negotiations yet. No decisions have been made. Some people think the FSU President has already made up his mind to go and is just covering, but that is a pretty hard sell. I don’t think he would write a memo that makes him look stupid (he’s already backtracking on some of his comments) in order to cover up a decision he had already made.
LikeLike
Don’t play stupid. Texas has said repeatedly they will do what’s in the best interest of Texas, and many have speculated that the Longhorn Network is a precursor to that move.
LikeLike
Because I have more knowledge of what UT is thinking because I read a lot about my alma mater and have a different opinion than you doesn’t mean I am “playing stupid.”
If you actually had ANY knowledge of the history of the LHN you would know it was never designed as a money making entity. UT thought they might have to subsidize it. It was designed to promote the university and the non-rev sports.
Just because people have speculated its a precursor, doesn’t mean they are right or even guarantee that they know what they are talking about.
LikeLike
And yes, Texas will do what is in the best interest of Texas as will every other school. Personally, I think going independent would be stupid. And I know Deloss Dodds is not stupid.
LikeLike
Many have also speculated that Notre Dame will one day join a conference for football. That’s about as likely as Texas ever going independent.
Texas’s best interest is to be king shit of really powerful conference. They can’t get that anywhere but in the Big 12.
LikeLike
“If you actually had ANY knowledge of the history of the LHN you would know it was never designed as a money making entity. UT thought they might have to subsidize it. It was designed to promote the university and the non-rev sports.”
EXACTLY. Thank you for making my point. UT wants to promote the UT brand – not the Big 12 brand. If they believe the time is right to go independent and push the UT brand further, they will do that. Stop pretending like a decision on going independent is static; they could easily decide to go indy in 2, 5, or 20 years down the line.
LikeLike
@Brian2
2 years? Really? What us it about a GOR you don’t understand. The Big XII owns UT’s broadcast rights until 2026. Texas isn’t going anywhere.
LikeLike
You do realize Texas could have gotten the EXACT same deal that ND has with the Big Eat with a single phone call prior to the GOR don’t you? And while the WCC wouldn’t want to travel to Texas the WAC, MWC and CUSA would have jumped at the chance to add UT.
The reason Texas did’t pursue these options is instututional pride. Texas takes it’s non-FB sports very seriously and will never let them going slumming with a mid-major or even weak major like the Big East .
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/#!/DanBeebe/status/202198339104681985
LikeLike
Mike;
Tell him there may soon be an opening in the ACC!
LikeLike
As to the Tier 3 rights issue, this article outlines it pretty well:
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/05/third-tier-rights-defined-perspective-on-their-value/
Basically, FSU currently makes $6.5 on Tier 3 rights. Moving to the Big 12 will not really change that. The Big 12 does guarantee 1 football game makes it to Tier 3 (the worst game on the schedule). And a few more basketball games should fall through. But if that even gets 500,000 more for FSU it would be amazing to me.
The financial difference between the Big 12 and the ACC is going to be based largely on the Tier 1 and Tier 2 deals. Right now that number is at about 3 million. The proposed Big 12 contract is slightly shorter than the ACC’s current deal, but only two years. The escalators are fairly similar per year. At a reasonable estimate (not super high end or low end), you’re likely talking about a $5-$6 million dollar difference. That’s it. And the question FSU has to ask is if it’s enough.to move?
My opinion? I agree with Frank the it does not make too much sense. I certainly don’t think half the ACC is leaving, as some on the blogosphere want to claim. The move, it is happens, would be oddity. The entirety of the moves to this date have been fleeing problem conferences. The Big East had a structural problem, combining football and on-football schools. That’s never gone away. The Big 12 had significant administrative issues. They’ve seemingly ironed that out to an extent, but it did not stop Missouri of A&M from leaving just recently. But there’s nothing wrong with the ACC.
Everyone believes what they want to believe, so even denials are taking as sure signs the speaks mean the exact opposite. But I think there are clearly factions of FSU that want to stay. Just not sure they win out in the end.
LikeLike
Your referencing an article from Chaddddddddd? LOL, he’s a shill. When he says ‘just a few men’s basketball games’ in the B12, I believe the actual number is as high as 8. His math is also off when he says UTx gets $15 mil, all told it is closer to $24 mil. He’s picking and choosing and excludin’ in order to spin. If in reality Kansas is already getting $10 mil and Ok St $7 mil from their Tier III and other associated rights, I’m quite confident that FSU can approach $10 mil.
Then there’s the conf champ game, and the inevitable escalation that bringing over high TV value schools add. Not just $ transferred from the ACC to B12, but depending on how scheduled the additions could also have a synergistic increase. And while for ESPN it is just a content transfer (albeit with some loss to Fox), for Fox it could be much more lucrative because it is a much bigger value and content boost for their affiliated stations/networks in the expansion states. Hence while ESPN might just offer the same rate for FSU/Clemson/GATech/Miami in the B12 as they did in the ACC (but I wouldn’t bet on it staying that low) Fox may be able to offer a bigger premium when renegotiating for additions.
So even if FSU decides to stay put, if they look long enough to negotiate with the B12, I bet we eventually learn that the expected differential between the ACC and B12 payout was more than $6 mil, probably much more.
LikeLike
Your = you’re, obviously
LikeLike
Why is FSU going to get at least ten million for Tier 3, when they’re not getting much more content? Even the elite basketball content is not getting 3 million per year per school. What are FSU’s worst games and one football game getting that much?
And where’s this $24 million figure coming from for Texas? Any info to back that up? My understanding is they get $15 millionf rom ESPN, and not all of that even goes to Texas.
LikeLike
In Frank’s prior article I reposted someone’s post that addressed much of that. Would link but that appears impossible in this format.
LikeLike
Texas gets $9.4 average from IMG (10 years is what I believe Nostradamus showed) and $15 million from the LHN ($300/20 years). 17.5% of the LHN money goes to IMG, so Texas ends up with $21+ million.
LikeLike
Are you sure they’re getting the IMG deal and the LHN deal? Didn’t one replace the other? Otherwise, I really don’t know what the LHN gets other than sports no one cares about (swimming, track, volleyball, women’s basketball, etc…). It was my uderstanding that Texas’ one Tier 3 football game was not even promised to the LHN.
LikeLike
@bullet, Didn’t ESPN buy out IMG?
LikeLike
ESPN bought out certain rights IMG had. That’s why the 17.5%. But ESPN is not doing all the stuff IMG does. IMG is described as a “marketing partner.” It sells advertising, does afinity programs (branded Visa cards, etc.). It had the right to sell all media rights which is why ESPN had to buy them out. But IMG is still doing all the other stuff and has a 13 person staff.
LikeLike
@Frank The Tank
Excellent, well reasoned piece as usual.
I was skeptical of Homer “the Dude” Snead as well, and still am to a degree, mainly because he tends to sensationalize and self-promote. However, I was told by people I trust, who I know are legitimate insiders when it comes to WVU athletics, that “the Dude” has some good sources and they had heard similar things in regards to possible ACC defections to the Big 12. This was in January.
Back then I engaged “the Dude” in a debate on the WVU Scout site over the merits of these rumors. I basically had the same opinion you had that the ACC was stronger than anyone thought and that raiding them of FSU or Clemson was a pipe dream. He responded with a pretty strong argument about how much more ESPN and Fox were going to shill out for the Big 12 rights than ESPN was going to pay ACC. Also, he emphasized that a lot of folks in Tallahassee were upset with the Pitt and Syracuse addition, as well as with Swafford’s leadership in general. It looks like he was at least partially right on both accounts.
As for how any of us hilljacks would have access to the inner workings of conference realignment (a better source than “the Dude” has been a poster on the Scout site who goes by “MHver3,” who was on top of the Big 12 deal a week before it happened, nailed just about every detail of the Big East lawsuit settlement well in advance, and has been on top of the new TV deals and the possible ACC raid for a while now), the explanation is fairly simple :
– West Virginia is a small state where it’s hard to keep any secrets. Our athletic department is naturally leaky.
– No school had more to lose or more to gain than WVU when the great conference shuffle started. We started off in the Big East, tried like hell to get into the ACC and the SEC, and then found our way into the Big 12. People within our athletic department obviously have contacts inside the Big 12 commissioners office, as well as contacts remaining within the Big East, and, it appears, some second-hand sources within the ACC. If conference realignment has been akin to World War One, then WVU is Belgium.
– Oliver Luck has already become a major player within the inner workings of the Big 12. If the ACC raid does happen, I’m positive that Luck will have a big hand in pulling it off.
Now obviously nothing has officially gone down yet, and there’s still a fair chance that nothing will. But kudos to you, Frank, for acknowledging that “the dude” was at least right about there being some smoke surrounding Tallahassee.
LikeLike
Is Luck fetching Dodds coffee already?
LikeLike
No, he’s too busy designing a hair piece for Jim Delany so he won’t look like Mr. Garrison after his sex change.
Well, that and flirting with the Stanford gig.
LikeLike
Athletic Dept. finance database for all schools.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1?AID=4992781&PID=4003003&SID=oa0ev0hph8mk
LikeLike
I understand that these moves are 70% money-driven, 20% reactionary, 10% ego-driven, and almost always (except in the case of TCU joining the B12) 0% about finding a school’s natural “home,” but man, this one gets to me.
I’ve been an FSU fan all my life. I went to what I believe was the first ever ACC football game for Florida State. It was at Clemson in September of 1992, when I was in the fifth grade. I remember it was actually a close game, with FSU winning by a field goal, 20-17 or 24-21. I sat in the end zone. When Clemson had the lead late in the game, some drunk redneck yelled sarcastically, “Welcome to the ACC!” Growing up close to Clemson and spending the better part of the past 12 years in North Carolina, I’ve developed a sense of emotional attachment to FSU and the ACC.
I understand most FSU fans live surrounded with even more SEC fans & teams in their faces than I have/do, but I’m still a little stunned that there’s no sense of history or attachment to the conference. 20 years is not long compared to the ACC’s history overall, or especially to the Big Ten’s, but it goes back about as far as I, a 30-year-old, can remember. You would think people weren’t still pining away for the idea of playing Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, etc. and would actually look forward to playing the ACC teams on the schedule. Miami, Clemson, NC State, and, yes, Wake Forest have given FSU some great games (and tough losses worth avenging) over the years.
And I just can’t help but wonder why there isn’t more of a sense that “the grass isn’t always greener.” The truth is that the NC schools’ dominance of conference politics is just about as mythical as Haggard’s ideas about the way the league did its third-tier rights; however, there is no myth about Texas’ enormous influence over the Big 12.
LikeLike
Look at how long it took any ACC team to beat FSU. And how long it took any school other than NCSU to beat FSU twice. Nebraska fans can relate. They dominated ISU, KSU, KU and MU. That was the reason it was so easy to leave a 100 year old alliance. FSU’s biggest rivals are out of conference. The closest league school isn’t even in their division.
I’m just amazed when Big 12 fans suggest zipper division alignments using the ACC model. I think they’ve demonstrated the weaknesses of that.
LikeLike
bullet,
“FSU’s biggest rivals are out of conference.”
I’ll give you UF as their #1 rival, but Miami is a clear #1a. They’ve played both 56 times.
LikeLike
Quick typing. I was still thinking of Miami as being out of conference like they used to be, particularly since Barron’s argument is that they will be if FSU moves. And again there are those zipper divisions. Would that rivalry be fiercer if they were directly competing?
LikeLike
I’d like to get some thoughts from the Longhorn posters here. DeLoss Dodds has been increasingly outspoken about how there’s nothing to the FSU rumors and that he wants a 10-team conference with some further quotes today:
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/bohls/entries/2012/05/14/dodds_pour_wate.html
A line from Chip Brown (who is clearly excited by these FSU rumors) earlier tonight was that Dodds wishes that the FSU talk would “shrivel up and die”, so it’s not just Kirk Bohls getting that vibe.
Now, even though I spent an entire post talking about how FSU should turn down overtures from the Big 12, it certainly would make sense the other way around for the Big 12 to (1) go full bore after FSU or (2) at least let these rumors last as long as they can to make the Big 12 appear to be the stronger conference by comparison.
What exactly is the M.O. for Texas here? I understand why Texas wouldn’t want to expand for a school like Louisville, but Florida State is about as good of a get outside of its hopes for some type of relationship with Notre Dame. Is it really simply about not having a conference championship game or is there more to this? Is Dodds trying to manage fans’ expectations in the event FSU doesn’t come? I’m just curious because I don’t see why he is very direct in his opposition to expansion today as opposed to some of the more nuanced responses that he has had in the past few months on this subject.
LikeLike
At this point, I don’t believe any carefully crafted, measured comment from any AD, president, conference commissioner, regent, or trustee (except for guys like Haggard, who was speaking so much from emotion that he seemed sincere). They’re all so worried about tortious interference that there’s no way you’re going to get the truth out of them.
Regarding DeLoss’ comments, I think it’s 50/50 on whether 1) Texas really does want to stay at 10 for the purpose of an easier road to the championship or 2) he’s been appointed as the Big 12 mouthpiece to say all the right things about the Big 12 not wanting to expand, so as to avoid the tortious interference issues. I don’t believe that Dodds has ever leaked anything to Chip (Bellmont doesn’t care much for Orangebloods), but he frequently gives nuggets/propaganda to Bohls.
LikeLike
I agree. I don’t think he leaks to Chip. Clearly someone relatively high tells Chip a lot, but I really don’t think its Dodds.
I’ve got mixed thoughts on his comments. My best guess is 1) Manage expectations. If no ACC schools come and the other 9 want to expand with Louisville +1 or even if they stay at 10, they don’t want dissappointment (I’ve never believed the done deal people and the FSU President’s comments drive that home); and 2) Make it easier to do a deal than you can with all the publicity.
People are doing plane tracking. They were tracking a plane that went from Dallas to South Carolina to Camilla, Georgia, which is 1.5 hours north of Tallahassee. And they were talking about all the plane landings in Camilla that week. Maybe everyone was just going for the annual Gnat Days Festival. But people are reading things into every move. An FSU official was in Austin week before last comparing athletic facilities. That was probably scheduled long before. Its kind of crazy and makes it hard to do a deal. It also puts up the antenna in the SEC who might make a play for FSU (I just don’t believe they would turn them down if they would come). It might also complicate the Big 12 TV deal which hasn’t been signed yet. It certainly complicates things for ESPN.
What I’ve read on the Texas boards tends to think it is posturing. But those people also tend to believe the done deal theory. One idea is that the posturing is to keep it at 12 and not go to 14. Dodds does like 10, but he’s clearly stated he’s amenable to 12 if others want 12. I strongly doubt he is opposed to FSU. Someone quoted an unnamed Texas official saying expanding by 2 was good if it was “the right two.”
LikeLike
Maybe there’s nothing to these rumors and a savvy FSU BOT chair decided to take advantage of them to pressure the ACC and/or SEC to see what he could get.
Maybe the other B12 schools are for expansion but Dodds is not. Perhaps he believes the current college football setup of 5 power conferences is perfect, since for the moment it appears the B12 will be the clear 4th power, close to the top 3 in money, and close to the SEC in best positioned to make the new playoffs and BCS bowls.
Maybe Dodds only wants 12 max (that rumor has popped up a time or two) while FSU wants to bring 3 or 5 ACC schools, so shots are fired through the press. Perhaps he thinks 12 maxes the $, or really doesn’t want to kill the ACC, or doesn’t want to trigger the SEC and B1G to expand, perhaps worrying that the SEC might get FSU.
Maybe ESPN is fighting back by threatening to torpedo the LHN if the ACC is raided.
Maybe it is all about tortious interference. (BTW, what is it called if he talks to Maryland…?)
I dunno. Recall how inexplicably grumpy he was right before the BCS meeting that pretty much assured us of a playoff, and his quote to the effect that nothing was going to change. He’s made plenty of mistakes in the past, so who knows.
LikeLike
It reminds me of Purple Cats story of dueling Texas delegations. Perhaps there are boosters out there trying to do a deal before they involve official people and that makes DeLoss grumpy.
LikeLike
what is it called if he talks to Maryland…?
shame on you, p-now. : )
i agree with those who suggest that deloss’ comments can’t usually be taken at face value. for numerous reasons.
my suspicion is, however, that deloss truly would like to stay at ten. he has been very vocal for a long time regarding transporting his kids long distances on a routine basis. i think he really does like the smaller conference with the ability for all members to play each other every year.
he seems to genuinely like the big 12, especially now that fractious parties have moved on. this is probably the most comfort we have known in the past 60 years, anyway. i think deloss is hoping that the big 12 can be developed into a more-or-less permanent home.
numerous longhorn fans who are much better connected than i am believe that, once the network is fully developed, texas is going to look to joining with other like-minded programs to generate a new conference. if so, it is pretty sure to happen after the assignment of rights expires, after most of the present leadership has retired or moved on.
LikeLike
one more comment regarding what deloss is saying. don’t forget that the acc was strongly considered last year as a new home for the longhorns. that possibility is still out there, and deloss isn’t going to say anything incendiary regarding that conference or anything that could be deemed harmful to that conference.
i think we very genuinely like the acc and might well buddy up with those guys someday. deloss isn’t going to harm that prospect nor do anything to generate ill will with them.
LikeLike
Or maybe be in the position to use the ACC to leverage something else down the road. A viable ACC gives Texas options–even if it is bluffing about the desire to use them.
If you are Texas, why dilute your power?
LikeLike
In fact, I was inspired to write this…
LikeLike
interesting article, though i must admit i’m tiring of the marriage/dating metaphors we all find so handy. : )
one comment i have regarding fla st, though, is that a lot of the bitchy behavior may be rooted in their solvency issues. a nice bottom hides a lot of issues. err . . . i mean bottom line.
LikeLike
“Maybe Dodds only wants 12 max (that rumor has popped up a time or two) while FSU wants to bring 3 or 5 ACC schools, so shots are fired through the press. Perhaps he thinks 12 maxes the $, or really doesn’t want to kill the ACC, or doesn’t want to trigger the SEC and B1G to expand, perhaps worrying that the SEC might get FSU.”
Ohh… I like it. Total pie-in-the-sky, but how great would it be for the BIIX to grab FSU, Clemson, UMD and maybe peel off the likes of Pitt (who hasn’t officially joined and could probably bolt easier) and run to the Big XII+2. That would give the Big XII+2 a better geographic east/west split, keep WVU from traveling as much, and do to the ACC what it did to the Big East over the last 10 years.
Will never happen, but a boy can dream.
LikeLike
Dodds may be concerned about what Larry Scott and the Pac 12 might do in the future when he talks about keeping the Big XII at ten members largely located in four states (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa) and one time zone with West Virginia being the solitary outlier.
One of the questions that came up the last two times Scott wooed Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to join a new Pac 16 Conference was what would happen to the other members of the Big XII. Since the first time this happened, Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M have moved to other conferences. If that matter came up today, then the six schools looking for new partners would be Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Christian and West Virginia.
But what would happen if those partners were already in the Big XII and included a combination of Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech or Louisville? Would that make a move of Texas and the three other schools to the Pac 16 more palatable to the decision makers at large knowing that they left behind a core of ten (or more) teams behind that would form a viable conference even after they left? Does Dodds feel that he’d be setting the stage for Texas to ultimately leave the Big XII for the Pac 16 if more eastern programs were added to the conference? After all, we were talking not too long ago about Kansas looking to join the Big East if UT, TTU, OU and OKState went to the Pac 16. Would the situation be changed if Kansas was already in a conference that had FSU, Miami, Clemson, VTech and Louisville already in it? Would Baylor be suing the four programs headed to the Pac 12 if the Big XII had those eastern teams already in it?
This seems counterintuitive to me because one would think that a stronger Big XII in terms of overall membership would be a counterweight to any moves by the Pac 12 in the future. Adding the Florida television market and getting a better presence in the eastern time zone should be things that would help the Big XII.
OTOH, recent history has shown that the Big XII has had problems with its recent leadership and perceived Texas bias. Perhaps Dodds feels that adding more programs into the mix would take the conference back down the same road it just travelled over the last few years. There’d be the same sort of squabbling, etc. that led to Nebraska, Colorado and Texas A&M to leave. Maybe Dodds is embracing the ten-team conference model simply because it’s the most stable one for Texas to operate within given its budget, the LHN, etc.
It’ll be interesting to see if perceptions change based on the playoff model that’s ultimately adopted later this year for implementation in 2014. I don’t think a 12-0 Texas team would be shut out of any of the playoff models being discussed (Plus One, top four teams in polls, top four conference champions if in top six of polls, etc.), so that might not be an issue. But would it be better to be 13-0 or even 12-1 in order to get into such a playoff? We’ll see how the perceptions shake out on that issue.
It’ll also be intersting to see how the Pac 12 develops its network and other media deals going forward. Larry Scott is likely going to be on the scene much longer than DeLoss Dodds, and it the Pac 12 model turns out to be wildly successful while the LHN flounders (even with the financial largesse of ESPN backing it), then we may see a future Pac 16 with a presence in Texas and Oklahoma along with a new Big XII Conference encompassing not only members of the current conference, but former ACC and Big East programs as well.
LikeLike
At least one thing with Texas and Dodds that consistently gets overlooked is that the Big 12 is Dodds’ baby. He and the OU AD at the time basically created it and he feels that pride of creation. Now Dodds is close to retirement, but he has no desire to see it disentegrate or see Texas leave. I suspect the Pac 16 deal was more Powers doing than Dodds.
LikeLike
There is a lot of speculation that the LHN deal was made by ESPN to put a stop to the “super conference” movement by keeping the B12 together. ESPN is overpaying UT now to keep from having to pay more for future conference TV contracts since there would be fewer and more powerful conferences with which to bargain. The BE is already perceived as sub par – and has been for a long time. Pulling FSU into the B12 brings college football that much closer to having only 4 major football conferences. ESPN hates this idea.
I would imagine some of the undisclosed clauses in the LHN deal give ESPN the right to renegotiate if the college football landscape changes – especially if the B12 causes the disruption. This would explain Dodds’ comments regarding FSU. It would also explain the “we’re happy with 10” statements that don’t seem to make financial sense.
LikeLike
If FSU fans come to the belief that ESPN is blocking its entrance into the Big 12 as much as its administration seems to be doing, all hell will break loose.
LikeLike
Not UT affiliated but…The Tier 3 model demands more inventory to be successful, does it not? Doesn’t that mean there are no two entities that have more to gain from XII expansion than ESPN and Texas?
Adding one King and at least one more good baseball/basketball program is probably the best fit from a business standpoint. I think you have to add an FSU to get ESPN and Fox to open things back up. If that happens you have a bunch of interesting possibilities.
Bowlsby was riding shotgun for the Pac12’s changes, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see the XII backdoor their way into a Pac12 type model.
LikeLike
The only angle where Deloss Dodd’s plea to stay at 10 make sense to me is that he doesn’t want schools in the league that won’t depend on Texas – he likes being the BSD in the room.
Adding FSU, while exciting a majority of the conference, means that there is a second school in the conference that will have significant sway.
Consider for a moment that, under the current Big 12 setup, SEVENTY PERCENT of the population base of Big 12 states comes from Texas. Seventy Percent!
Texas signed the grant of rights for 13 years to keep the conference stable and protect the longhorn network – but Texas is perfectly happy with the status quo. Adding a school like FSU in a state like Florida adds significant power player to the conference…perhaps he doesn’t like schools in the conference that have options.
Just a thought.
LikeLike
Frank, I think Dodds is taking a step back because he realizes he’s in a minority position regarding 10 versus 12 or 14.
Additionally, he knows, based on the recent months, that any statement he makes that tends to push expansion is going to be seized upon. His “anti” comments certainly have been.
However, I think he’s willing to go with the crowd. If they want to expand, and it’s the “right two,” it’s hard to make an argument against it. If you want to be a “good partner,” this is one to be good on.
LikeLike
The question is will Florida State be comfortable with annual games against Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia and Clemson/Louisville while playing Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State every couple of years. I don’t see the Texas schools or the Oklahoma schools not being in the same division and the Texas Legislature probably doesn’t either.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Texas athletics overwhelm rivals in revenue and spending. Good luck FSU!
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-15/texas-athletics-spending-revenue/54960210/1
LikeLike
While Michigan isn’t at the level of Texas, UM Athletic Director David Brandon said yeaterday that the AD’s master plan calls for an additional $250M in spending on facilities above the $420M that have recently been spend on football ($300M), basketball ($100M) and hockey ($20M).
http://www.freep.com/article/20120515/SPORTS06/205150444/Red-Berenson-John-Beilein-Brady-Hoke-chat-with-Michigan-fans-in-Chicago
Brandon mentions the new lacrosse stadium, renovations to the swimming facilities and an expansion of the academic support center as being part of the project. Michigan recently approved $25M for two projects to expand Schembechler Hall (football offices/museum) and renovate Yostt Ice Arena earlier this year.
While details of the master plan aren’t out, incoming Michigan football recruits have been saying that there is a plan afoot to add more seating to the south (endzone) side of Michigan Stadium. In addition to adding 8-10,000 more seats, I imagine that project would enclose that end of the stadium and link up the two concourses on the east and west sides of the stadium. There are no plans (yet) on what to do with the north side of Michigan Stadium.
LikeLike
Not sure I believe the subsidy numbers. I know Wisconsin receives $0 in subsidies and actually contributes about $15 million to the academic general fund. There are no student fees for athletics etc…
LikeLike
That subsidy for Rutgers might just be the main reason why they’ll never get a B1G invite…
LikeLike
12 of top 14 in revenue are B10 or SEC (only Texas & OU aren’t). 17 of top 21 in revenue are B10 or SEC (Louisville & Oregon join in as well).
LikeLike
Noticed a realignment oddity when looking at that USA Today data. UNLV is the only college in the ~60 million revenue range not in a power conference. I’m curious why they’ve been so far off the realignment radar when every other school above 40 in revenue (except New Mexico, which is the lowest school in that category) has moved into one of the erstwhile-AQ conferences. Being bad at football is no bar, after all (see Memphis).
LikeLike
Dunno. Gambling?
LikeLike
@jbcwv – UNLV’s academics would prevent them from getting into the Pac-12, while the Big 12 wants flagship/flagship-equivalent schools (Louisville is kind of the cusp of that). Now, I think UNLV could be a Big East target as the 14th western football-only member. The issue is that UNLV’s highest and best value is as an all-sports member with its great basketball program – the Memphis comparison is apt as UNLV is essentially the western version of the Tigers. San Diego State is also a strong overall play as an all-sports member, but their football has definitely been a step up over UNLV in the past several years (and thus palatable to the Big East as a football-only member).
LikeLike
Also, there’s this:
“UNLV was the only non-BCS school to finish in the top 51 public schools for revenue, but it did so largely thanks to a $32.2 million subsidy. It was the least profitable program on the chart and, I’d bet, in the country.”
http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2012/5/15/3021940/chart-revenues-profits-college-athletics
LikeLike
I don’t think the B12 cares about flagships. The B12 does want members that raise the average, though, and if Louisville (top 20 in revenue) is on the cusp, UNLV is too far away (both geographically and money-wise) to interest the B12.
LikeLike
I think the question was why UNLV couldn’t get in the Big East. What does SDSU have that the Rebels don’t? Other than a larger city that actually cares about their football team, that is.
LikeLike
The BE is expanding west of Texas only in football, so that’s probably it. . .
If they were east of the Mississippi, they’d be in the BE as full members already (ask Memphis).
LikeLike
If they were east of Texas, they could join the Big East, but they wouldn’t be able to get Coors beer. Unless they called the bandit …
LikeLike
Huh? I’m quite certain you can buy Coors anywhere in Chicagoland these days (and have been able to for a while now)
LikeLike
And here’s a totally scientific poll proving that 96 out 100 FSU fans prefer Big 12 football over the leading brand:
https://twitter.com/#!/Warchant/status/201868454163251201
LikeLike
96% of FSU fans irrationally blame the ACC for their inability to convert top 5 recruiting classes into anything more than the 29th best record over the past dozen years.
LikeLike
That poll does NOT speak for all FSU fans. 96% is absolutely absurd. Plenty of Seminole fans, even if not the majority, want things to work out with the ACC.
LikeLike
Sorry, forgot to use my sarcasm font on “totally scientific.” My bad.
LikeLike
As much as I think the BSC conferences (with the exception of the Big East) will be fairly conservative in any moves they make, I can’t shake the feeling that something’s brewing in the ACC; or at least people in the ACC believe something is brewing. Otherwise, why raid the Big East for Pitt and ‘cuse when they did? My understanding is that it was a bit spur-of-the-moment, “how would you like to join the ACC, you have 30 seconds to decide” offer. Other than a fear that an existing member would/could be poached why grow?
It always reeked of a defensive move to me.
LikeLike
I don’t know why the ACC added those two schools, but it allowed them to do one thing – reopen and renogiate their TV contract. And that added money they otherwise would not have had.
LikeLike
In regards to the mystery of Dodds vocal opposition to the FSU rumors, you really do have to wonder how much of it has to do with how ESPN feels about the idea. I’m generally not one to buy into some of the wilder conspiracy theories, but we know that most of this expansion stuff is driven by TV and ESPN is heavily involved behind the scenes. ESPN and Fox have essentially saved the Big 12…twice. By all accounts it looks like they overpaid what most folks thought the Big 12 was worth after losing it’s (arguably) second biggest brand and its two largest TV markets outside of Texas. They also threw an ungodly amount of money at Texas for a TV channel that at the moment no one can watch and will only carry one / maybe two football games consisting of UT vs whichever Little Sisters of the Poor team they happen to have scheduled that year in order to keep them out of one of the leagues looking to start their own non-ESPN channel.
I think it is fairly rational to believe that the relationship between ESPN and Texas is pretty cozy. Is it cozy enough for ESPN to ask Dodds to help repay them for showering Texas with money, or is Dodds just playing the bad cop so it doesn’t look like Texas is running the show and Bowlsby is in charge? The ACC has all but admitted that they extended expansion offers to the teams that ESPN told them to invite, so we know ESPN doesn’t really take a hands off approach to conference membership.
Why exactly would ESPN be interested in re-opening TWO contracts it literally just negotiated in order move the premier football team from the conference whose content it owns lock, stock, and barrel for the next 15 years? ESPN has a vested interest in promoting the Big 12 and ACC in order to avoid a proliferation of the super-conference model, particularly if things follow the B1G / PAC model where a significant portion of the media rights are retained for conference TV channels. Personally, I think ESPN’s actions regarding Big 12 have been significantly motivated by opposing this vision from Scott/Delany.
Maybe Dodd’s motivation is simply that he prefers the 10 school round-robin format, that is the likely answer without the conspiracies, and it doesn’t introduce any strong new players in the conference politics. However, it certainly doesn’t sound like him given all the ‘long term single super conference brokered by Texas’ chatter that was coming from insiders on Texas’s boards a while ago. However, if his opposition is at least partially…umm…influenced by his LHN broadcast partner’s preferences, then it raises some interesting conflict of interest questions regarding Texas doing what is best for the conference as a whole. Dodds did say if that is what their conference mates wanted they would be a good partner and go along…but he sure didn’t sound enthusiastic about an idea that sounds like a home run for the Big 12 on its face.
LikeLike
However, it certainly doesn’t sound like him given all the ‘long term single super conference brokered by Texas’ chatter that was coming from insiders on Texas’s boards a while ago.
But it is important to remember the context. At the time it was not clear if the B1G, SEC, and ACC would go to 16. Once OU got slapped down by the Pac and things settle down, I think his outlook changed. As long as none of the other 4 power conferences expand, there really isn’t a good reason for the B12 to. Maybe BYU and a Big East team would add a CCG and $ bump, but it sure doesn’t sound like it would be anything too exciting.
Personally I’d just assume we stick with the status quo of two 14-school power conferences, two 12, and a 10. Also hope the Big East solidifies so that Boise (or sometimes Houston or USF or other surprises) has a solid platform to make runs into the playoff, which will happen if they stay together. Just get the playoffs expanded to 8 (Top 5 conf champs and 3 wildcards) and life is about perfect.
OTOH, colonization is fine, would be nice to soon know that the sun never sets on the Longhorn Empire…
LikeLike
“By all accounts it looks like they overpaid what most thought the Big 12 was worth….”
If you are simply saying they paid more than most people expected, that’s also true of the ACC contract everyone is disparaging, the SEC contract that is now in 4th or 5th place and the Pac 12 contract. If you are saying they deliberately overpaid, you have been listening to too many Missouri and A&M fans. The idea that ESPN would do a $1.3 billion deal and overpay in some sort of machiavellian plot is ludicrous. Its comparable to the Pac 12 deal with better recent ratings than the Pac 12. There are no serious accounts that they are overpaying for the Big 12. And if you were listening to the conspiracy theories two years ago, one comment kept coming up. “They aren’t ready for superconferences now.” ESPN & Fox didn’t like the idea in 2010 when there were a lot of contracts in existence, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t ready now. They have or are in the process of reworking 5 of the 6 AQ conference contracts.
LikeLike
“The idea that ESPN would do a $1.3 billion deal and overpay in some sort of machiavellian plot is ludicrous”
I don’t think it is. I also don’t find it terribly Machiavellian (unless you think pursuing your best interests in a business negotiation/relationship is “Machiavellian”.
“Its comparable to the Pac 12 deal with better recent ratings than the Pac 12.”
The Pac12 being a conference that has complete allegiance in a footprint that is roughly double the population of the B12’s.
LikeLike
Frank,
Don’t mean to threadjack here (but I’m going to try anyway) but what are your thoughts on all the current conference shenanigans and the growing concern about head trauma in football?
Just as the power conferences are going through a one-a-generation realignment in order to maximise the value of their football product, there’s a not insignificant chance that within the current generation football as we know if very well may be marginalized, if not outright disappear. Between the legal / ethical / financial liability the universities could potentially shoulder and a generation of kids whose parents won’t let them play football, shrinking the pool of kids who play in high school, thus college, football may be in a real lot of trouble.
Assuming it is, what happens regarding all of the recent changes driven by football? Interested to know your thoughts.
LikeLike
@nathan – This will be interesting to see. Personally, I know that I have great hesitation in allowing my own son (who will turn 3 this summer) to play football in the future and every subsequent story about head trauma gives me even more pause (and I’m someone that loves the game). Could the cumulative effect of millions of parents like me cause football to look drastically different in a generation? That’s more than possible. I didn’t grow up in the ’60s, but my impression is that it would have crazy during that time to think that boxing would ever become a minor sport and that the World Series would eventually be outdrawn on TV regularly by the NBA Finals. Participation in baseball has dropped precipitously over the past few decades due to factors completely outside of potential injuries, so there’s definitely the prospect of football seeing a similar decline.
However, there’s also the counterpoint that we might say one thing and do another as fans and that the law of supply and demand will rule. Look at the rise of mixed martial arts over the past few years, which makes football head trauma looks like child’s play. An economist’s viewpoint would be is if the reward is high enough in the NFL, there are going to be people who are willing to take physical risks to try to get that reward (and in turn, that means that there will be people who want to play at the lower levels in high school and college). Many people take many other jobs with great physical risks, such as being in the military, fighting fires or fishing for Alaskan King Crab, for a lot less money than they’d make in the NFL.
One thing that I believe: the issue isn’t going away, no matter how much the NFL (or the NCAA and the college conferences) might want it to.
LikeLike
I think the more immediate risk is alternative entertainment. More kids are sedentary and playing computer games. There’s been no stop in ratings and attendance improvements. But there’s no guarantee that continues. And the cable TV market has already started to shrink and that is driving much of the revenue growth.
I did grow up in the 60s and the NBA was a small mostly regional league that didn’t take off until challenged by the ABA. College basketball was a mostly midwest, northeast sport with a few outposts like UCLA and the Phog Allen connections-Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina. Baseball is a sport that has been hurt by entertainment alternatives (in addition to its own stupid decisions). Its too slow paced for a lot of younger people. I remember daytime World Series baseball games when we listened in the classroom (and it wasn’t a local team). Boxing is an example of what not to do as well. They went the opposite of KISS. They had multiple champions so noone could keep up. There was corruption casting doubts on the credibility. There was the avoidance of serious competition. All lessons for college football.
LikeLike
@Frank
As a guy (now 23) whose parents never let him play football growing up, yet is still a passionate fan, my first question would be how dependent overall fandom is on overall participation.
Secondly, it’s hard to see any one sport dethroning football as the premier sport in high school. Irrespective of how the pro leagues are doing, that much seems to be on auto-pilot at this point.
LikeLike
That’s a very good point.
Think about it from a liability standpoint. It may reach the point where it is too expensive to insure a football team.
It’s one thing for high schools kids to bang into each other. When you are talking the size and speed of college players, another story altogether. Plus, as the high schools kids grow in size/speed, the cumulative effect could lead to issues manifesting themselves with college players more often down the road. Not all college football players are bound for the NFL. There will be plenty that planned to use their brains to be successful–and concussions may deprive them of same. And the numbers are just that much greater–with 120 Division 1 schools and rosters around 80-100, a lot of kids practicing and playing every year.
If a school is paying their coach $4M, but using subpar helmets, how is that going to look to a jury? If a school is making $25M in TV revenue annually, but coercing 21-year-olds to return from a concussion too early, how is that going to look to a jury? Meanwhile, with the colleges operating their football teams like businesses, the sympathy will be low.
Finally, it’s a great point about the cyclical nature of sports. Football is popular now, but it may not always be.
LikeLike
http://www.nittanylionsden.com/2012-articles/may/if-the-acc-implodes-big-ten-expansion-scenarios.html
How does the Big Ten fit into the ACC crisis? (Plus, thoughts on Notre Dame’s position now)
LikeLike
I will give this defense to the Big 12, I think it was about a perfect storm of things going wrong and it survived. While I think the odds still slightly favor the Seminoles staying in the ACC, I still maintain that the Big 12 is a lot more stable long term than people give it credit. They have 13 years guaranteed and as long as this works out OK, I don’t see Texas or Oklahoma seriously considering anywhere else. That’s more than long enough for the new status quo to reemerge and those two greatly benefit from being able to anchor a conference. The risk of them leaving is certainly greater than North Carolina and Duke leading an ACC exodus, but long term I think Virginia Tech to the SEC or Maryland or northern member to the Big Ten are greater risks than Texas/Oklahoma leaving soon.
LikeLike
As some of the other posters have said, I think the fact that the Big 12 feels it has to hold the schools tv rights hostage seems to prove that the Big 12 doesn’t truely believe itself that the conference is all that stable. What other conference has felt that they need to force its member institutions into turning over their tv rights? The conference may be stable as long as the “grant of rights” deal in in place, but once that is through all bets are off. Let’s say at the end of the grant of rights has expired, and the LHN turns out to be a flop, do you honestly believe that UT won’t be gazing back over to the Pac 12? IMO, conference stability should be measured over the long haul, not over the next 13 or so years.
LikeLike
“What other conference has felt that they need to force its member institutions into turning over their tv rights?”
The Big Ten? The Pac-12?
LikeLike
@Bob in houston,
You’re right. I guess I worded that question wrong. What I meant was what other conference has felt the need to force its member institutions into turning over their tv rights for the express purpose of keeping the schools in the conference. The B1G & Pac 12 schools granted their tv rights for the express purpose of creating a conference network, not as a way to stablize their conference.
LikeLike
You do what you have to do to keep things together, I guess. The ACC looked like a king six months ago without a GOR and now half the league is nervous.
LikeLike
While both have started networks the, GOR would have given the conference far greater bargaining power when working on normal media contracts. I may be wrong but I believe those conferences have had some level of a GOR for some time.
LikeLike
Boss DeLoss prefers ACC (or BIG EAST) over B1G or PAC if LHN were to fail and Texas would need to move to another league.
Boss DeLoss is all about control. He can’t control either the B1G or the PAC. He might be able to control the ACC. He will be able to lord over the BIG EAST.
LikeLike
Can Texas control a Big XII with high-maintenance Florida State and Clemson (a prince that thinks its a King)?
LikeLike
Even what would be a king anywhere else (OU) has to play the prince in the longhorn conference. Not saying UT shouldn’t have great influence, but don’t think a couple newbies to the conference will change the power structure.
LikeLike
I doubt that. At one point two summers ago, the entire Big 12 south was poised to jump to the Pac 12 at the whim of UT. Heck back when UT left the SWC, if it wasn’t for Texas politicians they would’ve probably been in the Pac 12.
LikeLike
Why would the LHN cause Texas to look around? It’s not Texas that is keeping the thing away from providers, it’s ESPN. All the crap that’s on DirecTV? They could have it on tomorrow, if they lowered the price. ESPN bought the option and they’re going to keep it.
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC Football Daily Links — Evaluating the Merits of Florida State Moving to the Big 12 | Atlantic Coast Convos
add2
LikeLike
All,
I’m having trouble finding definitive research dollars figures/rankings. Should I be looking at federal grants? University expenditures? Links/info from anyone who’s in the know would be greatly appreciated.
Note: I mean to look at this from the angle of the Big Ten evaluating prospective candidates’ academic/institutional contributions. (I don’t know what bearing that might have, but I expect you might.)
P.S.– Any sort of profile on Penn State, before and after bulking up on CIC?
LikeLike
Everything you’ve been looking for has been posted/discussed before in the comments to Frank’s posts. That should narrow your search a bit.
LikeLike
Sorry, Other Mike. I’m a novice at this stuff. I don’t have hard data, but like Mike said, it’s all been documented here in the past. UNC/Duke/UVA are upper echelon academia in the ACC (which is a strong academic conference to begin with). They’d be new markets for the Big Ten.
Like TAMU and Mizzou are to the SEC, they’d be good but not great football additions, but are otherwise a perfect fit. The question is…who would get spot #16?
LikeLike
Pingback: Actually, Does the Big XII Really Want Florida State? | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
Frank,
What do you think the ACC should do in order to convince Florida State not to leave? Short of renegotiating the ACC/ESPN deal, which is impossible at this point, is there anything it can do?
Here are some of the things I’d do:
– Realign the divisions to make geographic sense. Miami with schools north of NC, FSU with schools south of Virginia. This gets Ga. Tech in the same division, which would help since Atlanta is home to more FSU grads than any city outside of Florida.
– Listen and respond to the supposedly petty complaints about scheduling tough Thursday night games after non bye weeks or tough conference road games after tough non conference games. League members can consider the scheduling complaints whining all they want, but it is worth considering if it helps keep its most valuable football TV brand.
– Consider distributing TV money based on national TV appearances. Granted, this supposedly caused consternation in the Big 12 (even though that model actually benefited the schools who departed), but it may help retain a school it can’t really afford to lose.
That’s all I can think of. Some FSU fans blame John Swofford for not being a good enough TV negotiator and for not being pro active enough. I think that’s not the answer. Swofford negotiated the original $155M/year deal with horrific timing, as many have pointed out. It was before Comcast/NBC entered the market, before the Pac-12’s game-changing deal, shortly after the crash of the economy, and in the middle of three of his four biggest football brands’ weakest stretches (FSU, Miami, Clemson). As far as being pro-active, Swofford went after Miami, VT, and BC years before Delany grabbed Nebraska or Scott went after the Big 12 South. Furthermore, he responded to the Pac-12’s new deal by adding Syracuse and Pitt before any other league expanded in 2011, a move which at least allowed the conference to re-open the ESPN contract. So I do not think Swofford is responsible for the shortcoming in TV value. Rather, it’s the product he has to work with and the terrible timing he had.
If you were the ACC, what would you do now?
LikeLike
They should have done the north/south anyway. Never understood the zipper. Protect Miami/FSU, Virginia/UNC, etc. Win-win.
Maybe allow schools to keep a greater percentage of post-season revenue. You get to the BCS FSU and you’ll reap the benefits. An incentive to avoid mediocrity.
LikeLike
I think your restructuring of the divisions would probably help ease some of FSU’s angst, or at the very least moving GT into their division. I think they have actually been pushing for GT to move to their division for sometime.
LikeLike
No special deals for FSU, if the decide they want out wish them well.
If FSU leaves, the ACC would add UCONN and probably offer ND and Georgetown membership to all non-FB programs. UCONN, ND and GTOWN strengthens the already excellent basketball inventory. ND+ACC would have more clout in Bowl game negotiations than either party does today.
As long as the ACC doesn’t lose more they will thrive.
LikeLike
ChicagoMac,
Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t favor the idea of uneven revenue distribution, based on the principles of membership equality and unity, but that may be what it takes to keep FSU. And make no mistake about it: Florida State is the ACC’s most valuablevTV brand. The ACC would hurt from losingthem, badly. And UConn basketball/football would be a wildly insufficient replacement of FSU football/basketball, in terms of TV.
Furthermore, your ideas of adding Georgetown/Notre Dame only adds fuel to the fire that FSU fans have in their perception of the ACC as a basketball-driven league.
As far as “thriving” goes, basketball viewership would rise marginally, but that would hardly help matters since football is where TV ratings are truly driven. As for football, the league would have lost its most valuable asset. It wouldn’t be like the Big 12 losing Nebraska. It would be like the Big 12 losing Texas, or the Pac 12 losing USC, or the Big East losing Miami. (How’s that working out for the Big East, by the way?)
I won’t defend the immaturity displayed by FSU’s leadership, but now would not be the time for the ACC to be stubborn. The least it can do is work with the Nobles on scheduling and getting Ga Tech into the division, if not consider appearances-based revenue distribution.
LikeLike
*Noles, not Nobles. The pitfalls of typing on a smartphone are on full display in just about all of my posts. 😉
LikeLike
Understood. What I’m saying is that the ACC protected itself for this possibility when it poached Syracuse and Pitt.
Doing so destabilized the BigEast/ND relationship which could go a long way to softening the blow from the potential FSU departure. The conference would only have to give ND a BigEast type deal and the Irish would run into Swofford’s arms. Its a much better fit for ND than what is left of the BigEast and it would substantially help each(ND and the ACC) in future negotiations with Bowls.
The way the playoff discussions are headed it looks like a conference’s ability to negotiate with Bowls will be critical for success. Adding ND’s voice to those discussions will help the ACC even if it is only for partial membership. (ACC#2/ND, ACC#3/ND, etc.)
For TV purposes, ND would likely do something similar to what it agreed to with the Big East where it plays one or 2 games each year against conference foes. Obviously, the road games in that setup would fall into ESPN’s lap and help out the aggregate ratings accordingly.
From a TV perspective, adding ND, UConn and Gtown helps out the basketball side quite a bit. Not only do you add three good basketball brands but you get a little bit of the sum of the parts are greater than the whole at play. BC/Syracuse/UConn create a great inventory of games for the New England area and Gtown/Maryland/UVA would do the same for the Wash. DC market. When you sprinkle in the occassional Duke/UNC game against the above names you have a nice little content package to sell to regional sports networks.
So, no doubt that losing FSU would hurt but I think Swofford and the boys have some creative avenues to cover the hole nicely.
LikeLike
While FSU is valuable to the ACC, it would be a slippery slope to begin changing revenue distribution rules simply to help convince them not to leave.
LikeLike
One question that I have never understand. Why are most people so for complete TV revenue equality?
I understand it as a means to an end, but not as an end itself. In the Big Ten is works and shouldn’t be dropped. In the PAC-10 though, they could probably have had Texas and Oklahoma and become the PAC-16 if they weren’t hell bent on going to complete income equality. In the ACC staying completely TV revenue equal may mean they lose their most valuable pieces. If not being completely revenue equal can gain/stop you from losing important members, I don’t get why any conference should stick with it on principle. It’s not like every school contributes equally and this is some form of theft.
LikeLike
And we see how solid B12 was under a much more individualized system. Trying to attract teams using the system (although even it had to be made much more equal to save the conference) seems like trying to smother a fire with wood.
LikeLike
The PAC didn’t institute equal revenue sharing until after Colorado and Utah were added (and even that required them to fight the LA schools).
Last year the Oklahoma schools were set to join the PAC-12 (which had equal revenue sharing by that point) but Larry Scott couldn’t get the votes.
Revenue distribution had nothing to do with those deals falling apart.
LikeLike
Ccrider, the Big 12 wasn’t stable, but I’d offer the argument that non-equal revenue sharing was nothing but a red herring. Texas A&M and Nebraska certainly weren’t for it and I don’t think Missouri or Colorado’s decisions were based on it at all either.
frug: True it didn’t come out until after they joined, but reading the the things that came out later, it sounded like Texas would have come if they had been able to keep their tier 3 for the Longhorn Network (although that could certainly be wrong). They could have had Oklahoma still (a chance I don’t think they will ever have again), but Texas was likely contingent on tier 3 rights staying with the schools. The PAC-10 could have become every bit as big as the Big Ten and SEC from a marketing standpoint, but its unlikely to now. It worked out this round anyway thanks to rising contract values, but that’s not permanent.
LikeLike
@Eric
President Powers basically said they figured out a Pac 16 with divisions to reduce the travel demands on student-athletes was something they could do in the Big 12 and get similar money. So why do it? Why move to a new conference for similar money if you were just swapping AU and ASU for KU and KSU? You could still schedule USC and UCLA out of conference.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“- Realign the divisions to make geographic sense. Miami with schools north of NC, FSU with schools south of Virginia. This gets Ga. Tech in the same division, which would help since Atlanta is home to more FSU grads than any city outside of Florida.”
I realize Miami has a lot of ties to the northeast, but don’t you think they might take issue with their nearest division mate being over 1000 miles away? What if that just shifts the disgruntlement to Miami from FSU? If Miami was OK with it, it might work.
As you know, the original concerns were two-fold. First, the football schools and the recruiting grounds were much better in the south and the ACC didn’t want to basically have a FB division and a hoops division. Second, Miami and FSU were the most valuable brands with Clemson and GT next and they wanted to get valuable CCG match-ups. The best way to achieve that was to split them up equally.
Miami, VT, BC, MD, Pitt, Syracuse, UVA vs FSU, Clemson, GT, NCSU, UNC, WF, Duke
I think that’s asking for balance problems, but nobody watches the ACC CCG anyway.
“- Listen and respond to the supposedly petty complaints about scheduling tough Thursday night games after non bye weeks or tough conference road games after tough non conference games. League members can consider the scheduling complaints whining all they want, but it is worth considering if it helps keep its most valuable football TV brand.”
This should be a universal policy, not something special for FSU. A Thursday night game should always follow an off week for both teams. No conference should get in the business of deciding which games are tough and which aren’t. That always ends badly. As for OOC scheduling, that’s the school’s fault. All the ACC should do is tell schools way in advance what weeks they will play ACC games and let the schools deal with the OOC issues.
“- Consider distributing TV money based on national TV appearances. Granted, this supposedly caused consternation in the Big 12 (even though that model actually benefited the schools who departed), but it may help retain a school it can’t really afford to lose.”
The problem with this is that it may punish more deserving teams just because FSU is more popular. It also leads to arguments as the opponents also get a bump just for playing FSU in a week when TV had an opening. At some point the other schools have to have enough self-respect to say keeping a school isn’t worth devaluing ourselves any more.
“If you were the ACC, what would you do now?”
Do a behind the scenes soft sell to FSU but let them know you won’t be held hostage.
LikeLike
Of course, one might argue that simply being more popular is what makes a team deserving.
LikeLike
It doesn’t mean the less popular schools will support it. How would you feel if 6-6 UT got double the TV money as 11-1 TCU because they made more TV appearances?
LikeLike
Can someone analyze the mathematical data used to evaluate the value of the ACC schools in this blog:
http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5/15/3021181/is-fsu-really-the-most-valuable-team-in-the-acc#comments
I’m not very good at math, but I’d be very intrigued to see an analysis like this of the Big 10 if the numbers used in the analysis make sense.
It’s basically a team by team breakdown of the value each school adds to the TV deal.
LikeLike
It looks OK, but it is only based on one year and a whole lot of assumptions since ratings data is so hard to find. To do this right, you really need years of data for all the games televised. It would be even harder with the B10.
LikeLike
I’m still having a hard time understanding all this talk about ACC/Florida St to Big 12 rumors. It all started in its current rabid state based on the comments of a single BOT member’s comments. If the BOT were actually looking at this, they’d have kept quiet at this stage in the process. An individual member saying something outlandish out of frustration, looking for political or personal attention, or some other reason is very different than official Board action, even if it’s early stage committee exploration of a topic. It’s really not far off on the scale of unreliable speculation than if a booster had made the comment.
The ACC is a healthy growing league with at least 3 premier football names and several others capable of joining the elite. Those schools have been down lately, but will eventually rise up again.
The Big 12 has lost 4 significant schools who couldn’t run away fast enough, and only added back 2 schools who needed to find a BCS level home. AD’s and Presidents talk to each other, any school in a healthy conference is going to be extremely diligent and cautious about joining the Big 12, where clearly something is wrong. Add in geography, which matters to the extent that fan based like to travel to certain areas and alumni live in certain areas (There is a strong $$ component there, see Colorado to Pac 12 and their strong alumni base on the West Coast), and Florida St to Big 12 makes no sense. Traveling to Ames, Lawrence, Manhatten (KS), Waco, Stillwater, Norman, Lubbock not exactly going to work out for Florida St fans and alumns.
If the glove don’t fit……
LikeLike
I think from the fans’ and booster’s perspective, it all stems from the fact that they are surrounded by SEC schools and crave that same sort of football focused atmosphere/enthusiasm. In reality, most ACC schools don’t have the same level of football passion that the FSU fans do (or at least how the FSU fans perceive that they do). I’m not sure going to the Big 12 will help that, but they feel that they need to do something. I think a lot of the fanbase truely regrets not joining the SEC back in 1992 when they had the chance. Bowden spearheaded the move to the ACC over the SEC for the most part because he felt that it was the easiest path to a NC. But what ended up happening is that they started shifting down to the level of the competition, and haven’t been the same since. Not only has their record suffered, but their fan and booster support has also suffered. I think that is the main catalyst in the angst that they have with the ACC currently.
LikeLike
fan passion either exists or it doesnt, and amazingly seems to surface when a team is winning and for a few seasons after they begin to fall off. There is no greaty passion in the Big 12 overall for football than the ACC, even if that conference gets more positive press from the media. You have your Texas and Oklahoma’s (when winning) just like you have your Florida States and Virginia Techs. I’ve seen just as many empty stadiums at Iowa State and Kansas as I have at Duke and Virginia. Chatter and frustration from the internet board segment of a fan base is not going to lead a school to switch conferences. And switching conferences isn’t the way to getting back to the good times of being a national power. Florida State will be in any future playoff if they win 11 or 12 games a year, regardless of which conference they are in.
LikeLike
I believe Bob Bowlsby has a goal to raise the academic prestige of the conference. UT is already there, Kansas and ISU are not slouches. FSU will push the needle in the right direction. It makes sense on a recruiting front as well, the SEC has invaded Big12 country pulling out A&M and the Big12 will look to tap into Florida. FSU now knows they have no shot at the SEC thanks to UF (the same can be said of the Cocks blocking Clemson) so if they want to make a move, the Big12 offers their best opportunity. Being in the ACC has hurt FSU, in part due to the competition in the conference and their conference schedule. FSU would also fit in the Big 12 in basketball and baseball pretty well as a top tier team in both sports.
The cultural argument has gone by the wayside with the Big12 bringing in West Virginia, and with a third of the membership being new members in the next two seasons, a new culture will be born anyway.
From many accounts re-alignment is spooling up in the background until the playoff discussion is settled and will start up again once everyone knows where they stand.
LikeLike
1) “FSU will push the needle in the right direction.”
It does not hurt the needle, although it does not really seem to be moving much one way or the other
2) “It makes sense on a recruiting front as well, the SEC has invaded Big12 country pulling out A&M and the Big12 will look to tap into Florida.”
It’s always made sense for the Big 12, getting a presence in Florida only puts icing on the cake
3) “FSU now knows they have no shot at the SEC thanks to UF (the same can be said of the Cocks blocking Clemson) so if they want to make a move, the Big12 offers their best opportunity.”
I don’t diagree about the SEC comments, but whats the “if they want to make a move” all about? It’s not like either school has to move.
4) “Being in the ACC has hurt FSU, in part due to the competition in the conference and their conference schedule.”
Not sure I buy that at all. FSU was competing for national titles a decade after joining the ACC. They still get top recruting classes. How are they hurt?
5) “FSU would also fit in the Big 12 in basketball and baseball pretty well as a top tier team in both sports.”
True. Same as they do in the ACC
6) “The cultural argument has gone by the wayside with the Big12 bringing in West Virginia, and with a third of the membership being new members in the next two seasons, a new culture will be born anyway.”
Disagree. Even assuming the Big 12 went back to 12, this is still Texas’ playground.
LikeLike
I will state up front I am a Texas fan. After reading this thread and the sub topics that came out. Several thoughts
1) Third Tier Rights – FSU is getting about 300K for true 3rd tier MEDIA rights. The 6.5 million dollars is a separate contract similar to those that teams have with IMG, Leafield, etc for other services that are provided like marketing, advertising, etc. Those are not MEDIA rights. So yes, FSU does stand to gain from a true 3rd Tier contract they can bundle together. My hunch is they would do something similar to what OU is doing. OU will be signing a contract with Fox Sports Net to broadcast 1000 hours of Sooner programming. This ranges from sporting events, replays, coaches shows, all-access shows, etc. This programing will appear on FSN affialites like FOXSW and Fox Sports Oklahoma. I’m sure FSU could find a similar deal. Kansas has a deal for 3rd tier coverage for their basketball program that averages about 6.5 million. For anyone who has questions about third tier rights, go to the business of college sports site and do a search and it will provide some interesting breakdowns from the 2009-10 school year.
2) When comparing the ACC vs Big 12 TV deals, The average BIg 12 team payout will be 18% higher than the ACC payout. This despite the fact the ACC has 4 more teams, a championship game, and a population of footprint of 58 MILLION MORE people than the Big 12. It’s kind of embarassing for the ACC as their deal should dwarf the Big 12. And the Big 12 deal hasn’t been signed yet…just approved. If a pending expansion is about to take place, that will open up discussions, and if ESPN doesn’t want to pay, then FOX sure as hell will. The Big 12 has a relationship with both entities since FOX already broadcast Tier II content. The 18% gap would stand to increase signifcantly
3) BCS Playoff – if the conference revenue distribution of the new system is based on playoff particpation, then ACC members better start praying FSU gets good again. Cause under any of the playoff proposals presented, the ACC would have had 1 team qualify in the last 10 years – Virginia Tech 2007. Ouch. The SEC would have had the most with the Big 12 2nd. Again..that’s another potential gap in revenue
4) Two years ago, the Big 12 had a TV deal paying 7 MILLION DOLLARS PER TEAM. Think about that for a second. If anyone is wondering why the Big 12 was unstable, there’s your reason and root cause. We were falling significantly behind the other conferences. That was the foundation of instablity with all the other stuff pouring salt on the wound. Again, 7 MILLION DOLLARS PER TEAM PER YEAR. It took a threat of the PAC 12 to get our TV contract up to par. If people are wondering how the Big 12 can more stable now..this is how……when your TV media contract increases by 300% in 2 years…that’s how…that’s something Frank seemed to omit in his original post.
Yes I know, I know. it’s not all about money…….but it’s driving the train in realignment. The SEC didn’t expand to add Missouri and Texas A&M because of superior athletic achievement. Missouri won the least number of Big 12 conference championships in all sports…dead last. Texas A&M hasn’t finished in the top 5 since the 1950s. But the 30 million person population footprint will help the future SEC network kick some ass with subscriber fees.
LikeLike
My hunch is they would do something similar to what OU is doing. OU will be signing a contract with Fox Sports Net to broadcast 1000 hours of Sooner programming. This ranges from sporting events, replays, coaches shows, all-access shows, etc.
I keep pointing out that those things have already been sold by FSU. The only thing they will get from the Big 12 that the ACC doesn’t already give them is the worst football game and a handful of basketball games. For example, under the ACC contract, FSU sells the rights to its baseball games and gets to keep the money.
LikeLike
Actually Kansas State is dead last in total Big 12 championship at 7. Texas Tech and Iowa State are right there too, and I can’t imagine what random sports those championships are in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_12_Conference
And honestly, using total conference championships as a proxy for value is misguided and not at all how presidents and commissioners view expansion candidates. Frank has covered this ad nauseam.
LikeLike
Also A&M has the second most Big 12 championships, so it makes you look silly and devalues the entire Big 12 by arguing that they are not a top tier athletic department.
LikeLike
I seriously cannot imagine Kansas is getting 6.5 million just for their Tier 3 basketball rights. Because if the bottom of the barrel basketball games are getting 6.5 million, shouldn’t the actual good basketball stuff (Tier 1 and 2) be worth at least twice that at 12 million? And shouldn’t the Kansas football games be getting at least that much (I know Kansas football sucks, but any football is exponentially worth more than bsketball and Kansas is a state school). At that rate, Kansas would be pulling in $24 million for Tiers 1 and 2, yet the entire Big 12 is pulling less than that. If Kansas was such a hot property, they would have picked up by someone (when the Big 12 looked to be collapsing, only the Big East was interested). The simple fact is Kansas is not a hot property.
Therefore, logically I cannot buy Kansas gets that much for Tier 3 basketball. If must include a fair amount of typical IMG content.
LikeLike
I don’t know the specifics of KU’s deal with IMG, but if it’s like similar deals IMG signed then it includes things like radio, coaches shows, marketing, stadium signage.
LikeLike
Since we’re talking academics again, here is the London Times international university listing:
http://www.times.highereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html
Some expansion candidates for the B1G and Pac 12!
22 British Columbia
28 McGill
100 Alberta
Cal Tech is 1, Harvard and Stanford tied for 2. Football and other relevant or interesting schools in the top 100:
9 Chicago
10 Cal
13 UCLA
14 John Hopkins-there Hopkins Horn?
18 Michigan
22 Duke
24 Georgia Tech
25 Washington
26 Northwestern
27 Wisconsin
29 Texas
31 Illinois
33 UC-San Diego
38 UC-Davis
42 Minnesota
43 UNC
51 Penn St.
55 USC (surprised they are this high)
57 Ohio St.
59 Pitt
64 UMass (surprised with them as well)
70 Vanderbilt
72 Rice
77 Colorado
81 Rutgers
86 Cal-Irvine (lots of Cal)
89 Notre Dame
94 Maryland
96 Michigan St.
97 Arizona (who generally doesn’t seem to get much respect)
98 Purdue
Quick count-Pac 12- 7, Big 12 -1, Big 10-9 (excluding Chicago), ACC-5, SEC-1, BE-2, MAC-1, CUSA-1
Also, all 8 Ivy Leaguers.
LikeLike
Sorry, corrected link:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html
LikeLike
Cal Tech to the Pac-12! (kidding) At least Cal Tech is right next to the Rose Bowl and they even have an awesome Rose Bowl Game history.
LikeLike
All are also AAU members except UMass, Notre Dame, and Dartmouth
LikeLike
Toronto to the B1G.
British Columbia to the PAC.
McGill? Try the Patriot League.
LikeLike
Perhaps the ex-patriot league would be a better fit for McGill.
LikeLike
McGill would have been a fit for the B1G if Montreal were 80% English-speaking instead of 80% French-speaking.
McGill does not bring much of a TV market to the B1G. 80% of the Montreal TV market does not identify with a snooty English-speaking private school.
Toronto is at least 20 years away from being ready for the B1G.
British Columbia thinks it can be competitive in the PAC right away because of its dedicated fleet of helicopters to service boosters, but the NCAA won’t budge on UBC’s demand to go into Division I directly without having to spend at least 1 year in Division II, 4 years in the transition penalty box between D-II and FCS, 1 year as an FCS independent, and 2 additional years in the football transition penalty box between FCS and FBS before being bowl eligible (minimum of 8 years from start-up to bowl eligibility.)
LikeLike
McGill is a public school but your overall point remains valid.
LikeLike
As much as I’d love Toronto in the Big Ten, I’m not sure they’d leave the CIS and their rivals.
LikeLike
Worth noting that the THE rankings are held back by the fact it relies on self-reported data that not every school provides (that’s why Texas didn’t make the list last year). As such a few schools (like FSU I suspect)do not appear.
LikeLike
Good analysis from Mr. SEC
http://www.mrsec.com/2012/05/internal-fsu-battle-playing-out-externally-more-proof-that-the-tails-been-wagging-the-dog/
All the above — Barron’s email, Dodd’s comments, etc — appear to further prove our “Wag the Dog” theory. Reports of a done deal were the nonsense everyone in the traditional media said they were. But those very reports have led some to start thinking more and more about a move and now those against a move are having to make their cases against an FSU-Big 12 marriage. Regarding the traditional media in all of this, isn’t it likely that at least one — one! — reporter working the rumors would have found someone to fess up before Haggard’s rant? No one from The Topeka Capital-Journal to The Tallahassee Democrat to The Dallas Morning News to Yahoo! Sports to ESPN could get a single source to confirm any of this. Then it blew up Saturday thanks to Haggard’s reaction.
LikeLike
IMHO – “The Dude” was a bit miffed at the Pitt fans for joining the ACC and leaving WV in a bad spot. Why not needle their fans a bit (he is a ‘sPitt’ hater) by posting a rumor that WV’s new conference is taking the best football school in Pitt’s new conference. Throw out some crazy numbers (30 million in TV money!) to make it sound legit and watch the rumor spread. Keep it going with periodic updates and eventually when someone responds to it (say a trustee with inaccurate info) say “I was right all along.”
LikeLike
I’m a bit disappointed it has taken this long and you still haven’t quite yet traced this back to the Koch brothers and Cheney.
LikeLike
I live in Nebraska, specifically the birthplace of Dick Cheney. We don’t ever mention the men behind the curtain.
LikeLike
I live in Nebraska
Thanks, now I understand.
LikeLike
You sure have been fiesty lately….
LikeLike
Yes, us hilljacks have the power to create conference turmoil by starting rumors on blogs.
Beware! We’re coming after the Big Ten next, just to mess with our old overlords in State College.
LikeLike
Honestly, I think this went farther than “The Dude” ever imagined.
LikeLike
Yes, because we all know a WVU fan could never have any inside information on anything except how drunk Coach Huggins was at such and such hoops clinic and the location of the abandoned mine shaft where Jerry West kept all the body parts of the groupies Wilt Chamberlin accidentally dismembered when he was the Lakers’ GM.
LikeLike
You pointed out earlier that it’s tough for WVU’s Athletic Department to keep secrets and that is one thing I’ve noticed about WV through the years. In Morgantown, it seems that everyone knows someone who works at WVU and has the latest scoop. However, “The Dude” was the only one reporting on those rumors. None of the other WVU “insider” sites picked it up (as far as I could tell) the story on their own. I just can’t believe that the biggest realignment story of the summer managed to be kept secret by everyone except who told “The Dude.” Not only did everyone in Morgantown keep it a secret, but so did every booster, player, insider, secretary, and ball boy in Clemson, Tallahassee, Austin, and Norman. The closest that we have ever seen to that happening was Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC and even that leaked early.
My biggest problem with “The Dude” is how often he gets the details (in my opinion) wrong. For example, he claimed that adding FSU and Clemson would be worth 30MM per team in the Big 12. IMHO – no two teams would increase the conference’s value by 50% not even Notre Dame and USC.
For the record, I don’t hate or look down on WVU or its fans. In fact, I’ve been to Morgantown and think it’s a great place to visit. I was wrong about A&M being politically able to move (despite Ken Starr’s best efforts) last summer, and I don’t believe that Purple Book Cat had any real inside info. Just like I believe “The Dude” made this up, and it got out of hand.
LikeLike
FWIW, I never heard of the Dude until after I heard about this stuff starting up (not saying I heard it directly). I’d be shocked if the Dude had the same sources.
Problem with Mr. SEC’s view is that at the end of the day, FSU IS leaving a large chunk of money on the table that they could use.
LikeLike
@Mike
the 30 mil is not the ESPN/Fox package, but rather adding value of the new teams joining (allegedly 2-3 mil per team), plus the CCG another 2 mil per team increasing the TV contracts to 25 mil. The remaining 4-5 mil comes from an analysis of the tier three value for the low end schools in a reconfigured big 12. The right 6 teams (which would include ND, FSU, Clemson as well as three other solid adds) for a super Big16 is rumored to push the contract close to 28mil. This comes from a baylor site as well as the wvu site.
LikeLike
@ Mike
“The Dude” has certainly been wrong on a lot of details, and he chronically exaggerates his scoops to increase his blog hits, so I can understand the mistrust.
I didn’t give his rumors much thought at all until I heard them repeated by some of the more respected members of a premium WVU message board, including an editor for a WVU publication, who I’ve known for years and is notoriously skeptical/cautious, who said he’d heard basically the same stuff “the Dude” was reporting (his information wasn’t strong enough for him to report anything out in the open, but the fact that he was willing to say “off the record” that there were some legs to the FSU/Clemson rumors shocked me.)
There’s still a fair chance that none of this actually goes down, but it is at least fairly obvious that there has at least been some back channel discussion between the Big 12 and several ACC schools, and that “the Dude” didn’t just this all up.
Also, I didn’t mean to insinuate that you had insulted WVU. As a 5th generation Mountaineer fan, pre-emptive self-abasement is my strongest reflex, and sometimes it’s misplaced.
LikeLike
@jtorre – Here is a direct quote from “The Dude” on Feb 5.
http://www.eerinsider.com/2012-articles/february/clemson-and-fsu-are-on-the-clock.html
The Big 12 provided Clemson and FSU financial projections with estimates of each member’s share of annual revenues in excess of $35 million per team – more than double ACC projections — after the tier 1 TV contract is reworked.
The increase in revenues would allow Clemson and FSU to keep up with the spending by their SEC neighbors and in-state rivals.
Rumored invitations to Louisville and BYU are on hold until Clemson and FSU decide to apply for membership.
Nothing about ND or the Big 16. With all due respect to FSU and CU, they will not nearly double the Big 12 contract.
LikeLike
@ Mike see Playoffs Now post below for the details from the Baylor post. Not quite 34 mil but alot of $
LikeLike
If.
So if the rumors are true that the B12 contract has escalators for 11 & 12 but 13 reopens the contract, perhaps part of his thinking is to add 11 &12 now, wait for the SEC to finish their contract, and then go to 13 & 14. Or perhaps even hold off on 13 & 14 unitl the B1G finishes their contract.
Still think part of stopping at 12 is to give the SEC less reason to expand. Don’t threaten to lock them out of VA. One would assume that if given the choice, VT would choose the SEC. However if the B12 took 4 ACC schools, got close to SEC money, and perhaps had a better shot at eventually winning the ND sweepstakes, that might not be automatic. Perhaps a lot of risk going from 12 to 14.
And may also be just a lot of posturing. If going to 14 produces enough destabilizing ripples as to render the Big East unsuitable for ND, he might want to play the good cop role of, “I was really working hard to prevent this.” The “We’ll force you to join us by messing things up” has never been a wise way to recruit ND. See B1G a few years ago (or at least this blog a few years ago.)
LikeLike
Oops, poorly written on my part. he = Texas AD DeLoss Dodds
LikeLike
Burke Magnus is ESPN’s Senior Vice President, College Sports Programming.
http://frontrow.espn.go.com/2012/05/acc-on-espn-rights-agreement-speculation-just-the-facts/
First, a rights fee payment schedule that escalates in amount over the term is a commonplace provision in major college conference deals. This arrangement is not unique to the ACC. The pre-existing agreement between ESPN and the ACC (that carried through 2023) had an escalating rights fee schedule and the deal we announced last week contains a similar schedule. There is nothing unusual about how ESPN is paying the ACC over the life of this deal. It’s the industry standard.
Secondly, the additions of Pittsburgh and Syracuse as ACC members triggered a composition clause in the existing agreement. This clause is designed to allow for both partners to address the value of the conference taking into account the change in membership. There was no specific valuation formula based on total number of schools or on a per school basis. It is not an “out clause” nor does it trigger a complete renegotiation of the entire agreement. Again, conference composition clauses are standard in our industry and are part of every ESPN college rights agreement.
Lastly, the term “third-tier rights” means different things in different conference agreements. In the new ACC extension (as was the case in the original 2011-2023 agreement), ESPN retains exclusive rights to all football and men’s basketball games. Additionally, ESPN retains the first selection rights to women’s basketball and all other ACC sports such as baseball, softball, soccer, lacrosse, etc. Whatever is not selected for coverage and distribution by ESPN from these sports is retained by the member institutions.
LikeLike
I think what he is saying is:
Dear FSU fans and BOT,
Quite whining. You cast your lot with a basketball conference back in 1991. You won’t make as much money as the football schools in football conferences that surround you and repeatedly invade your recruiting territory for the best talent but this is what you did. Did you see all the articles about Football running expansion? Boise State is in the Big East for crying out loud. That is Boise, as in Idaho, in the Big East.
So deal with it. We gave you the best deal we could (Dear Investors, it is still a good deal for ESPN (wink, wink)….even getting you to grant over the sponsorship rights to the ACC tournament. Do you know how big of a deal it was to get Duke and UNC to accept some brand sponsoring their beloved postseason tournament that will to the average fan make it look an awful lot like Dick’s Sporting Goods Preseason NIT? That was a big deal but Duke/UNC gave on that.
Now if you absolutely must move conferences may we recommend the Big XII? We already own the rights to best games there and we would be very interested in adding some Florida State – Texas or Florida State – Oklahoma games to the Texas – Oklahoma game we already own. This would be very good for us.
So any way, good luck with your little Tallahasse Kerfluffle.
LikeLike
Why should FSU sit down and shut up?
LikeLike
Because I don’t think they can do much else.
LikeLike
I’ll explain later.
LikeLike
The big story that we are not discussing. Boise St needs a home for its non-football sports or it won’t join the Big East and stay in the Mountain West.
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/05/15/bmurphy/big_west_will_entertain_membership_application_boise_state
LikeLike
It could all be irrelevant by their June 30 deadline.
LikeLike
probably by May 30
LikeLike
Honestly if the BCS system is going away, wouldn’t Boise be better off in the MWC anyway? Will the Big East be appreciably better than the MWC if Louisville manages to swing a Big 12 invite?
LikeLike
TV dollars and exposure will be much better in BIg East, regardless. The MWC will accept them with open arms if BE ever implodes.
LikeLike
How will Hawaii vote? If they vote to exclude Boise, it will help their current football league, the Mountain West. Conflict of interest?
LikeLike
Clemson staying in ACC.
http://www.postandcourier.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120515/PC20/120519434
LikeLike
More of the same. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything. He chooses his words carefully.
Now that doesn’t mean there’s anything to the rumours. But this doesn’t dispell anything.
LikeLike
A few things. Interesting choice of very carefully worded answers:
1. No quote about Clemson being committed to the ACC from the writer, but will give them the benefit.
2. The more interesting piece was this –
“Have there been any kind of overtures by the Big 12 to Clemson? I can tell you unequivocally ‘no’ based upon the knowledge I have,” Wilkins said.
This was used by the writer to create the headline “has had no contact with the Big 12”, but that quote doesn’t doesn’t match the article’s headline. Why would someone say the Big 12 hasn’t made any overtures versus the easier and more familiar we have had no contact with the Big 12? I may be parsing but its seems like a very unusual choice of words that sound like you said you haven’t contact but in fact you have had contact but you reached out. Too bad the writer of the article didn’t pick up on that.
LikeLike
Yeah specific words are so important in these articles and they are seem to be portrayed wrong a lot in articles.
LikeLike
Well, people are parsing each word of these articles so much to divine some hidden meaning that I think any actual meaning might be lost. I doubt the reporters are writing these articles with some hidden meaning buried in there. So people pull the actual quotes looking for deep meaning, except that second hand quotes that may be out of context mean little. Not to mention no one trust’s anyone’s word anyway, so in the end they tell us nothing.
LikeLike
What that means is, “Somebody may have, but nobody has told me.” (Which is the way it needs to be.)
LikeLike
Trustee: Miami unlikely to Big 12.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rapid-reports/post/19042980
LikeLike
There’s a pay site post from the Baylor 247 mod (who probably has the best track record of the leakers) saying that 10 schools recently did a market study for their Tier 3 rights (Louisville, Pitt, Miami, Florida State, Clemson, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, and BYU.) ND’s were the most valuable (duh), followed by FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Virginia Tech, with the others valued at roughly $4 million.
Don’t know if it was from him, but there have been recent rumors that Texas does not want Miami because of their long history of running a dirty program. Combine that info, and if the B12 is taking a max of 4, and FSU, Clemson, GA Tech, and VA Tech are the more valuable, Miami might know that they are probably out for expansion.
Given how much Miami draws from the Northeast for students, they may be better off staying in the ACC no matter what. There’s talk that the academic side wants to reign in and scale back the athletic side. Even if that is not the case, Miami has usually scheduled a tough OOC slate and so if the program rebounds they could still make a top 4 playoff via the ACC. As long as the SEC and B12 don’t go past 14 and the B1G past 12, the ACC will still be around and relatively strong. They just won’t make quite as much money.
I did some very rough back of the envelop estimates about a week ago (wish I had kept the notes and methodology) and calculated that if FSU, Clemson, GA Tech, and Miami left and the ACC rebuilt with Syracuse and UConn, the per school average of the adjusted ESPN contract would probably only drop from $17 mil to $13-14. Definitely not the end of the world. Substitute VA Tech for Miami and the numbers probably don’t change much.
(IIRC, based the valuation on a Fox exec saying that almost 1/2 the B12 contract was value from Texas. So say of $200 mil, 85 is from Texas. Would think FSU could be worth 50-55, Clemson 15-20, etc. Maybe that’s too high, but lower that actually reduces how much the ACC contract would be lowered, so I think $13-14 is probably the ACC floor.)
LikeLike
Seems pretty far fetched. Would have a real tough time seeing either Tech school go to the Big 12. But I at least see the logic.
As an aside, how exactly are the Tier 3 rights valued? Each conference has different Tier 3 rights. To my knowledge, the Big 12 is the only school that absolutely guarantees a football game in Tier 3. It’s my understanding that while the SEC may get Tier 3 football, last year zero games flowed through. Because no one fully knows what content actually will go Tier 3, it’s hard to value. One football game wouold likely skew value dramatically.
Another intersting Tier 3 factor is the ACC deal. Although the ACC gives Tier 3 rights to Bristol, its been posted that anything not used flows back to the individual school. Now I know that ESPN is huge and has many networks, so how much goes back to the individual school. It’s probably safe to say the track and field will always fall, but what about basketball?
LikeLike
Jericho, the ESPN press release about their new ACC contract mentions that it adds 30 additional regular season basketball games, which seems low given Syracuse had 21 home games last year and Pitt is likely in that ballpark. So some basketball games may fall through to the schools or league.
LikeLike
Jericho – I can’t speak for the other SEC teams, but LSU did have a pay-per-view game last year. That PPV game is not part of LSU’s Tier III deal with Cox. The PPV game and the coaches’ shows are produced in-house and syndicated. The radio deal, sponsorship, and signage deals are also separate. The Cox deal includes football replays, weekly studio shows, certain OOC basketball games, and olympic sports.
LikeLike
Responding to Frank’s tweet’s above: I very much dislike the idea of using a rotation of bowl games for playoffs rather than the tie-ins. This will minimize Big Ten/PAC-12 champs in the bowl more than anything else. You could have some years with both in the playoff and the bowl isn’t in it and others where the bowl is and neither champ is.
LikeLike
You know what’s interesting is that everyone on here, regardless of whether they want FSU to stay or go or think FSU should stay or go presume that the B12 wants them. I’m not so sure, and DeLoss’s remarks earlier expressing negativity towards the idea of FSU joining should be a tip-off. While it seems that almost all Texas FANS seem to want FSU to join (“everybody loooooves us!”), it is far from certain that the Texas or OU administrators (the powers in the B12) want that. For one, having FSU in the league and a conference title game makes a path to a national championship harder. This would be especially true if only conference winners are allowed in the playoff, but would still be true even if that isn’t the case. For another, it opens Texas recruits to more poaching by non-Texas schools. In the case of FSU, it’d be a brand name school as well. With the B12 as it is now, Texas and OU really only have to compete with each other for top TX recruits (well, TAMU and LSU now to a degree as well), but the hierarchy is established. Do they really want to open up TX to FSU and Clemson as well? And yes, Texas would get more exposure around the FL panhandle, but with FSU in the other division, they would visit Tallahassee all of once every 4 years. How’s that for a recruiting pitch? “Come play with us and your folks and homies can see you play in front of them once every 4 years!” Meanwhile, FSU would visit TX 4 times as often; add in OK, and that’s TX or close by 6 times as often. I’m quite certain, if FSU & Clemson join the B12, which way the talent will flow.
And what do Texas and OU get out of this? A few million a year. Do they need that? Well, no, Texas already makes far more than any other program; they have so much money they’re paying a sexgenarian one of the top salaries in the country even though he’s lost almost twice as often as he’s won the past 2 years in league play despite having more advantages than any other program in the country. OU lags Texas, but adding FSU wouldn’t close the gap, and it would boost FSU’s revenues up to their level, adding a fearsome in-conference competitor.
I’m not even touching how much it is in ESPN’s interest to incent Texas and OU (well, the whole B12, but the fewer schools you have to buy off, the better) to reject an overture from FSU.
So, Texas (and OU) fans, while the ego boost is undeniable, do you really think it’s in your school’s interest to add FSU and Clemson to the B12? (Ego boosts don’t bring you closer to championships).
LikeLike
Good points, you may well be correct. Dodds worst years coincide with when FSU, Miami, the SEC, and the Big8 were feasting on the state of Texas’ best recruits. The B12, and even more so Mack Brown, helped Texas stem that tide, but I would guess that still hangs in the back of his mind.
OTOH, I can see him wanting to not go past 12, while one would think FSU would want to bring as many strong regional partners as possible, perhaps especially a Miami whose program’s lack of ethics Dodds despises. Doesn’t want a return to the SWC, or OU’s cheating ways, or SEC payrolls. T. Boone Pickens has to concern him, KSU under Snyder’s 1st go round had some issues, Baylor basketball pushes the limit, KU’s basketball has been under clouds, and Clemson’s glory years were under a dirty Danny Ford. So perhaps he’s taking a hard public line in order to either limit it to 12 or at least make sure 14 doesn’t change the B12 in negative ways.
BTW, there’s been talk that TX-FSU would be an annual game, even if they are in different divisions.
LikeLike
Richard,
You’re not off base….there is a very logical argument for Texas and OU to not want FSU in the Big 12. Mack Brown knows what it’s like to have a dominant FSU in his path trying to compete for championships. Whenever you add a program that is not a steppingstone and would have the ability to keep a great coach, it’s a risk to an extent. Do Texas/OU want potentially another “Texas” or “OU” in the conference? It’s a fair question. I’m not so concerned about the recruiting angle though. Texas will get what it needs as long as they have a good recruiter at the helm. If they don’t, well it doesn’t matter whose in conference.
LikeLike
Mind you, I’m not actually all that opposed to FSU joining the B12. My dreamt up scenario (not dream scenario as it isn’t really the best for the B10) has ND joining the B12 and taking Pitt, BC, and GTech along with FSU & Miami. To get chosen instead of Syracuse, Pitt and BC agree to play half their home games against ND neutral site (Philly & maybe Meadowlands for Pitt, Foxboro & maybe NYC for BC). Miami and GTech have to play outside their stadiums as well some times (Georgia Dome or Jacksonville/Charlotte and NYC or Tampa, respectively. Eastern division would be the new schools + TCU and Baylor (ND wouldn’t want WVU or Clemson in their division; sorry). Only 7 conferences games (in your own division) to appease the Domers, though the TX schools would still play cross-division OOC. The OK schools would face off against the FL schools.
B10 takes UNC, Duke, and UVa as well as Maryland when ND turns them down. 9 conference games with pods. Pac opponents would be played half the time (so that Michigan & MSU can still play ND half the time and still have 7 home games; Iowa-ISU would have to be half the time as well or neutral site).
SEC expands in to new states by taking VTech and NCSU. Wake, ‘Cuse and Clemson have to scramble.
LikeLike
Time will tell but it seems like some of you Texas fans might be living on The River Denial.
The BigXII cannot afford to share recruits with the SEC in Texas while only getting the second tier of recruits from the SEC markets.
On the revenue side, the BigXII TV deal looks competitive now but in a few years, aTm might well pass OU in revenues and Missouri could be right on its heels. The B1G will have its renegotiated deal and could well see even more growth in its BTN, the PAC will start to see even bigger returns as its owned network model starts to generate returns.
You don’t want to be sitting around in 5 years arguing with fans from the ACC on which conference is 4th best on the gridiron.
LikeLike
What’s been happening is basically Texas and OU get who they want (with a few slipping to A&M), then A&M pretty much gets their choice, the rest of the Big12 get who they want and then everyone else gets to choose. There always are a handful who want to go out of state or go to a Stanford or Northwestern. From what I’ve read recently about how Texas and OU have dominated recruiting in Texas, they probably won’t have much impact from A&M going to the SEC. Its not clear what the impact will be on A&M or the rest of the Big 12. It might be minimal. It might be major. It might mainly hurt A&M’s Texas recruiting as the Alabamas and Tennessees take some of those players who would have gone to A&M but aren’t interested in the players who would have gone to Oklahoma St. as they have comparable or better talent closer to home. Time will tell.
Most likely the SEC will slip into a down cycle as they have been high for several years and won’t be a serious threat. There’s already a severe drop in offensive talent the last couple of years. They’ve been making it up with defense. The Big 10 is due back after several down years. The Big 10 was 6th in computer rankings in the 1st 2 years of this BCS cycle and only moved back up the last couple of years. Conferences cycle up and down. Success breeds complacency.
LikeLike
What’s been happening is basically Texas and OU get who they want (with a few slipping to A&M), then A&M pretty much gets their choice, the rest of the Big12 get who they want and then everyone else gets to choose. There always are a handful who want to go out of state or go to a Stanford or Northwestern. From what I’ve read recently about how Texas and OU have dominated recruiting in Texas, they probably won’t have much impact from A&M going to the SEC. I think you just described the last 10 years. The question is what happens going forward.
It might mainly hurt A&M’s Texas recruiting as the Alabamas and Tennessees take some of those players who would have gone to A&M but aren’t interested in the players who would have gone to Oklahoma St. as they have comparable or better talent closer to home. I guess this has a reasonable chance at being the outcome, but it seems equally reasonable to me that LSU, Alabama and Arkansas start to make inroads on UT/OU. It also seems reasonable that Mizzou would start to outrecruit TT, BU, and Okie State.
I think it is way too early to know the impact of SEC expansion.
LikeLike
It is way too early, especially since A&M and Missouri don’t even leave until July 1.
I do think you are totally wrong on Missouri. I think they get shut out of Texas. They are heavily recruiting Florida now, which makes sense. They know the Texas pipeline will get thinner. Missouri may “out-recruit” TT, BU and Okie St., but its not going to happen with Texas recruits. If it happens, it will be because they are getting more GA and FL recruits.
LikeLike
I would say that the recruiting has been that way pretty much since the 70s when A&M became more than just a military school with the exception of the dying years of the SWC. In the dying years of the SWC with all the cheating a lot of recruits went out of state. A&M may have been more equal with UT and OU at times instead of a half step down (I don’t follow recruiting closely enough to remember), but those 3 have dominated recruiting in the state for a very long time.
LikeLike
Weill, it hasn’t hurt A&M’s recruiting so far for the class of 2013. Your assessment is correct for prior years but there has been a clear uptick in A&M recruiting since the SEC move. The 2012 class and certainly the 2013 class have both been better than any recruiting class since RC was running the program. Time will tell but the “SEC” pitch is landing on receptive ears right now.
LikeLike
Interesting thoughts on playoff format from DeLoss Dodds. I like the committee but disagree on not using the bowls, would prefer the B1G-P12 plan to use the Rose if either or both of the P12 and B1G champs are in the top 4, and I’d also prefer either conf champs only if in the top 5/6 or top 3 conf champs + wildcard.
——————
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/bohls/entries/2012/05/15/dodds_favors_pl.html
…n Dodds’ version, four teams would be selected by a blue-ribbon committee of “seven or nine” objective panelists who are very familiar with college football and follow the game passionately. “They’d be people who have football backgrounds and who are not biased,” Dodds said. He proposes an odd number to avoid any tie votes…
…Dodds said, “I’d favor four teams picked at large” who were not necessarily conference champions, meaning two teams from a conference and independents like Notre Dame and Brigham Young could all receive consideration. He’d give the panelists every computer program, poll and set of statistics available and let them pick and seed the four teams.
In his format, the four teams would be selected before the bowls make their choices…
…“This entity needs to be separate,” Dodds said of the final grouping of four. “It needs to be their own bowls, their own TV, their own sponsors. Those four selected would not play in the bowls. And I’d have ‘em bid it out to cities and stadiums for the three games, and I favor neutral sites for the games because using the campuses (as host sites, at least for the two semifinal games) would be too much of an advantage….”
LikeLike
Should have added that Dodds plan would probably raise the most money. That’s out of character, I know…
LikeLike
What was it T. Boone said?, “Delo$$ has the most cards and he plays everyone one of them.”
LikeLike
Don’t like any of it.
1. I don’t a committee for seeding, but it shouldn’t be for selection. Way too much hostility will be directed at specific individuals. I’d rather use a forumla which takes into account polls (not the coaches), strength of schedule, and computer rankings, but even the current BCS is preferable to me than a committee deciding everything.
2. I despise the notion of neutral site games that are not bowls. Either use home games or use the bowls. You will very, very much de-emphasize the bowl system if playoff teams are not considered bowl teams.
3. If we aren’t going to use the bowls, then why is home field too much of an advantage? The #1 team in the country usually has better achievements than the #4 by a considerable margin. They should be rewarded for that. The #2 team should be too even if its closer. We want to emphasize the regular season in this and home teams would do this (although I still favor using the bowls).
LikeLike
I definitely agree with him on not using bowls. Doing the playoffs within the bowl system is absolute worst thing you could do. The purpose of a playoff is reward teams based on merit. The purpose of bowls is to make money. It is square peg in round hole.
Remember, the original purpose of the BCS was simply to pit the top two teams in the country against each other in a championship game. However, the decision to try and conduct the CCG within the bowl system lead to a monstrosity that includes 5 games (one of which rotates), 8 ranking systems (6 computers and 2 human polls), a convoluted selection process with obscure technicalities that can be worth tens of millions of dollars, and a caste system that everyone hates.
Either do the playoff outside of the bowl system or just do a plus one.
LikeLike
Come on. Frug, you aren’t seriously suggesting playoffs are not primarily about money?
LikeLike
Yes the playoffs are about money, but the selection process isn’t (or at least it won’t be if the major schools plan to the get the backing of the mid-majors). The selection process for the bowls is purely financial. It is a square peg in a round hole.
LikeLike
Perhaps they don’t want/need permission from the mid-majors. Who needs who more? The threat of the majors leaving the NCAA (while still unlikely, it’s not nearly as unlikely as at the turn of the century) is the long term elephant in the room that the mids need to measure.
LikeLike
The major conferences are at least 10 years away from being in a position to leave the NCAA without the support of the mid-majors.
LikeLike
To the playoff participant point: any “playoff” that has a “selection process” is not a playoff. Before the season you need to know what you need to do (like win your conference), not who you need to impress. That is to say playoffs must have a predetermined way to qualify and polls be damned even if the semi teams were WSU, ISU, Vandy, and Northwestern.
LikeLike
Well personally I prefer a conference champs only system, to say that system that has a “selection process” is not really a playoff means that the MBB tournament is not really a playoff and I think it is.
(Though if you disagree feel free to replace the word “playoff” with “tournament” in my previous post.)
LikeLike
The issue is that with a 4-team playoff, there has to be a selection process, whether it’s taking the top 4, conference champs only, or a hybrid of the two. Unless you have a playoff that includes all conference champs, there’s no such thing as controlling your destiny.
That’s why I don’t have an issue with letting teams that didn’t win their conference into the playoff. Regardless of the format, some type of ranking system with some type of subjective criteria is going to be used.
Also, I think too many people are focused on Alabama last year. Even the Big Ten ADs that largely want to reward conference champs recognize that a team like Bama needs to be in the playoff. The real debate is whether #4 Stanford should have made it into the playoff the last 2 years over conference champs sitting at #5, including a Pac-12 champ. I think that causes more heartburn with the powers that be than a #2 Alabama team.
LikeLike
Hence the term “invitational” tournament for systems that try to assure that the most profitable/aclaimed teams are included. Championship tournaments allow for the possibility that the “best” team can fail to qualify.
While March madness is entertaining I’d prefer only conference champs in it also.
LikeLike
Unless you have a playoff that includes all conference champs, there’s no such thing as controlling your destiny.
yes, frank. this thing isn’t going to work right until they get the playoff to eight. four c-champs and four deserving at-larges. that way the emphasis on winning the conference champeenship will be extant as needed, and worthy others won’t be left out. eight teams won’t guarantee including the best two teams in the nation, but most years it likely will.
LikeLike
frug,
“I definitely agree with him on not using bowls. Doing the playoffs within the bowl system is absolute worst thing you could do.”
I agree. If you’re going to do a playoff, you should start with a blank slate and do what is best for the playoff. Every compromise they make to use the bowls just makes both systems worse.
“The purpose of a playoff is reward teams based on merit. The purpose of bowls is to make money. It is square peg in round hole.”
I’d say the purpose of the bowls is to reward the players with a free vacation to a resort and an exhibition game on national TV, but that’s because I’m looking at it from the POV of the schools.
“Remember, the original purpose of the BCS was simply to pit the top two teams in the country against each other in a championship game. However, the decision to try and conduct the CCG within the bowl system lead to a monstrosity that … and a caste system that everyone hates.”
I never minded the AQ system. The big boys deserved better treatment for building the sport and the fan base as well as playing tougher schedules. The only argument for fairness in the BCS that ever carried any weight with me is for the top two because that should be purely merit based. Of course, there isn’t really a great way to objectively measure merit.
LikeLike
My big problem with the AQ/non-AQ designation is that it was completely redundant once they added the separate championship game. The Big 10, PAC, Big XII, SEC and ACC all separate contracts with the BCS bowls that superseded the BCS (i.e. even if the Big 10 had failed to meet the AQ criteria they still would have sent their champ to the Rose Bowl). Since 2005 the only purpose of AQ designation was to ensure the Big East of appearances in bowls it didn’t deserve in many years and serve as a prestige symbol.
Also when I said “everyone” I was referring to the conferences who have all said they want to end the AQ labels.
LikeLike
frug,
“My big problem with the AQ/non-AQ designation is that it was completely redundant once they added the separate championship game. The Big 10, PAC, Big XII, SEC and ACC all separate contracts with the BCS bowls that superseded the BCS (i.e. even if the Big 10 had failed to meet the AQ criteria they still would have sent their champ to the Rose Bowl). Since 2005 the only purpose of AQ designation was to ensure the Big East of appearances in bowls it didn’t deserve in many years and serve as a prestige symbol.”
You disproved your initial statement by the end of the paragraph. AQ status served a purpose in that it guaranteed the BE a spot and a big share of the cash. Please note that I’m not defending the purpose, just showing that it existed and thus the AQ status wasn’t redundant. I didn’t have a problem with it because the BE contained several school that helped build CFB to what it is today (Pitt, SU, WV) as well as being the source of several elite former members (Miami, VT).
“Also when I said “everyone” I was referring to the conferences who have all said they want to end the AQ labels.”
I’m not sure how strongly the BE wanted to get rid of AQ status.
LikeLike
I think neutral site for everything is a good idea. Final 4 style with all the games in one city spread over a week. I prefer a neutral site over the bowls as sites because I’d hate a B10 team having to play a semifinal against an SEC team in FL or New Orleans or USC in the Rose.
LikeLike
Brian has at least one fan out there:
https://twitter.com/#!/ThePutMan/status/202534506664701953
LikeLike
Brian, I didn’t realize your mother was named “Alex” or that you’re a Putnam . . .
🙂
LikeLike
No way. My mom doesn’t think I’m that funny.
LikeLike
The fan is not a Putnam, either 🙂
LikeLike
I’d settle for my comments showing up here every time I post them. I can assure everybody I don’t work for ESPN.
LikeLike
FSU endowment drops $100 by million. No wonder they are so desperate for money.
http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/extracredit/2009/02/05/fsu-endowment-drops-more-than-100-million/
LikeLike
Good interview with Tim Brando on FSU situation. He thinks going to the B12 is a bad move.
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/colleges/audio/11101718/
LikeLike
Now there’s a shocker.
LikeLike
If we bring money into this, XII looks as good as the ACC. No one is close to the B1G (excluding Ivy). Schools with $1B+ endowments: 12/12 for B1G; 4/14 for SEC (was 2/12); 6/14 for ACC (was 5/12); 5/10 for XII (was 6/10); 5/12 for PAC.
LikeLike
If I had to guess right now, I’d make 3 predictions:
The B12 eventually ends up at 14 with FSU, GA Tech, Clemson, and VA Tech.
ND ends up in the ACC, probably for all sports but football.
The B1G and SEC don’t expand.
Here’s why: I just don’t think the B12 can offer enough Northeastern schools for ND, especially for non-football, without going to at least 16. I also have my doubts about FSU coming to the B12 without at least 2 neighbors. Once the BCS negotiations are over and things start to finally sort out, I can see the B12 realizes that ND ain’t coming and the chance to move to 14 and become roughly equal to the SEC is too good to pass up. Adding a SE quad of FSU, GA Tech, Clemson, and VA Tech would explode the population of the B12’s states from 38 to 80 million, well above the P12’s 63 and in between the B1G at 71 and the SEC at 92.
If/once the B12 goes to 14 by taking 4 ACC schools, I suspect the ACC is going to want to get back to 12, and the only academically acceptable schools are Rutgers, UConn, and ND. The playoff will probably allow ND to stay indy in football, but if Rutgers and UConn move the Big East may no longer be acceptable for ND (especially if that causes a split.)
So ND negotiates with the ACC, who will not be inclined to allow a non-fb member or member TV networks/deals. But this is where ND has a trump card, by letting the ACC know that it if they won’t take ND as a partial member, the Irish will compromise with the B1G and join with Pitt, MD, and Rutgers.
If that were to happen, the SEC would surely respond by going to 16 with 2 ACC schools, first offering NC and VA but flirting with NC St and even Miami and others as a tactic. B12 would also be looking for 2 more, tempting Syracuse, Miami, UConn, etc. At that point even the NC schools would recognize the writing on the wall, that the ACC is done and they can’t rebuild or survive as a Carolina SWC. No good way to stick together and the real chance that Duke gets left out along with Wake if they split.
Hence why I bet the ACC ends up compromising with ND at some point within the next year or two. Perhaps even as a full member, but with only 5 or 6 conf games required to determine division champs (there would be more conf games between the rest of the schools but that could give ND enough flexibility.)
LikeLike
I thought GaTech had higher academic standards. Take them off the list and put Louisville in, and it makes good sense to me for the Big 12 at 14 teams.
With 11 teams, the ACC could then easily pick up Rutgers (or UConn, if BC allows it) to make 12. I don’t know what to make of ND still…
LikeLike
I thought Ga. Tech voted against West Virginia joining the ACC, so why would they join them in the B12?
LikeLike
Money. Fear of being left. Missouri dissed the Big 12 when they were trying to get a Big 10 invite and then later joined the SEC which was far weaker academically than the original Big 12.
Everything I have seen indicates Georgia Tech is the least interested of the 7 or so exploring the idea, but if Clemson, FSU and Miami were going to leave, they would have to think about it.
LikeLike
Missouri left the Big 12 after it had already become weak academically. The Big 12 lost three AAU schools in Colorado, Nebraska, and A&M within one year before Missouri left.
LikeLike
Playoffs Now,
I see several holes in your predictions:
“If I had to guess right now, I’d make 3 predictions:
The B12 eventually ends up at 14 with FSU, GA Tech, Clemson, and VA Tech.”
GT definitely isn’t going, and VT almost definitely isn’t going. I doubt Clemson is going, either. I’m iffy on FSU, but I’ll give you that for the sake of argument.
“ND ends up in the ACC, probably for all sports but football.”
I disagree, but I’ll explain why after you do.
“The B1G and SEC don’t expand.”
This we agree on.
“If/once the B12 goes to 14 by taking 4 ACC schools, I suspect the ACC is going to want to get back to 12, and the only academically acceptable schools are Rutgers, UConn, and ND. The playoff will probably allow ND to stay indy in football, but if Rutgers and UConn move the Big East may no longer be acceptable for ND (especially if that causes a split.)
So ND negotiates with the ACC, who will not be inclined to allow a non-fb member or member TV networks/deals. But this is where ND has a trump card, by letting the ACC know that it if they won’t take ND as a partial member, the Irish will compromise with the B1G and join with Pitt, MD, and Rutgers.”
This is why I can’t jump aboard your ND plan. First, the ACC isn’t going to lose 4 teams. Second, I’m not sure the BE would fold even if RU and UConn went away. Third, I don’t think the ACC would say yes to ND as a partial member even then because they’d know ND was bluffing about joining the B10 in that scenario.
“Hence why I bet the ACC ends up compromising with ND at some point within the next year or two. Perhaps even as a full member, but with only 5 or 6 conf games required to determine division champs (there would be more conf games between the rest of the schools but that could give ND enough flexibility.)”
1. A full member doesn’t play a partial conference schedule. ND would have to play the full 9 (maybe convince the ACC to drop back to 8) or just be an OOC team.
2. It ain’t going to happen in the next 2 years. ND has no reason to cave that soon.
LikeLike
Going back and forth, but I do think a 4 team expansion is more likely than a 2 team expansion if ACC teams are involved (although I still think odds are on no expansion). The first two would be Florida State and Clemson. Presumably you’d be trying to make those 2 happy so the other primary targets would be southern. Georgia Tech definitely jumps out as one, but whether or not they’d agree if questionable, but if yes they would be in. Miami (FL) is likely the other. While I think the Big 12 would actually be more interested in Virgina Tech (for a variety of reasons), I think Florida State is going to want that rivalry to remain in conference and they have the power here. If Miami says no, then you go to Virginia Tech, who might well say no as well (Virginia pressure). If all 3 say no, you are probably down to looking at Maryland, Pitt and Syracuse. Maryland could go either way, but I see Pitt and Syracuse accepting.
Granted, this is all contingent on Florida State and Clemson deciding to go in the first place and I still doubt that happens.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen SU mentioned at all. Interestingly, Big 12 fans aren’t sold on Miami. There are a lot who are concerned that with the penalties, the university’s reaction to stop future occurrences and the general fan apathy, that Miami might not be Miami again. The rumours are that the Big 12 admins aren’t enthused about Miami either.
Knowing the fan base, I would say Clemson would be most likely with FSU 2nd. I don’t think more than that is very likely. But next would probably be GT out of fear of being left behind and then Maryland (or UL from the BE) who has had continual financial issues. I think VT goes to the SEC if they decided to leave. Pitt already picked the ACC over the Big 12 when the Big 12 made overtures, so they only leave if the league starts to fall apart. With Miami its dual questions: of whether they want to go and whether the Big 12 wants them, but they might slip in ahead of Maryland.
LikeLike
Here is a question. Some folks have been tossing around this idea that the Big XII gets $2M per team added. How and why? I find it hard to believe that a network would pre-negotiate a figure like that. What if the Big XII added SMU and Houston? Is that worth an extra $40M per existing team, plus $48M for the teams being added, or $88M? I just don’t buy that a network would lock itself in to any number without knowing exactly what teams are at issue.
So is it possible that the contract lists universities that would be worth $2M? If so, wouldn’t that essentially be a cap on an increase. If it already says that FSU and Clemson are worth $2M apiece, then it is specifically known in that instance. But it seems odd that they would be predicting a raid of another conference.
Also… how do you get $2M anyway? If the Big XII contract is backloaded to any degree–which it most certainly will be–$2M would be the average increase, right? It would be less of an increase in the early years. And those just happen to be the years that FSU and, say, Clemson, would have to pay the exit fee to the ACC. While the Big XII was desperate for WVU to maintain its contract obligations, the Big XII is not so desperate for that now.
LikeLike
I think the ultimate source was one guy who claimed to be a media consultant who posted. Its apparently been repeated many times since then. And there is an unofficial “cool kids” list of 10-12 teams who are acceptable.
I don’t really believe it. And if it is there, I think people have been mis-interpreting it. Sometimes you get awkwardly worded language in contracts because lawyers aren’t accountants. The contract supposedly adds $2 million per team for team 11 and $2 million per team for team 12. Instead of increasing pay to $24 million per team, it might just a be a way of keeping the original 10 whole. Maybe it adds 11X2 for $22 million TOTAL for team 11 and 12X2 for $24 million for team 12. So you get $20.5 million per team if you have 12 ($20 million x 10 teams + $22 million for team 11 + $24 million for team 12=$246 million, divided by 12=$20.5 million per team). Or maybe it just adds $2 million X the original 10 teams, meaning it all stays at $20 million per school.
It doesn’t make sense that UL + Rutgers (I think they are both supposed to be on the “cool kids” list) could add $88 million to a $200 million contract (12X24=288).
LikeLike
Very good questions, acaffrey.
I think a lot of FSU’s issues of fan discontent with the ACC wouldn’t exist if fans would have just embraced the league that they’re in. I, for one, always enjoyed the idea of FSU having built itself into one of the nation’s top programs in spite of its lack of affiliation with the SEC. The SEC rejected FSU’s attempts to join for multiple decades. Then, when FSU actually did get an invitation only to go a different route, it went on to become the winningest program of the decade (90’s).
Eventually, FSU fell back into the pack, but the ACC caught up some, too. Whereas the ACC was as a whole fairly lousy in the 90’s, the league actually has gotten better, top to bottom, in the 2000’s. For example, the ACC used go produce far fewer NFL draft picks. More recently, the league is only behind the SEC and, depending on the year, the ifBig Ten in the number of players drafted. Fans of FSU ought to be proud of te league they’re in but they get so jealous of their SEC neighbors that they o. verlook how great they’ve got it.
Furthermore, if FSU fancies itself as being as legitimate of a “brand name” program as other traditional powers, FSU fans ought to be filling the stadium regardless of who they’re playing. Florida still sells out for Vanderbilt and Kentucky games. Heck, Alabama sells out for brand new program Georgia State. FSU shouldn’t be complaining about an inability to sell out for Wake Forest or Boston College; they’d have the same trouble with bad Iowa State, post bill Snyder K State, post-RG3 Baylor, and bad Kansas teams.
Really, the most sensible solution would be for FSU to sell out their games in good seasons and in bad ones, and to actually win the ACC and some BCS bowls. That would drive donations, sales, and other revenue to enable FSU to keep pace with Florida and others, without having to join a conference that makes no sense for it to be in instead of one where it has thrived.
LikeLike
Let me also say this… I am beginning to warm up to the idea that Swofford is falling short. How can the individual pieces of the ACC be so valuable, but the sum of the parts not be?
An argument can me made that it is worthwhile for the Big XII to add 4 ACC schools. Let’s just use FSU, Miami, Ga Tech, and Clemson. If those 4 schools can increase the Big XII contract, then they must be worth a lot. To add four schools would mean a payout of $20M x 14 = $280M/year. That’s $80M to keep the existing 10 schools at the same level. To increase all schools to $25M would mean 25 x 14 or $350M… an extra $150M for the 4 ACC schools per year. Let’s say $120M to keep it simply–$30M value per team.
Meanwhile, the Big 10 covets Duke, UNC, Virginia, and Maryland. To add them, the same math should apply. Why add a school that does not add anything to the bottom line? To add two.. let’s say Duke and UNC… isn’t that another $60M/year in value.
Let’s say that leaves behind Va Tech and NC State. If the SEC added them, they must be worth another $60M/year.
Again… if the ACC teams are valuable enough to be taken by another conference that is already getting $20M/year… that must mean the teams are worth more than that. If not, why bother? That means that these 8 schools have to be worth at least $160M for the conferences to break even and $240M to generate a small increase for the existing teams.
And then you still have Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Wake Forest, Virginia, and Maryland left over. Together they must be worth another $40M, right? A fraction of the other schools.
That’s still $280M per year in value. With 14 teams, shouldn’t the average value of the ACC contract be closer to the $20M average that the Big XII is commanding???
If ESPN is not going to pay the ACC more, someone is going to pay someone else more for the rights to these very same teams. In my mind, that means that ESPN defeated Swofford and Company. Maybe the ACC needed to be more clear that it would implode without more money.
LikeLike
Nobody even remotely associated with a Big 10 school has said that “the Big 10 covets Duke, NC, VA., and Maryland”. That is 100% a product of internet speculation.
LikeLike
While true, doesn’t it seem obvious that they would covet some or all of them? Outside of Notre Dame, those elite ACC schools seem to be the most valuable from any metric.
LikeLike
Not really.
I don’t want USC and Stanford in the Big Ten either.
LikeLike
I think being on a board that deals with expansion speculation is going to cause you health problems.
LikeLike
There is no question about it, outside of ND (and Texas but that isn’t really option anymore) UNC is the Big Ten’s number 1 target (the SEC’s as well). The question is who else would they make a play for. Getting UNC probably requires that the Big 10 take Duke otherwise the Tarheels would likely follow NC-State to the SEC. That eats up three slots (the Big 10 will always leave a seat at the table for ND unless/until they join another conference), with Maryland, UVA and Rutgers all possibilities. I suspect that UNC will probably insist on UVA so they are not on a complete island but ND would probably prefer a north eastern team.
The Big Ten’s best case scenario is would be UNC, UVA, Maryland and ND since it gives them strong inroads in the DC market (UVA, Maryland and ND all have big followings) as well as UNC who is flagship of a large and rapidly growing state to go onto of elite basketball and academics and competent football (at least until the sanctions start to hit them). I just don’t know if UNC would be willing to break with Duke.
LikeLike
frug,
“There is no question about it, outside of ND (and Texas but that isn’t really option anymore) UNC is the Big Ten’s number 1 target (the SEC’s as well).”
Clearly there is question about it because we’ve seen it discussed. How sure are you that UNC trumps UMD as a target? UMD provides synergy with PSU that UNC never will, and both are state flagships with solid research and AAU membership. RU also works well with PSU and has the allure of the unobtainable NYC market. The major downsides to UNC are the cultural difference and geographic separation from the B10. UNC is a southern school, and I don’t think they can join the B10 without a regional partner. UMD and RU could, because PSU is their regional partner.
“The question is who else would they make a play for. Getting UNC probably requires that the Big 10 take Duke otherwise the Tarheels would likely follow NC-State to the SEC.”
I don’t know about that. That’s mostly a hoops rivalry (maybe lax too), and can be maintained OOC. The B10 may want Duke to own the hoops rivalry and for the academics, though.
“That eats up three slots (the Big 10 will always leave a seat at the table for ND unless/until they join another conference), with Maryland, UVA and Rutgers all possibilities. I suspect that UNC will probably insist on UVA so they are not on a complete island but ND would probably prefer a north eastern team.”
1. You just gave them Duke, so how are they on an island?
2. You think UNC gets to pick 2 teams and ND gets none?
3. What if ND still isn’t in the mood to join, leaving 15 teams?
LikeLike
Really? I don’t recall anyone from the SEC saying that they coveted Missouri either. What does an official statement mean? And nobody from the Big XII has said that they even want FSU. My post is in response to others that claim that the ACC can/will be divided up among the Big XII, SEC, and B1G. My point is, for that to be truly possible, then the ACC schools are worth more than what they are getting from ESPN.
LikeLike
Because they didn’t. It was closing time, and the bar’s lights were on.
LikeLike
Did the Big 10 say that they coveted Nebraska? We can go on all day.
Did the ACC say that they coveted Pitt/Syracuse? No.
None of this stuff happens until it is over.
LikeLike
Man…savvy PR and media relations really isn’t an FSU strong suit is it? Tim Brando got former player Derrick Brooks (apparently he is former FSU trustee, which is interesting) to say the Big 12 reached out to FSU on his show today. That is a no no in a world where conferences keep threatening each other with tortious interference (thanks Baylor!).
Tim Brando @TimBrando
Derrick Brooks on my show, “As far as I know the BIG12 reached out to us.” When asked about the mixed messages, “Sunshine law open forum.”
I do know from work where I have to respond to work proposals for government contracts that Florida has one of the most aggressive FOIA/sunshine laws in the country.
LikeLike
So does Derrick Brooks shut down FSU to the Big 12? He may have shut down a playoff in 1994. He was a student on a committee studying a playoff. From a Tony Barnhart article in the 1995 IP Sports Almanac:
Each person on the committee had his or her turn to speak. There was a genuine excitement in the room that, despite the obstacles involved, a playoff could become a reality. Maybe it wouldn’t happen this year or the next, but it would happen. Then it was Derrick Brooks’ turn to speak. Brooks is an All-American linebacker at Florida State University and one of three student athletes picked for the committee. He is extremely intelligent, an Academic All-ACC selection. He folded his hands and spoke with great clarity.
“I would ask the committee that once these new revenues are generated, how will the student-athlete benefit?” he said. “What would be our share?”
The room grew strangely quiet. “It was like somebody had sucked all the air out of the place.” said a participant in the meeting. “Suddenly an issue had been raised that no one was prepared to deal with.”
The record will show that the day after Brooks said his piece to this committee, the Southeastern Conference voted 12-0 against the concept of a Division I-A football playoff. The next day the special NCAA committee, chaired by UCLA chancellor Charles Young, said it could not come up with a plan and agreed to continue studying the issue. A few days later the NCAA Presidents Commission disbanded the committee. The issue of a playoff was essentially dead for the forseeable future.
With this history, does it seem surprising the issue of 4 year scholarships and a full cost of attending stipend came up this year before a playoff is proposed?
LikeLike
Or that the Big Ten polled its players to see if they supported going up to 15 games?
LikeLike
ESPN has no interest in seeing FSU depart the ACC. They’d sooner renegotiate the ACC contract than see FSU leave. IMHO.
LikeLike
There were strong whispers of FSU bolting the ACC before the ink was dry on ESPN’s renegotiation with the ACC. If ESPN was so adamant about FSU staying put, why wouldn’t they overpay to keep the league alive, similar to what they did to the Big 12?
LikeLike
For you amusement, check out the new dress code for Boise State fans in 2012:
LikeLike
According to Brett McMurphy (@McMurphyCBS)
Swofford also said ACC prefers bowls used for semifinals instead of on campus sites
Swofford on Pitt/SU: “We’re ready for them to come. Sooner than later is preferable. In hands of those schools & Big East”
ACC’s Swofford if he is concerned about FSU leaving for Big 12: “I don’t deal in hypothetical’s”
ACC commissioner John Swofford said ACC membership prefers conference champ model in playoff
FSU Randy Spetman told me he “doesn’t know where Derrick got that” about Big 12 contact
LikeLike
Swofford said he preferred straight 1-4 last week.
LikeLike
I noticed that too. Seems like his coaches and AD’s prefer the conference champ model. Not a good sign that he’s not on the same page as the schools he represents.
LikeLike
@Frank
I totally disagree with your tweet. Most people want an objective computer formula that agrees with their personal opinion! A lot of people think the AP poll is garbage. It doesn’t have the same conflict of interest as the coaches poll, but it has people who don’t know football as well as the coaches. Except for the conflict of interest it has all the flaws of the coaches poll. Writers are working and don’t necessarily watch games. They don’t pay as much attention to games outside the area. They do have local bias. They don’t always look at all the scores (classic example-1997 Texas lost 66-3 to UCLA in a September afternoon game and was still ranked. Next week they beat a good opponent yet didn’t get a single vote). They move teams up and down based on what they thought in preaseason. They weight W-L over strength of schedule (example-Stanford ahead of Oregon last year). They vote based on name value. They often rank teams on who lost last. AP Poll is very flawed. That’s why I like a committee for selection. Maybe you have a BCS formula to narrow it to 10 or so candidates, but the committee selects the teams.
LikeLike
Poll = people making a judgment.
Committee = people making a judgment.
Committee = Poll
LikeLike
Sportswriters are doing the AP Poll. That makes it a bad poll.
LikeLike
So people who watch, analyze, cover, report on a sport for their livelihood are less qualified than…who? Coaches would be my only choice, but they are totally focused on the next game (except when Mack B lobbies to get past Cal). Perhaps you prefer old retired coaches, they certainly couldn’t have any bias….
LikeLike
The coaches poll is the worst because they have a clear conflict of interest (think Shaw and Saban voting Stanford #3 and OSU #4).
LikeLike
Frug:
That’s my point. Those most qualified to analyse are the most vested in a particular school or conference. A large pool of writers who’s livelihood (supposedly) depends on accuracy and objectivity is a better option. But not better than win and get in, as in champions only.
I realize there are more than four conferences, for now, and a method of choosing which four champs is needed to do this. I just don’t care if the top two are in the same conf. And certainly don’t want to see a conference do over in the championship.
LikeLike
Sportswriters these days are pretty sloppy and lazy in their facts. And you’ve got ESPN people who have their conflicts of interest. Retired coaches and ADs would be better.
LikeLike
I don’t think sportswriters livlihood depends on objectivity and accuracy. It seems to be on generating reactions from the readers.
LikeLike
I should add that my personal preference would be to avoid both a selection committee and polls and simply rely the computers (assuming the powers that be don’t neuter them like they did back in ’05)
LikeLike
@bullet – I think the AP poll generally speaking reflects what the broader public thinks. Sure, there are going to be people that disagree with it, but across the board, it’s a pretty good indicator of what fans believe (more so than the coaches’ poll or any other ranking).
What I meant by that Tweet is that people don’t like the *idea* of using a poll (it feels like it’s subject to subjective bias), but want the outcome of a poll (since it reflects what they see with their own eyes). If a computer ranking spits out an outcome that’s wildly divergent from the AP poll, fans simply don’t like it. We saw that in 2003 with the split national championship, which led to people bashing the computer rankings and strength of schedule components so much that the BCS completely overhauled its system. Of course, now fans want to put many of those components back in.
I honestly have a lot of sympathy for the powers that be on this issue because it’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t. People say that they want objectivity, but when an outcome doesn’t jive with overall subjective opinion, they scream and moan about it.
On a related note, I’ve stated previously that I don’t think there’s really any inherent advantage to using a selection committee for a 4-team playoff as opposed to some other ranking. I’m actually much more concerned with one or two committee members being able to swing a vote than the thought that there are dumb voters in a poll (because if a poll is broad enough, the impact of those votes will be minimized). This isn’t like the NCAA Tournament where you need to find people who live and breath basketball for months on end and have watched teams from small conferences to fill in those last at-large spots. A limited 4-team playoff doesn’t require the same specialized expertise level and is much more suited to a “wisdom of crowds” selection.
Also, from a practical standpoint, I think there’s going to be a VERY strong demand from fans, TV networks and players/coaches to have a ranking that they can follow from week to week to know exactly where they stand and who needs to win or lose in a given week. I think it’s unrealistic to think that all of those parties are going to be OK with waiting until December with no knowledge of what a selection committee is looking at and that a 4-team field is popped out. Once again, this is very different from the NCAA Tournament since all serious national title contenders know that they’re going to be in the field and they’re really just waiting to see where they’re seeded.
LikeLike
@Frank – the broader you get to the public, the dumber you get because of averages!
LikeLike
On the subject of computer polls, its garbage in, garbage out. The reality is that with 12 or 13 games, even if TPTB don’t put limits on what the programmers can consider, there simply isn’t enough data for the computers to make reliable evaluations. There’s also the fact that no amount of data can evaluate the intangibles. There are teams that just win. And there are teams that may have lost and it doesn’t make sense, even if they are good. For example, Sagarin rated Texas at 9-1-1 the best team of 1968 when there were unbeaten teams (I believe it was Ohio St. at 11-0). Maybe after starting 0-1-1 and figuring out the wishbone, that was the strongest team in December, but its still a ridiculous result. Computers will give you that sometimes.
LikeLike
When you trust subjective rankings over statistical methods you end with Alabama to the NCG over Oklahoma St. based on Kirk Herbstreit’s “eyeball” test.
LikeLike
bullet,
How are people any better? At least the computers give full and equal attention to every game played that season. How many voters watch all 250+ games played by top 25 teams in a season? How many of them keep track of who beat whom and where?
Humans can deal with intangibles better, but they’re terrible with the tangibles. All you need to do is look at last year’s rankings.
Oregon beat Stanford 53-30 at Stanford, but lost to #1 LSU and at home to AP #6 USC on a last minute field goal. Stanford beat USC in 3OT at USC.
Harris Poll & Coaches Poll (and thus BCS Rankings):
#4 11-1 Stanford
#5 11-2 Oregon
AP Poll:
#4 OR
#5 USC (10-2)
#6 Stanford
BCS computers:
#5 Stanford 4, 4, 5, 8, 10, 7
#8 Oregon 12, 5, 8, 10, 9, 6
The wisdom of crowds was OR > Stanford. In agreement were 2 computer polls, Jeff Sagarin’s and Peter Wolfe’s. The human polls disagreed strongly, giving Stanford a large margin in all 3 polls.
From Colley’s rankings comparison site (http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/compare2011-14.htm), 89 of the 133 computer rankings he tracks had OR above Stanford. That means 2/3 of the computer polls did what none of the human polls could manage.
LikeLike
Besides not being able to deal with intangibles, the computer models are simply statistically invalid. You can’t do a reliable evaluation with only 12 or 13 sample points. Basketball is much better as you have around 30 games and the scoring is not in such large discrete steps (2,3,7).
Just using Sagarin’s model-he is using his ELO-chess model for the BCS. The rating system for chess uses a different formula for the 1st 21 games than they do afterwards and considers ratings provisional for those 1st 21 games. Football teams never get to 21 games. 21 is basically the number statistics will tell you is necessary (don’t ask me why 21-there’s probably some mathematical proof of that) to get rid of random variability to have a truly statistically valid sample. Obviously the more sample points the better the sample, but below 21 is considered questionable.
LikeLike
Brian,
Recall why BCS #4 was important: it guaranteed Stanford a BCS slot. Dropping Oregon behind Stanford in the polls did nothing to Oregon; they were in the Rose Bowl either way. But it did guarantee Stanford a slot in the BCS.
We have seen the polls manipulated by listening to people talk about the projected computer ratings and what a team needs to be ranked in a given spot. We’ve seen coaches lobby for BCS at-large bids (Texas hopping Cal.)
Were we dealing with a top 4 BCS playoff, I have little doubt the coaches and Harris poll voters would have put Oregon ahead of Stanford by enough to guarantee their participation. Even if it was only because media told them Stanford would be ahead in the computers, the voters would get the message regarding what they “needed” to do to put the top 4 they wanted together.
And this is my biggest issue with the current BCS system: with the weighting of the polls and the ability to project the computer rankings, the pollsters can simply adjust their rankings in the final week to get their desired results. But the polls dealt with tangibles this past year; they just cared about different tangibles than they would in a 4 team playoff.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Besides not being able to deal with intangibles,”
Is that worse than being misled by irrelevant intangibles or ignoring the tangibles?
“the computer models are simply statistically invalid.”
Not necessarily true, unless you’re hiding some mathematical proofs I’m unaware of up your sleeve..
“You can’t do a reliable evaluation with only 12 or 13 sample points.”
You say that, but many computer polls manage to spit out reasonable results every year.
“Basketball is much better as you have around 30 games and the scoring is not in such large discrete steps (2,3,7).”
Of course more data points would help, but that’s true for human polls too.
“Just using Sagarin’s model-he is using his ELO-chess model for the BCS.”
That’s Elo, not ELO. It’s named after the guy that came up with the basic idea.
“The rating system for chess uses a different formula for the 1st 21 games than they do afterwards and considers ratings provisional for those 1st 21 games.”
There isn’t 1 chess rating system, but several. The international one changes after 30 games, but that’s just part of the model. The US one isn’t dependent on the number of games, but similarly changes based on the rating of the player.
“21 is basically the number statistics will tell you is necessary (don’t ask me why 21-there’s probably some mathematical proof of that) to get rid of random variability to have a truly statistically valid sample.”
If you can’t explain why 21, how about providing some proof that statisticians actually claim 21 is a magical number for all things statistical?
LikeLike
Brian
You can look it up in a basic statistics text book that you have limited reliability below 21 in statistical samples. Realistically, if you are doing sampling, you will almost always go for at least 30.
Preseason polls have sometimes been pretty accruate. So sometimes computer polls get good results. Sometimes they get total nonense. Look at Billingsley most years. Massey and Sagarin both had Texas at #13 last year. I don’t think that was reasonable.
And I’m fully aware of Arpad Elo (no I didn’t even need to look that up). On Sagarin’s site he capitalizes it all ‘ELO’ so I used his method. There is only one US Chess Federation method, although they have 2 ratings based on different speeds of play (just because they tweak it for Senior Masters doesn’t really change the method, just some of the fixed inputs). And the FIDE (international chess federation) uses basically the same method. If you really are familiar with it Brian, you are really splitting hairs to say its multiple systems over a different “k” factor.
LikeLike
Chrispy,
“Recall why BCS #4 was important: it guaranteed Stanford a BCS slot. Dropping Oregon behind Stanford in the polls did nothing to Oregon; they were in the Rose Bowl either way. But it did guarantee Stanford a slot in the BCS.”
Check your memory. OR dropped behind SU after losing to USC and were way behind them. Only with several upsets on CCG weekend did OR move up to #5 behind SU. SU move up to #4 once AR lost to LSU and SU leaped VT. It wasn’t a plot to manipulate the polls.
“Were we dealing with a top 4 BCS playoff, I have little doubt the coaches and Harris poll voters would have put Oregon ahead of Stanford by enough to guarantee their participation. Even if it was only because media told them Stanford would be ahead in the computers, the voters would get the message regarding what they “needed” to do to put the top 4 they wanted together.”
If ever there was an argument for not having human polls, this is it.
LikeLike
aw, man, I thought ELO stood for Electric Light Orchestra.
LikeLike
bullet,
“You can look it up in a basic statistics text book that you have limited reliability below 21 in statistical samples. Realistically, if you are doing sampling, you will almost always go for at least 30.”
I looked and saw no such thing.
Besides, that’s sampling. CFB games aren’t samples. Small set sizes lead to larger error bars and such, but you can’t just say all data with fewer than 21 points is worthless.
“And I’m fully aware of Arpad Elo (no I didn’t even need to look that up). On Sagarin’s site he capitalizes it all ‘ELO’ so I used his method.”
Sagarin capitalizes everything on his site. You didn’t write it ELO-CHESS like he does.
“There is only one US Chess Federation method, although they have 2 ratings based on different speeds of play (just because they tweak it for Senior Masters doesn’t really change the method, just some of the fixed inputs). And the FIDE (international chess federation) uses basically the same method. If you really are familiar with it Brian, you are really splitting hairs to say its multiple systems over a different “k” factor.”
I don’t consider it separate systems, but I didn’t want to gloss over a point that might be considered in your favor. That might make it sound like I was trying to spin the facts to support me. That said, having a discontinuous “k” factor in a model is a tough thing to justify. In these days of computer power, you’d think they would smooth that out.
LikeLike
SOS formula that was originally in the BCS was flawed and overstated… It only needed tweaked, not thrown out entirely.
LikeLike
Not sure if you read my thoughts on this yet… http://www.nittanylionsden.com/2012-articles/may/a-poll-is-for-people-how-conference-champs-will-still-rule-the-4-team-playoff.html
…but I agree that a poll is needed. The poll should simply include a LARGE sample of educated people (30-50). This will keep individuals safe (many have joked about needing bodyguards if they were on the committee) but still create accountability. Use a formula similar to the current BCS system too. Combine the two for 50/50 split in overall poll. It keeps the human “sanity” aspect (11-1 Stanford should be higher than 11-2 Oregon) but still allows for a more statistical assessment measured by data.
LikeLike
It keeps the human “sanity” aspect (11-1 Stanford should be higher than 11-2 Oregon)
Please tell me you meant to say “should not be higher” there.
LikeLike
Yes, my bad. Should “not” be higher than 11-1 Oregon.
A part of me still thinks that a “formula” can be created that correctly identifies what PEOPLE want their top 2/top 4/top 25 to look like. We have decades and decades of past statistical samples to use…create one that does what you want it to do (if you’re trying to please the fans and powers that be…).
LikeLike
http://twitter.com/#!/SN_Greenberg
Delany on expansion: ‘Tectonic plates are still hot’ in CFB, so B1G—though it’s happy at 12—is monitoring other leagues, paying attention.
LikeLike
The ACC’s problem in decimating the Big East is that they forget to factor in that once they killed off the weakest in the herd – They became the weakest in the herd!
LikeLike
Reposted and reposted supposedly from an FSU board (so sorry, no link.) Not sure if accurate, but certainly wouldn’t be surprised if he is correct:
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Posted: Today 1:53 PM
FSU, academics, and the acc
Okay, all of you coming to OUR board clinging to the idea that FSU is so tied to the acc for academics… just STOP! Do a little research before shooting off.
I just spent a goodly amount of time going over FSU’s OWN websites to see the conection (if any) between research, funding, grants, collaborations, partners, and the like.
Guess what? You got it! Though FSU DOES work some acc schools, they also have BIG ties with several Big XII schools in research – in fact, sec schools, Big XII schools, PAC – 12 schools, independents, little schools, non-school entities, you name it! One of the biggest projects we currently have going on is the joint research with IOWA STATE of the BIG XII for atmospheric research.
I couldn’t find anything on any of the sites that tie FSU specifically to, or any research currently on-going at FSU that would be affected by a switch in Athletic Conference affiliation becuase it is based upon being a member of the acc.
So let’s drop this pretense in future posts. FSU’s academics and research are not tied to or with being in the acc.
LikeLike
Universities are constantly trying to associate themselves with ones they want to emulate. I don’t know why people listen to idiots on message boards trying to disprove the importance of how universities position themselves. Even if YOU think its meaningless, academians think its important, therefore it becomes important. FSU being part of the ACC helps their academic reputation in the long run.
LikeLike
So 90+ years of association with Stanford, USC, California, Washington and Oregon has elevated Washington State in what way??? As far as joint projects / rubbing shoulders / etc. NC already has Duke, VA, and MD for that. FSU is left with the likes of Clemson, NCSU, and Miami. FSU has a better chance in the XII with TX, KS, and IaState simpily becasue FSU would be in the middle of the pack and these schools will be avoiding the likes of WVU and TT like the elite ACC members avoid FSU today.
FYI: Idaho was also associated with these schools for 40+ years (ending 50 years ago) and nothing seemed to rub off on them. Academics were also not a factor in A&M and Missouri moving to the SEC. A&M announced it was leaving a conference with 5 AAU members and 6/10 members with endowments >$1B to go to a conference with 2 AAU members and the same two the only ones with $1B. Even the ACC only had 4 AAU members in 2009.
LikeLike
I can’t “prove” anything, which is the rub of reputations and who you associate with. I will note that WSU is USNWR #115 national university while Idaho is #160.
But you are disagreeing with something that is core to academics.
LikeLike
The issue is not whether Washington State is elevated to the level of Washington and Stanford, but whether Washington State is elevated above the likes of, say, Colorado State or Wyoming or Eastern Washington.
For Florida State, perhaps their biggest academic rivals are upstarts South Florida and Central Florida. Does anyone consider them as good as Florida State? If one of them was part of the ACC for 20 years, would that gap narrow considerably? You bet. When Duke plays USF, it sends a subliminal message that the schools are peers.
Is Seton Hall a good school? I don’t know. But I know much more about Seton Hall than Hofstra, because the former is a Big East school.
Now look at Iowa v Kansas. Which is the better school? Do you think Iowa? Might someone think… “I don’t know, probably Iowa because they are in the Big 10.” I think someone could make that inference. How about Louisiana State and Florida State? Seem like peers. Edge to Florida State because they are ACC? I think someone could buy that. Is it true? It is possible to even determine whether it is true? I don’t know. But perception does mean something.
LikeLike
Florida’s 80 year association with the SEC did not prevent it from getting in the AAU. Florida is far superior to FSU, despite the athletic peers the schools keep. A&M and MO took the SEC money. Pittsburg is the only school that took less $$$ in recent realighment going ACC rather than XII. All college presidents talk academics and they would like the $$$ and academics to align; however, when they conflict the decision usually aligns to the $$$. The B1G and Ivy are the only conferences that top to bottom follow the same general academics and athletic policies.
LikeLike
Perhaps Florida is far superior to Florida State because FSU spent all those years slumming it in the Metro. In the meantime, joining the ACC has FSU considered middle-of-the-pack for AQ schools now.
Missouri and A&M did not move for the money. They moved to get away from Texas and the instability inherent in having Texas in their conference.
Pittsburgh and Syracuse moved because they were concerned about WVU going to the SEC (everyone forgets that whole scenario), which would have weakened an already wobbly Big East even more.
If Florida State moves, it will not be leaving an unstable situation. It will be moving solely for the $$$. An unprecedented decision in realignment lately. Maybe the Seminoles should just not not pay $3.5M for a womens basketball team. Drop that down to $1M and there goes the budget problem. Fixed.
The funny thing is that Texas will always have that $10M advantage over FSU. If money is so important to being competitive, then I guess FSU will never be able to compete in the Big XII.
LikeLike
Syracuse and Pitt would have gone to the ACC no matter what. WVU had already been turned down by both the SEC and ACC (they applied for membership in both).
The ACC is more stable and way more profitable than the Big East. Outside of history (which is rightly not an issue for any Big East football school) there was absolutely no reason to stay in the Big East.
Also, dropping the budget for WBB that drastically without also dropping the budget for MBB could create major Title IX issues.
(FWIW, the Big XII is more stable (at least for the next 13 years) than the ACC if for no other reason than the schools have signed a GOR.)
LikeLike
Any other Big Ten fans ready to go in for the kill?
Add Florida State, Miami and Georgia Tech then wait to see what unfolds before adding one from Notre Dame, Maryland or Clemson?
* Florida and Georgia to in-market carriage deals drives the math.
* You could probably finance the exit fee for them and pay out to those schools the equivalent to their ACC share during the first 3 or 4 years.
* You would be adding 2 more Football Kings to the existing roster and possibly 3…creating a television juggernaut with ties to nearly every major TV market that cares about college athletics east of the Mississippi.
* Consider: most weeks during the conference season you will have King v. King game and even when you don’t you will have multiple King’s playing big games against the likes of Wisconsin, Michigan St, GT, etc.
* You probably have enough TV juice to attract 2 of the 4 major TV networks to go along with the inventory for the BTN.
* All of this can be done before you start negotiating for the 2015 and beyond TV package
* Its a fit academically
* It opens up major new recruiting pipelines to the high growth SE from both an athlete perspective and a general student population standpoint
* GT has been in the ACC the longest, since 1978, but I can’t see them walking away from the opportunity to join the B1G. For FSU an Miami it would be an easy decision unless I’m missing something.
Tell me why this wouldn’t work for the Presidents, TV side or the in0bound schools?
LikeLike
ChicagoMac,
“Any other Big Ten fans ready to go in for the kill?”
Yes!
“Add Florida State, Miami and Georgia Tech then wait to see what unfolds before adding one from Notre Dame, Maryland or Clemson?”
Oh, wait, I thought we were talking about something else. Never mind.
“* Florida and Georgia to in-market carriage deals drives the math.”
GT won’t get you on basic cable in Atlanta, let alone GA. UGA is the clear #1 in Atlanta, and the SEC can’t get ESPNU on basic cable in Atlanta. You can’t get the same sort of deal for the BTN there as in the midwest.
“* You could probably finance the exit fee for them and pay out to those schools the equivalent to their ACC share during the first 3 or 4 years.”
They have to pay $20M in exit fees, plus they have to buy into the BTN. That’s a lot to finance. NE took 5 years to buy into the BTN.
“* You would be adding 2 more Football Kings to the existing roster and possibly 3…creating a television juggernaut with ties to nearly every major TV market that cares about college athletics east of the Mississippi.”
Too many kings is a problem. You’d have up to 7/16 be kings. That doesn’t work. Someone has to lose games to keep the kings elite.
“* Consider: most weeks during the conference season you will have King v. King game and even when you don’t you will have multiple King’s playing big games against the likes of Wisconsin, Michigan St, GT, etc.”
You’ll end up with a bunch of 2 and 3 loss champs.
“* You probably have enough TV juice to attract 2 of the 4 major TV networks to go along with the inventory for the BTN.”
Why is 2 better than 1?
“* Its a fit academically”
FSU isn’t.
“* It opens up major new recruiting pipelines to the high growth SE from both an athlete perspective and a general student population standpoint”
The B10 already recruits the SE. It might widen the pipelines, but it’s nothing new.
“Tell me why this wouldn’t work for the Presidents, TV side or the in0bound schools?”
The presidents don’t want to expand. They prefer to play each other more, not less. Plus, FSU isn’t up to snuff academically. There are also the travel concerns for athletes. The southern schools might hesitate to have to play outdoors in MN, etc in November, and they lose in recruiting. It will also be hard for FSU and GT to maintain their rivalries with 8 conference games plus the P12 game (unless they play UF and UGA instead), let alone if they go to 9 conference games.
LikeLike
“* You would be adding 2 more Football Kings to the existing roster and possibly 3…creating a television juggernaut with ties to nearly every major TV market that cares about college athletics east of the Mississippi.”
Too many kings is a problem. You’d have up to 7/16 be kings. That doesn’t work. Someone has to lose games to keep the kings elite.
——
I’ve noticed that this point is routinely ignored by fans when discussing realignment. There is no incentive for a conference to add numerous football blue bloods because it will end up devaluing the conference’s current blue bloods. This is why the SEC is content to pass on FSU and Clemson (along with many other reasons); if FSU was added, it would actually end up devaluing the programs at Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina.
LikeLike
Completely disagree with the two-headed Brian about having too many Kings. That may have been the case in the past but with the way the postseason appears to be headed the more Kings the better.
The goal will be to get 2 teams in the 4 team ‘playoff’ as much as possible and then fill the rest of the BCS games with as many teams from your conference as possible then create contractual tie-ins with the next tier of highest paying bowls. The best way to maximize your chances of this is to load up on Kings and create a situation where your 7,8,9,10 best brands are like Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State, and Georgia Tech.
At the end of the day the Presidents care most about creating a competitive advantage over the rest of the conferences when it comes to revenue generation. They need to be able to show alums proper commitment to winning and they need to be able to show the academics that they aren’t taking resources from that side of the budget to pay Coach’s salary.
As discussed above, adding more Kings is the best way to set yourself up with a competitive advantage when it comes to postseason loot. Of course it does the same for the TV contracts. The reason adding a second network matters is promotion. There is value to the promotional mentions the SEC gets from CBS during the NFL season. The B1G would love to go beyond that with deep relationships with Fox or NBC and the conference would have enough ratings juice to pull it off.
As far as recruiting goes, yes the B1G already recruits the Southeast but it doesn’t recruit it as well now as it would with the additions discussed. This is one area where the Football coaches and Presidents would surely agree. Shortly after Delaney announced that the conference was going to investigate expansion one of the priorities listed was to open up new territories for recruiting for both athletics and the general student population. Nebraska surely wasn’t the final answer here.
As far as carriage in GA, I disagree. GT doesn’t have to carry Atlanta and the rest of the state because it will have help from FSU, Miami, and all the BigTen alums down there. The comparison to ESPNU isn’t valid, the BTN would have a much better inventory of games than what is typically shown on ESPNU.
Travel is a concern but realistically, for most of the B1G, how much different is a flight and bus trip to State College than a flight to Miami? For the targets, they will already be traveling to BC, Pitt, and Syracuse so its not that much different.
Finally, as far as the weather in November, I’ve golfed in Wisconsin on Thanksgiving weekend before. So I can’t imagine anyone would turn down the rest of what is being offered for weather but if it really is an issue you could probably guarantee that these schools wouldn’t have to play north of the Mason Dixon line more than one time per season after the second week in November. Its really not a big deal.
There isn’t much difference b/w FSU and Nebraska academically. Miami isn’t AAU but it is very highly ranked. FSU and MIami are both Top 100 in terms of research dollars without the benefit of CIC membership.
LikeLike
ChicagoMac,
“Completely disagree with the two-headed Brian about having too many Kings. That may have been the case in the past but with the way the postseason appears to be headed the more Kings the better.”
Guessing where the postseason is headed is a bad way to make a major decision. It could completely change in 5 or 10 years.
If a large bunch of kings beat up on each other, what likely happens is several of them lose king status
“The goal will be to get 2 teams in the 4 team ‘playoff’ as much as possible and then fill the rest of the BCS games with as many teams from your conference as possible then create contractual tie-ins with the next tier of highest paying bowls. The best way to maximize your chances of this is to load up on Kings and create a situation where your 7,8,9,10 best brands are like Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State, and Georgia Tech.”
1. There is no playoff format, so you can’t set a goal for it yet. For all you know, there will be a 1 team per conference limit.
2. The other BCS bowls may also be capped (a 3-team limit was being discussed).
3. What you fail to recognize is that all those brands will lose value as the losses pile up. WI has 48 wins in the past 5 years. Where would they be as a brand if they only had 38 wins?
“At the end of the day the Presidents care most about creating a competitive advantage over the rest of the conferences when it comes to revenue generation. They need to be able to show alums proper commitment to winning and they need to be able to show the academics that they aren’t taking resources from that side of the budget to pay Coach’s salary.”
It doesn’t help them when everybody starts losing more games. Fans of the kings won’t accept losing 4 games every year, but it’s going to happen to them. You’ll end up with a bunch of former kings (think TN) and disgruntled fans.
“As discussed above, adding more Kings is the best way to set yourself up with a competitive advantage when it comes to postseason loot.”
No it isn’t. You’re assuming they’ll all stay kings as they suddenly start losing 4 games every year. Besides ND, no team can do that.
“There is value to the promotional mentions the SEC gets from CBS during the NFL season.”
I wouldn’t know. I’ve never seen one of them. The NFL presumably gets a bigger bump by having ads on Saturday for Sunday’s games rather than the other way around.
“The B1G would love to go beyond that with deep relationships with Fox or NBC and the conference would have enough ratings juice to pull it off.”
You’ve still haven’t shown why 2 networks are better than 1 for this. The more 1 network has invested in the B10, the more they’ll promote it. When big games are on a competitor, they won’t promote that.
“As far as carriage in GA, I disagree. GT doesn’t have to carry Atlanta and the rest of the state because it will have help from FSU, Miami, and all the BigTen alums down there. The comparison to ESPNU isn’t valid, the BTN would have a much better inventory of games than what is typically shown on ESPNU.”
You’re welcome to disagree, but you’re dead wrong. UGA dominates Atlanta, and there are more SEC alums than B10 alums. The BTN has next to no chance of getting basic carriage in Atlanta. The BTN may have better games, but the SEC has many more fans in the market and they don’t even complain much about ESPNU not being on basic.
LikeLike
Frank, I go back to some basic issues :
#1 – to gain value the B12 must shed teams before adding them
No matter what the B12 does, it still has the likes of ISU, KSU, TCU, WVU and Baylor dragging the bottom numbers. At least Kansas has basketball, and oSu has T Boone to carry them above the bottom. The issue I have is what is the total intrinsic value of the B12 that makes it worth more than the B1G /SEC (with big stadiums and big footprint) or the PAC (who can act as a monopoly west of the Mississippi) when it comes to TV dollars?
#2 – to gain value you must be in the spotlight year round
We have discussed this on here before, but the value of the ACC / B1G / PAC / SEC is in their ability to be on tv with multiple schools year round. Where will this come from in the B12?
UT + OU + FSU + WVU + Clemson = 1 MNC Championship in past decade (Texas in 05)
UT + OU + FSU + WVU + Clemson = ZERO MCBB Championships EVER
UT + OU + FSU + WVU + Clemson = 1 WCBB Championship EVER (Texas in 86)
UT + OU + FSU + WVU + Clemson = 8 Baseball CWS (UT 49/50/75/83/02/05, OU 51/94)
UT + OU + FSU + WVU + Clemson = ZERO Hockey Championships
I hate to keep hitting on this point, but the value in every other conference is the ability of multiple schools to win multiple sports. If the B12 still revolves around UT and OU even after adding CU and FSU you are not adding real year round media value. Is a football only conference dead as the Dodo bird in the modern world? Alan’s discussion of how much LSU baseball adds to LSU’s bottom line is a telling on where the SEC is heading. The question is if the B12 is stuck in the past?
#3 – what combination exceeds the other conferences combination?
If the B12 gets to 12, what 2 can be added that = B1G or PAC?
If the B12 gets to 14, what 4 can be added that = ACC or SEC?
Maybe I am just simple, but to command B1G or SEC dollars how do you get there with the teams mentioned so far? Just look at attendance numbers prior to realignment (link below) :
#1 SEC 76,306
#2 B1G 71,734
#3 B12 57,742
#4 PAC 52,495
#5 ACC 50,805
Considering Nebraska and A&M are gone, you get big number losses for the B12. Basically the PAC / B12 / ACC are all around 50,000 in averages and adding Florida State and Clemson is not going to bump the B12 numbers by 20,000 – 30,000 per school! Yet all the blog speak seems to imply this based on the chatter.
#4 – SoS and inventory values drop with the Clemson and FSU adds
The B12 was able to maintain media values because they had an extra game to include in their contract. Adding 2 more schools means an 11 game conference schedule + 1 OOC game or 8 games + 4 OOC + CCG. Since 11 game conference season seems implausible then that means the B12 will have more fluff to schedule, and further dilute their media values. This means lower SoS’s and more “bottom” conference games on the schedule. Sure UT vs Clemson or OU vs FSU sounds great, but KU vs Clemson and ISU vs FSU will not be registering with mainstream CFB fans across the country who will pay for premium.
link http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ycn-10270543 for #3 above
LikeLike
duff – as I walked out of Alex Box stadium last night after LSU’s last regular season home baseball game, the PA announcer stated that LSU sold more than 400,000 baseball tickets again this season. To put that in perspective, only 3 mens’ basketball teams and only 27 football teams sold more than 400,000 tickets. These tickets aren’t cheap either, as suite, club and grandstand seats all require mandatory donations.
LSU, Ole Miss, Arkansas, and South Carolina are all in the top 5 in baseball attendance.
Click to access attendance120514.pdf
I’m not sure what hockey or wrestling draws, but other sports can be revenue producers.
LikeLike
Alan, Iowa is about the only school that draws a big enough wrestling crowd to make it matter, but the sport just has too few meets to make a lot of revenue. Iowa typically averages about double the #2 team in the country. The only link I could easily find is from 2008, when Iowa was #1 at 7,541 but in only 6 meets. ISU second at 4,311.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/schl0490/collegewrestlingnews/2008/04/top_20_ncaa_wrestling_programs.html
On a side note, last month Iowa City hosted the U.S. Olympic trials and more than doubled the previous attendance record. The crowds were the talk of the weekend and there has been lots of discussion about bringing it back in 2016.
LikeLike
Speaking as a wrestling fan I can attest that PSU packs them in:
http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-wrestl/spec-rel/022111aad.html
5400 ain’t shabby and from my athletic association literature it makes money for the school (there’s even rumors of a donation based seating system like the one just implemented in football is going into effect there soon).
LikeLike
PSUguy, I hate to say it but I think you guys have Dan Gable 2.0.
LikeLike
The trick for non FB or MBB (or LSU baseball) sports is to decrease the cost of the sport. I’m happy for PSU but worry many less well off schools are reducing offerings to support the chase after FB dollars. I don’t believe the mission of college sports is to generate income, but is to provide wide and divirse experience. End of rant before I get going.
LikeLike
If Alabama is drawing 15,000 to see women’s gymnastics you have to think they are making some coin on the concessions! The point I was trying to get at is the B12 does not have secondary sport support, as it seems to be all football. The B1G has hockey, the ACC basketball, and the SEC has baseball. What does the B12 have?
Again if we are to believe all the hype on the blogs about the B12 being worth more than the SEC (and by default the B1G) how are they getting to these numbers?
LikeLike
duffman,
“The point I was trying to get at is the B12 does not have secondary sport support, as it seems to be all football. The B1G has hockey, the ACC basketball, and the SEC has baseball. What does the B12 have?”
Baseball and basketball.
“Again if we are to believe all the hype on the blogs about the B12 being worth more than the SEC (and by default the B1G) how are they getting to these numbers?”
Timing on the free market.
LikeLike
Missing the boat on all sports. Big 12 is right up there with Pac 12, SEC and ACC in baseball. FSU & Clemson help. Oklahoma St. leads the Big 12 in national championships (primarily golf and wrestling, but its still a championship). In spring sports the Big 12 is very strong. There are always lots of contenders. As for football, take out Ohio St. and where has the Big 10 been the last dozen years? The Big 10 would look like the Big East. At some time late in the last dozen seasons (most in last 5), Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St., Kansas, TCU and W. Virginia (in addition to Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado) have been ranked in the top 5. If you go back to 1998 KSU was #3 and they have since been in the top 10 (8 last year before bowls). Even Iowa St. has seen the top 10. And Baylor was in the top 15 and had a Heisman winner. Baylor will likely break UT’s record for the most combined wins in a single season in fb, mbb, wbb and baseball in NCAA history. They just won women’s bb with a perfect season after A&M won last year, upsetting them in the semis.
As for multiple sports, CU and MU were near the bottom of the conference in non-revs, so that kind of balances out losing NU and A&M.
National perception and markets you can argue. If you’re arguing competitiveness, you are just wrong. Except for hockey-but the same applies to P12 and SEC. And if the NHL has trouble getting on national network TV, colleges are going to have a tough time.
LikeLike
“As for football, take out Ohio St. and where has the Big 10 been the last dozen years? The Big 10 would look like the Big East.”
@bullet – I don’t know why more people don’t jump on your continual nonsense. I understand that you are upset that everyone wants to get as far away from the XII as possible but that’s no reason to go into full BS mode.
Wisconsin, Penn St., TSUN & Iowa have all been ranked in the top 5 over that same time period and Illiinois has cracked the top 10.
Since Oklahoma St won their last wrestling title, THREE different B1G teams have stood atop the podium.
It’s ridiculous to claim that losing two of the top four strongest athletic departments in the conference is somehow offset by losing two of the (claimed) weaker ones.
Trying to take credit for both teams that have left the conference and ones that haven’t joined yet was a nice touch however.
LikeLike
duffman,
“#1 – to gain value the B12 must shed teams before adding them”
That’s a way to gain value, but not the only one. Are you saying adding ND wouldn’t add value? Besides, almost nobody kicks out teams.
“The issue I have is what is the total intrinsic value of the B12 that makes it worth more than the B1G /SEC (with big stadiums and big footprint) or the PAC (who can act as a monopoly west of the Mississippi) when it comes to TV dollars?”
Timing is everything. I’m guessing it won’t be worth more after the SEC and B10 get their new deals. It’s not worth worrying about until then. As for the P12, the lack of passion from fans may be the answer. They just got a huge raise, though, and if the PTN works they’ll be raking in cash.
“#2 – to gain value you must be in the spotlight year round”
Not necessarily true. The NFL is more valuable than any conference and it isn’t in the spotlight all year. A kings-only conference (AL, FL, LSU, OSU, MI, PSU, NE, ND, UT, OU, USC, FSU) would have huge value with just football and replays and off season coverage. Hoops would be a bonus, and baseball would do well too, but just FB would carry it.
“We have discussed this on here before, but the value of the ACC / B1G / PAC / SEC is in their ability to be on tv with multiple schools year round. Where will this come from in the B12?”
FB – UT, OU, FSU, Clemson, WV
MBB – KU, UT, others (KSU lately, OkSU before, etc)
BB – UT, FSU, Clemson, TCU, etc
Other – I’m sure they have other strengths, too
“#4 – SoS and inventory values drop with the Clemson and FSU adds”
You are making big assumptions here.
“The B12 was able to maintain media values because they had an extra game to include in their contract. Adding 2 more schools means an 11 game conference schedule + 1 OOC game or 8 games + 4 OOC + CCG.”
Since when did staying at 9 games stop being an option? It’s less likely, but they are used to the 5/4 split. They also add FSU/UF and Clemson/SC every other year.
“Sure UT vs Clemson or OU vs FSU sounds great, but KU vs Clemson and ISU vs FSU will not be registering with mainstream CFB fans across the country who will pay for premium.”
Contract value is supposedly driven largely by the top games, so adding some top games is well worth the boring games. Besides, more teams means better odds of having a good conference game every week to air.
LikeLike
“they also add FSU/UF and Clemson/SC every other year” – Wait. Will Deloss allow those to continue?
LikeLike
Brian,
If Florida is ESPN and Florida State is FOX, I am guessing that game becomes Florida vs Miami, as both are ESPN. Same would happen with Clemson and South Carolina as we have seen rivals drop by the wayside with all this realignment. Why would ESPN feed FOX? Why would Florida feed Florida State recruiting when they are closer if they could switch to south FL recruits by picking up Miami?
LikeLike
duffman,
“If Florida is ESPN and Florida State is FOX, I am guessing that game becomes Florida vs Miami, as both are ESPN. Same would happen with Clemson and South Carolina as we have seen rivals drop by the wayside with all this realignment.”
You are paranoid about the power of ESPN. There is no UF/Miami rivalry. UF doesn’t take orders from ESPN on stiff like that. CBS might want some input too.
Likewise, Clemson and SC don’t play at the whim of ESPN. You need to get past that. How many major OOC rivalries have we seen disappear due to realignment so far?
LikeLike
If the Big West will take Boise State’s non-football teams, that means that they will be part of the Big East and Big West. Gotta love that.
LikeLike
Aztecs already did it.
LikeLike
I’ll admit I haven’t read through each entry here, but I wanted to address a theme I see repeated here often: the Big 12 is only as “unstable” as Texas wants it to be, and they are 100% committed to the conference. Think about it…why would Texas want to go anywhere? They have a group of schools in reasonably close proximity, all in the central time zone, and they are being paid handsomely for their third tier rights by ESPN via the LHN. Texas and the Powers that be (pun intended) have consistently stated that their number one preference was to remain in a strong, unified Big 12. The fact that other schools felt it was in their best interest to leave has not changed the Texas position of “Big 12 first”, ie while they looked at other options to cover their bases if the conference was not deemed viable, in the end they were rewarded with a very competitive TV rights contract. We can argue the merits of associating with universities of varying degrees of academic prestige; it is difficult if not impossible to quantify the extent to which association helps or hurts and individual school’s reputation. I think it matters very little. Regarding the potential move of FSU to the Big 12, I also disagree with Frank’s premise that one needs to “think like a University president” and not a fan; in the end, the fans are the boss, and if you need proof, just look at the A&M or Mizzou to the SEC, or more currently, FSU to the Big 12 sentiments. Fans can absolutely move decision makers–they are the consumer, and as we all know, college football is a business. It may well turn out to be the case that the overarching concern for a majority of FSU fans/administrators is a desire to be in a “football-centric” conference, as opposed to the ACC, with all its’ inherent, perceived advantages. Just my two cents…
LikeLike
1) WVU isn’t in the central time zone;
2) Texas was leading the charge to the Pac16 until Texas A&M pulled the brake and refused to go along. They were doing much more than “looking at other options”.
LikeLike
A&M refusing to go along is one interpretation of why it stopped. But I think the simpler explanation is better. UT could get a competitive contract and a similar schedule without being in a conference covering more than half the country. President Powers seemed pretty sincere when he said it in the press conference the next day and I think he was too tired to be a convincing liar.
LikeLike
And remember, A&M is heading to the SEC, but UT is still in the Big 12.
LikeLike
Perhaps I’m living too much in the past. You are right as to how certain broadcasters, and perhaps web writers. I think of the AP poll as a select 50 or 60 grizzled writers who have “earned their stripes” with major papers or news organizations. I’m certainly not suggesting any self styled (or ESPN controlled) web sports blogger is qualified.
LikeLike
I think a Tony Barnhart is reliable. But I don’t think so of most of those people out there now. There is just a lot of sloppy writing now.
LikeLike
lot of sloppy writing
i think it is worse than sloppy writing. there’s a lot of lazy thinking going on among the ranks of sportswriters. a lot of regurgitating status quo and accepted and expected ‘truths’. way too many sportswriters seem to look at it as a nice paycheck for not really doing any work.
LikeLike
Believe me, I remember. The point is UT wasn’t some innocent bystander just looking at options.
This is from the A&M point of view but, per numerous insiders and President Loftin, Dodds and Byrne had agreed in principle to the Pac16 move (A&M, UT, Tech, OU, OSU, CU) but Byrne misread the reaction to the move by some of his strongest stakeholders (Regents Wilson and Stallings, primarily). They convinced President Loftin that the SEC was a viable option and a better one than the Pac16. Both sides met (UT/A&M) and A&M informed Powers/Dodds it was a no-go from A&M’s perspective. This is prior to the LHN and the understanding of the financial windfall Texas would receive.
As it stands, this appears to have been a great decision for both sides. A&M ultimately ended up in the SEC (where it has wanted to be since the early 90s) and Texas has been able to stablize the B12 and now is well down the road to convincing some really strong programs to consider joining up.
LikeLike
@FranktheAg
Until the Pac 16 option was explored, noone really understood that the Big 12 could be valuable. And its really clear everyone in the Big 12 was stunned they could lose Nebraska and Colorado and still be valuable (a lot of people outside the Big 12 still don’t accept it).
I think when TV execs started giving them an idea of what the next contract would be worth, they realized they could have their cake and eat it in the Central Time Zone. So they did.
LikeLike
@bullet
Given what the PAC got with Utah as #12 and what the BigXII is getting now, one wonders what the original Pac16 deal would have netted each school. $30MM? $40MM?
Texas had all the leverage but its pretty obvious that it is the only school out of the 16 that will end up with media rights revenue on par with what the Pac16 would have gotten.
LikeLike
@FranktheAG
Texas backed out of the PAC deal because ESPN and Fox promised to pay them what they would make in the PAC and let them have their own TV network.
Larry Scott made clear that anyone who joined had to sign on for the PAC network and Texas was unwilling to do so once it became clear that the PAC wouldn’t make them any more money.
Texas never intended to go west, they just used the threat to leverage what they wanted all along.
LikeLike
They want to be Bristol’s puppet? ESPN has first say in any media moves (conference affiliation) for the length of the LHN contract.
LikeLike
ESPN has first say in any media moves (conference affiliation) for the length of the LHN contract.
So? That’s only an issue if they want to leave the Big XII, but they don’t, evidenced by the fact that they are about to extend their GOR well into the middle of the next decade.
LikeLike
They have already given their GOR to ESPN. Are they asking the rest of the conference to do likewise?
LikeLike
No. All the schools signed a GOR of 6 years and it is about to be extended by 7 years.
The fact that ESPN holds veto power is irrelevant since UT was never going to leave the Big XII anyways. No other major conference would have allowed them to keep the LHN (which the UT BoT views as a priority).
Texas giving ESPN veto to ESPN is like the Big 10 schools signing a GOR; it is redundant from a conference alignment perspective.
LikeLike
“ESPN has first say in any media moves (conference affiliation) for the length of the LHN contract.”
Not true… wherever Texas goes, ESPN will be there. But ESPN doesn’t get to pick.
LikeLike
B in H:
The revenue sharing requirements to join the ACC, B1G, PAC, prevent UT from being able to join. ESPN has veto power, unless they and UT are willing to end the LHN contract.
LikeLike
@Frug.
Not intially. I agree with your comments for later decisions but the inital position for both A&M and Texas was to move to the Pac16. Good thing for both that it didn’t happen.
LikeLike
Let’s stir it up a bit. Since Delany just said the B1G would keep an eye on realignment, if the ACC is raided and ND isn’t available:
1) Is NC, VA, and MD, the B1G’s first choice, and would they take Duke as the 4th?
2) If they added NC, VA, and MD but also say Rutgers, might they offer Duke an everything but football membership?
3) Is Miami and its high US News ranking still in consideration? 19 million people in Florida, tons of B1G alumni and fans, state pops for member schools is a huge part of BTN profitability. US News is only one measure, but Miami at 38 would be 3rd in the current B1G.
4) Are we certain NC would go B1G over SEC? If the SEC added NC, VA, and either Duke or NC St, might the B1G take Mizzou? Hard to see how that benefits the B1G, but perhaps if they got ND and the Irish insisted on a couple of eastern schools it might be doable? (LOL at the thought of Mizzou fans comparing themselves to Babe Ruth if this ‘trade’ were to occur…)
5) If most of the power conferences go to 16 and thus pressure the NCAA to allow pods, are we sure no conference might go to 18-schools? 3 pods of 6, with the 3 pod champs and a wildcard playing off might be more attractive than 4 pods of 4 and pod champs only (“Just win your pod and quite whining, Bama!”) Could make it easier to lure an NC block or ND if you offer more of their friends.
Not that I would assume Delany’s comments means they are expansion. It could just as well be a signal to NC and the ACC to get their acts together and compromise with FSU, or your conference may not be around much longer. He may not want any conference to go beyond on 14. Or it could be just a non-answer to a question that means little.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now – My thoughts:
(1) Yes. While basketball might be low on the totem pole overall, Duke’s hoops brand is the equivalent of Notre Dame football. If they’re going to take a UVA-type (great academics, “meh” athletics), no question that the Big Ten would take Duke.
(2) No. An all or nothing league for everything is a central tenet of the Big Ten. Plus, Duke is a more desirable school overall compared to Rutgers, so I don’t think we’d get to the point to even consider a partial membership.
(3) If I were running the Big Ten, absolutely. To the extent that the B1G wants to get into the Sun Belt, the state of Florida is the most hospitable state to the conference overall. Miami is really an East Coast/Northern school in spirit that would pair up nicely with Penn State and any other eastern additions.
(4) In a vacuum, I’m sure that UNC would rather have the B1G. If it’s a matter of being with all of their rivals, though, then they’d pick the SEC. It’s similar to Texas, where they didn’t want to be on an island and pushed for taking much of the Big 12 South to the Pac-16.
As for Mizzou, I doubt it. If the B1G didn’t want them before, the SEC adding other ACC teams wouldn’t change that.
(5) Conferences could certainly go to 18 with the right schools in theory. If the B1G went to 16 and ND wanted to join afterwards, they’d make room. In practicality, only a handful if schools would justify going to that size, though.
LikeLike
In a vacuum, I’m sure that UNC would rather have the B1G. If it’s a matter of being with all of their rivals, though, then they’d pick the SEC.
I don’t really follow your logic. The SEC only has two slots open which means they could only take one of NC-State, Duke or Virginia meaning at least one would have to go. The Big Ten has three slots (they will always hold a spot for ND) so they could take Duke and Virginia and UNC could continue to play NC-State OOC.
If UNC wants to preserve its rivalries the Big 10 would be the better option.
LikeLike
UNC and NC State have the same BoR, correct? I have to wonder if the schools are a package deal if they were to leave the ACC, similar to OU and Okie State or KU and K State.
And as we’ve seen thus far in realignment, bitterness and envy has a way of ending great rivalries. If UNC left Duke for dead, those schools would not be playing for awhile.
LikeLike
They do share a BOR, but what that really means is they have veto power over each others movements so long as the ACC remains viable. While the BOR would be reluctant to split them up, if the schools mutually approached the them and explained that it was in the best interest of both schools to split up (say UNC to the Big 10 and NC-State to the SEC) then it would be tough to imagine the BOR actually overruling them so long as they agreed to continue to play OOC.
The reason that Kansas and K-State (who also share a BOR) and possibly Oklahoma* and Oklahoma St.* are a package deal is that K-State and Oklahoma St. are unlikely to get bids to a major conference on their own. (Though given the PAC’s other options an OSU/K-State even without Oklahoma and Kansas would still definite possibility were the conference ever forced to expand)
*Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. don’t share a BOR so their ability to split depends on the governor (an office currently held by a Cowboy). That said, even if they could break apart Oklahoma really doesn’t want to since they have to play OSU and Texas every year so they need to be in a conference with at least one of them.
LikeLike
In theory you are correct, but I have a hard time seeing a situation where the ACC implodes and NC State doesn’t cling to UNC. NC State is not that valuable on its own, and I don’t believe it is as high on the SEC’s wish list as many seem to believe. UNC may not be able to go to a new conference without bringing little brother along, and I expect that arrangement would be more palatable in the SEC than the Big Ten.
LikeLike
No; No; No; Yes; No…..and #2 is too silly to consider.
LikeLike
1) Is North Carolina worth 2 schools? Probably not, but I do recall UNC-Duke being one of the few regular season basketball games of value.
2) I doubt it, that’s more of a struggling conference move.
3) Miami being on the more highly selective end of undergraduate schools fits in well with the ACC, however they aren’t as big a research school as the B!G would want. They are name brand and get good national numbers but their fan base is tiny. In a recent political poll in Florida they threw in a question about which university’s athletic program did the respondent support. Florida led with over 30%, FSU was second at just over 20, and Miami was down at 10 with schools like USF and FIU. So, no, they’re a better cultural fit in the ACC than the B!G. Because of the CIC I have wondered if UF might actually jump to the B!G. Now that would really split the administration and the fan base.
4) UNC wouldn’t leave the ACC unless they were the last one’s standing. If they had to go I cannot imagine they would move to the SEC. Both the booster/alum/fan side and the administration would be against the SEC.
5) That just seems like too far into the future to imagine. Doesn’t seem like much of a conference if it was that big.
LikeLike
On #4, I see this mentioned often on sites like this but I don’t know the basis of it. Many UNC message board fans seem to be in favor of moving to the SEC if the ACC dissolved. North Carolina is purely Southern and so are their fans. They wouldn’t be a great cultural fit in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Brian #2,
“On #4, I see this mentioned often on sites like this but I don’t know the basis of it. Many UNC message board fans seem to be in favor of moving to the SEC if the ACC dissolved. North Carolina is purely Southern and so are their fans. They wouldn’t be a great cultural fit in the Big Ten.”
Shame on you for taking message board fans as representative of actual people. You should know better than that.
LikeLike
A question for all the SEC blowhards, from the poster USC Traveler on Shaggy Bevo:
“If the BCS Rankings are so fucking great, why don’t they just eliminate the SEC CCG and declare the SEC Champ to be whoever is highest ranked in the BCS ?
That’s the logic they’re pushing for the playoffs.”
LikeLike
guess lsu was the mnc in their eyes, huh?
LikeLike
If you think that the SECCG was created because the SEC wanted a better way to crown the SEC champion, then you need to go back and do a little research. The whole driving force behind the creation of the SECCG was to create more interest and more money. Deciding the SEC champion was never the driving force in creating the SECCG.
While a BCS playoff will make a ton of money, that isn’t what is forcing the university presidents into relenting on a playoff. If that were the case we would’ve already had a playoff. The driving force that has forced the university presidents into apparently accepting a playoff (which they haven’t officially signed off on yet) is the media and fan outcry for a playoff to let the top 4 teams play each other to determine the best team in college football.
The whole arguement over the years has usually always been between the #2 & #3 teams; whether it was Bama & Ok St last year, Auburn & OU the year that the undefeated Auburn team got snubbed, or even Oregon & Nebraska the year that Nebraska played Miami even though they didn’t play in their CCG (2001 or 2002 I believe). The arguement that is forcing the presidents hand was never that the #8 ACC champion should’ve had their shot over the #2 team in the country. It was almost always that the #3 team should’ve had a shot along with the #2 team. If the 2nd best team in the country gets left out of a playoff over the #10, #8, or even the #6 best team just because the teams in the ACC or Pac 12 aren’t as good as the teams in the SEC or B1G, then you haven’t truely determined the best team in the nation IMHO.
LikeLike
@bamatab – I agree with you. While I understand the sentiment of a pure conference champs only format, as I’ve said for quite awhile now, there’s just no way that the people that are going to be paying literally billions of dollars for this playoff (the TV networks) are going to be OK with a #2 Alabama team not being in a playoff while a #10 Wisconsin team is in it.
Generally speaking, I think too many people are focused on #2 Alabama not winning its conference when I don’t think that’s where the real debate is right now. Even the Big Ten ADs that want some type of conference champs provision understand that there needs to be a way to include Alabama from last year if the playoff is going to gain broad public acceptance. The *real* debate is whether #4 Stanford should have been in the playoff the last two years when computers aided them to get into that spot over two #5 teams that were conference champs (including an Oregon team that actually won Stanford’s conference). Rest assured – a #2 Alabama team is going to get taken care of in the new playoff system, whether fans outside of the SEC agree with it or not. The true focus is what should have happened to #4 Stanford.
LikeLike
@Frank. The NFL and other pro leagues certainly don’t seed their playoffs by ranking. Some years you just get better teams in the AFC vs. the NFC etc… but everyone lives with the winner of those two conferences playing in the Superbowl.
In my view the goal of any playoff is to determine a champion and not necessarily to get all of the best teams in the playoff. A good example is the American League East prior to the 2nd wildcard. The counter example is the Green Bay Packers of 2010. A team that got hot at the end of the year and won it all.
There should be an incentive for having a great season and that requires winning the conference. A team that stumbles is probably not worthy of playing for a NC.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Generally speaking, I think too many people are focused on #2 Alabama not winning its conference when I don’t think that’s where the real debate is right now.”
That may not be where the debate is, but that doesn’t mean people stop feeling like that’s where the debate should be.
And no matter what anybody else may say, AL didn’t win a national title last year to me. LSU won it by default since no fitting challenger played them in the bowl. All TPTB are dead wrong about including a #2 ranked loser.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
that wasn’t my point, and i apologize for being vague.
i was merely poking a stick in the eye of those who think we can rely on bcs rankings. they are bogus balonious.
LikeLike
bogus balonious
the rankings, not the reliers. though that might be true, too.
LikeLike
The go with a committee that watches all (or at least most) of the games and determines who the best 4 teams are like basketball does. But even if you only allow conference champs into a 4 team playoff, you are going to have to have some sort of ranking system to determine which conference champs get in and who gets left out.
LikeLike
Man I wish there was an edit feature on this blog. The=Then and remove the “are” before “like basketball does”.
LikeLike
wish there was an edit feature
we’re cool. we all deal with it. whatever this format lacks, it is still just about the best i know of. we can live with it.
your point is on target. ultimately somebody has to make value judgments, and nobody has ever come up with a way to rank teams anything like accurately by squinting through some kind of prism. really we need a large enough playoff field that it pretty much assures we include the teams that turn out to be the best.
right now, the only way to be at all certain that team a should be ahead of team b happens over a grid of chalk stripes.
LikeLike
over a grid of chalk stripes
that’s where we discover that that unbelievable defensive end just hasn’t encountered an offensive tackle like that unbelievable offensive tackle. roughly thirty minutes of throwing the two at each other answers questions that cannot be answered any other way.
LikeLike
“really we need a large enough playoff field that it pretty much assures we include the teams that turn out to be the best.”
I think 4 teams is plenty. If you are the best throughout the entire season, the absolute worst you’re going to be ranked is third and that’s with 2 other undefeateds. That doesn’t mean that teams ranked as low as #8 or even #16 couldn’t win the whole thing, but the point isn’t including any team that could possibly win it, but to include any team who’s regular season accomplishments were arguably the best. The #4 team rarely even qualifies there, so I think 4 teams in more than enough (although I’m one of the few who thought 2 teams was perfect 90% of the time).
LikeLike
point isn’t including any team that could possibly win it . . . arguably the best
what a laughable concept. have you considered sit com? lot of money in that.
LikeLike
i was a contract designer in the aircraft business for many years, and there is a lot of accumulated wisdom among contractors encapsulated into sayings. and one of my fave sayings goes: a contractor votes with his feet.
so does the public when it comes to sports and other forms of entertainment. and the public has been voting a lot of thumbs down — or maybe it’s big toes down — regarding college football or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. the public is no passel of clowns and has shown that it is fed up with being treated to a carny show every year. college football absolutely must find a way to crown a true champion, and rewarding somebody who manages to look pretty good throughout a season just isn’t going to cut it.
LikeLike
Glen: you’re confusing the publics mouth with their feet. They cry for a playoff while continuing to increasingly fund the current system.
LikeLike
oh, so that’s why we are going to a playoff. i get it.
LikeLike
Your arguments about why this is happening are a good way of putting it.
Unless you have all the champs in, you are still making judgements. And even then, you have tiebreak systems.
LikeLike
totally agree.
LikeLike
i might add that another of my favorite contractor pearls of wisdom goes: if it flies, floats, or f*s, you can’t afford it.
LikeLike
Your implication that the only way to determine who’s the best team is “roughly thirty minutes of throwing the two at each” is a false premise. Just because one team has a better game doesn’t mean that they were the better team. Now if you play a best out of 5 or 7 series, you might be able to come closer to determining which is actually the better team. Take the year that the NE Patriots went undefeated in the regular season, but lost the Superbowl to the Giants. I still think that the Patriots were the best team that year, they just had an off game at the wrong time (and I’m sure I’m not the only one that sees it that way). I would bet the house that if the Pats played the Giants that year in a 5 game series, they would win at least 3 of those games. The inability for football teams to play a “best of” series is one of the biggest disadvantages that they have in trying to determine the best team. That is why a lot of college football fans, coaches, ADs, commisioners, & presidents feel that the regular season is essential in determining who the best team is.
Now every president, AD, comissioner, & coach that I’ve heard talk about the playoffs has stated that the goal of any playoff under consideration must maintain the importance of the regular season, and must maintain the bowls. Now you can argue whether or not those should be goals in a playoff, but it is a moot point because those are the goals for what is being considered right now.
The larger you make the playoffs, the harder it becomes to incorporate the bowls into it. Also the larger you make the playoffs, the greater chance you will end up with games at the end of the regular season that do not matter in which teams will be playing 3rd stringers so that the starters don’t get hurt just like what happens in the NFL. A lot of people like to point to this year’s regular season Bama/LSU and say that that game didn’t matter. But at the time that the game was played, it did matter. It matter so much at the time that it had the higest tv ratings of any game since the Catholics vs convicts game in the late 80s. It wasn’t until Ok St, Stanford, Boise St & Oregon all screwed up and allowed Bama back into the running that the game ended up not mattering in some people’s view. When the PTB in college football claim to want to maintain the “importance” of the regular season, what they are saying is that they want to maintain the excitement and the anticipation for the games because of the possible ramifications of the game.
But with that said, as much as I hate to see it happen, once a 4 team playoff has been established, it will probably eventually grow to as many as 16 teams IMO. Again I hate to see it, but it’ll probably happen in the next 10 – 20 years.
LikeLike
well, you are certainly right that a best of series would be ideal, but, particularly in football, that is practically impossible. what you say is exactly true for the nfl as well, but we all recognize that the one-shot opportunity is the best we can do, so we accept the last nfl team standing as the league champion.
at least it gets decided out there on the grass and not in offices.
LikeLike
“it had the higest tv ratings of any game since the Catholics vs convicts game in the late 80s.”
This is not true. It had the 2nd highest CBS cfb rating since that game.
2006 OSU/UM beat it, as others might have.
(sorry if this post is a repeat, I think my first attempt was lost in the ether)
LikeLike
@greg,
You are right, my bad. It was the higest rated game on CBS since the Catholics vs convicts game. But my point still stands. It mattered at the time it was played. It just so happened that after the fact, other teams shot themselves in the foot and allowed Bama to get back in the running.
LikeLike
bamatab, I agree the first LSU/Bama game was certainly meaningful. It was the second one that wasn’t. 🙂
LikeLike
Touche greg…touche 🙂
LikeLike
At this juncture Delaney isn’t about to bring in any school that can’t carry its own weight financially -unless they come as a partner with ND. Without Notre Dame I don’t believe for a minute the B1G will expand eastward for eyeballs. As the ACC contract has shown, the east coast doesn’t care about college sports and having the BTN in their area isn’t going to change that. All it’ll do is dilute the profits of the other members.I can see Delaney wanting UNC & Duke but only if it were on our terms. Unlikely. Personally, I wish they would snag Florida State, Miami Notre Dame and Georgia Tech. Again, unlikely. The B1G presidents are an insular bunch. Dividing up the pie is going to be a hard sell for them.
LikeLike
To me it’s all about brands which is why I will always believe the best path (and I realize it’s antithetical to the B1G way of thinking) would have been to take Oklahoma and yes, Oklahoma State when they came calling (Pre Pac-12 offer) and wait for Texas to tire of independence before joining their brethren in the B1G. Which, in turn, would have ushered ND’s arrival.
LikeLike
Technically, Oklahoma and aTm would have been far more preferable (If not for T Boone), but either way, there WAS a pathway to Oklahoma, Texas and ND soon after snagging Nebraska.
LikeLike
Exactly what I expected the PAC to do. Still not sure the PAC pres’ shot that down, or ended the OU leverage play when the time for action came and passed.
LikeLike
Have to think they will come to regret that decision. Either way, we’ll never hear it from them.
LikeLike
i think the pac was skittish after the colo/utah debacle.
had they not been saddled with that pair after thinking bringing in colo would merely guarantee that baylor wouldn’t be forced on them by the texas lege in the big move west, i think they might have taken a chance on the oklahoma schools. i gather they caught an earful from the stanfords after bringing in two teams they had ignored for years and missing on the promised prizes. had they brought in the two oklahoma schools and nothing more transpired, there would have been blood in those hallowed halls.
moreover, clearly the plan on the big move west was to partition the newbies along with relative newcomers and longtime thorns in the stanfords’ sides, ariz and az st, into an eastern sub-conference, leaving the pristine old pac-8 in the real pac along the coast. that’s the only explanation that adequately covers the pac accepting texas tech and oklahoma state with open arms. what bringing in colo and utah did was bring in two more arizonas without the ability to generate a separate sub-conference. lose-lose. the pac didn’t dare test those waters again with the oklahoma schools.
LikeLike
Yea, the PAC got “saddled” to the tune of 3 billion/12 years while retaining the rights to about 1/3 of the FB games…quite a debacle.
The PAC had invited Colo nearly 20 years ago.
LikeLike
By your logic, the real power in college football is on the West coast?
What the ACC contract has shown (especially looking back at those Nielsen numbers that came out months ago, where ACC viewership dwarfs that of the Pac12) is that it sucks when you don’t have leverage. ACC was locked into ESPN for the next 10 years and has to take what ESPN gives them. The ACC on the open market right now makes a ton of money.
LikeLike
Leverage is a huge part of it, but Swofford basically said that football was done and that was a factor.The ACC is not a good football brand right now.
LikeLike
Football was “down” not done. I’m sure he’s hoping its not “done.”
LikeLike
It’s more or less been “done” for years — no wonder the fan bases at Clemson, Florida State and to a lesser extent Georgia Tech want to shed themselves of the woeful ACC football brand.
LikeLike
Someone may have figured out why all these leaks are coming from WV:
WV isn’t yet a member of the B12 until June 30. So if Oliver Luck is doing the approaching, then technically right now it isn’t the B12 doing so…?
And in what may or may not be a coincidence, the first leak that we had killed Bin Laden came from a TCU board…
LikeLike
For those who don’t know, Luck spent a number of years in Houston with the Oilers, head of the sports commission which built the Toyota Center, Minute Maid Park and the Reliant Stadium, and then President of the Houston Dynamo and was instrumental in getting their stadium deal started. He got his law degree from UT. So he’s well connected in Big 12 country.
LikeLike
I may have missed it, but I haven’t seen a link to this yet:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–big-ten-surrenders-fight-for-on-campus-playoff-games-for-wrong-reasons.html;_ylt=ApQqQ9eypZZrztOdX8HW7mk5nYcB
LikeLike
While Wetzel is right to take the Big Ten to task for abandoning their plan to hold the semifinals on campus, this is a really poorly written article.
I seriously doubt “protecting” the Rose Bowl was the reason the Big 10 dropped their push for on campus games, it was simply the easiest to explain publicly. If the Big 10 really prioritized “protecting” the Rose Bowl over everything else they wouldn’t have pushed for on campus games in the first place. The Rose Bowl explanation was likely just a way to save face instead of admitting they simply couldn’t get the votes for on campus games.
Wetzel goes on to make an even dumber statement when he says Larry Scott is “kicking back with a cackle of delight” even though he has repeatedly backed the idea of on campus games.
LikeLike
frug,
“While Wetzel … , this is a really poorly written article.”
Redundant much?
LikeLike
Who knows what really happens behind closed doors, but I think your right. I think the other conferences want to use the bowl system as much, if not more than the B1G. They don’t want to play in the cold. If true, I just wish Delaney and the rest of the B1G would come out and say they fought for campus games. They are the only ones taking the PR hit. I think they are trying to build a united front on the consensus decision.
The only argument I agree with in using the bowls for semis is that it gives the players a bowl experience they wouldn’t get in on campus games. However, that is probably more of a convenient truth than a major factor in the actual decision.
LikeLike
If you are going to play the games in late December, that increases the negatives of playing on campus. There’s no school going on and it might be really bad weather in the north. And they seem to have decided that’s when the semi-finals will be. I think early December home games would be fine. That does give you the issue of what to do with the losers. Do they get to (or want to) go to bowls? There are a lot of decisions that are heavily influenced by keeping the bowl system healthy.
LikeLike
@frug – I agree. The SEC shot down the on-campus semifinal proposal immediately without even discussing it, while you’re correct that Larry Scott has been very clear that he wants on-campus games.
Wetzel has an issue with the bowl system as a whole, which is understandable considering the Fiesta Bowl scandal and scores of tickets that schools have the eat. The problem, though, is that looping the Rose Bowl into that category is painting with far too wide of a brush. There are definite financial benefits that the Big Ten and Pac-12 receive by going to the Rose Bowl specifically that other conferences don’t receive, so it’s far from an emotional issue for those conferences. I’ve seen figures in the past where the Rose Bowl tie-in is effectively worth as much as another conference championship game to both of the Big Ten and Pac-12 when you take into account the higher TV ratings, separate Rose Bowl TV contract, worldwide exposure during the Rose Parade, better sponsorships, higher donations, etc. That’s partially why the Big Ten and Pac-12 didn’t rush to expand in order to add conference championship game for two decades – they already received that same financial value from the Rose Bowl, so there wasn’t a need to expand. As a result, the Big Ten and Pac-12 simply aren’t just going to give up and hand over that equity. The only other tie-in that really has extra meaning is arguably the SEC with the Sugar Bowl, and even then, the SEC doesn’t get an extra financial or exposure benefit from the Sugar in the way that the Big Ten and Pac-12 receive from the Rose.
LikeLike
As I recall, Wetzel wanted to make the Rose Bowl the permanent site of the national title game. So maybe he gets that it isn’t just like the others.
LikeLike
The question I have is how much the Rose Bowl benefit will be reduced vis-a-vis the Big Ten and the Pac 12 in a four-team playoff format? The scenarios for a playoff that includes the RB if a B10 or P12 program in the playoff is as follows:
A. Both the B10 and P12 champions are in the Rose Bowl as semi-final playoff participants when:
1. One team is rated #1 and the other #4
2. One team is rated #2 and the other #3.
B. One conference champion from the B10 or P12 is in the Rose Bowl as a semi-final participant when rated #1 or #2
C. Both the B10 and P12 champions are in the Rose Bowl, but not as semi-final playoff participants
One scenario not mentioned above is what happens if the B10 and P12 teams are rated #1 and #2. Do they double host the Rose Bowl or does the higher rated team get the RB and the #2 team is placed at another major bowl.
At the bare minimum, at least one team from either the Big Ten or the Pac 12 will be in the Rose Bowl each year, and in some cases, there will be two teams for the two conferences.
As a matter of extension, doesn’t the revenue that the respective conferences are getting from their conference championship games plus what they’ll be receiving from the four-team playoff more than offset whatever they would lose after shifting from the current BCS format? I believe that B10 CCG, for example, is in the $15M range and I’ve read that the conference could get upwards of $30M to $50M from the four-team playoff. While the bowl revenue may go down because six-win teams could be eliminated from post-season play, it seems to me that the combination of the CCG and the playoff would more than offset having fewer lower tier bowl games and a Rose Bowl that didn’t always have the Big Ten and Pac 12 champions participating in the game.
LikeLike
Schools lose money on the lower tier bowl games between their ticket committments and their expenses. It might be less revenue, but the bottom line is better w/o those bowls.
LikeLike
Why doesn’t the Big 10 create a bowl at Lucas Oil for their 2nd place team and try to get it included in the 6 game event? I realize they have contracts with other bowls but BTN money can buy their way out of that.
Tie-ins could be B1G 2nd place and an at large (Notre Dame???). Or maybe try to tie in the Big East champ?
LikeLike
@Read The D – The market really dictates payouts and the single most valuable bowl matchup outside of the BCS is the one that the Big Ten has now: Big Ten #2 vs. SEC #2 in the Capital One Bowl. I *REALLY* don’t think that the Big Ten wants to give that specific matchup away, especially for the Big East champ or even a different power conference #2. The Big Ten might trade the Gator Bowl out for the Holiday Bowl at the lower levels, but as I’ve written previously, I think a Central Florida bowl is going to be extremely likely if there’s a 6-game event. It’s a place that most Americans are happy to travel to during Christmas break (whether it’s families, college kids or retired alums), which means it’s the main place in the Sun Belt where the Big Ten can at least mitigate the impact of the SEC’s geographic proximity. It’s not an accident that the Big Ten has had at least 3 Florida bowl tie-ins ever since the BCS system was created – the massive number of Midwestern snowbirds and vacationers at in that state in the winter make it much more hospitable than playing an SEC team in Atlanta or a Big 12 team in Texas.
LikeLike
Which all makes sense and I get why they wouldn’t want to lose their matchup against SEC #2. But, B1G lost the argument for home site semi-finals so I guess my thinking is introduce a Lucas Oil bowl and hope for semi final every now and then to reduce travel.
For example:
#1 USC vs #4 OU in the Rose Bowl
#2 Ohio St. vs #3 Florida in the Lucas Oil Bowl
Something like that. Now I would assume that Ohio St. vs Florida game would go to the Sugar? Or maybe Capital One? I guess it just depends on what the rules are concerning which bowl gets to host in which scenario.
LikeLike
@Frank the Tank
Chip Brown’s latest on Orangeblood
Translation: Delany/B1G making a play for ND with newest playoff ploy.
LikeLike
This is a stupid article chock full of hypocritical arguments and its a poorly written love letter to Notre Dame to boot.
Delaney is looking out for the best interests of his constituents. So what. Are we supposed to fault him for that? Is Dodds not looking out for the best interest of Texas? Is Scott not looking out for the best interests of the Pac12? What about Slive or Swofford? Are we to believe that everyone would be altruistic except for the fact that the conniving Delaney is ruining everything?
Think about the core argument in college football right now. We want to settle it on the field….well except we want some computers and some wise old sages to pick the 4 teams who will settle it on the field. If we aren’t smart enough to pick one team at the end of the season as the champ then we certainly aren’t smart enough to pick the top 4 teams. So let’s quit pretending that the upcoming playoffs is settling it on the field any more than the ridiculous Bowl Alliance settled anything way back in the day.
Everyone has views on what the best setup is and all of those views are colored by either the entities they represent or their own personal biases. Chip Brown pretending like he knows what is best for college football generally and Notre Dame specifically is crazy as hell.
LikeLike
@Nemo – I actually like Chip Brown a lot, so it’s disappointing to see such a poor commentary from him.
First, the entire basis of his argument is incorrect: Jim Delany and the Big Ten ADs were clear after their meetings this week that they want a “hybrid” format where teams like last year’s Alabama team would get into the playoff. It’s not a pure conference champs only model, which is something that reputably progressive Larry Scott wants.
Second, even if there were a conference champs only model, I believe a lot of people interpret it much too strictly, where they think that automatically means independents such as Notre Dame will be shut out. What’s much more likely (and what I wholeheartedly believe that the Big Ten agrees with) is that an exception would be made for a top 4 independent to make it into the playoff where it’s treated as the equivalent of a conference champ. This isn’t just to placate Notre Dame. Remember that BYU and its alums have pushed more legal and legislative action against both the old Bowl Alliance and the current BCS system than any other school over the past 20 years, so to finally create a playoff system that would automatically nix BYU is extremely unlikely. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Notre Dame is a complete red herring for fans in this process. There’s a ton of focus upon them because they create a visceral response from so many people, but the powers that be are extremely pragmatic toward them because the Irish are a revenue generator (unlike the non-AQ conferences and arguably the Big East).
Third, Chip Brown is doing the same thing that Dan Wetzel did in his latest playoff column, where he went off on the Big Ten even though several other conferences either have the exact same opinion (with respect to rewarding conference champs) or have made it clear that they won’t agree to an option so it’s no use fighting for a position anymore (the prospect of on-campus semifinals).
Basically, I disagree with everything that Chip stated in his column except that I grant that if it’s a black and white choice between choosing a pure top 4 versus purely conference champs, I’d much rather have the pure top 4.
LikeLike
An opinion piece out of Atlanta Journal-Constitution on what a playoff should look like. No new options, just a different perspective from someone who grew up in the shadow of the Rose Bowl:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/
LikeLike
Pure Top 4 but give meaningful bonuses for teams who:
A: Win a regular season conference or division championship
B: win a conference championship game
and
C: Play really difficult schedules with weights for Home, Road, Neutral.
The weights for C > A > B
There needs to be an incentive to play difficult non-conference games and there needs to be a reward for teams who have meaningful accomplishments on the season. There should not be a disincentive for playing a late season game at a neutral site against another accomplished team.
We should use Polls but it should be stipulated to the AP and Harris or whoever else that these polls not be conducted until 50% of the games have been played. Let’s be completely honest about the ridiculous anchoring bias that is inherent in these polls.
LikeLike
My point was just that the Big 12 is as stable as any other conference right now…the assumption that Texas/OU are looking for the right opportunity to make a move, and therefore the viablity of the Big 12 being doubtful is not born out by the facts. Call me crazy, but I think FSU and ND to the Big 12 makes perfect sense.
LikeLike
It makes sense for the Big 12. I don’t know if it makes sense for Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Texas being relatively content right now does not mean the Big 12 is stable.
Texas and OU just became satisfied with the Big 12 after the new contracts. But in the each of the past two years, Texas was evaluating a potential move to another conference.
B1G is stable. SEC is stable. No one in those leagues are even talking to other conferences.
LikeLike
Arkansas isn’t moving, but they’re taking phone calls.
LikeLike
Sure they are. Did Chip Brown tell you this?
LikeLike
What makes you think that they are taking calls at this point in time? They might (and I repeat might) have picked up the phone just to see who was calling back when the 1st round of expansion was starting up. But now that the SEC has added TAMU & Mizzou, I doubt they’d even listen to the voice mail of any other conference.
LikeLike
Heard several different sources. You don’t have to believe it. The rumours are that some of their donors would like them to be back with Texas schools. Noone expects them to go, but it makes sense to listen. Arkansas acknowledged they listened before (I think that was last summer).
LikeLike
If Notre Dame will listen, what makes you think Arkansas is above that?
LikeLike
The Wal Mart folks just got Missouri into the SEC, I have a hard time seeing Arkansas in the B12 after paying out that dough! Jerry Jones may be big time to you or me, but next to the other wealth in Arkansas, he is small potatoes.
LikeLike
1. Arkansas is already in an elite and stable conference, unlike Notre Dame
2. Arkansas has already been in a Texas-centric conference and happily left it before the ship sank. Arkansas fans hate Texas and want absolutely nothing to do with them.
Don’t believe everything you are told. If Arkansas picked up the phone to talk to Texas, it was only to laugh at them while Deloss begged them to come join Southwest Conference 2.0.
LikeLike
Everyone takes phone calls. You never know when Mike Ditka is going to ring you up and offer you the moon.
LikeLike
Wilner on Boise.
http://topsy.com/s/wilnerhotline?offset=10&om=a&page=2&window=d
Action: Boise State having second thoughts about joining the Big East, has not yet notified MWC of its intent to withdraw.
Reaction I: I’m shocked … shocked!
Reaction II: Not really. The move was fraught with potential problems from the start, and two of those have surfaced: 1) Questions/concerns about the Big East’s yet-to-be-signed TV deal and 2) the WAC as a fragile home for Boise State’s Olympic sports.
Reaction III: The same goes for San Diego State, except the Aztecs had the good sense to put their Olympic sports in the Big West. (Now SDSU is reportedly trying to help Boise do the same, but that won’t be easy: According to sources, there is considerable opposition within the Big West to inviting Boise. Can the concerns be overcome? Sure. But BSU to the BWC is hardly a done deal.)
Reaction IV: I maintain that there’s a 50-50 chance that both Boise State and San Diego State will be playing football in the Mountain West in 2013. The issues with Boise State/Big East/WAC/MWC — and the collateral impact on San Diego State … not to mention SDSU’s own concerns about the jump — were clear and present late last month, when Aztec officials claimed they were moving “full steam ahead” into the Big East. Yes, full steam ahead, except for maintaining the option to reverse course.
Right now, is there a fundamental difference between the Big East and the Mountain West in terms of quality? Part of me thinks that Boise wants to stay in the Mountain West now that AQ is gone and needs to make “a good faith effort” to find a home to avoid Big East penalties.
LikeLike
In terms of quality, if you’re comparing the Big East lineup to the Mountain West, at least their 2013 lineups, you have to look at them without San Diego State or Boise to do it fairly.
I will list both conferences’ programs roughly in order by quality:
Louisville
Cincinnati
USF
Houston
UCF
UConn
Rutgers
SMU
Navy
Temple
Memphis
VERSUS
Hawaii
Air F
UNLV
San Jose State
New Mexico
Hands down, the better conference is the Big East. Fresno, Hawaii, Air Force, and Nevada are the only consistent winners. The rest struggle to make bowls more than a 3-4 times per decade. Meanwhile the Big East roster has teams who have made bowls frequently, other than Memphis.
This is why TV partners would still hold much more interest in the Big East than in the left-behinds of the MW or C-USA. Boise State and San Diego State would be much more drawn to the stronger league. That said, they may have to stay in the MW if Boise can’t get into the BWC. If that’s what happens I would still say the Big East is the stronger conference but that the MW has the strongest single program.
LikeLike
Without AQ, I don’t think the risk v. reward makes sense for Boise.
Nobody knows what the Big East will look like in 12 months.
LikeLike
If I remember correctly, Navy doesn’t join until 2015.
LikeLike
Let’s say Boise stays. These leagues look fairly comparable to me over the last twenty years or so.
Louisville – Boise St
Cincinnati – San Diego St.
USF – Hawaii
Houston – Air Force
UCF – UNLV
UConn – New Mexico
Rutgers- San Jose State
SMU – Colorado St.
Temple – Wyoming
Memphis– Utah St
LikeLike
In the last 6 years San Jose St is 28-46 with one bowl win while Rutgers is 49-28 with 5 bowl wins. I hate UConn, but a quick check shows New Mexico as 6-30 in the last 3 years.
Obviously, “comparable” has a different definition to you than the one I learned in school.
LikeLike
I wasn’t necessarily comparing team to team, but collection of teams to collection of teams. Sorry if it wasn’t clear. Somehow, I forgot Nevada and Fresno.
@Phil – I take it you didn’t notice how I said twenty years or so.
In the past 20 years, Rutgers has 99 wins and San Jose St. 80. Rutgers averages 1 more win a year. Fairly comparable thanks to Schiano. Since UConn joined FCS it has 75 wins in 12 years, New Mexico 61. Again about one more win a year. If you ignore the last three years (I can cherry pick too) UNM 58 wins, UConn 54.
However, wins and losses wasn’t exactly my point. Is there a fundamental difference between UConn and New Mexico? UCF and Fresno St? Right now, the Big East and Mountain West are composed of roughly similar schools when it comes to drawing power, history, prestige, etc.
LikeLike
99 vs 80 isn’t very comparable, especially when Rutgers did it against the Big East (which was fairly decent for a good chunk of that time period) and SJ St did against the WAC (which wasn’t). At pretty much every line the Big East has an edge, and a few of them are major.
LikeLike
What is the point of using a 20 year comparison? That is an eternity in college football. Twenty years ago Fla St and Miami were dominant teams, none of us had heard of Boise St and the idea of Utah in the Pac 10 would have gotten you laughed out of any bar in the US.
LikeLike
Someone on the WV Scout board did a nice chart by conference of the teams that have finished ranked in the top 5 and top10 over the last 50 years.
The 12 “kings” we have talked about on the top 10 list are, guess what–#s1 through 12. All have at least 16 finishes. Next tier isn’t very surprising-UGA 15, LSU/Auburn/TN 14, Arkansas/UCLA 10. After that it drops to 7-Washington, Colorado, Pitt, Wisconsin, Virginia Tech, Arizona St.
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=159&f=4582&t=8995423
LikeLike
The 12 kings are even more dominant looking at only the top 5 as they all have 10 or more and it drops to 7 after that.
LikeLike
I love how FSU/Miami/Notre Dame are “available” as if you can just pick them up off the shelf and take them to the checkout. WVU peeps amuse me.
LikeLike
If that’s the thread I’m thinking of, it was posted by a Texas fan.
And obviously some of those schools were “hypothetically available.”
LikeLike
Remember when things like this kept us busy during the off season?
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/5/17/3025448/conference-football-relegation
LikeLike
Tulsa World: New B12 contract to be worth $20.6 mil per school.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/article.aspx?subjectid=236&articleid=20120517_29_B1_CUTLIN243526
Looks like more confirmation that the WV bloggers are legit. They said $20.95 mil, then the first reports were $20 and $19.6 million. Of course the smallest figure was the one the media ran with.
LikeLike
This guy is dividing the figures $2.47 ($1.3 + $1.17) by 12 years. Other reports divide $2.6 by 13 years. So I’m not sure he’s giving us new numbers. I guess part depends on when the new ESPN deal kicks in.
LikeLike
13 years, not 12.
Someone help me with the math. I can’t get to the media per year claims. Do the ACC and B12 both give an equal share to the league?
ACC deal is $3.6B for 15 years.
$3.6B / 15 years / 14 teams = $17.1 per year per school
$3.6B / 15 years / 15 teams+conf = $16.0 per year per school
B12 deals are $2.47B for 13 years.
$2.47B / 13 years / 10 teams = $19.0 per year per school
$2.47B / 13 years / 11 teams+conf = $17.3 per year per school
I don’t see the supposed $3M to $7M difference that people are throwing around. It looks like $1.3M to $1.9M, with some differences based on the escalation rates.
I guess if the ACC takes a cut and the B12 doesn’t, that gives you a $3.0M diff.
Actually, I guess you get $20.6 if you use 12 years (which is incorrect) and 10 shares (which is likely incorrect).
LikeLike
@Greg
The Big 12 deal is rumored to go up to anywhere from $23-25 million a year per school if/when FSU and Clemson are added. Add in the debated sums of how much more the ‘Noles and Tigers would make on their tier three in the Big 12, and one ends up with rough estimates of a $7-10 million difference.
LikeLike
Where does the increase come from? I guess Fox ponying up an additional $50M per year?
LikeLike
Even if you accept internet rumors, that still doesn’t explain how the per year numbers presented in the media don’t align with the announced deals.
LikeLike
I’ve heard the ACC gives a share to the league and the Big 12 doesn’t, but that’s really irrelevant in comparing the two. You still have to pay for a league office. The CBS report said $2.6 billion, not $2.47. So its $2.6/13 years/10 schools=$20.0 million/school/year. For the ACC its the $17.1 as you calculated. That’s the $2.9 million that was mentioned by the FSU president.
There is also the difference in escalation rates. ACC takes until 2021 to even get to 17. Then there is Tier III which is held by ESPN in the ACC and the schools in the Big 12. I’ve seen estimates that OU will generate $5 million + on that. And then there is any increase in the Big 12’s $20 million generated by adding schools and a championship game.
So its:
current contracts $2.9 million
Tier III $5.0 million (estimate)
Escalation $2.0 million (my estimate-we don’t have exact numbers, but
from what’s been reported, the ACC would probably
be $2 million less average if the 4 years beyond
the end of the B12 contract aren’t included)
improved b12 contract
$0 to $8 million speculative-but if FSU and Clemson were only worth
worth the B12 average and a ccg was worth $18 million
(Big 10 is $24 million) that’s $1.5 million/school
Better BCS $ Totally speculative
So we’re possibly talking about substantial $ over the next 12 years. Not just $2.9 milliion reduced by a couple hundred thousand in extra travel costs. When FSU works up the numbers I would be surprised if it wasn’t in the vicinity of $150 million.
LikeLike
I’m not going to get into detail, but those numbers are exaggerated. Tier 3 is $1M to $2M, B12 contract numbers are inflated. I find it hard to believe the b12 office doesn’t take a cut.
LikeLike
As I said, it doesn’t really matter if either office takes a cut. Those costs/commissions will be the same in either conference. I don’t know how the Big 12 funds its operations. I know they pay officiating fees. Whether they have assessments, take it out of basketball money, take it out of advertising, take a fixed amount out of the total pot. Its irrelevant. You have to fund it whatever conference you are in.
I saw one blogger saying there was a study of 10 schools including UL and 7 ACC schools and they would make an extra $4-$10 million per year (FSU was one of the best schools in that bunch). That sounds believable to me, but I didn’t quote that since the blogger could just be making it up. I know Chip Brown isn’t making it up when he says a media consultant said FSU would be worth something between OU’s estimated $5 million and UT’s $15 million. That doesn’t mean the media consultant is right, but there is a basis for estimating a whole lot more than $1 to $2 million.
LikeLike
It does matter, because right now everyone is comparing the ACC numbers after taking the conference cut, but the B12 WITHOUT taking the conference cut. That is totally relevant.
LikeLike
Woops, ok, maybe they are comparing by ignoring conference cut for both. But if the contract totals are $2.47B, its $19.0 to $17.1. That is $1.9M. We’ll see if its 2.47 or 2.6, but I’ve noticed that the 2.6 claims are bolstered by calling the Fox contract 1.2, when its really 1.17. Now, $300k may not be a lot, but I wonder how much you can trust any of these numbers.
I would hope a school like FSU has much better numbers before making a “hundred year decision”.
LikeLike
I would hope a school like FSU has much better numbers before making a “hundred year decision”.
Not me. I hope they are huddled around a Samsung Galaxy logged into the West Virginia Scout board using the numbers and logic found there and using only that information.
LikeLike
if the difference is only $2.9 million per team per year then there is no way that FSU and Clemson join the Big 12. The only thing certain for now is (1) the ACC deal, which pays $17.1 million annually for Tier 1-3 and the conference championships (which is also locked in longer than any other conference over 15 years) (2) the $20 million ACC buy out number, and $9 million per year per team for Tier 2 only in the Big 12 over 12 years.
Here is what is in flux and requires study by FSU, Clemson and others:
The Big 12 is rumored to have negotiated a deal that pays $11 million annually per team for Tier 1 (added to $9 million per team on Tier 2 = $20 million), but the deal is not finzalized yet. For the Fox Tier 2 deal, the initial announcement had the deal at only $60 million per year, a number announced by numerous outlets including the Sports Business Journal. However, when the deal was finalized a few months later it was for $90 million per year. The same possiblity exists for the Big 12′s Tier 1 deal, which could be $1-2 million per team higher at the end of the day. Plus, the Big 12 Tier 1 deal that was floated and the Tier 2 deal already signed both run 2 years shorter than the ACC deal. Since all these deals are backloaded (the ACC won’t make $17 million per year per team until 2021 according to Wetzel), it is likely that the $20 million per team number could be significantly increased if the Big 12 is simply willing to extend those deals out as long as the ACC deal. If Wetzel is correct and you look at the numbers side by side on a year by year basis, I would put a major wager down that the gap between the Big 12 Tier 1/2 and the ACC Tier 1-3 will wind up larger than $2.9 million annually and possibly as high as $5 million.
If FSU and Clemson came on board, the Big 12 would have a conference championship game to sell. That is likely $1.5-3 million more per team in TV rights money alone. The Big 12 traditionally sold its tickets to the Championship game much better than the ACC does, which would create more cash for its members.
If FSU and Clemson came on board, you don’t think that Fox would be willing to shell out some additional cash for the Tier 2 rights to Seminole and Tiger games that they have zero rights to show currently to make the deal happen? The deal probably has a “look in” like all the other deals do. Conservatively, I think their addition would be worth at least $1-2 million per team from Fox on Tier 2.
FSU would make around $5-7 million per year on their Tier 3 rights (in line with OU). Clemson likely not as much, but Tier 3 is probably still a $2-3 million asset for them.
We don’t have a finazlied picture of the 4 team playoff payout and qualification structure. However, almost no matter which direction it goes, the Big 12 is likely to be a proportional winner and the ACC a proportional loser compared to the current BCS system. The Big 12 would have placed the second most teams in the 4 team playoff (only slightly behind the SEC) while the ACC would have placed the least teams of any BCS conference over the past 10 years under most models.
Lastly, the travel is going to increase for FSU simply by staying in the ACC with the additions of Syracuse and Pitt. On the other hand, the change to the Big 12, especially with 1-3 Eastern partners would not be as significant as Barron indicated. FSU is not as far from the Texas state line as many in the media seem to think.
At the end of the day, FSU could be looking at a $10-15 million per year decision (or more depending upon the playoff). Can FSU really afford to throw that kind of cash out the window when they are running at a deficit currently and UF, Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina and Alabama are going to be swimming in money when the new SEC deal and SEC network are announced?
LikeLike
Here is what is in flux and requires study by FSU, Clemson and others:
@ royhobbs09 :
I would put a major wager down that the gap between the Big 12 Tier 1/2 and the ACC Tier 1-3 will wind up larger than $2.9 million annually and possibly as high as $5 million.
If the B1G and SEC are getting ~20M then 19-21 seems about right for the B12. 19 as the B12 stands, and 21 with the ACC adds. I find it hard to believe they would value the B12 on par with the B1G and SEC, and then have to give a huge bump later to the 2 biggest conferences (by 20K easily per average league game) which translates to much bigger viewing base for media values. Again this is Florida State and not Florida who has the #1 position in Florida. TAMU may be worth something but nobody is going to put their value equal to Texas. Florida State in the ACC means #2, but in the B12, they may drop to #3 if Miami stays in the ACC. Florida is loaded with ACC and SEC alumni so their viewing habits will follow those conferences first.
.
If FSU and Clemson came on board, the Big 12 would have a conference championship game to sell. That is likely $1.5-3 million more per team in TV rights money alone. The Big 12 traditionally sold its tickets to the Championship game much better than the ACC does, which would create more cash for its members.
Considering the B1G CCG added 24 million / 12 = 2 million per game I think 3 million is WAY to high. 1 million might be a closer number, and it might be much less if the possibility of Iowa State vs Texas Tech exists. Face it the B1G and SEC are full of top draw teams, and the B12 is full of the Big 2 and Tiny 8 – The fact that Clemson and Florida State can not dominate the ACC does not bode well for them in the B12.
.
If FSU and Clemson came on board, you don’t think that Fox would be willing to shell out some additional cash for the Tier 2 rights to Seminole and Tiger games that they have zero rights to show currently to make the deal happen? The deal probably has a “look in” like all the other deals do. Conservatively, I think their addition would be worth at least $1-2 million per team from Fox on Tier 2.
The fact lost in all this is that with 12 members you lose a conference game (8 instead of 9) for each team during the season that will be replaced with an FCS school or low level FBS school. This will actually be a loss of value, and not an increase, so adding the 2 schools may not add new value, but may stay flat to account for this issue.
.
FSU would make around $5-7 million per year on their Tier 3 rights (in line with OU). Clemson likely not as much, but Tier 3 is probably still a $2-3 million asset for them.
FSU already has a Tier 3 deal with Sun Sports for about the number you quote. I keep seeing this posted, but you are just double counting something that already exists. If the LHN gives UT 11 million, do you really believe #2 in FL is worth more with a less loyal fan base? Again, Clemson and Florida State have not been dominating the ACC (which according to everybody but me is the softer conference) so how will the dominate the “tougher” B12? I am not disputing UT and OU, but I remain suspicious of the quality of the “little 8” at this time. TCU should have at least an extra loss or 2 per season, and Baylor does not have another RG III in the wings. Texas Tech has never been know to play a tough schedule, and the remnants of the North are nothing to write home about. I watch Iowa football now, but it does not mean I want to watch Iowa vs Iowa State every year!
.
We don’t have a finazlied picture of the 4 team playoff payout and qualification structure. However, almost no matter which direction it goes, the Big 12 is likely to be a proportional winner and the ACC a proportional loser compared to the current BCS system. The Big 12 would have placed the second most teams in the 4 team playoff (only slightly behind the SEC) while the ACC would have placed the least teams of any BCS conference over the past 10 years under most models.
And why is this? Could it be because Clemson and Florida State have not been taking care of business in the “weaker” ACC? Look if you let Boston College and Wake Forest beat you, how will you fare in the B12? The core issue is that no matter the home (ACC or B12) of either school, the in state SEC schools of South Carolina and Florida are still going to dwarf them. In case you missed the past decade, the SEC is hot, and has plenty of schools that recruit SC and FL. Moving conferences is not a “magic wand” that fixes this, and not winning the ACC for the past decade is proof that the blame rests on Clemson and Florida State for not taking care of their own business. When Wake Forest, Boston College, and Virginia Tech are beating you, the person in the mirror is the problem, not blaming everybody else.
.
Lastly, the travel is going to increase for FSU simply by staying in the ACC with the additions of Syracuse and Pitt. On the other hand, the change to the Big 12, especially with 1-3 Eastern partners would not be as significant as Barron indicated. FSU is not as far from the Texas state line as many in the media seem to think.
This is pure puffery! Clemson and Florida State are in the south, so they will not be greatly affected by the northern adds. The ACC is still a driving league, not a flying one. A move to the B12 assures this flips. Fans, Donors, Student, Athletes, and Staff will all have to fly to places like Iowa State and Texas Tech. To not acknowledge this is pure homerism on the part of B12 supporters tying to make their conference look better than it is. Sure a football team traveling is one thing, but the bulk of trips are the few dozen non football teams who must travel multiple times in a week over an entire year.
Keep in mind most recruits in sports sign within a 250 – 500 mile range of their parent doorstep. Part of this is because mom and dad can see their kids play more. I have been around parents, grandparents, and siblings for ages and have talked to them over the years. If the 2 ACC jump, recruiting dynamics will not change because they want them to. A parent no longer heading to a weekday game in Atlanta for one in Lubbock or Waco is NOT going to happen for the vast majority of recruits. The day these 2 schools leave, the ACC and SEC schools in their home turf will eat them alive. Going to the B12 will not fix this, yet nobody is saying that this is a real issue. Baseball, basketball, lacrosse, and a host of sports are simply better in the ACC than the B12, and most of these kids become the best alumni and ambassadors for their schools. Boston College may be the downer in football, but they keep the ACC in the hockey world. How is that hockey in the B12?
.
At the end of the day, FSU could be looking at a $10-15 million per year decision (or more depending upon the playoff). Can FSU really afford to throw that kind of cash out the window when they are running at a deficit currently and UF, Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina and Alabama are going to be swimming in money when the new SEC deal and SEC network are announced?
I still say this number is way high and full of hot air! To say that the B12 with 2 schools and a “ragtag” group is in no way more valuable than the B1G or SEC, and adding Clemson and Florida State is not worth 50M – 150M in addition worth! Remember, conferences are worth the combined value for EACH team. 10 Million x 12 teams = 120 Million, and 15 Million x 12 teams = 150 Million! How can you defend such values for the folks like FOX and ESPN who are actually writing the checks? Are they in the non profit business because the numbers being thrown out sure make them seem like it! If FSU is worth 30M – 40M in the B12, then Ohio State in the B1G and Alabama in the SEC should easily be worth 50M – 60M and I feel sure they would have a reasonable argument considering their positions as real “brands” in college football – who also have multiple secondary sports their fans follow. Ohio State was in the Final Four, and Alabama won the NCAA hardware for gymnastics. What have Clemson, Florida State, and the vast majority of the current B12 won lately?
LikeLike
TAMU may be worth something
hypothetically speaking.
LikeLike
The fact that Clemson and Florida State can not dominate the ACC does not bode well for them in the B12.
Nonsense. Joining a league where you can play two kings annually (ESPN and Fox will make certain those games happen) is far more attractive for recruiting purposes than playing in the wimpy ACC, where the closest thing to being a king is the perennially disappointing Virginia Tech. As I’ve stated here many times before, I don’t think people understand how severely the ACC football brand (or lack thereof) impacts recruiting, particularly in SEC states, and don’t give me the recruiting rankings as a retort. There are probably plenty of five-star recruits who automatically cross ACC schools off their lists, and only home-state loyalty keeps certain Clemson and FSU kids at home.
The fact lost in all this is that with 12 members you lose a conference game (8 instead of 9) for each team during the season that will be replaced with an FCS school or low level FBS school. This will actually be a loss of value, and not an increase, so adding the 2 schools may not add new value, but may stay flat to account for this issue.
How do we know the Big 12 will adopt an 8-game schedule? Just because that’s what it had in its earlier incarnation as a 12-team conference is no guarantee it will do so again. For TV reasons, it would behoove the Big 12 to make sure Oklahoma and Texas play Clemson and Florida State annually, so expect a 9-game schedule with 12 teams, just as the Pac does.
Baseball, basketball, lacrosse, and a host of sports are simply better in the ACC than the B12, and most of these kids become the best alumni and ambassadors for their schools. Boston College may be the downer in football, but they keep the ACC in the hockey world. How is that hockey in the B12?
Hockey was no more a factor in Boston College joining the ACC than West Virginia’s men’s soccer program was in joining the Big 12. A non-sequitur, if you ask me.
Ohio State was in the Final Four, and Alabama won the NCAA hardware for gymnastics. What have Clemson, Florida State, and the vast majority of the current B12 won lately?
This was brought up earlier, and I can’t believe no one brought up women’s basketball, currently the #3 sport nationwide (ahead of baseball, soccer and volleyball, among others). The Big 12 has won the NCAA title the past two years, A&M in 2011 and 40-0 Baylor in 2012; it’s also been among the nation’s attendance leaders with schools such as Baylor, Iowa State and others. Florida State is currently top-ranked in baseball, and both it and Clemson have sent many players to the pros. Oh, and in men’s basketball, who beat Ohio State in the semifinals? A Big 12 member.
LikeLike
@vp19
The ubiquitous “Dude” has just weighed in with Big 12 candidates targeted within the ACC. He is ranking Clemson and FSU practically as “locks”. It is interesting to see Maryland even being mentioned. Perhaps you’d care to comment on the reported contact with the B1G? Where did he get that info?
The Dude on Big-12 Conference Expansion
Nemo
LikeLike
Doesn’t the BTN include Tier 2 rights as well as Tier 3 rights? How can you compare the BTN to any proposed Tier 3 rights for the Big 12/FSU
LikeLike
“Doesn’t the BTN include Tier 2 rights as well as Tier 3 rights? How can you compare the BTN to any proposed Tier 3 rights for the Big 12/FSU”
That was the point I was trying to make by pointing out the content quantity difference between B10 and B12. BTN has much more content than B12 retains. PTN retains even more content, I believe.
Kristi Dosh lists conference contracts here, and lists the BTN as Tier 2 and doesn’t list a Tier 3:
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/49654/college-tv-rights-deals-undergo-makeovers
LikeLike
vp19,
“As I’ve stated here many times before, I don’t think people understand how severely the ACC football brand (or lack thereof) impacts recruiting, particularly in SEC states, and don’t give me the recruiting rankings as a retort. There are probably plenty of five-star recruits who automatically cross ACC schools off their lists, and only home-state loyalty keeps certain Clemson and FSU kids at home.”
So everyone has to accept your premise at face value because any contradicting evidence is not allowed? It doesn’t matter why certain kids choose certain schools, only that they do choose those schools. As you well know, all the recruiting rankings show you’re just making this up because FSU and Clemson do just fine in recruiting. The NFL draft back this up, too.
LikeLike
royhobb
I think you’re spot on.
Duffman;
On geography look at a map. The ACC is not a bus league for FSU. There’s not a school within 250 miles. Georgia Tech is the closest and they are 5 hour drive down back roads. After that it is Clemson (using some of those same back roads) and Miami. The North Carolina schools are beyond any reasonable driving distance.
FSU is smack dab in the middle of the SEC, but they are at the fringe on the ACC as well as an expanded Big 12.
As for Tier III, that article I posted said the BTN distributed $74 million to the Big 10 in 2010. That’s nearly $7 million a school. Many people are projected $10 million a year for the Pac 12 networks in a few years. So a conference with WSU, ASU, UA, Utah, CU and OR St. as half its members can generate $10 million but FSU, in the 4th largest state, can only generate $2 or $3 million.
Very few people seem to challenge these $10-$15 million projections for Tier III for the Big 10, Pac 12 or SEC schools. Yet when a Big 12 or potential Big 12 school other than Texas comes up, suddenly its a $1-$3 million dollar asset and the Texas value isn’t real. It was just a bribe. These positions just aren’t consistent.
LikeLike
To put the distance in perspective, I’ve driven from Tallahassee to Houston in less than 10 hours. Its 2.5 hours from Houston to Austin. Tallahassee to Atlanta takes about 5. Its about 7 to Raleigh-Durham from Atlanta. So Austin is 12.5 hours driving from Tallahassee. Raleigh is 12 hours.
LikeLike
bullet, comparing FSU’s possible Tier 3 income with BTN/PTN is misleading. FSU would theoretically go from nothing to having one football game and a handful of basketball games. Maybe $2M in value.
The difference is the amount of Tier 3 content.
How does BTN deliver $7M per school? Going by the BTN wikipedia entry (not the greatest source but it was easy to find), BTN televises 35 to 40 games per year. That means they are televising about 3 games per team. BTN televises 60 to 65 conference basketball games, or about 5 per team. PTN reports were that they would retain even more 3rd tier content.
If FSU was going to retain rights to 3 football games, including a conference game or two, and 5+ ACC conference basketball games, I’m certain their Tier 3 income would be $10M or above. But they’re not. They will get one OOC football game, probably a weak one, and a few weak basketball games.
LikeLike
On geography look at a map. The ACC is not a bus league for FSU. There’s not a school within 250 miles. Georgia Tech is the closest and they are 5 hour drive down back roads. After that it is Clemson (using some of those same back roads) and Miami. The North Carolina schools are beyond any reasonable driving distance.
Believe it or not, the distance between Chestnut Hill (Boston College) and College Park (Maryland) is actually less than that between Tallahassee and Coral Gables (U. of Miami). The former is perceived as more distant for cultural and other reasons.
LikeLike
@greg
The Big 10 is getting that 7 or potentially 10 million PER school. So its a perfectly valid comparison. And FSU doesn’t have to create a network to monetize that. OU isn’t. They will be using existing Fox channels.
LikeLike
The Big Ten is getting $7M to potentially $10M per school while televising 3 football games and 5 CONFERENCE basketball games per school. If FSU gets the rights to 3 football games and 5 conference basketball games, they’ll see similar money. But they don’t get those rights.
LikeLike
FSU will have 1 or 2 fb games and 8+ basketball games + Olympic sports.
And yes it is fb on the BTN, but there’s not much PSU/OSU/UM. Its the lesser schools. Having an extra IU/Miami O. game makes it worth 3-5 times as much?
LikeLike
Every B10 team is on BTN at least once per football season. So the content baseline is at least equal to B12 Tier 3, plus a slew of other games. The amount of content is just not comparable.
LikeLike
I also don’t think FSU is a king. I don’t hear other kings whining that they can’t sell out their stadium.
LikeLike
@greg
How many other Kings are told by TV partners that they have to play on Thursday nights?
Kings are defined by TV draw first and foremost.
LikeLike
It should be obvious to all by now that you can’t be a football king and play in the ACC (a less that may soon be learned in Blacksburg). Had Florida State realized that 20 years ago, the current college football landscape would be considerably different.
LikeLike
FSU being forced to play on Thursday night cements that they aren’t a king. Thursday night is Boise State/MAC land, not king land.
LikeLike
@vp19
If Bowden hadn’t picked the ACC over the SEC 20 years ago (and it was his decision) FSU never goes on that epic run and never becomes a true super power. Bowden reasoned FSU was better off padding the schedule with weak conference games and then scheduling aggressively OOC than the other way around and FSU was rewarded with 12 conference titles in their first 14 years, including 9 straight.
In their first 9 seasons in the ACC FSU went 72-2 in conference play, that wouldn’t have happened in the SEC.
LikeLike
The P12N is not tier 3. They got the 3 bill from ESPN/Fox for a limited number of games, holding back I believe 35, and will have first or second choice of games in 7 of the 13 weeks this coming year. It is more like a junior third partner in tier 1, as well as having rights to everything else.
LikeLike
vp19,
“It should be obvious to all by now that you can’t be a football king and play in the ACC (a less that may soon be learned in Blacksburg). Had Florida State realized that 20 years ago, the current college football landscape would be considerably different.”
That’s funny, I never heard that complaint until FSU and Miami started losing a lot. Coincidence?
LikeLike
So now this “Dude” character is saying that VT is in talks with the SEC. I personally think he just got somewhat lucky with the FSU/Big 12 stuff. Here is a link to his blog with the VT/SEC stuff at the bottom of today’s blog: http://dudeofwv.blogspot.com/
LikeLike
I think Va Tech might call the SEC after something happens to the ACC with respect to FSU but not before.
Va Tech is one of those schools that’s going to have an outlet regardless (and it could always just stay with UVa in the ACC given that they’re happy being with closeby schools and all).
I just have a harder time seeing Va Tech being a first mover. Of all the schools to move over the past 10 years, they made the most natural move given their location and wanting to be with UVa.
I think their AD and/or Beamer also spoke about how they’ve got a smaller stadium and smaller budget than most of the SEC, and how much of a stretch it would be for them to be competitive there.
We’ll see where it goes, but my guess is that the SEC and Big Ten are likely to stand pat.
LikeLike
I have to wonder what constitutes “talks”? Seriously. If a 10th-in-power at the Big Ten talks to a former BOT at UVA about expansion scenarios, does that constitute “talks”? In that case, I’d have to think that every conference is talking to almost every school all the time. These kind of “professional” chats have to constantly be happening, right?
Rarely do these informal chats turn into an actual major move…but these are probably pretty common.
LikeLike
I don’t think that is what this guy is implying. Like you said, I think most schools are involved with those types of “chats”. By him placing this particular one on his blog, I think he is implying that the school it actually in real talks with the SEC. Now like I said, I’m still not buying that this guy is as connected as he is making folks believe that he is, especially when it comes to VT talking with the SEC. But some people are now listening to the guy because he was partially right on the FSU/Big 12 stuff.
LikeLike
Some issues :
a) I still do not buy the 25M – 30M the B12 bloggers are selling for the B12 even with Clemson and Florida State. I call BS on this one. Also, Florida State has a 6 million Tier 3 deal with Sun Sports already so at best that is a wash, not an add on as B12 folks keep plugging. The LHN is 15M with a 4M cutout going to IMG, which means 11M net for the folks in Austin. The longhorns are #1 in a bigger market, and Florida State is #2 in a smaller state with plenty of competition.
b) I listened to “the dude” from WVU on an Oklahoma podcast and the guy sounds young! I am guessing between his teens and 20’s young. If we can track planes in the B1G surely we have a voice tech guy who can analyze this kids voice for stress when not telling the truth. Seriously, major changes are happening in college football and the messenger is a kid in WV? I am not buying this either, and am chalking it up as BS unless we have a face and some background on his sources. here is the link :
http://www.blatanthomerism.com/2012-articles/may/podcast-the-dude-speaks-on-the-big-12-florida-st-and-conference-realignment.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
c) I may be the old dude on here, but dropping the f bomb and cussing in general is not cool. I like FtT because this site seems to have civilized discussion, and I hope we are not dropping to the level of lesser blog sites out there.
d) The more I look at this, the more I think USF is the future of Florida for the number #2 spot behind the folks in Gainesville. If I were the B12 this is probably the better long term play now that Bowden is no longer at Florida State. USF is bigger than FSU which means long term they will produce more living alumni. In addition, with the decline of Miami means all south florida could be theirs while FSU will always be second fiddle to the Gators in the north.
LikeLike
I kind of agree on the Dude getting somewhat lucky (although won’t dismiss him yet either). I really think this is a case of the rumors making the BoT/schools think rather than the rumors emerging out of them thinking initially. That said, props for being on that first and the future will reveal more. Can’t definitely say anything wrong so far.
LikeLike
So, “The Dude” is going with the George Costanza “You coulda done a lot better than him” strategy?
LikeLike
Duffman
a) I’m with you on Tier I and II. I think you underestimate Tier III. Texas gets that LHN money + 9.4 million for the other Tier III stuff.
c) 100% with you there. I think a lot has deteriorated in the last 3 or 4 years. The ability to add pictures is a detriment. Until they got some complaints, one of the WVU board’s was almost a soft porn site.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m not opposed to some occasional, well-placed swearing, but if you let that stuff go on the Internet it gets out of hand pretty quick. On my usual TCU board, the filter replaces obscenities with the names of obnoxious sports TV personalities. Douche becomes [Craig James]. I’ll use that one just to trigger the filter. I wonder if WordPress has anything like that.
LikeLike
I would think it would work the opposite. On the TCU board if you said Craig James it would replace it with **?%#!*. I know down in Georgia, General Sherman is still considered a swear word.
LikeLike
But then we couldn’t make dead hooker jokes. That’s like half the board in the off-season.
LikeLike
CJK5H 😉
Seriously tho, FtT is my island of calm is a sea of idiocracy (sp) that is why I read and respond here. Just trying to catch the new folks on here from the B12 and ACC sites and say that does not play here.
LikeLike
Can’t see USF every becoming the #2 program in Florida. FSU is a very strong #2 with a ton of success the past 30-40 years and Miami is close to a ton of talent in southern Florida.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree necessarily, but what if USF has a decade or more of success like Miami and FSU did to put themselves on the map? Say USF won 2 national titles and several major bowls?
LikeLike
“a) I still do not buy the 25M – 30M the B12 bloggers are selling for the B12 even with Clemson and Florida State. I call BS on this one. Also, Florida State has a 6 million Tier 3 deal with Sun Sports already so at best that is a wash, not an add on as B12 folks keep plugging. The LHN is 15M with a 4M cutout going to IMG, which means 11M net for the folks in Austin. The longhorns are #1 in a bigger market, and Florida State is #2 in a smaller state with plenty of competition.”
duffman: I think the 25-30 includes a bump from the current number for the arrival of 11 and 12, plus a CCG, plus Tier 3 TV. I would say that’s easily possible given the way money is being thrown around.
As to the $6 mil Tier 3 deal at FSU… that’s the radio, advertising, coaches shows. At Texas, that number is not included in the LHN payout — I think it’s 11 mil, or nine, sorry, can’t recall. In any event, it’s separate. The carveout for IMG is for the Tier 3 TV rights they owned that were transferred to ESPN, plus ad sales for the LHN. The B12 posters clearly understand that they are talking about Tier 3 TV only, what FSU gives up to the ACC.
LikeLike
Bob,
Lets say you are right, then within a year the B1G and SEC will dwarf that so it is back to the cellar for the B12. The main issue I have is we are not in a static market and right now the B1G and SEC are the market leaders. I do not see this changing. Both have multiple schools to sell while the PAC is still pushing Southern Cal +1, so I just do not buy any combination (including Notre Dame) to the B12 that changes the position of the the B1G and SEC in the food chain.
It is like what happens with the playoff. Until somebody knocks off the SEC team for at least 2 or 3 years, they still control the table. The reining champ sets the next fight because he is the person folks are paying to see. If last season Oregon played Wisconsin as conference champs that will not draw the “title” moniker. I think Frank is right in that the SEC is the Yankees right now in terms of folks tuning in to see them lose. So far this has not happened so it will be hard to drive the discussion until this changes.
LikeLike
Alan,
Good luck to your Tigers on the weekend series with South Carolina.
LikeLike
What do you get when you give a PurpleCat moonshine? – MountainCat!
LikeLike
Oh god, get ready for the FSU whining.
Look at the FSU schedule… http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/39150/acc-game-times-announced-21…. FSU has to play a 6pm game on Saturday, September 8th… and then turn around and play a NOON game on September 15th. And that September 15th game is against Wake Forest. FSU has enough trouble beating Wake Forest without having 3 less hours to prepare for them.
The Big XII would never do that to the Seminoles.
LikeLike
Isn’t that actually better for FSU? Forcing Wake to play a noon game in the heat?
LikeLike
Article on the Big 10 network.
http://www.cbs8.com/story/18503478/big-ten-network-cuts-academics-citing-low-ratings
LikeLike
They may have cut academic programming, but it sounds like everyone got educated anyway. Americans are more interested in watching coaching shows and replays of football games than shows about science. But if you have pretty graphics, it doesn’t hurt.
LikeLike
I would run the educational stuff as “PSA’s”
Make the content and quality good and run it as “advertisements” – 60 hours of programming is a drop in the bucket in an entire year. Even if you educate 1 person it is worth the expense. The cable content providers used “no advertising” to get their foot in the door. Now if you are a night owl you get non stop “infomercials” in the 1am – 6am slot instead of actual programming you originally signed up for. Is the BTN not making enough money to allow this 1 concession?
If you teach the next generation to watch sports at the exclusion of science, do not be surprised if you raise a generation of idiots. I like watching sports as entertainment but history is littered with folks who did more than entertain. The rise of any civilization moves on science and technology so how big is the price if we do not demand the promotion of it for the next generation?
LikeLike
educational programming can be interesting. i don’t envision it here to truly educate as much as to develop some awareness among us old coots and develop interest among the youth. who knows if the spark that eventually resulted in the next great geologist, say, occurred with a youth watching an interesting program.
LikeLike
glenn,
The main thing is to engage the mind to think in the young or old. A game is a point in time, and all the rest is blather and loaded with folks who did not play. Anybody of any age can be enticed by the lure of art and science, and it is the gateway to future journeys of self discovery. The ability to debate teams is not near as interesting as debating the cosmos and our brief journey through them. The trick to educational programming is to engage without dumbing it down or putting folks to sleep.
LikeLike
duffman,
I think the main problem is that the academic shows were focused on 1 school, so there was no cross-interest. People will watch sports with other teams in the game, but educational programming has to be top notch to draw any viewers at all. You’d think they could jointly fund an hour of programming like PBS and develop the content from education and science departments, but look how hard it is for Discovery Channel to make money. People pay to see sports on BTN, not academics. They need to listen to the customer to a certain extent.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt (and hope against) the Big Ten expanding again soon. If the Big 12 did/could raid the ACC to go to 14 and if the Big Ten decided it needed to keep up and wanted to expand to 14 (rather than 16), what school do you think it might go after? I know this is probably pretty far fetched, but 14 doesn’t seem to be discussed a lot like 16 is.
My personal assumptions going in would be that Notre Dame wouldn’t come, and that they’d want AAU schools. I’m also not sold that they could get North Carolina with only 2 spots open. I think in this case, it’s possible they’d go with some combination of Miami (FL), Georgia Tech, Rutgers, Maryland.
LikeLike
If the ACC imploded, North Carolina would likely be the B10’s first choice… After that, I think they’d look at Miami, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Maryland, Duke & Rutgers… They’d probably look at Missouri too…
Virginia Tech is probably the best football program they could get but there aren’t much more than a Tech school academically… Not up to par to be part of the B10’s CIC…
Virginia is probably the best ‘fit’ with North Carolina but they are lacking in athletic tradition. Not sure if Virginia adds enough in the revenue sports to be worthy of splitting the pie another way…
Duke is probably the school NC would most want to join along with them, but they don’t have a ton of say in who they can bring with them if the ACC truly imploded. Duke and NC would give the B10 a dramatic increase in the value of their basketball revenues that I could see Duke being favored over other programs…
If the ACC really did implode, that could cause ND desiring to join a conference, I still think it would be a longshot but I think the ACC blowing up would be a pretty big domino to fall in forcing ND to join a football conference…
Maryland would be pretty easy to lure away from the ACC and I like that it would give PSU one of its one time rivals… Like Virginia, they don’t add enough in the revenue sports to earn their way into the B10…
Rutgers is even easier to pull away from the Big East. Jersey has a significant amount of population but not a great deal of support for their athletic programs; I don’t see the B10 going that route…
Georgia Tech would give the B10 a southern team which Delaney has shown interest in before. I have a tough time seeing the B10 picking up just 1 southern program without it having a southern partner/rival. Miami & Georgia Tech would give the B10 a door into two very large southern states in terms of population and open a ton of doors for the B10 in recruiting with states with a ton of football talent.
LikeLike
Maryland and Rutgers better fit the Big Ten’s land-grant flagship model than North Carolina, and over the past dozen years or so, UMd and UNC’s football programs are about equal. Plus, you can bring in Maryland without having to drag another partner into the fold. As I’ve stated earlier, a Rutgers-Maryland combo solidly bolsters the Big Ten along the eastern seaboard, drastically weakening the ACC and the Big East (though in the latter case, does that really matter anymore?), while preserving room for Notre Dame and a partner should that time ever come.
LikeLike
Agree vp19. Maryland and Rutgers seem like perfect candidates in the next B1G expansion. But as I mentioned above, I don’t think UNC is as serious of a candidate as many B1G fans seem to believe. UNC is a great school with an outstanding all-around athletic department, but its state and fanbase is still purely Southern. It would be an odd fit for them in the B1G.
I
LikeLike
Maryland/Rutgers is very unlikely. While the institutions are fit the B10 profile, neither of them move the needle and there isn’t a real point to such an expansion. After all the problems making schools happy with the divisions, I don’t see schools wanting to give up UM/OSU/NU/PSU games in order to play Maryland and Rutgers. B10 has made two moves in the last 50 years: PSU and NU. Maryland/Rutgers is a gigantic step down.
LikeLike
I agree with you on the surface, but I was assuming a scenario where the ACC falls apart, providing a catalyst for conferences to expand to 16. And just because the Big Ten has added only two in the last 50 years doesn’t mean they will stand idly by and let the SEC cherry pick from a weakened ACC.
LikeLike
I don’t see how the ACC could implode. Even if Clemson/Miami/Clemson leave, the core ACC will stick together. And if SOMEHOW the ACC implodes so that “the SEC is cherry picking”, the Big Ten isn’t going to add Maryland/Rutgers, they are going for bigger names.
LikeLike
UNC and Duke would be serious candidates for the Big Ten. College Basketball has a big following in NY City. Duke actually schedules a game there every year I think as most Duke students are from the Northeast. Their rivalry is one of the few basketball properties that move the needle nationally. More important, though, is research money. Duke and UNC have two world class medical centers. The Government gives a lot of grants for medical research and adding those two centers would up the profile of the other Big Ten affiliated hospitals and increase revenue with partnerships. Maryland also has a great Medical Center. The possible increase in medical research grants to Big Ten university hospitals would make the addition worth it regardless of athletic performance.
LikeLike
“I don’t see how the ACC could implode. Even if Clemson/Miami/Clemson leave, the core ACC will stick together. And if SOMEHOW the ACC implodes so that “the SEC is cherry picking”, the Big Ten isn’t going to add Maryland/Rutgers, they are going for bigger names.”
What is the value of an ACC without FSU/Clemson/Miami? On a football level, that would be a mid-major conference and generate mid-major revenue. Maybe the NC schools don’t care about money and value, but that doesn’t seem logical to me.
And I think you’re discounting Maryland and Rutgers a bit. Those are solid schools and I can’t see what ACC additions would be so much better when you consider the likelihood that UNC/NCST and UVA/Va Tech may be package deals.
LikeLike
Without ND being locked in, there’s no move east. UNC/DUKE is the only other combo that might precipitate a B1G move and that’s not happening barring an ACC collapse.
I do believe FSU and Clemson (or Miami) will go West prompting the ACC to replace them with some Uconn/Georgetown or Rutgers combo.
I would love the B1G to go south, but I forsee a ND w/partner move ending the Big Ten’s expansion.
LikeLike
If just two schools leave the ACC I doubt they will expand again. The Syracuse and Pitt additions seemed to be preemptive strikes in case the SEC or B1G took a couple of schools. As always, if Notre Dame joins that’s a different conversation.
LikeLike
I think the main reasons why UNC isn’t going to the Big Ten (or SEC) are control and the Tobacco Road schools.
They seem to like having their own posse in total control of a conference. They’re very much like Texas in those respects. I also don’t think they see the Mid-Atlantic region as an add-on to another region (Midwest or South), much in the same way that Texas doesn’t want the Southwest to become an add-on to the West or South or Midwest.
UNC probably won’t even mind if ACC payouts are a distant 5th in the sports arms race. In that respect, they’re different from Texas, but it would lead to the same result with them staying in the ACC.
Having NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, UVa in the same conference is also probably very important from their point of view in terms of having a close regional group that more or less thinks on a similar wavelength: none of them is a football factory, etc.
LikeLike
@vp19
This is the latest from the “Dude”. Sorry I messed up the hyperlink above. I wonder if his contention that MD has been in contact with the B1G is accurate?
http://dudeofwv.blogspot.com/2012/05/big-12-expansion-tracker.html
LikeLike
I’d take him more seriously if he could get even basic facts straight like ND’s BCS access rules (they are guaranteed a BCS bid if they finish in the top 8 not top 15. Actually if they finished 15th they wouldn’t even be eligible).
Also the idea that Maryland was considering the Big East before TCU, WVU, Syracuse and Pitt left is laughable.
LikeLike
Some of it made sense until I saw this: “Maryland was in talks with the Big East before WVU, Pitt, Syracuse and TCU left that conference.” What?
Maryland’s only real interest is the Big Ten, and the Big 12 GOR is probably a deal-killer. The one alternative, however slight, would be if the SEC, deciding to grow to 16 members, takes in Virginia Tech but can’t find a partner from a non-SEC state. In that case, Maryland could accompany the Gobblers, and since the SEC has no exit penalty, remain an option for the Big Ten. A bit of a risk, to be sure, but more money either way for College Park.
LikeLike
What is the scenario in which the ACC implodes in such a way that a core of UNC, NCST, Duke, Virginia, Miami and BC could not re-assemble the flying parts to create a new conference and avoid being sliced and diced into tiny bits?
LikeLike
Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I don’t think they will break apart. If FSU/Clemson leave, I think that’s it. But if VT goes to the SEC, then things fall apart. I think the B1G goes after UNC + MD/UVA or Duke or all 3.
If the B1G sits tight, then I think that group does stay together. RU, UConn, UL and USF are out there.
Notre Dame can keep the group together even if FSU/Clemson/VT leave.
LikeLike
i don’t think the acc is going to splinter, either. only if b1g goes nuts on them at a weak moment will that happen, and i don’t think there is enough football interest for b1g to do that. b1g doesn’t want to become the new acc.
many speculate that acc will concentrate on b-ball schools, and that sounds about right to me. i won’t be surprised if all the football-centric acc schools relocate. it doesn’t sound like miami wants to be football-centric in the immediate future, so i’m guessing they stay for acad reasons, if nothing else.
if you own stock in the b-east, it’s probably a good time to unload it.
LikeLike
That’s something I don’t get, either. A few ACC members are serious candidates for other conferences, but for a variety of reasons, the NC four of UNC, NCSU, Wake and Duke would stay together, as would UVa (a traditional southern school), Pittsburgh (superfluous to the Big Ten and probably not wanted anywhere else) and Miami, Boston College and Syracuse (all private institutions for which the ACC is their best comfort zone). You then could almost certainly cobble at least three other schools (say, Connecticut, South Florida and Temple) for a 12-team conference and a CCG). It wouldn’t be up to the level of the top four conferences by any means, but it would be ahead of what’s left of the Big East, C-USA and the Sun Belt among conferences east of the Mississippi.
LikeLike
The point I keep trying to make is that UNC/Duke/UVA would never NEED to leave the ACC. They could keep the league together forever…and as everyone else leaves they’ll watch their finances dwindle down down down. They’ll be like G-Town in the Big East. Still in the Big East…but it’s not much anymore.
The point is that if UNC/Duke/UVA/whoeverelse want to remain competitive in the future, they might have to abandon the ACC earlier rather than later while they still can. They don’t have the bargaining chips that Texas/OU had last year b/c they don’t have the football money to throw around. They can stick around and become a minor league…a distant 5th…or they can get out while the Big Ten or SEC or Big 12 have spots.
THAT would spur the implosion. Losing the core members would create a disintegration.
LikeLike
Good piece here from the Raleigh News & Observer on the “graduation gap” in baseball, particularly at major conference schools. Check out this statistic on the size of the “gap” in five Division I sports:
Research by the College Sport Research Institute at the University of North Carolina has found sizeable gaps in the graduation rates between athletes in football, men’s basketball and baseball and the full-time general student population.
The full studies are available at http://exss.unc.edu/research-and-laboratories/college-sport-research-institute/research/
Adjusted Graduation Gaps
Baseball overall: -18.8 major conferences: -30.7 ACC: -32.2
Football overall: -13.0 FBS conferences: -19.7 ACC: -20.0
Men’s basketball overall: -20.6 major conferences: -32.4 ACC: -41.0
Softball overall: -3.9 major conferences: -6.7 ACC: -3.3
Women’s basketball overall: -9.4 major conferences: -14.6 ACC: -14.0
The story is at http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/17/2070733/decock-baseball-players-whiffing.html.
LikeLike
I’m a little surprised that neither the article nor the study mentioned that the MLB draft saw 1530 players selected last year, while NFL has a little over 200 and the NBA has about 70. Not to mention the extensive minor league system to supply these draftees (mostly low paying) jobs. The baseball players are leaving school for options that simply don’t exist in other sports.
LikeLike
And they don’t get full scholarships like football and basketball players. Hard to get by on a half-scholarship, particularly at some of the more expensive schools.
LikeLike
And there’s another important point we’re overlooking: this guy’s name is Luke DeCock.
LikeLike
Wow….looks like a potential SEC/Big 12 arrangement, similar to B1G/PAC. Maybe more smoke to the Florida State rumors.
Tony Barnhart ?@MrCFB
Blockbuster announcement coming at noon from SEC concerning post-season agreement with Big 12. Story coming on http://CBSSports.com
Brett McMurphy ?@McMurphyCBS
Champions of SEC & Big 12 will meet in a bowl if neither team in natl semis, sources told @CBSSports & @MrCFB
LikeLike
I guess not exactly like B1G/PAC. I misspoke.
Wonder if they will Sugar Bowl? Or rotate with the Cotton?
LikeLike
Makes me think the semi-finals are leaning towards a straight 1-4 seeded match-up, with no regard for conference champion. Otherwise the odds of both the SEC & XII champion not being in the semifinals are basically zero. Either way it’s hard to imagine a scenario where either champion of those leagues doesn’t make it to the semi-finals.
LikeLike
Yeah this is what Clay Travis is speculating. This is essentially a playoff pact between the SEC and Big 12 for a top 1-4 seeded playoff.
LikeLike
I don’t think that is the right read. It looks to me like the SEC and Big12 are working together to negotiate a premium deal with one of the bowl sites. This is about Bowl $$.
LikeLike
Brian #2-
That would make sense since Big XII and SEC have most to gain by 1-4 seeded playoff.
ChicagoMac-
I think both reads are correct. Big XII and SEC are hoping to leverage the new system into some new revenue.
LikeLike
Someone speculated Cotton/Orange rotation.
LikeLike
Champions of SEC & Big 12 will meet in a bowl if neither team in natl semis, sources told @CBSSports & @MrCFB
While the chances of that happening are rare, this alliance would provide an impetus to joining the Big 12 for Clemson and Florida State, and would render the ACC even more of a football eunuch.
LikeLike
Why would that create an impetus for FSU/Clemson to move?
LikeLike
Because they are unlikely to finish top 4 unless they’re undefeated in the ACC. Strength of schedule will be a bigger factor now and the Big 12 would help more than the ACC.
Personally I think Florida St and Virginia Tech will end up in the SEC.
LikeLike
To get there you have to ignore the simplest explanation for this announcement:
* That they are just working together to extract a premium from the chosen bowl
…and jump to conclusions about secret pacts related to playoff format which leads to another leap of logic about league constructions.
This is about extracting premium money from a bowl first and foremost.
LikeLike
You don’t have to jump to far to know that the Big 12 and SEC have the most to gain by a 1-4 seeded playoff.
A Big 12 – SEC Rose Bowl type agreement basically locks the ACC out of a marquee Orange Bowl game, unless an ACC team finishes in the top 2 of the playoff system. That seriously weakens the Orange Bowl.
No doubt money plays a major role but there will be ripple effects from the agreement.
LikeLike
Read The D,
“Because they are unlikely to finish top 4 unless they’re undefeated in the ACC.”
11-1 VT was #5 going into the ACC CCG, and they played nobody OOC and got whipped by Clemson at home. FSU would be fine.
LikeLike
Completely agree. Also, if it’s 1-4 then it would not appear that Notre Dame would be encouraged to join a conference, or BYU for that matter.
Also makes the Virginia Tech to SEC rumor have some legs. The higher SOS for the conference the better. The SEC could take down as many spots as they want.
LikeLike
Tony Barnhart @MrCFB
Understand that will be rare for both SEC and B12 champs to miss Final Four. But it establishes powerful relationship like Pac-12/Big Ten.
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite
16m Brett McMurphy @McMurphyCBS
Industry source tells @DennisDoddCBS “The Sugar Bowl is the No. 1 option” for SEC/Big 12 champ bowl
This makes complete sense to me.
They’re basically going to make a “Sugar Bowl relationship” that would be the equivalent of the Rose Bowl relationship.
LikeLike
That would put an end to the Oklahoma vs UConn / Alabama vs Utah games at the Fiesta Bowl and Sugar Bowl.
Even more reason for FSU to jump ship.
Wonder what happens to the Fiesta Bowl?
LikeLike
Comment implies Barnhart expects the bowls to be out of the semi-finals.
LikeLike
Barnhart is one of those grizzled old sportswriters who knows his stuff and is well connected with SEC people.
LikeLike
How so?
LikeLike
Says it will be rare to miss the final 4. One proposal has the anchor bowl host the game. That would mean this agreement would put that game in the final 4 many years.
LikeLike
But I may be reading too much into his comments.
LikeLike
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs This Big 12/SEC announcement absolutely consolidates power, money in top four leagues. Sugar now mirrors Rose in tradition, money, power
LikeLike
Yeah, a 2 day old B12/SEC Sugar matchup has the tradition of an 80 year old B10/P12 Rose matchup.
Don’t get me wrong, the Sugar has a lot of history and I like it being the SEC bowl and this agreement improves it. But I don’t know why mediots have to result to such hyperbole. Then again, dodd is on a level of his own.
LikeLike
Could this be a shot by the SEC/B12 at the B10/Pac12? As in, our champs have the exact same bowl relationship as yours do, stop asking for the Rose Bowl to get special consideration?
LikeLike
@phil
Looks like an acknowledgement that the B1G/Pac had it right all along. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
LikeLike
Phil,
“Could this be a shot by the SEC/B12 at the B10/Pac12? As in, our champs have the exact same bowl relationship as yours do, stop asking for the Rose Bowl to get special consideration?”
I see it the other way. It became clear the Rose was going to get special treatment, so they tried to copy it to so the B10 wouldn’t get something they didn’t get.
LikeLike
This Big 12/SEC announcement absolutely consolidates power, money in top four leagues. Sugar now mirrors Rose in tradition, money, power
While I wouldn’t go so far as to agree with sentence #2, his sentence #1 makes plenty of sense. The ACC will be even further isolated from the top tier of college football than it is now, reduced to essentially an eastern version of the Mountain West. Tobacco Road’s insistence on a basketball-first culture may wind up as collegiate athletic suicide.
LikeLike
Clay Travis @ClayTravisBGID
Not to be outdone, the Big East and ACC have announced that their champs will play at your high school if you’ll have them.
LikeLike
From here is looks like the BigXii has battered spouse syndrome.
LikeLike
Money and power absolutely. But it isn’t necessarily going to the Sugar. That hasn’t been determined (or at least announced).
LikeLike
I got confused about this as I read the tweets. It’s “NOT” the Sugar yet…site is TBA. But it’s gonna be the Sugar. SEC would never give that up.
Next question, who will the Fiesta line up with? The Orange? The Cotton?
LikeLike
Nineas said they will be sending out RFPs. If its not the Sugar, the Fiesta or the Cotton are going to SERIOUSLY PAY the SEC and Big 12.
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the proposed Bowl would only be Big 12 v. SEC if both conferences miss out on the Top 4. Which happens, well, never. Wouldn’t that same Bowl then be subject to the basic BCS rankings and potentially have anyone in it?
LikeLike
@Jericho – No. Just as the Rose Bowl gets the top selections outside of the playoff from the Big Ten and Pac-12, the new Big 12/SEC bowl would get the top non-playoff teams from those two conferences.
LikeLike
I guess it depends on how the new playoff is formated, but what happens if there are no additional Big 12/SEC teams? Like how TCU ended up in the Rose? I guess more access to the bigger conferences will help ensure at least 1 team from each conference is in there. It’s still a good deal, but it will never touch the Rose as it may never actually match up the two conference champs (something the Rose did for the majority of its history)
LikeLike
@Jericho – what do you mean, no additional SEC/Big 12 teams? The SEC has 14, and the Big 12 has 10 (for now). Most of these will be bowl eligible each year. Without any BCS eligibility rules to worry about, the Sugar (or whatever) will just move down the list as the new playoff takes the top teams.
LikeLike
What I mean was if the system somewhat mirrors the old BCS. Where the top 4 teams get into some tournament, and the remainder of the Big Bowls are filled by top BCS qualifiers. Think of expanding the BCS to 12 schools, with 4 of them in a tourney and the other 8 filling the major bowls. I have no idea if such a plan is still under consideration, but it is possible (but unlikely) that no teams from at least one of the conferences make it into that “other 8”
LikeLike
Dodd is heavily biased towards the Big 12. I think he lives in Kansas City.
LikeLike
Geographically, New Orleans, while technically SEC country, is close to the Texas/Oklahoma base of the Big 12. Were the Big Ten and Pac creating a Rose Bowl-type setup from scratch today if no Rose Bowl existed, they would probably play at the Fiesta Bowl, or (less likely) even a domed stadium (were there one) in Denver.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Geographically, New Orleans, while technically SEC country, is close to the Texas/Oklahoma base of the Big 12.”
Technically? New Orleans is 100% SEC country. You can make the same counter-argument for Dallas being close to the border, and nobody is calling Dallas neutral.
If they want a truly neutral site, they’ll play in Houston.
If the SEC wants to flex their muscles, it’ll be in the Sugar.
If Jerry Jones wants to buy it, it’ll be in the Cotton.
If they want to appear weak and indecisive, they’ll alternate between the Cotton and Sugar.
The problem with using either the Cotton or the Sugar is that it looks like one conference caved to the other. Can either one tolerate that blow to their ego? If they alternate sites, they can’t build any tradition although I don’t think fans care anymore as long as it’s on TV at the same time.
Maybe they’ll go pure rotation to counter the “stodgy” Rose Bowl tradition, and bounce it from Miami to Atlanta to New Orleans to Houston to Dallas to San Antonio to St. Louis to ???
“Were the Big Ten and Pac creating a Rose Bowl-type setup from scratch today if no Rose Bowl existed, they would probably play at the Fiesta Bowl, or (less likely) even a domed stadium (were there one) in Denver.”
Yeah, I’d guess Fiesta based on weather and alumni and neutrality.
LikeLike
With a four-team playoff that includes the top three conference champions plus one at large team, this hypothetical bowl would have been Arkansas v. Kansas State as the sixth and eighth ranked teams in the BCS. This was the matchup in the Cotton Bowl that the Razorbacks won 29-16.
In 2010, that game likely would have been Big XII Champion Oklahoma (#7 in the BCS) v.Arkansas (#8). That season, Oklahoma beat Connecticut in the Fiesta Bowl by a score of 48-20 and Arkansas lost to Ohio State in the Sugar Bowl by a score of 31-26.
I wonder what this does to the three Big Ten-SEC bowl tie-ins played in Florida (Gator, Outback, Capital One). I suspect one of those bowl game matchups will go away and there’ll be just two remaining.
It’ll be an interesting bidding war to see which bowl gets this game–Sugar, Cotton or Fiesta. I have to imagine Jerry Jones is going to make a serious bid for the game, which I suspect is exactly what the SEC and Big XII want for that particular game. Without the BCS bowl structure and tie ins, these cities and the bowl sponsors are now going to have to compete to attract the different conferences to their sites.
The Big Ten has regularly gotten two bowl teams into BCS bowls. Would the B10 look at making an arrangement with one of the major “losing bowls” to take the next available team from the conference that isn’t in the Rose Bowl or playoff bowl game? For example, if the Fiesta loses the Big XII champion for its bowl (and the playoff bowl anchor possibility), does the Big Ten make a deal with them to bring a second B10 team into the Phoenix area (along with the Insight Bowl participant)? Who does the B10 team up with in the arrangement? The Pac 12 is a possibility, but the two conferences already have a regular season scheduling agreement in the works starting in 2017, so the two conferences will have a lot of exposure with one another already (and they wouldn’t want to compete with the Rose Bowl). The only other possibility is perhaps the ACC and the Orange Bowl (taking over from the Big East).
These are indeed interesting times.
LikeLike
Recently I’ve shaken my head at some of the moves made by the Big 12, but I’ll give them credit on this one. I think this was actually a pretty shrewed move by them. I don’t think this is just an agreement on a bowl game. I believe this is the first step in them alligning themselves with the SEC in the same manner as the B1G/Pac12. If that is the case, then this one move may end up doing more for their conference stability than adding FSU, Clem, or whoever ever could. If the 4 super-conference model ends up becoming a reality, this just strengthens their hold and loosens the ACC’s. This also helps strengthen the SEC stand on the playoff selection issue. I could actually now see FSU and Clemson further wanting to join the Big 12 if the playoff selection goes to a top 4 format since strength of schedule will play into that. The SEC needed another conference to help them out on this issue, and I’m curious to see if the Big 12 does. Now that it appears that Slive has put his chips on the Big 12, I’m wonder if they are also beginning to get more confident in their ability to raid the ACC (although it is too early to make that assumption). Again, this is one of the first moves in a while that I actually am impressed that the Big 12 has pulled off (it also is a pretty shrewed move for the SEC).
LikeLike
I wonder what this does to the Capital One bowl where it matches up the Big 10 #2 vs. the SEC #2. I gotta think that deal is history.
LikeLike
I think a lot of bowl deals will be reevaluated, but I wouldn’t say it’s history. Cap1 is a good bowl destination, so it should be fine. Since we’ll be sending four teams to the playoffs instead of just two, that means the bowls will be getting moved a spot or two down the pecking order. Cap1 may just end up with Big Ten #3 vs. SEC #3 or 4 more often.
LikeLike
Of course, there’s always the chance that the B1G will send its #2 to the Orange to face the ACC champ instead of sending them to the Cap1. If the Orange will even have the ACC.
LikeLike
ACC bowl tie-ins lose a lot of value and marketability if FSU and Clemson leave. I doubt B1G will be too interested in aligning with them for anything but minor bowl games.
LikeLike
Yeah, the ACC needs to worry about keeping its Orange tie-in. No reason you can’t move Big Ten #2 and SEC #2 from Cap1 to Miami somewhere down the road.
LikeLike
Maybe, but any SEC tie-in would be taking 3rd or 4th place SEC teams. For example, last season, Alabama and LSU go into the playoff, Arkansas goes to the new bowl with the Big 12, and then I guess Georgia would get the “#2 SEC” slot. Georgia is still a nice draw for attendance purposes, but it’s unlikely to match up super highly ranked teams.
LikeLike
Wow, Bob Bolsby did not waste time making an entrance did he? I wonder how long this has been in the works… Shrewd, calculating move made by the SEC and Big XII.
@ Frank, you’ve posted some really good articles about the state of collegiate athletics, most based on the premise of “thinking like a university president.” I’m not so sure that is a good thing moving forward. The nature of competiton between schools and conferences is starting to resemble the competition between Coke and Pepsi for shelf space at your local retailers. I don’t believe university presidents are equipped to handle that kind of “fight.”
Not to mention the various and significant issues facing colleges and universities today, rising tuition, reduced funding, allocating resources in this current reality, the list goes on. Add to that, contract negotiations about sports programming, an increasiingly vocal public on all things football related… You/we may have to rethink that theory.
LikeLike
The nature of competiton between schools and conferences is starting to resemble the competition between Coke and Pepsi for shelf space at your local retailers.
And what does that make the ACC? Dr Pepper? 7up? Royal Crown? Double Cola? Faygo?
LikeLike
LOL vp19, but your recommendations are good ones. I would say Dr Pepper…
LikeLike
Bite your tongue. Texas is Dr. Pepper. Give them FRESCA.
LikeLike
Touche GreatLakeState!!!!
LOL!!!!
LikeLike
Vernor’s or you lose all your B1G street cred!
LikeLike
One time, when I was sick in college I sent my girlfriend to the store to get me some ginger ale and she came back with Canada Dry. You can imagine where this story’s going.
LikeLike
Neinas said they have been talking about it since January. It really does freeze the ACC out now.
This Big 12/SEC partnership has the potential to really realign college football even if no more teams move.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Long time fan of your posts…
I completely agree with you. Not to mention the fact that the bowls will be played in regions that could benefit both conferences. I’ve been to the Rose Bow (with Purdue in 2000)l, it is a fantastic experience. It is one of the best run bowls, IMHO. Having said that, the midwest does not benefit economically at all from this partnership. Whether this new agreement selects the Sugar or the Cotton Bowl, their regions will see a bump. While this may not have mattered in the past, I think it matters now. This is a big deal, completely changes the bowl lineup perception, especially for the BIG and its Floriday bowls.
LikeLike
Thanks. You have a real point about the bowls. I REALLY wanted to go to the 2004 and 2005 Rose Bowls knowing Texas might never go there again, but just couldn’t justify it with kids (4 airfares, hotel, $350-$400/ticket-the kids like football but not enough for me to be willing to pay $400/ticket for them) and couldn’t run off across country and leave them with the grandparents for 4 or 5 days. When its closer and you can drive or fly a short distance at a discounted rate, its a lot more feasible. Obviously students figure out ways to do it cheaper and don’t have some of those issues, but its still a lot of money.
So the Rose taking a lot of money and moving it to Pasadena every year, just as the Sugar does for New Orleans.
LikeLike
I wonder if this new SEC/Big 12 partnership means that Texas will stop boycotting Texas A&M and Kansas will stop boycotting Missouri.
LikeLike
Andy: It doesn’t mean that the individual schools aren’t still angry at the Aggies and Mizzou.
LikeLike
@Bob – Yeah, but time heals all wounds. I think it won’t be long before Mizzou and KU start playing again. Deloss Dodds may have to leave before it happens, but I think TAMU & UT will eventually start playing again.
BTW…are you the same Bob in Houston that posts on Texags?
LikeLike
No way Florida State can resist this two-for-one offer. Its future as a football powerhouse depends on it.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t surprise me if the Big 4 conferences reach more deals like this. Big Ten #2 vs Big 12 #2 in the Orange. Big Ten #3 vs SEC #3 in the Cap One. Big 12 #vs Pac 12 #3 in the Fiesta. Pac 12 #2 vs SEC #2 in the Cotton.
If the playoff locations are bid on separately (and not part of the bowls) This would assure top spots for at least the top 4 in each conference (if not 5 with the playoffteams from each conference.)
Teams from the ACC, BE, MWC or CUSA would have to be in the top 4 or be shut out.
It is not fair and perhaps a bit far fetched but the way the power is consolidating, it isn’t that out of the question.
LikeLike
If the Big XII is willing to give the SEC permanent home field advantage I could see something like
Rose B1G #1 vs. PAC #1
Fiesta PAC #2 vs. XII #2
Sugar SEC #1 vs. XII #1
Orange B1G #2 vs SEC #2
The Sugar Bowl would have to put up a lot of money to pull this off (and the Fiesta Bowl is more profitable) but the Big XII is more likely to give up the Fiesta Bowl than the SEC is the Sugar Bowl. Of course the fact that this won’t apply if either team has a top 4 bid makes this tricky to predict.
LikeLike
@Penn State Danny: [i]Teams from the ACC, BE, MWC or CUSA would have to be in the top 4 or be shut out.[/i]
How is that different from what the Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12, and SEC face? Any teams ranked 1-4 go to the playoff, any post season berths outside of that conferences negotiate on their own.
LikeLike
Right now it’s:
SEC #1 vs Big 12 #1 in Sugar (?)
B1G #1 vs Pac 12 #1 in Rose
SEC #2 vs B1G #2 in Capital One
SEC #3 vs Big 12 #2 in Cotton
SEC #4 vs B1G 3 #3 in Outback
Pac 12 #2 vs Big 12 #3 in Alamo
SEC #5 vs ACC #2 in Chik-Fil-A
SEC #6 vs B1G #4 in Gator
B1G #5 vs Big 12 #4 in Insight
Pac 12 #3 vs Big 12 #5 in Holiday
ACC #3 vs Big East #2 in Champs
Pac 12 #4 vs ACC #4 in Sun
ACC #1 vs ? in Orange
Big East #1 vs ? in ?
LikeLike
The ACC bowl deals are terrible.
As of today there is the additional bowl that is the MNC, as well as the Fiesta Bowl. In the future there may be two new bowls that are semi-final games if they are not tied into the current Bowl System. That gives the ACC a little wiggle room for at large placement but still much weaker than the big 4.
Could see the the Fiesta working a deal with the Western half of the Big East (Boise St.)/MWC champ.
LikeLike
The B12/SEC deal was clearly the pretense to Denaley’s coquettish response to ESPN’s expansion question. He was right when he said the Tectonic plates of expansion were hot/moving and that they were observing it with interest.
Meanwhile, in an interview far, far away.
Reporter: “So are you still looking at the ACC?”
Notre Dame: “Who?”
LikeLike
@ Anthony London
Can you explain what the big deal is here? What exactly has been announced that makes it so shrewd and calculating?
Its a nice announcement that will give some more texture to the CFB postseason and its good business to move to add more leverage to future discussions with individual bowls but I don’t think we saw anything revolutionary today.
LikeLike
@ChicagoMac-
“Its a nice announcement that will give some more texture to the CFB postseason and its good business to move to add more leverage to future discussions with individual bowls..”
You answered your own question. Add to that this weakens the ACC in terms of public perception when bowl season rolls around. Smart move by the XII to keep an upper hand over the ACC.
LikeLike
It’s a consolidation and alignment of two power conferences, located in football crazy locales. While the outcome may never, ever happen, the alignment of these two conferences implies, or at least I’m inferring, an agreement on all things football related, which could be used to blunt the influence of the P12/BIG partnership. If this assumption is correct, then the power base in collegiate athletics shifts south. Delany has been fighting/competing with the SEC since, well, forever, and the SEC picked up a huge friend to aid their cause. While I don’t believe this bowl, whatever it will be called, will equal the Rose Bowl in stature anytime soon, the fact that the SEC wants this is interesting. The timing of this partnership is also interesting. I’m sure Slive is sending a message, but what that is and to whom escapes me for now. More on that later…
LikeLike
@Read The D an @ Anthony London:
Thanks for the response here. I guess my point is that this is what it is right now.
It only gets interesting if other events or outcomes further evolve things where this contract may have an influence.
The presumptive grand partnership b/w SEC and Big12 may or may not last. Hell, if the Cotton Bowl and Sugar Bowl both bid and the conferences can’t decide which to accept they might end up suing one another BECAUSE of this deal.
This deal might end up hurting the ACC or it could push Notre Dame closer into alignment with the Swofford and company.
Am I the only one who can see a scenario where Texas and Oklahoma make the 4 team playoff and this bowl ends up pitting the SEC Champion against TCU?
Stewart Mandel seems to be implying that this “Eastern Rose Bowl” and the Real Rose Bowl have really just positioned themselves as the most likely hosts each season for the Playoff semifinals. If that turns out to be the case then how big of an impact is this really going to be?
What if this just leads to a simple +1 model and these 4 conferences end up holding a monopoly on the championship game? I guess that is big impact but what a buzzkill.
LikeLike
Anthony London,
“While the outcome may never, ever happen, the alignment of these two conferences implies, or at least I’m inferring, an agreement on all things football related, which could be used to blunt the influence of the P12/BIG partnership.”
That’s a huge inference. So far it’s just agreeing to play 1 bowl game to take away any advantage the B10 and P12 get from the Rose. The SEC and B12 already agree on many issues, but I don’t see this as indicative of either changing their minds on other things. More likely, it’s a power play to separate from the ACC and the others on one hand and undermine the extra value of the Rose on the other.
“If this assumption is correct, then the power base in collegiate athletics shifts south.”
How? Name something the B12 and SEC have disagreed about that they will now agree upon. This just makes two axes of power and relegates everyone else to a second tier.
LikeLike
Responding to comments way up in the thread. Some of you are so sure that the SEC would have preferred Virginia Tech over Missouri. I don’t buy it. Not only have I heard from Missouri sources that Missouri got the invite over Virginia Tech, (meaning even if VA Tech had pushed for membership, the SEC would have still preferred Missouri), but even the numbers support that preference.
Missouri:
Football:
Conference and Division Titles: 18
Post season record: 13-16
Wins in last 5 years: 48
Average Attendance: 64,120
Basketball:
NCAA Tournaments: 25
Academics:
Flagship school, AAU, Top 100 USNews
TV Markets: Strong in St. Louis, Medium in Kansas City
Virginia Tech
Football:
Conference and Division Titles: 7
Post season record: 9-14
Wins in last 8 years: 53
Average Attendance: 66.223
Basketball:
NCAA Tournaments: 8
Academics:
not a Flagship school, not AAU, top 100 USNews
TV Markets: from what I’ve heard, VA Tech is not strong in the larger Virginia/DC TV markets
If you look at those two resumes, they’re pretty similar, with VA Tech better in some, and Mizzou better in others. Why is it supposed to be so self-evident that VA Tech is the superior choice?
From what I’ve heard, the SEC preferred Mizzou because 1) their studies found that Mizzou was a better TV draw in the markets they were interested in, and 2) Mizzou is a flagship AAU school and VA Tech is not. As far as football, Mizzou isn’t that far behind, and has had to win in a tougher league than VA Tech. And in basketball, Mizzou is worlds better.
Not to say that the SEC might not consider taking VA Tech later, but to imply that they somehow regret taking Mizzou instead or only took Mizzou because they couldn’t get VA Tech just isn’t accurate or reasonable. It’s the opinion of certain fans, but it doesn’t match what actually happened.
LikeLike
Considering Tech’s distance from the D.C. area, it does reasonably well in a market where many aren’t native Virginians. It’s not that much different from Penn State in the Philadelphia market; even into the late 1960s, PSU football games were broadcast on teacup suburban radio stations, not the big ones based in Center City.
LikeLike
I think either were fine for the SEC, but Missouri was available. Pretty simple stuff. I still think the B1G missed on this one, but I get Delany’s position.
LikeLike
Duff,
I think the BIG missed on this one too. I hope they don’t regret this decision, but I think this miss will become bigger over time.
LikeLike
In order to truly regret it, the decision has to have been the right one at the time.
At the time, was there a sound justification for adding MO over NE? Was there a reason to expand to 13 to get MO? Was there a 14th team that wanted to join and made sense financially and culturally?
Unless you can unequivocally say yes to one of those, then there is nothing to regret. Maybe in 50 years MO would have turned out to be a better addition, but there’s no way to know that. NE and MO sounds nice, but 13 doesn’t work. Which #14 would make sense – RU? MD? Other?
LikeLike
Either would be a good add to go with A&M. You must remember that Missouri was playing in the Big XII North which was awful over the past 5 years. Not exactly a tough football conference so their win numbers are a little inflated.
Also, where did you get the conference and division title information? Is that ever? They never won the Big XII and have never been to a BCS bowl.
I think Missouri was a much easier get for the SEC than Va Tech so the Tigers got the nod.
LikeLike
Missouri had three Big 12 North titles, and has won 15 conference titles, with their most recent in 1969. That was their only Big 8 title, the rest were MVIAA or Western Interstate University Football Association.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Tigers_football
LikeLike
Of those three division titles, MU only played in the Big 12 Championship twice. Its 2010 team tied with Nebraska, but lost in a head to head tie breaker.
LikeLike
The thing about the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association is that it was basically the Big Eight in everything but name. Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State all joined nearly 100 years ago. Colorado joined in 47. OSU joined in 58. For all purposes, Missouri’s 15 conference titles are Big 8 titles.
LikeLike
“For all purposes, Missouri’s 15 conference titles are Big 8 titles.”
Wow, talk about spin. Three of those titles were with 2-1 conference records. (Yes, two wins and one loss). In 1893, 1894, 1895. Only two of their conference titles were won by playing seven conference games. Ten of their conference titles were in seasons where they played five conference games or less. The most recent being 1945.
In fact, Iowa won “the Big 8” twice. Once while concurrently a member of the Big 10!
LikeLike
Alright, fair enough, I wasn’t looking at the 3 WIUFA titles from the 1890s. Yes, those are very old. But for the rest Missouri had to beat out Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, and yes, for some years, Iowa. That’s a reasonably tough achievement considering OU and Nebraska are two of the top 5 football powers of all time.
LikeLike
For the record, Missouri won 7 “Big Six” titles. The Big Six played 5 conference games, naturally.
The Big 6 was:
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
That’s a reasonably tough league.
They also won 3 championships when the league had 7 members, either with Oklahoma State or Iowa.
They also won two Big 8 titles, with Colorado and Texas A&M.
When you call it something like the “Missouri Valley” it makes people think of Creighton and Wichita State, but it was basically the Big 8.
LikeLike
Obviously I was distracted when I was typing the end of that last post. The Big 8 didn’t have Texas A&M, I was thinking of Oklahoma A&M, who later renamed themselves to Oklahoma State.
LikeLike
re: “Missouri has never been to a BCS Bowl”. Maybe so, but they’ve been to 3 Orange Bowls, a couple of Sugar Bowls, and a Fiesta Bowl. The BCS only started in the late 90s. Teams have been playing a lot longer than that.
Yeah, they played in the Big 12 North, but not too long ago the Big 12 north had some pretty good teams. Nebraska, Colorado, and KSU were frequently in and out of the top 10. And Missouri had to play 3 Big 12 south schools per year.
Who has VA Tech had to play? I think it’s safe to say VA Tech has had the easier schedule.
LikeLike
Were you even alive for those bowl games?
’72 Fiesta
’70, ’61, ’60 Orange
’66, and ’41 Sugar
LikeLike
Well gee, I guess we shouldn’t count them then. How about we discard all football records form ancient decades like the 60s and 70s. Clearly they shouldn’t count.
One reason this comments section always manages to spread into the range of hundreds and hundreds of posts is that so many people are so worried about one upping each other that they post half-truths and spin, and then somebody calls them out on it, and they combat that with more half-truths and spin.
OK, so now we can’t count football achievements unless they’re from the 80s or sooner. Or maybe it’s just the BCS era? That’s what, 14 years? Everything else doesn’t count. Okay…
Well, that works out pretty well for VA Tech I guess. They’ve been good for less than 20 years, and were nobodies for the 80+ years before that.
Mizzou was good in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 00s. I guess Missouri sucks way worse than VA Tech, since 4 out of 5 of those decades don’t count.
LikeLike
Half truths and spin? Your argument for Mizzou being better than Va Tech included Mizzou’s “18 Conference and division titles” Since the last conference title in ’69 there have been three division titles and it’s hard to claim one of them since they lost the tie breaker to Nebraska.
Army and Navy have more national titles than Missouri. Should we assume that Army and Navy are more a desireable a get for the SEC than Missouri? Of course not. Missuri is a fine school with a lot of positives, you shouldn’t need to use 100+ year old conference titles and 40+ year old bowl games.
LikeLike
heh. Missuri.
LikeLike
Missouri can claim 2 football national titles. one in 1960 and one in 2007. Both times they finished #1 in a national poll. Yeah, not much, but it’s something. I wasn’t comparing Missouri to Alabama or USC, I was comparing them to Virginia Tech. VA Tech doesn’t have any national titles, and didn’t do anything notable until the 90s. Missouri has been in 29 bowl games and has had pretty consistent success for the past 70 years, minus a 13 year stretch from 84 to 96 when they had a string of awful seasons.
LikeLike
In 2007, Missouri apparently finished in first place in some computer ranking that I’ve never heard of. That is not a poll and is not remotely a national championship. But please continue your spin-free discussion.
LikeLike
It’s one of the main computer rankings used in the BCS formula. If you haven’t heard of it then you don’t pay much attention to computer rankings.
I’m fighting spin with facts. Fact is Missouri is so irrelevant at football that they finished the season ranked #1 in a major ranking within the last 5 years. Va Tech has never finished the season #1 in any ranking ever.
LikeLike
Andy,
Did they rename MO the “insecure” state when I wasn’t looking?
“Responding to comments way up in the thread. Some of you are so sure that the SEC would have preferred Virginia Tech over Missouri. I don’t buy it.”
Shocking. The MO fan thinks his school is the best ever.
“Not only have I heard from Missouri sources that Missouri got the invite over Virginia Tech, (meaning even if VA Tech had pushed for membership, the SEC would have still preferred Missouri),”
And those sources aren’t at all biased, are they?
“but even the numbers support that preference.”
Do they? I’ll bet VT fans claim just the opposite. Let’s see.
Football – regular season (past 20 years)
MO – 3 division titles and 0 conference titles (15 years in divisions)
VT – 5 division titles and 7 conference titles (7 years in divisions)
Winner – VT
Football – postseason (past 20 years)
MO – 0 NCG, 0 BCS bowls, 10 bowls (5-5)
VT – 1 NCG (0-1), 8 BCS bowls (2-6), 19 bowls (8-11)
Winner – VT
Football – attendance
MO – 64,120
VT – 66,223
Tie
Sports Cultural Fit
MO – hoops school
VT – football school
Winner – VT
Culture
MO – semi-southern
VT – semi-southern
Tie
Hoops (past 20 years)
MO – 1 conf title, 12 NCAA bids, 3 Sweet 16s
VT – 1 conf title, 2 NCAA bids
Winner – MO
Academics
MO – AAU, USNWR #90
VT – USNWR #71
Tie – it depends what you prefer from a school
Population
MO – 6.0M (#18), growing at 0.36% (#36), only AQ school in state
VA – 8.0M (#12), growing at 1.19% (#12), splits state with UVA
Tie – it depends what you want/need from a school
I can’t justify using TV markets because you gave no numbers to quantify it and you said the numbers would support the preference, plus the 2 major markets in MO are border towns making it even harder to be accurate.
“If you look at those two resumes, they’re pretty similar, with VA Tech better in some, and Mizzou better in others. Why is it supposed to be so self-evident that VA Tech is the superior choice?”
MO wins in hoops. VT wins in football. All else being roughly equal, VT wins pretty easily because football is much more important than hoops..
The key part there is “all else being equal.” The SEC had more data than we do, so there may well be other quantitative measures to swing the decision. Or it could be as simple as one school not wanting it, and everyone making a nice story to feel good about themselves later.
LikeLike
So much for that theory of mine.
After considering staying in MWC, Boise State tells MWC it will still join Big East.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/brett-mcmurphy/19084842
LikeLike
I for one will thoroughly enjoy the once-a-decade meeting of the Big 12 and SEC champs in a setting other than a playoff game.
LikeLike
well, yes, hops, but apparently when the champs are occupied, other ‘worthy’ conference teams will play that game.
LikeLike
Some guy over on the ESPN board had it right: “Right about now the ACC is looking pretty Big Easty and the Big East is looking pretty Mountain Westy.
LikeLike
Is Slive using the B12 to turn the heat up on Delany and the Rose Bowl?
If this game is a win for the SEC every year over the B12 team, it will not get past the 5 year window under the contract but it sure will keep Delany on point on playoff discussions this summer.
LikeLike
@duffman – I think some people are interpreting it that way because the media loves to make it sound like the Big Ten and SEC are at odds with each other, but it may end up being more of a vehicle to have all 4 of those conferences end up on common ground. At the very least, it will be clear that when it comes to revenue sharing (which is honestly where the debate is going to be much more heated compared to the playoff format and access issues), it’s going to be those 4 conferences versus everyone else.
LikeLike
@Frank – I think this was Slive’s way of countering the B1G/Pac 12 alliance (you have to admit that Slive is a pretty wily commissioner). The B1G/Pac-12 had a slight advantage since Swofford decided to back off from allying with Slive, but now Slive and helped reinforce the Big 12 and can now go toe to toe with Delany/Scott on the few issues that they disagree on. Now it appears we have two sets of conferences that are ready to sit down and figure out where the future of college football will go from here. I’m sure they realize that they have the most at stake and will be able to sit down now and iron thing out instead of firing shots through the media.
LikeLike
@ Bamatab,
I think he hit 2 birds with 1 stone! He hit the Rose Bowl and Swofford at the same time.
LikeLike
@duffman – I think you are right. I’d hate to be in Swofford’s shoes right now. There is blood in the ACC waters and the sharks may be circling.
LikeLike
Here is the kicker – if this is a “new” bowl, and not just the Sugar Bowl the bidding war could be intense. So far NBC has been sitting on the sideline with all that cash. They could swing for the fences on this, and still not cost them big dollars. The fact that he hit Swofford makes me wonder if he is telling ESPN indirectly they will need to come strong on the “look in” or they may go a different route. Like it or not the SEC is driving the bus right now until somebody else knocks them out of the seat.
LikeLike
Isn’t the TV contract up for all the (non-Rose) BCS bowls anyway?
LikeLike
Am I the only one not getting how the revenue upside is so much greater for this game than, say, the Capital One or Cotton Bowls?
Matt Hayes @Matt_HayesSN
Source to SN: Goal of new #SEC-Big12 bowl is a stand-alone game with its own (separate) TV contract. Revenue potential “unthinkable.”
LikeLike
Yep, they are making this an Eastern Rose Bowl right down to the separate TV contract.
LikeLike
This bowl is going to be owned and operated by the SEC and Big 12. There will be no middle man (i.e. corrupt bowl committee) keeping the lion’s share of the revenue. This is going to be a HUGE payout to the Big 12 and SEC, one that no other conference can match, at least under current bowl payment structures. A serious power-play by the two strongest, and soon to be richest, conferences in college football.
So do yinz still think FSU and company would foolish to leave the ACC? I mean, Duke’s law school is pretty fantastic, it’d be hard to give up a psychic connection to that. Richard Nixion went there, ya know…
LikeLike
Sorry, the Big 12 will never be as rich as the Big Ten. Not even close. Not unless they can convince Texas to dump the LHN for a conference Network. The BTN is a money making machine that keeps getting bigger and bigger (11% growth this year alone). ESPN contracts alone can’t compete. Besides, the Rose Bowl has its own, separate contract as well.
LikeLike
I strongly doubt there is no bowl committee. Yeah you can end up with corruption like in anything, but you still need a committee there to set-up everything (arrange all the sponsorships, TV deals, seats, etc). Despite problems at a few bowls, bowl committees aren’t evil and I don’t think the SEC and Big 12 are trying to get away from them.
LikeLike
There’s a difference between having a staff to manage the game and a bowl committee. Those guys are local businessmen looking to make money for themselves (and, when they’re feeling generous, for their communities). The staff would be professionals hired by the conferences. It might even be run by a full-time director, but he/she would be an employee of the Big 12 and SEC. And I’m not convinced that all bowl committees aren’t evil.
LikeLike
@Eric
I guarantee you this much: schools will not lose money on this game, like Ohio State did on their last Rose Bowl trip.
A major bowl by the conferences, for the conferences, and of the conferences is going to have a huge impact on how bowl contracts are structured hereafter.
LikeLike
If schools lose money on BCS bowls it’s at least largely a result of conferences distribute the money (not sending enough back to the school).
I guess I’ll concede you can probably structure things in a more efficient way than most committees are now (at least from the conference perspective). If you are talking about the conferences running things directly though, are they talking about directly buying out a BCS bowl? Assuming they aren’t starting up a bowl from scratch, I’m trying to figure out how this could work.
LikeLike
They are starting a bowl from scratch and bidding it out. Check out Chuck Neinas’ interview on the Big 12’s website:
http://www.big12sports.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?catid=24507&id=878299
LikeLike
Seems like it’s still up in the air. It’s hard to imagine the conferences taking over an existing bowl outright, but the Sugar et al won’t want to be further relegated.
LikeLike
My guess is that the Big 12 and the SEC will try to get the Sugar Bowl folks and Jerry Jones into a bidding war for the “Champions Bowl” (I agree with EDSBS, they need to name it something a little more subtle).
Perhaps they’ll end up with some sort of rotation?
LikeLike
Not only will the middle man be partly cut out, but its Big 12 + SEC or nothing. It ratchets up the pressure on the bidders.
LikeLike
Well, not being associated with schools like OkSU and WV does have value.
(As long as you are this defensive about it, people are going to keep taking obvious shots like that)
LikeLike
@ Brian
Where the hell did that come from?
LikeLike
From your paragraph about FSU having to leave the Duke law school. Every time you bring up academics as a bad reason for FSU to not join the B12, you invite the obvious reply that there is significant value in associating with top schools. Don’t bring up the topic if you don’t like the result.
Admissions people will tell you that applications increase when you rise in the USNWR rankings and fall when you don’t. FSU has to consider the impact of going from being seen as a school trying to improve their academics to one joining a group where they don’t need to try so hard. The good thing as far as the B12 is concerned is that not being associated with schools like OkSU and WV has a lot more value to UNC and Duke than to FSU and Clemson.
LikeLike
I think “academics,” by which you mean the USNWR rankings (and I’ve made my feelings known about that subjective metric), are a non-issue for FSU in making this decision. A lot of you folks on here are blinded by your Big Ten perspective that all conferences are as important as academic alliances as they are as athletic organizations. That’s simply not the case without substantial CIC scrilla binding schools together.
You know what also increases applications to a school? Having a football program in the national limelight. When the post-season structure is formed and the new TV deals kick in, the ACC stands to be at a significant competitive disadvantage to the other power conferences. FSU will continue to be out spent and out recruited by their geographic SEC rivals. They will be shut out of the only two bowl games that will really matter. Their athletic department will continue to tread water and their facilities will remain sub-par.
Pragmatically speaking, there’s also significant academic value in having a well-funded athletic department, one that doesn’t force tuition hikes or siphon the attention of booster money away from scholastic needs. Passing on the huge pay day being offered by the Big 12 would be almost as damaging to FSU academically as it would be athletically, unless they consider de-emphasizing football a reasonable alternative.
So yes, go ahead and make your cute little remarks about OK State and WVU and all the other schools that allow you Big Ten folks to feel oh so superior. Fortunately for FSU, it sounds like enough important people in Tallahassee realize that being in an athletic conference with Texas, OU, OK State, and WVU has more value to them than being in one with the snooty, senile remnants of the Tidewater aristocracy.
LikeLike
So, um, have the odds just jumped substantially that there will be new objections and the BCS meetings won’t be able to agree on a 4-school playoff? No agreement ends up after many months and dust and tears with a simple True Plus One of choosing 2 teams after all the bowls?
Think about who benefits now that SEC-B12 champs commit to a bowl. Rose gets P12 and B1G always. B12-SEC champs bowl winner almost certainly ends up with a top 2 ranking. Keeps theoretical access for all conferences, but usually Rose and Sugar winners will be in the nat’l title game.
Perhaps explains DeLoss Dodds’ recent positions on a playoff and shots at B1G’s positions. Posturing, when they may actually be on almost the same page behind the scenes?
Not saying I like this, but…
LikeLike
Neinas did say (link is on Big 12 website) that all 12 BCS partners had agreed on a 4 team playoff. I don’t think that was necessary if there was some subterfuge to create a true +1 instead of a 4 team seeded +1.
LikeLike
I’ll follow you out on that limb. These games are a form of ‘greedy seeding’ for the big 4 that insure the wealth isn’t distributed to the pleebs.
LikeLike
If. If all this forces ND to choose a conference, and it choose the B12, and the B1G decides not to expand, what does NC do? I would think that at the end of the day they’d go SEC with UVA, with VT and NC St chosen by the B1G to go along with FSU, GT, Clem, and ND.
Though I would think it more likely that the B1G would grab NC, UVA, MD, and a 4th (Duke?)
Also wouldn’t rule out a P16 surprise. Perhaps offer ND+Pitt and 2 other eastern buddies (or Miami?) for football only, with those combining with the non-fb schools of a split Big East.
LikeLike
PAC won’t admit religious schools under any circumstances (and I doubt even ND would get a pass). More importantly, ND is going to want as much national exposure as they can get and they are just not going to get that in the western time zone.
LikeLike
frug,
You are aware USC was founded with catholic money right?
LikeLike
Actually, it was founded by money from Catholics, Jews and Methodists and was affiliated with the Methodist church until 1958. But things change.
Not inviting sectarian schools was one of the tiny handful of conditions the conference insisted upon when they gave Larry Scott unilateral authority to pursue expansion back in 2010 and nothing has changed since then.
It takes four votes to block and Cali-4 (especially Cal and Stanford) have made clear they will never allow in any religious schools (and Oregon and Washington have been cool to the idea).
LikeLike
At least they won’t allow in any religiously affiliated schools any time soon. Maybe 20-30 years down line, but not now.
LikeLike
frug,
So if ND comes knocking, they turn them down? I find this almost impossible to believe!
BYU I understand, but with the endowment and alumni, ND seems most like Stanford.
LikeLike
I guess there is no way to know for sure, but they were not willing to take Baylor even if netted them OU, UT and TAMU.
LikeLike
Otherwise known as the BYU excuse rule.
That may change as super-conferences take shape.
Unless, of course, Atlantis University suddenly surfaces with a billion dollar endowment.
LikeLike
I would still be surprised to see Notre Dame choose the Big 12, as the Plains states and Southeast really aren’t chock full of Catholics (or ND students/alums). The Big Ten remains the best bet assuming Notre Dame is bereft of options, if the conference adds a few eastern members ND can regularly play.
LikeLike
Hopefully JerryWorld will win the bidding for this new bowl. That’ll give us “The Yellow Rose Bowl.”
(Yeah, I stole it.)
LikeLike
A few thoughts on this bowl move.
1. Too much is being made of this on other things. This won’t impact the playoff at all. Neither will it do much to hurt the ACC. The Orange Bowl was never going to have the Big 12 or SEC champ anyway.
2. The Rose Bowl has always been the biggest bowl that’s not the national title. They are trying to replicate that success. It says New Years on ESPN. I wonder if that always means New Years or if it will rotate somewhat. If it gets a time slot New Years evening, it will grow up big quick.
3. I like this if and only if they use the Sugar Bowl. The SEC has been playing there forever. If they want to lock in the Big 12 as the opponent that’s great, but they should keep going to the Sugar Bowl.
LikeLike
On #3, the consensus seems to be that it will indeed by the Sugar Bowl. The only hold-up is what the eventual playoff hosting situation will be, and how it will be ironed out if the Sugar Bowl is also in that mix.
LikeLike
@Eric – I think the impact of the bowl is more symbolic with the alignment of 2 clear big bowls with the Rose and Sugar/Cotton with 4 power conferences as opposed to an actual change to the the playoff format. What will be interesting is if this makes it more or less likely that the semifinals will be slotted among the bowls based on conference tie-ins (e.g. #1 B1G champ sent to Rose, #2 SEC champ sent to Sugar/Cotton). If there’s a hybrid format for selecting the playoff (for instance, the one that I had proposed), then the Rose and Sugar/Cotton would have hosted *both* semifinals *every* year since the BCS system was overhauled in 2005 with the exception of 2009.
Regardless, I really like what the SEC and Big 12 have done here. It creates a much higher quality bowl than what we would have seen under the current BCS system outside of the Rose Bowl. Now, the flipside is that it likely makes the matchups in the other BCS bowls weaker, but that’s the trade-off.
LikeLike
If they are keeping their own money, it changes the revenue distribution method for a playoff. Its harder to do a method where you simply divide the participation money among the 10 or 12 participants in the major bowls + playoffs.
LikeLike
@Eric – Yeah, I don’t see where much has changed. This is basically a “runner-up bowl”. The Orange Bowl was almost never going to get the SEC or Big12 champ. The only way I can see this as being significant is if the conference commissioners decide to go with a “true plus one” with both conference champs playing in this bowl. That would be huge.
LikeLike
This is just a reincarnation of the old Cotton Bowl. Play it at Jerry World and call it Cotton Bowl 2.0. Or, maybe it takes the place of the Capital One Bowl. No big deal.
LikeLike
No it isn’t. This will cause some changes. It used to be:
SEC #1 – BCS Title Game
SEC #2 – Sugar Bowl vs Hawaii, Utah, Cincinatti, Virginia Tech, etc
SEC #3 – Capital One Bowl vs Big Ten #2 or 3
SEC #4 – Cotton Bowl vs Big 12 #2 or 3
Now it’s
SEC #1 – Playoffs
SEC #2 – Playoffs? or Sugar Bowl vs Big 12 #1 or 2
SEC #3 – Presumably Capital one Bowl vs Big Ten #2 or 3
SEC #4 – Presumably Cotton Bowl vs Big 12 #2 or 3
Fiesta Bowl gets ?
LikeLike
Let me ask a crazy question. Why don’t the Big 12, Big Ten, SEC, and PAC make a deal amongst themselves to have the winner of the Rose Bowl & the TBD bowl to determine the winner of those four conferences? They wouldn’t have to call it a national championship game but that’s what it would be. Call it the best of the Top four conferences. Everyone else would be SOL. This would FORCE ND to join the Big 10, and anyone from the ACC that could jump, would. I suspect the SEC would grab Virginia Tech and NC State/Maryland/???, the Big 12 would pick up at least a couple including FSU, Clemson and maybe a couple more and the Big Ten would grab the cream, like NC, Virginia, and Georgia Tech along with ND. I am not claiming this scenario is good or bad. I am just saying it could happen.
LikeLike
Because that would require a change in the NCAA rules and they will never get a majority of D-1A to vote in favor that arrangement.
LikeLike
You are assuming (and maybe correctly so) that they stay in the NCAA.
Are you sure about the majority vote needed? I don’t know anything about the procedures required for those conferences to do what I suggested.
LikeLike
Without the cooperation of the mid-majors the Big Boys are at least a decade away from being in a position where they could split from the NCAA (though the $2,000 stipend and guaranteed scholarships could be a way out).
And I believe the additional of another exempt game would require the approval of the majority of D1-A.
LikeLike
Why do people assume that conferences want to make the other conferences go out of business? The major conferences are netting $20M per team. Unless an addition can add to that total for each team (i.e. bring in enough to cover itself AND increase the distribution to everyone else), why bother? I don’t doubt that Florida State can do that for the Big 12. I do doubt whether any other school–other than Notre Dame–can do that.
LikeLike
Who assumed that conferences are trying to kill each other off? Schools and conferences act in a way that is in the best interest for them. However, there actions might end up hurting other conferences.
I don’t think that anyone would argue that Texas wants to kill off other schools or conferences. However, they will act in their best interest i.e. The Longhorn Network, that might have unintended consequences of hurting other schools or conferences.
That is the same logic I use in my suggestion. I don’t think those four conferences would act maliciously to hurt the other conferences. However, IF, and that is a big if, they set it up so there was a final game between the winner of the BIG 12/SEC vs. the PAC10/Big 10, they would only have to split the money between four conferences.
LikeLike
As a Big Ten fan, I’d obviously love the idea.
You’d supercharge the tradition of the Sugar Bowl, and the Rose Bowl would also get a hefty boost back to where it was a few decades ago in terms of tradition/power.
It’d also make the money allocation easy for the semifinals; you’d just have the Rose and Sugar contracts split between the two conferences apiece with the finale split 4 ways (presumably equally).
LikeLike
You’d still be playing the de facto championship game on New Years Day. 🙂
LikeLike
You’re right, but in the long run, the point makes sense.
If they do end up putting the Sugar Bowl in that spot, why not make it Rose winner v. Sugar winner for it all one week later.
The Rose and Sugar TV contracts would explode and the title game money would only be split 4 ways…
Obviously, that’s unlikely to happen given that the point isn’t to kill everyone else, but still; someone has to be thinking about it somewhere (Scott?).
LikeLike
I think if the 4 conferences decided right now to do that, they’d be able to. There would be a lot of risk, but they could announce that they intend to leave the NCAA for football, but would remain within its confines for all other sports if it wants them staying (it would, they wouldn’t want to lose the money). They could even come up with an agreement with the NCAA to continue playing NCAA football teams under certain conditions.
They could even talk about the 8 team playoff they would be having. The CCGs would be the quarterfinals. The Rose Bowl and ???? Bowl would be the semi-finals and then they’d have a “Championship Bowl” or something.
With all of that said, it’s not going to happen. That much change at once is too quick for a system that has proven slow to change and by the time change like that would be possible, the conditions that would let it work will be gone (too many new powers to be filtered down to these conferences).
LikeLike
I think if the 4 conferences decided right now to do that, they’d be able to. There would be a lot of risk, but they could announce that they intend to leave the NCAA for football, but would remain within its confines for all other sports if it wants them staying (it would, they wouldn’t want to lose the money). They could even come up with an agreement with the NCAA to continue playing NCAA football teams under certain conditions.
A. If they left the NCAA they couldn’t play NCAA teams or they would open themselves to antitrust suits.
B. There is no way they could leave the NCAA within the next ten years without the blessing of the mid-majors. If the Alpha dogs threatened to leave NCAA for football the rest of the NCAA could simply threaten to eject them for all sports, which would be a virtual death penalty for the non-revenue sports (they are highly regionalized and depend on mid-majors to “fill out” the ranks). Equally important, if they were ejected they would lack the infrastructure to carry out all the regulatory and administrative task the NCAA handles now. And this is to say nothing of the legal and political problems that could result.
Now if they could help from the mid-majors then they would leave (at least for FB only) by 2014 (when the BCS contracts expire), but it is not clear if the mid-majors would cooperate.
LikeLike
I’m definitely not saying they will (I don’t think they will) or they should (I don’t want them too), but I think they could.
Both sides would have leverage here. The power conferences do need games against the remaining schools and would even have contracts which continued into the future with them (no telling how those would turn out). On the flip side though, the remaining schools need the money the bigger schools bring to the NCAA Tournament. If you remove the majority of the power conference teams the event loses most of its value. In the end, I think the smaller schools need the bigger ones more than the other way around, but they’d negotiate something that allowed the larger schools to remain under NCAA rules for all other sports and pay a little extra in there. For college footbal games between them, they’d agree to something like using home field rules and limiting the number of players eligible for any game between the two to something like 70.
LikeLike
Long term the the smaller schools need the larger ones more, but short term the larger schools need the smaller ones (as vp19 pointed out there would only be 8 men’s hockey programs left).
If they big schools tried break away from the NCAA immediately they would be stuck in a very dangerous game of chicken.
LikeLike
I disagree even short term. Sure there would be sports the big conferences would have to almost put on hold if the smaller schools went through with a threat, but that is nothing compared to what the smaller schools would have to deal with if they lost access to the bigger schools.
Heck if nothing else, the larger schools could form a new governing body that governs everything except football and invite all NCAA members to join. I can’t imagine many division 1 schools/conferences saying no.
LikeLike
Well, what you are getting at is something that would actually be more realistic in the short term, which is another division split like the one in the late ’70s. Since while the “lessor” FBS conferences would oppose the move, all D1 football would entitled to vote on the matter so the Big Boys could lobby the FCS schools. Granted that would tough since the FCS schools are likely not in the mood to do the power conferences any favors after they rammed through the $2000 stipend and 4 year guaranteed scholarships but it is still a more viable option than completely breaking away from the NCAA.
LikeLike
They wouldn’t break away because they don’t need to. The Big 4/5 are continuing to dramatically increase the revenue gap and increasing their exposure. They just keep driving up the cost to play. The stipend was one factor. Facilities is another. Maybe they increase the sports sponsorship/scholarship factor again so it makes it tougher for schools to stay in FBS.
LikeLike
I think its much more likely you get a division “zero” than actually break away. The NCAA president is already talking about some major change of that sort. You have significantly fewer than 300 schools in Division I.
LikeLike
Any separation by the major conferences would have to be for all sports, and logistically that would be a nightmare. Consider ice hockey, for example. If the top five conferences broke away from the NCAA, you would be left with eight — that’s right, eight – men’s hockey programs, the six from the Big Ten (once PSU starts), Boston College and Notre Dame. Men’s lacrosse would have about nine or 10 members.
LikeLike
At the end of the day though, the big conferences could just set-up a new governing body (for everything but football) and invite all NCAA members. It’d only take a few saying yes until you got a stampede.
LikeLike
There is no way
That phrase keeps getting thrown around this website a lot these days. And often is proven wrong within a few days and weeks of its utterance.
LikeLike
dudden madder. the utterer will simply pull back to another hilltop, replant the flag, and yell, ‘there is no way.’
LikeLike
You find a way for the Major Conferences to leave without the blessing/assistance of the smaller conferences without destroying their non-football sports and losing millions of dollars then I will take back what I said. Otherwise, I stand by what I said.
LikeLike
“If the Alpha dogs threatened to leave NCAA for football the rest of the NCAA could simply threaten to eject them for all sports”
Or, everybody leaves the NCAA for football and I get my promotion/relegation system! 😀
LikeLike
You think the NCAA is what’s keeping relegation from happening?
LikeLike
I think the need for conferences to remain consistent across all sports both keeps relegation from happening and has resulted in a lot of collateral damage as a result of realignment that wouldn’t have been the case if football was separate.
LikeLike
morganwick,
“I think the need for conferences to remain consistent across all sports both keeps relegation from happening and has resulted in a lot of collateral damage as a result of realignment that wouldn’t have been the case if football was separate.”
Pleas remind us all of all the American sports leagues which use relegation. What? None, you say. Pray tell, how does the NCAA manage to control all sports from the pros to youth level?
LikeLike
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/05/ncaa_scholarship_rules_it_s_morally_indefensible_that_athletic_scholarships_can_be_yanked_after_one_year_for_any_reason_.html
The Most Evil Thing about College Sports
Athletic scholarships are no guarantee of a four-year education. They can be yanked after one year, for any reason.
LikeLike
Anyone want a diversion? See if you can name all the FBS directional schools. No cheating.
http://www.sporcle.com/games/puckett86/no_stanford
LikeLike
I do think a little too much is being made about this deal with the ACC. My guess is the logic was fairly simple and not that much plotting.
The SEC looked at the big picture, saw that they are the king right now, but that their bowl is worth far less than the Rose Bowl. They saw less than stellar match-ups in a number of years. With change in the system, they can change that. They figured they needed a permanent partner. The Big Ten and PAC-12 are already taken (and they won’t a #2 selection against the SEC’s #1 selection) so that only left the Big 12 and ACC as realistic. The SEC shares a lot more space with the ACC and already has several match-ups against them every year. The ACC might also be a bit more tied to the Orange Bowl than the Big 12 was to the Fiesta. That made the Big 12 the more natural choice.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/19085364/champions-bowl-changes-college-footballs-big-picture
The most amazing thing was, this was done in the last two weeks and it never leaked,” said Neinas proudly.
I’m a little disappointed at the WV bloggers for missing this one.
LikeLike
One WVU guy did say there was an announcement the day before, but noone knew what it was.
LikeLike
This is about to get good. What is the over/under on a team from the ACC bolting? I give it four weeks.
LikeLike
A couple of Pete Thamel (@PeteThamelNYT) tweets.
Just spoke with Jim Delany about the new Big12-SEC arrangement: “I think it’s a strong move and I congratulate them on it.”
Swarbrick added that the Big 12 and SEC folks kept him abreast of the talks the past few months, which he appreciated
ND AD Jack Swarbrick on new B12-SEC allignement. “We don’t think it has significant near-term consequences for Notre Dame.”
As much as people think Notre Dame doesn’t matter anymore, it seems no move is made in CFB with out informing the Irish beforehand. Crazy.
LikeLike
@Michael – It’s not crazy – it’s good politics. ND has the effective power of an entire conference, but you only have to deal with one school (as opposed to dealing with commissioners that have to run decisions by 10/12/14 schools ). That’s a powerful ally when you get down to actually voting on matters. No one wants to blindside ND and piss them off for that in the short-term and a lot of other reasons in the long-term.
LikeLike
ND has the effective power of an entire conference
I guess we can add that to the reasons ND won’t join a conference.
LikeLike
So rather than force ND to join a conference in full, it is more likely to simply push ND to join the B12 for everything but football? Such arrangement would get ND bowl access via the B12, might actually be easier and just as profitable to schedule in the B12 than going to 16, and would still have access to the playoffs.
Regarding the playoffs, if the SEC and B12 are against conf champs only, I can’t see that proposal winning out without some form of compromise. All you need is top 3 conf champs + 1 wildcard, or treat the best of all football independents as a conf champ if they are ranked in the top 4 (or 3, or 2, or 1, depending on what compromise is negotiated.)
Might even see eventually a national confederation of independents form of the best non-power conference schools that coordinate for scheduling, TV purposes, RPI/SOS, and playoffs/bowls access. Think BYU, Boise, UHou, Miami, schools that are geographically isolated for football or in regional conference too weak to make the top 4 with their conf schedule. Or perhaps a repeal of NCAA restrictions on being in a different conf for fb.
We might see the B12 stop at 14 if it is FSU,GT, Clem, and ND in full, but going to 16 might not be the best for $ and would reduce scheduling flexibility (until the NCAA allows pods that don’t require playing everyone in the division in order to have a CCG.) Stopping at 14 with ND as the 15th but indy in fb would allow the B12 to only schedule marquee games against ND and not force a lot of weaker games (ISU-GT, Kansas-Pitt, etc.) that going to 16 would require. Might actually increase revenue, or at least equal, as compared to adding ND in full.
LikeLike
ND to Big XII is not gonna happen and I can’t figure out why anyone outside of Deloss Dodds thinks it would. Adding Notre Dame for non-football sports is a money loser and so long as the GOR is in effect the Big XII has no reason to take them as a defensive move.
Plus adding ND would require tearing up the GOR and nobody is going to agree to that.
LikeLike
I’m starting to think think that with this SEC/B12 Sugar Bowl alliance (it just CAN’T be anywhere else!) puts the unseeded Plus-1 format back on the table. The Sugar and Rose become de facto semifinals. The Orange can take the ACC champ and a best-of-the-rest team, but the Orange’s winner gets left out of the NC game 90% of the time.
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge…
I think that scenario is possible but I think its most likely that this threat will just be used as mechanism to get the payouts the 4 conferences want.
LikeLike
@Alan – Maybe the “4 Teams Plus” comes back in a modified form, where the Rose and Sugar/Cotton tie-ins are locked in and then two other bowls take the next 4 highest ranked teams.
LikeLike
Completely in agreement: this HAS to be in New Orleans.
LikeLike
negatory, buffalo bob.
LikeLike
The best part of this is that it would align the interests of the 4 top conferences. If they do choose the Sugar Bowl (which I think everyone assumes is the favorite to get that bowl), then the SEC and Big 12 have as much of an interest in preserving that as the Big Ten/Pac-12 have in preserving the Rose Bowl.
All in all, this move is a win for all of the 4 conferences.
LikeLike
According to this interview with Deloss Dodds, the bowl would be owned by the SEC and Big 12, so it won’t be the Sugar or Cotton Bowl. He mentions New Orleans, Dallas, and Houston as possible sites.
LikeLike
Thinking about it, there are only so many cities with an acceptable stadium-those 3, Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville, Nashville, Charlotte, Atlanta, San Antonio. Miami is probably too far south. Nashville and Charlotte too far north. Jacksonville doesn’t have the money. Atlanta is the home of the SEC ccg. So you are down to New Orleans, Dallas, Houston, Tampa and San Antonio.
Tampa and San Antonio are great cities for tourism, but are the furtherest east and west and San Antonio doesn’t have as big a stadium. Houston and Dallas aren’t tourism meccas, but they have excellent stadiums. Dallas has two negatives-the January weather and the fact that it could be a preferred B12 ccg site.
New Orleans is the clear leader, but Houston could be a serious dark horse candidate. It doesn’t have Jerry Jones, but doesn’t have the two negatives Dallas has.
LikeLike
It will be a new bowl but given the option to create new infrastructure ir bid it out, i think theymwill accept an offer from the Sugar Bowl, The Cotton Bowl, JerrahWorld Bowl or the LSSE (who run the Texas Bowl). Te first two would require the existing bowls to make the conferences partners in the bowl. That is they could give the B12/SEC their name and infrastructure for a piece of the profit. Te Texas Bowl is already approved by the NCAA and could change their name and date they play. JJ could get NCAA approval and name the bowl whatever he and his new partners, Slive and Bowslby, agree on togethher.
LikeLike
Oh, and dwelling on this overnight, I think I’m in agreement with your main point as well. Despite all the talk of a four-team event, anyone with $ looking at this new bowl game can do the same analysis we’re doing and see it would be substantially more valuable if one could guarantee that the leagues’ respective champions will be playing in it each year.
LikeLike
http://houston.sbnation.com/2012/5/18/3028911/sec-big-12-bowl-alliance-heres-the-games-the-agreement-would-have
Likely matchups for the new SEC-Big XII matchups going back to the founding of the Big XII in 1996 assuming CCG loser replaces national title contender and no more than 1 team from each conference in playoffs.
LikeLike
I should say I don’t entirely agree with the teams that would selected in the event one or both of the champs was in the title game.
LikeLike
I started replicating this myself, but I was under the impression that the “Champions Bowl” would select the best non-champion from the SEC rather than be locked into selecting automatically the loser of the SEC Championship Game.
But wither either methodology, he reached the same conclusion I did: so long as the SEC (and, to a lesser extent, the Big 12) remains so dominant, the Champions Bowl will resemble nothing more than a warmed-over Cotton Bowl of recent vintage, although the SEC representative could be slightly better in certain years than the team which has represented the conference in the Cotton.
LikeLike
That’s probably why the SEC/Big 12 might be able to be persuaded to make that bowl a de facto semifinal instead with the unseeded format or something else…
LikeLike
One of the effects of all this realignment is that we are seeing a number of teams that play in the FCS trying to capitalize on the chaos by moving up; Georgia State, UNC Charlotte and Old Dominion have moved up and Delaware, who has stated repeatedly in the past they were happy as an FCS program is now talking about possibly moving up and applying to the MAC. Appalachian State and James Madison are also looking at their best options. The FBS is growing and the gap between the power conferences and the rest is growing wider.
I think after the dust settles with Florida State and Clemson/Louisville and the Big XII you will see another major realignment between programs from MWC, Conf. USA and BE into a totally new all sports conference. There are enough quality teams between those 3 conferences that you could create a good conference but it would have to be a version of the Big Country Conference proposed by @frank when discussing BE expansion. A core group of any of the following BE programs: UConn, Rutgers, and Louisville (provided they are still in BE) along with Boise State, San Diego State would have a chance to be the clear number 6 conference behind the ACC. And if they could convince BYU to join their ranks it would give them a high profile program with a large following.
LikeLike
So how many votes does it take for the ACC to remove the exit penalties? To vote to disband? Soon they may have as many as 10 or 11 wanting to move to new home.
LikeLike
Make 10 or 11 with a safe new home.
LikeLike
Well let’s be honest, how many schools actually are going to have landing places, and how many are going to care to move?
FSU, Clemson, Va Tech are the 3 that I would be most likely to be affected. Possibly Maryland if Notre Dame goes to the Big Ten and needs a partner.
UNC-Duke, UVa, NC State, Wake Forest, Ga Tech, Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, BC all seem to have no other options if you think that UNC would just keep the conference together because it likes having its own home and wants to be with Duke, NC State, UVa, Wake Forest.
You’d have to think that that latter group of 10 is going to stay together.
The first 4 though are probably going to examine their options heavily. FSU and Clemson are going to heavily consider bolting if there’s a seeded plus 1 and the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl become de facto semifinals as a result. That gives them a huge impetus to consider the Big 12.
The SEC is likely to call Va Tech and see if there’s anything doing there. I don’t know who the partner would be though. NC State can’t really leave UNC without UNC accepting. Would there be a war over FSU between the SEC and Big 12? FSU-Va Tech would probably be the best twosome for the SEC…
The Big Ten is likely to gauge interest with ND (although none of this really changes ND’s situation; I do think a seeded plus 1 makes the ACC less likely to be ND’s eventual landing spot which is good for the Big Ten), and this could impact Maryland.
LikeLike
I could see the Big 12 grabbing Clemson and FSU, while the SEC stands pat.
I’m not sure Va Tech is as into the “rat race” as FSU is based on the comments out of their AD and Beamer with respect to competition in the SEC (giant stadiums and budgets that dwarf theirs along with recruiting out of their league).
The SEC is already at 14 and a move to 16 would force big changes on their football alignment. For the right two schools, they’d undoubtably consider that, but Va Tech + who? is the question.
LikeLike
Does the SEC have a grant of rights? If it doesn’t, and I’m Maryland and desperate, I would try to arrange a combo entrance with Virginia Tech, with hopes that down the road, the Big Ten might indeed expand and Maryland could partner with either Notre Dame or (this would really be sneaky) Missouri. (Remember, the SEC has no exit penalty.) Even if the Big Ten never comes calling, you’re in a wealthier, more secure conference than the ACC can ever hope to be, and your football recruiting would get a heck of a lot easier. Let Clemson and Florida State go to the Big 12 first, then team up with the Gobblers.
LikeLike
@vp19 – The SEC does not have a grant of rights deal.
LikeLike
The SEC has no GOR, exit penalties or waiting periods. It’s actually something they are quiet proud of. (Though if they try to set up a TV network they will have to sign a GOR since the conference would need to own the member schools TV rights)
LikeLike
Make that “quite proud” since they proclaim it loudly.
LikeLike
nice, frug.
LikeLike
I hope bamatab and others understood that the scenario I envisioned for Maryland wasn’t perceived as a slap at the SEC; I think it’s obvious that all things being equal, Maryland would prefer to wind up in the Big Ten. But as was the case with Missouri, I think of a line from that old Smokey Robinson and the Miracles song (one, curiously, he didn’t write, but was instead written by Holland-Dozier-Holland, with Smokey sounding like the Four Tops’ Levi Stubbs) — “I may not be the one you want, but I know I’m the one you need.”
If not the Big Ten, then the SEC, even if it isn’t quite the best cultural fit; otherwise, you’re doomed to irrelevancy (or the Big 12, an even worse match for College Park than the SEC).
LikeLike
I went to the Hokie and UNC boards and they are in full meltdown mode right now. The VT fans have already started screaming for the SEC. That didn’t surprise me. Here is a link to their board (the format of the board is total crap IMO): http://www.techsideline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?83-Conference-Realignment
But what I found on the UNC board did surprise me a little bit. The majority of their fanbase are now wanting to go ahead and make a move to the SEC. They seem to be willing to abandon their “NC brothers”, in order to get into a relevent top four conference (which the ACC now appears to not be). Now some of them feel that the faculty will push for the B1G, but the fanbase seems to want the SEC for the most part. I think there will be a showdown between the UNC faculty and the UNC AD/fanbase/boosters. Regardless, I’m starting to think one of either the SEC or B1g will end up with UNC before all is said and done. Here is a link to their forum: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=78&f=1408
LikeLike
@bamatab – I’m not that surprised about their fan boards, but I’d be interested to see the breakdown between UNC “T-shirt” fans as opposed to actual UNC alums. UNC is about as wine-and-cheese of a public university as you can get, so the academic argument for them isn’t solely a faculty concern.
LikeLike
@Frank – That may or may not be the case. Most of their t-shirt fans are basketball fans, not football fans. And some of the arguments for the SEC are not only for football, but for their spring sports like baseball & golf. Plus keep in mind that they are still in a southern school in a southern state. They may feel more of a cultural connection with the eastern SEC schools. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how it plays out.
I’m just surprised that their fans are already willing to dump the ACC. It didn’t even take a day for panic to set in. And you can bet the other ACC schools are in panic mode as well. It’ll be interesting to see what happens now with the ACC schools. I’m starting to think it is inevitable that the SEC, B1G, and Big 12 carves up the ACC.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten wants UNC…they’ll take UNC. My outlandish idea isn’t looking so outlandish after yesterday…
http://nittanylionsden.com/2012-articles/may/if-the-acc-implodes-big-ten-expansion-scenarios.html
LikeLike
Nice breakdown of the pods (But the Michigan pod has to be ‘Lakes’). I wouldn’t mind switching Duke for another football power. VT perhaps, to go along with UVA -but UNC and Duke are similarly joined at the hip. If Geography were no consideration I think Miami is a diamond in the rough. Notre Dame, North Carolina, Miami and (choosers choice) would be my illogical dream expansion but I won’t hold my breath.
LikeLike
I know bball is just a drop in the bucket…but the UNC/Duke rivalry alone is worth quite a bit…and add to that the fact that Duke alumni are far more dispersed throughout majors cities than even UNC fans…and you can see how the BTN would love to have Duke vs. Purdue, Duke vs. Ohio State, Duke vs. Minnesota games all winter long. (Not to mention some of the even BIGGER bball names).
Miami and Notre Dame are an interesting pair though.
LikeLike
I still think it looks pretty outlandish.
#1 Many of you predators are making the same mistake now that you’ve made all along in this reallignment business….ignoring cultural and institutional fit. The BIG isn’t going to add 4 teams from the same region. To do so would invite internal division in the future.Eventually this new bullshit BIG 12 is going to fall apart, because the members lack fit and have different agendas.
#2, I believe the news about the ACC’s death has been greatly exaggerated.
#3 How in the world is Duke a “perfect fit” with the Big 10? You mean being a very s\mall (smaller than NW), private, snobby, private school with crappy football and terrible football attendance? I don’t see Duke ever being in the BIG or SEC…..I think Duke gets left behind if NC and NC State depart.
#4 Were the ACC to implode, I think the best bet to go to the BIG would be Maryland, because MD is a border state and U of M is an absolute fit with the Big 10. NC might go to the BIG, but it might just as well go to the SEC, southern ties and all. And I still think Rutgers is a good bet. Delaney aches to get into the NY market.
#5 If the BIG ever HAD to go to 16, the smartest expansion would be ND, Missouri, Maryland, and Rutgers. This would be 10x smarter than your proposal. If no ND and only going to 14………..MD would be best, with either MO or Rutgers.
LikeLike
The BIG isn’t going to add 4 teams from the same region. To do so would invite internal division in the future.
I posted this below, but for a conference like the Big 10 going out of region isn’t an issue. They have a GOR that keeps everybody in place no matter what, and the most equitable revenue distribution system in all of college sports. I just don’t see what sort of internal divisions you are predicting (and they certainly aren’t financial sense the Big 10 already makes more money of its MBB programs than the ACC does)
LikeLike
The Big Ten already had a shot at Missouri. And passed.
Your comments #1 and #4 almost contradict each other. UMD isn’t really a new region. Their football is no better than UNC…which IS INDEED a new area with a great population base that isn’t already impacted at all by the BTN. Their academics are superior. Trust me…UNC would be taken over UMD in a heartbeat by the Big Ten. If they can get them? That’s another question.
I agree on Rutgers. The NJ population pull (and tiny imprint into NYC) and the institutional fit with the Big Ten make them an intriguing option. But I simply like UVA better than them now. MUCH better school, a little bit better football, much better basketball. Duke is my tag-along program with UNC. If ND is off the table, I’d take Rutgers.
If the ACC implodes, UNC/UVA/Duke are the perfect three. Rutgers/Notre Dame gets the last spot.
LikeLike
I’d rather have UVA than Rutgers also, but UVA is not a better school than Rutgers. While they are better for undergrad their graduate programs are well behind Rutgers’ which is why Rutgers outranks UVA by a decent margin in both the Shanghai Express/AARW and Times Higher Education ratings.
LikeLike
You didn’t lock IN/PU. How can I take a plan that puts IL/PU above IN/PU seriously?
LikeLike
You can’t. It’s all hogwash. Where have you been? I was starting to think I had half of a brain without you around here. I’m glad to be brought back to earth. 🙂
LikeLike
Can someone please fire up Purple Book Cat? It looks like the SEC is going to 16 with 2 from the states of Virginia and Carolina, so B1G expansion or not is a huge shoe waiting to drop.
Need to hear from Our Man in Havana, err, Evanston, err, Park Ridge.
LikeLike
He’s probably concocting some silly outcome, but if anything in this new Big 12/SEC system affects a playoff (seeded +1) and the stature of the ACC, it’ll only push the Big Ten to wait more on Notre Dame as a more likely destination if it comes to that…
LikeLike
It “looks like the SEC is going to 16 with 2 from the states of Virginia and North Carolina”???………….Man, the internet is really something……………..
LikeLike
Possible side effect of SEC-Big 12 move: We now have 4 of the Big 5 conferences with double hosting format. This probably increases the chances that all 4 of them would prefer semi-finals be based on tie-ins. Both bowls values go way up if they are usually hosting a semi-final and thus can potentially pay the 4 conferences more.
The flip side of the argument though is that the Big 12 and SEC might prefer the bowl remain outside the semi-finals as a high paying bowl in addition to their semi-final spots.
LikeLike
Well we don’t know. As of now all that they’ve said is they’ll bid it out…
The thing is, they want it on New Year’s Day right after the Rose Bowl (presumably).
If that’s the case, then it’s likely to end up being the Sugar Bowl, and we’re more likely to get a seeded +1.
But we have to see what happens. If they create it wholly separate, then we could be in for something different…
LikeLike
Another side effect of all this — one that could backfire on college football — is that as the conferences stand now, schools east of the Appalachians and from North Carolina on up, the most heavily populated region of the U.S., are effectively shut out of competing for a national title. Virtually no chance for the ACC, even less for the Big East; they might as well go to the FCS with James Madison and Villanova. This setup will likely be a turnoff for college football fans in the Northeast, and ratings in that part of the country will probably decline. If you’re a prep player along the eastern seaboard and want to play for a national title, your closest choices are Penn State and West Virginia. You want to further regionalize college football? This is more or less what you’re doing.
LikeLike
Didn’t that already happen in the Northeast already though? Outside of Penn State, you end up with a lot of New Jersey recruits going elsewhere (although Rutgers did a better job of grabbing them under Schiano). Northeast football has already been farmed out to elsewhere.
The Mid-Atlantic is where your point is definitely more operative. I also think you don’t want to lose the North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland regions, but in some sense, those schools haven’t been competing at the highest level outside of Va Tech for a while at this point.
We’ll see those schools end up in good situations though. I think Maryland is more likely to end up in the Big Ten at some point than Rutgers, and that obviously is tied to the Notre Dame question.
LikeLike
Well Penn St. means that you are not cutting off the northeast. Effectively what you are losing is North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey and New England. However, those first three have no reason to be cut off. At least 5 of UNC, NC State, Duke, UVA, V-Tech and Maryland should be able to find homes in the Big 4 assuming they aren’t too stubborn to do so.* Yes, that would still cut off everything northeast of Pennsylvania but college sports is never going to be popular there so it’s not as huge a loss as it would seem based on population density alone.
* I know the core of the ACC loves the way things are now but if it looks like they are at risk of being left behind by the Big 4 (and I don’t just mean financially) they will suck it up and go elsewhere.
LikeLike
If that happens, it’ll be because college football was never that popular in the Northeast to begin with. College football’s strongholds have always been the Midwest and South.
LikeLike
vp19,
“This setup will likely be a turnoff for college football fans in the Northeast, and ratings in that part of the country will probably decline.”
What CFB fans in the NE? How much lower can the ratings go there? They are pro fans that only tune in for major games, none of which involve regional teams (except PSU).
LikeLike
I just went over to the VT and UNC boards and they are in full meltdown mode right now. I’m guessing that the other ACC boards are also in panic mode.
The VT boards are already screaming for a move to the SEC, which I guess isn’t all that surprising. Here is a link to their forum (which has the worst format I have seen in quite some time): http://www.techsideline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?83-Conference-Realignment
But what surprised me was the UNC board. The fans on that board seem to be wanting the SEC, even if it means ditching their NC brothers. Now some feel that the faculty will push for the B1G, but the fanbase seems to want the SEC by a pretty good margin. I think it could come to a showdown between the UNC faculty and the UNC AD/fanbase/boosters. Either way, I think UNC is in one of those two conferences within the next year or two. Here is the link to their board, it is an interesting read: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=78&f=1408
LikeLike
Sorry for the double post. ignore this one. I didn’t think my last one took.
LikeLike
I just want to know how you can subject yourself to reading message boards of schools you don’t even care about. I won’t even put up with them for my alma mater.
LikeLike
I’ll read other schools’ message boards if those schools are related to a subject that affects Bama or in this case the SEC (which then affects Bama). Plus I’m not just a Bama fan, but a college football fan. And in this case, I wanted to see what the fanbases of UNC and VT were saying about this issue (and I was quite suprised at the UNC fanbase).
LikeLike
Not a surprise to see ACC fans in full meltdown mode.
This SEC-Big 12 deal is a game changer in terms of perception for the ACC.
Before the ACC could always say that they were as stable as the Big Ten, SEC, and Pac-12, and thus they were on that tier.
Now it’s obvious that the Big 12 is on that tier because of Texas/OU, whereas the ACC doesn’t have much football relevance because of its 2-13 record in the BCS.
The BCS performance of the ACC has really hurt it; both not getting to the title game in a long time and not performing well at all in those games that it gets to…
Now, where does this take us is the biggest question. I think Va Tech is much more likely to consider doing something than it was before. That’s for certain because even if the SEC is so tough to compete in on terms of stadium size, budgets, etc., they’d have to consider that route as a football school.
For other schools like UNC, it’s harder to see where this brings them. I mean, UNC is a basketball school, even though football does drive the bus in the major sense. It’s just hard to read where the powers that be at UNC are, since no one has any real clue what the school wants.
At least with Texas, you know what Dodds wants; with the Tobacco Road group, no one has any idea beyond some semblence of their own fiefdom… and it isn’t really well-known how important that is relative to being in a power football situation…
LikeLike
I don’t think the ACC dies so much as refocuses into a basketball-centric conference, losing its football-oriented members and possibly merging with the Big East as a last resort. Remember, the ACC is entirely dependent on two schools, one of which sucks at football and the other of which doesn’t care about it. If they’re smart, they’re not panicking too much right now, even though they could lose a massive number of schools that do care about football (Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Boston College, and worst-case every school outside North Carolina – but can you imagine a basketball conference composed of the North Carolina schools and the Big East Catholics?).
LikeLike
You’re vastly overrating North Carolina and Duke’s value relative to the rest of the conference; over the years, ACC men’s basketball history has been far more balanced than it’s been the past decade. N.C. State and Maryland, in particular, have underperformed in recent years — State through a coaching revolving door, Maryland through Gary Williams’ reluctance to play the AAU game — though it appears Gottfried might have revived State (more than a few people are picking the Wolfpack as 2012-13 ACC favorites) and many like Turgeon’s incoming class at Maryland (though thanks to suspensions and defections, the team will be extremely young). And of course there’s Florida State, which won the tourney this past season and has been to the NCAA four years running, though I expect that to soon be moot in ACC terms. And we haven’t even thrown Syracuse and Pittsburgh into the mix.
I suppose you could merge the North Carolina four and Virginia with Big East schools to form a conference, but until January such conference would have minimal TV appeal (and minimal revenue to boot). As much as they love hoops in Chapel Hill, I doubt any UNC people want to sink to East Carolina’s monetary level, at least where football perception is occurred, as it would probably knock its overall athletic program from its perennial top 10 status. If that meant aligning with State rather than Duke in any eventual conference realignment, so be it, whether ESPN likes it or not.
LikeLike
You may be right……but I’ll go with Morgan on this. I thnik the NC schools stick together….I think Miami, VA, Syr, and Pitt also stick around. I think VA Tech also stays, although it wouldn’t be a shocker to see them to ther SEC. Add Rutgers and U Conn and you’ve got a basketball-first east coast conference that will survive, if not thrive.
LikeLike
UNC was a name that quietly came up with Mizzou as “Team #14” for the SEC a year ago. There were back-channel discussions, and obviously nothing came of them. With an unstable ACC on the horizon, I’d watch UNC and VaTech closely.
LikeLike
I have another crazy idea. No one has really been talking about the Pac12. You know Larry Scott is not going to sit quiet during this process. I can see Larry making a play for 4-6 schools from the ACC to make an Eastern Pod. I don’t know if he will be successful, but I bet he tries.
I wonder how Duke & UNC would feel about having a four to six team Eastern division of the Pac 12. Academically, I think those ACC schools would like the fit with Stanford, Cal, Colorado, etc. In addition, they can keep in tact the rivalries and relationships with the ACC core. They won’t have that if they go to the SEC or the Big Ten.
In addition, imagine what it would do for the Pac 12 Network.
LikeLike
I remember a Cal-Maryland home-and-home football series a few years back that opened in College Park at a noon ESPN-mandated start (9 a.m. Berkeley time), with a Saturday night season opener at Cal the following year (10 p.m. or so in College Park). Now multiply those outliers to the dozens, and you understand why a Pac pod in the eastern time zone would be logistical folly.
LikeLike
I’m not sure Larry Scott will really want to do anything.
The Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance gets them huge Eastern exposure through the visits from and to Big Ten schools.
They don’t really need to consider an Eastern pod in order to accomplish what the Big Ten is already giving them essentially.
LikeLike
good lord………
LikeLike
The idea is comparable to MLB assimilating the 12 teams of the two Japanese leagues into its system. Even if North American and Japanese baseball are similar in talent and skill, the logistics of the concept make it financially unpalatable — unless you actually like the idea of having your favorite MLB team do a road trip where all the games start at 3 or 6 a.m. local time. (I’m sure Seattle and Oakland loved doing that this past March.)
LikeLike
It is possible.
Although the usual know-it-all’s here will scoff and snootily scorn you that is completely unthinkable and you are an idiot for even considering it. Just like with the ideas that the B12 would survive, that Texas would turn down invites to the oh so much superior P10 or B1G or ACC, that WV and TCU would be good additions, that the B1G would ever agree to a real playoff, that FSU would consider leaving, etc. They sure are confident and certain in their wisdom, never fazed by their actual track records…
LikeLike
And of course one of the first ideas they vociferously scorned, that the P10 would ever sully themselves by even considering such trash as TxTech, Okie St, and OU to get UTx.
LikeLike
That’s all fair.
But at some point logistics become an issue. Why exactly would the Pac-12 go for a 4 team pod way in the east? And why would those schools go for that?
They still have their eyes on Texas/OU too…
All I’m saying is, all of the moves have been geographically rational for the most part. WVU to the Big 12 was an exception.
Why exactly would a huge chunk of the ACC feel the need to go to the Pac-12 when most of them could get invites to the other 3 nearby?
LikeLike
if he does and is successful, watch for az and az st to be included in the east pod.
LikeLike
I get a daily college sports newsletter from the News & Observer in Raleigh, the dominant paper in the Research Triangle, and this morning neither it nor a check of its online general sports section had anything about the Big 12-SEC alliance, much less its potential (negative) effects on the ACC. Is it hiding your head in the sand, ignorance or both? Gives you an idea of the mindset every ACC member from Clemson on south is trying to escape.
LikeLike
That didn’t stop the Big East from having San Diego St. and Rutgers in the same conference. Remember, the PAC 12 also tried to get Texas and that is only one time zone away from Maryland. I suspect they won’t be too worried about the logistical challenges.
LikeLike
BigXXII-SEC bowl will break the ACC and the bigLeast, and drive MD and ND to the Big10.
LikeLike
The whole thing is just getting crazy. Sometimes you need to breathe and take a step back. The funny thing about the ACC is how everyone seems to want their schools. People want the Virginia’s, Virginia Tech’s, UNC’s, FSU’s, Clemson’s, Maryland’s, Miami’s. and Georgia Tech’s. That’s 8 schools! Is there anyone in the Big 12 other than Texas and Oklahoma that any other major conference would want? I’m sure a conference would take on a Texas Tech or a OSU if it got one of the big boys. But if all Big 12 schools were free agents, would the SEC or Big 12 pick up any of them? How did the ACC back itself into a situation where a conference with such little appeal outside the big names become the power player? Is Texas itself that powerful? Maybe…
I guess the big question is what happens from here. I feel bad for the ACC because they’re not really all that different from the Pac 12 or the Big 12. I’d say the Pac 12 is actually worse athletically, but they do have the high end football programs (USC and right now Oregon). The Big 12 is living off two programs. I fully realize Big 12 football is strong, but timing is also an issue. Miami and FSU are on some of their biggest down swings in recent history. Baylor and OSU are coming of their all-time best Big 12 seasons. TCU is just coming off their all time best run. All those schools are bound to regress after their big name QBs have left (TCU has survived Dalton, although I’d like to see them and how their record is in a major conference). Kansas State seems irrelevant if Bill Snyder is not around. I fall those schools cycle down (and Baylor and OSU should step back significantly this year), then the Big 12 is just Texas and Oklahoma. That does not really compare to the depth of the Big 10 or SEC.
So what does happen? I have a hard time seeing the Pac 12 expand. There are really are not options. ACC schools can’t become full time members with people on Pacific time. I’m not sure how enthusiastic the SEC is about expanding. There are schools that can help add value, but no real huge names. And at some point, you’re diluting the core of the conference. If schools like Tennessee and Auburn never play each other because of the sheer numbers, there’s something lost there. I guess it depends on how much money additional schools can add. I have a hard time seeing the Big 10 moving without Notre Dame unless there’s a complete free for all on the ACC. So it all comes down to the Big 12 and what they even want.
The irony being that a football program might actual be better served by being in the ACC. The ACC is not the Mountain West. They have good money and good access television wise (mind you not great money). FSU supposedly chose the ACC over the SEC twenty years ago in part due to quality of competition. While some of the big conferences beat up on each other, a somewhat decent ACC could run the table. And while pollsters have always penalized non BCS schools like TCU, Utah, and Boise State, they have not really dinged the ACC or Big East as much. Witness an undefeated Cincy team being ranked ahead of a one loss Florida team (even though when they met in the Bowl, Florida was an enormous betting favorite). I don’t know if Pollsters would continue to pay any respect to the ACC in the future, but imagine a school like Virginia Tech. Is it more likely they beat the ACC schools and run the table and out fox Tennessee AND Georgia AND Alabama AND Auburn AND LSU AND Florida? It’s still a tough sell for any school, however.
So the question remains, is there any move left for the ACC? Outside of the Notre Dame Hail Mary, can they go back to ESPN and hope it wants to up its contract in an effort to actually have programming? Can they minimize the losses to a football school or two and have everyone else happy being a “mid-major”, lurking somewhere between the Big 4 and everyone else? Can they convince everyone to stay put for a few years and at least let thing plays out. If in 2-3 years FSU is again a Top 10 squad, then the ACC doesn’t look so bad quality wise. Does not resolve the money issue, but access wise it would have to be recognized.
LikeLike
The problem with ACC football is entirely in recent performance.
2-13 in the BCS without being to the Championship in a while.
That’s the whole crux of their problem.
The Big 12 has FSU and Miami, The Pac-12 has USC + 1 (Oregon right now). The Big 12 has Texas and OU.
Of course the Big 12’s middle programs are outperforming the Pac-12 and ACC middle of the road programs. But it all comes back to FSU and Miami. If they were performing as well as Texas, OU, USC, Oregon have in the past decade, then the ACC isn’t where it is right now.
LikeLike
Er, meant that 4th line to say “The ACC has”
LikeLike
I fully agree. That’s part of the idea that if the ACC could somehow just get schools to wait and see where everyone is in a few years, there’s at least a chance FSU is back on top and all of a sudden the level of competition issues aren’t really there. That does not seems like a realistic solution for the individual schools, mainly due to money. But if it could be done, the ACC would likely look better.
Similarly, if conferences stayed the same, the Big 12 would likely look worse. Depth wise, Nebraska, Colorado, A&M, K-State and Mizzou were traditionally the next schools after Texas and Oklahoma in the football pecking order. Four of them are now gone. The replacements strike me as weaker programs (hard to say with any certainty as West Virginia and TCU both played weaker schedules).
LikeLike
They are locked into their contract for 15 years. If the gap is as big as many of us believe, that’s too long to wait.
LikeLike
I agree to that as well. That’s why getting schools to wait is not realistic. I wasn’t talking 15 years, more like 3 years. But that only addresses the level of competition, not the money issues
LikeLike
There’s no reason to believe the depth of the Big 12 will diminish, other than losing 2 schools, when you compare the recent performance of the replacements to the schools that left.
Nebraska, Colorado, and A&M had severely under-performed in the Big 12 over the last 5-10 years.
While losing a traditional power like Nebraska, a market like Missouri and a fan base like A&M are blows to the Big 12, they have been replaced in commitment to winning by Oklahoma State, TCU, and West Virginia. Not to mention Baylor’s entire athletic department has exploded. (There will probably be more violations coming out of Waco, but that’s a different issue.)
LikeLike
I do like how Baylor has suddenly become good in everything (not suspicious at all), but you’re painting a real best case scenario here. Even if some of the schools that left were on a down swing (Nebraska was just starting to emerge and A&M has been stuck there for a while), TCU and West Virginia are completely unproven in a true major conference (no, I don’t count the Big East). And Oklahoma State has a few good years and all of a sudden they are reborn too? All this COULD happen. But it could just as easily have TCU and WV be .500 teams and OSU could regress there. That was generally a “bad” season for all the schools that left. It may the expected of many of the schools that join. We shall see…
LikeLike
It sounds as though this game will be owned by the SEC and the Big 12, any chance that the term “Sugar Bowl” or “Cotton Bowl” gets bought by the conferences for marketing purposes? Lets be honest, a game featuring the potential Big 12 and SEC champs has much more staying power if it has one of those names, instead of some brand new invention.
LikeLike
Well, most likely they’re going to bid it out to a bowl or city or whatever.
But New Orleans really is the most natural landing spot given its proximity to the Big 12 while being in the Western portion of the SEC.
Atlanta and Dallas just seem to be too SEC and Big 12 centric is why New Orleans is the most likely compromise even if that’s still in SEC territory.
That’s why it’s likely to end up being the Sugar Bowl. Especially if they want to make an unseeded +1 format out of it.
But that’s all still left to play out; there’s no doubt that the format of the postseason will affect the form that this bowl takes though.
Otherwise it’s just a glorified version of the current Cotton Bowl, and I doubt they’re aiming for that…
LikeLike
Who says it has to be at one place every year. I could see where the SEC/Big 12 puts it up for bid every year. That way they don’t get stuck with a long term contract and the price of the bowl can change with the market value. I could see it being in N.O. one year, and then at Jerry’s World the next, then over to the GA Dome the next, then Nashville, and then to San Antonio the next. With each year having it go back to be bid on. You talk about some serious money to be made doing it that way.
LikeLike
@ Josh
“a game featuring the potential Big 12 and SEC champs has much more staying power if it has one of those names, instead of some brand new invention.”
How so? Wouldn’t a new bowl game, a new KIND of bowl game, staged by the two most successful conferenced in college football, be more marketable than the stale old Cotton or Sugar Bowl? Even if the game is played in Dallas or New Orleans, it would have more value as an entity separate from either of those games. Because it IS separate from those two games, and that’s half the point.
Plus, emphasizing the fact that this is a NEW bowl, run as a virtual co-op between the SEC and Big 12 creates a fantastic “nouveau riche vs. old-money” angle when contrasted with the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
@ Zeke
Even if it’s played in New Orleans it is NOT the Sugar Bowl. This is a NEW bowl game. Whoever wants to host it is going to have to meet the terms of the conferences. The Big 12 and SEC are taking the bull by the horns here.
LikeLike
It might require a change in structure, but I think there is at least an 90% chance the bowl will have the name of one of the existing bowls (probably Sugar). These are non-profit committees anyway. The executives may not like a change, but they’d rather have a change than not have the bowl so they’ll give up power here if need be.
LikeLike
@ Eric
Bowl committees are about as “non-profit” as your typical major insurance system. You do understand that the bowls, including the precious “Grandaddy of Them All” have been royally screwing over schools to the point that athletic departments usually lose money on the games?
Why should that continue? Why should, if I may paraphrase Oliver Luck, conferences continue to pay to outsource their post-season for benefit of local tourism bureaus, at the detriment of AD budgets?
What this agreement by the SEC and Big 12 effectively does is tell the bowls “We don’t need you, you need us. If we’re going to continue to outsource our post-season, its going to be on our terms, not yours. Got that? Alright, Jerry Jones; business communities of New Orleans, Atlanta, and Miami: start your bidding.”
LikeLike
The committee themselves are non-profit. Yes people on them do make money.
Let’s imagine you are on the Sugar Bowl committee and the Big 12/SEC come to you saying one of three is going:
a) They want to directly take over the bowl committee. As long as the bowl remains in New Orleans they will use the Sugar Bowl name. They’ll create their own committee and directly administer everything, possibly hiring on experienced members from the current committee. If the bowl ever leaves New Orleans, the name reverts to the committee which would be reestablished.
b) They’ll sign our own contract with the Superdome and kick out the Sugar Bowl from at least that day.
c) They’ll sign a contract with a different city and/or bowl and New Orleans loses the business.
If those are the three choices the bowl is faced with, I think odds are very good it chooses a. The conferences haven’t tried to take control of the bowls before, but I think the bowls will gave if that’s the actual demand. Keep in mind though, that now means the conferences are going to have to hire people who know the local business community well and can effectively sell a lot of expensive suits.
LikeLike
Eric, even more than that, the bowls have war chests and the infrastructure in place.
Perhaps the Big 12-SEC keep it all in house (as they may very well), but the Sugar Bowl has enormous amounts on hands to bid for the whole thing (as does the Fiesta Bowl and Cotton Bowl).
Let’s just wait to see where this goes. Perhaps they open the bidding process to bowl committees, perhaps they don’t. We don’t know.
LikeLike
I’d imagine they would at least open it up to bids. Otherwise how is this different from a conference arranged OOC series limited to one game a year (rather than the B1G/PAC 12/yr), and scheduled unusually late. Seems more like the MWC vs CUSA(?) game nobody thought would be allowed unless it took the place of a reg season game. I’m not sure a conference owned and operated game qualifies as a bowl.
LikeLike
I think its much more likely it becomes something like the United Airlines Bowl. They will maximize sponsorship opportunities.
LikeLike
Call me old fashioned, I just think their is something to be said about the pagentry and tradition of college football. I don’t think it is out of the question that the Sugar or Cotton Bowls would be the new “Champions” Bowl.
LikeLike
@ Josh
How does starting a new a bowl game, one that will answer directly to the conferences, damage the “pageantry and tradition” of college football? Do you consider corrupt post-season outsourcing to be a sacred tradition?
LikeLike
I consider playing in the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Cotton Bowl, etc where they have played for far longer than my lifetime as sacred. Playing in the (insert sponsor name) Bowl so that the conference executives are possibly making a little more money instead of the bowl executives doesn’t give me anything.
LikeLike
@ Eric
What the hell’s in a name? Alabama playing Texas on New Year’s night doesn’t need a label. The teams and fan bases bring the tradition and pageantry.
And that is a fantastic leap of reductionist logic in regards to the set up of this new bowl. Do you honestly believe the SEC and Big 12 are going to set up a bowl that’s going to screw over their schools like the traditional ones do?
LikeLike
A lot is in a name. I don’t know how much it will effect them, but I can guarantee you I will be a lot less likely to watch whatever they call this if it’s a brand new bowl.
We disagree on how much waste is in bowl committees vs. what there would be from the conferences. I don’t buy there is this huge pile of cash they are missing out on. They might make a more (conferences as a whole, not schools in particular), but they are also going to have all the expenses the bowls currently have, which will include things like trying sell suits for maximum dollar and getting close to business leaders to do that. In the end, if they do it on their own, they can probably make more than by letting the Sugar Bowl committee, but I doubt it’s going to be anything that large. (note: The bowl itself will make far more than the Sugar has been in the past because of the double format. If they keep with the Sugar though, I doubt the difference would be much vs. running it themselves going forward).
I’ll admit I could be very wrong here. I just don’t buy there is a ton of corruption from the bowls that wouldn’t exist within the conferences (in my experiences colleges are the biggest wasters of money out there).
LikeLike
I’ll ask again. Do you honestly believe the SEC and Big 12 are going to set up a bowl that’s going to screw over their schools like the traditional ones do?
Ok, so since the name of the bowl means so much to you, which game would you rather watch: Temple vs. Wake Forest in the Orange Bowl, or Oklahoma vs. LSU in Joe’s Taxidermy and Haberdashery Bowl, presented by Subway, eat fresh?
LikeLike
I’m not dismissing the match-up at all, but the name is far from insignificant.
Are fundamental disagreement is on the bowls screwing them over. They have resources and connections. Maybe being tied in so long as let them get a little lose on somethings (and in that sense a free market forced tightening up might be good), but I don’t think long term the conferences are going to be making more on their own and then they have the extra headaches of any issues too (if for instance a Big 12-SEC representative is taking money instead of a Fiesta Bowl representative). In short, I don’t think the conferences are being screwed over.
LikeLike
@ Eric
Our fundamental disagreement is that YOU WON’T ANSWER MY DAGGUM QUESTION!!!
Where did you go to law school? And if you’re not a lawyer, you’ve totally missed your life’s calling.
LikeLike
They have resources and connections. Maybe being tied in so long as let them get a little lose on somethings (and in that sense a free market forced tightening up might be good), but I don’t think long term the conferences are going to be making more on their own and then they have the extra headaches of any issues too (if for instance a Big 12-SEC representative is taking money instead of a Fiesta Bowl representative).
Those were the exact same arguments that ESPN made when the Big 10 threatened to form their own TV network and we saw how that worked out…
LikeLike
Eric;
The Sugar Bowl isn’t played in the Sugar Bowl anymore. Its long since been removed from its Mississippi River site. The Cotton Bowl isn’t played in the Cotton Bowl. Its in Jerry World, despite the fact that the Cotton Bowl still stands. The Orange Bowl isn’t in the Orange Bowl and the Orange Bowl has been torn down. Not sure how many different stadiums the Orange has been played in.
I’ve never been a fan of doing away with the name, if for no other reason than its hard to keep track of. Sponsors change. That is a good reason for a Chick Fil A Peach Bowl instead of just a Chick Fil A Bowl. But sponsor names are a change just like the stadium.
LikeLike
I did answer it. I do not think the conferences are getting screwed over by the bowls. That’s my answer. I think revenue will increase if they run them directly, but so will costs and so will issues that will now be directly their responsibility to deal with.
LikeLike
Let me put part of this another way. If the same kind of thing happens that happened with the Fiesta Bowl, the investigation this time will be with the Big 12 and SEC directly. I’m not convinced it can’t happen with them in charge and that alone is worth a little lost. Add in all the extra costs they are going to have and some loss of experience and I think the financial gains are there, but minimal.
LikeLike
So your answer to the question “do you think the Big 12 and SEC are going to set up a bowl game that causes the participants to lose money?” is “I don’t think the bowls are corrupt.”
With all do respect, the absurdity of your indirectness is trumped only by your denial of the inherent corruption of the current bowl structure.
LikeLike
Short answer: yes. They already do when they don’t have to. With any BCS level bowl game, the conferences could easily pay the participating schools more money for travel/expenses (rather than dividing all the rest among member schools in the whole conference) and they don’t. Why would a thing like ownership of the bowl change any of that?
Long Answer: More fully, I can see a system where…
1. An existing bowl (Sugar or Cotton) outbid all other bidders and the game is played there in that bowl. If one of the existing bowls is the highest bidder, do you think either conference will turn them down?
2. The set-up can be arranged anyway you want to do it, but in the end, how much money the schools participating make depends on a) the amount of money the conference chooses to give them rather than put in a pot to be divided equally and b) if there are required tickets they may have to eat. These questions don’t disappear just because the conferences take over.
If the Big 12 and SEC directly take over and decide that the the participating teams get 2 million for the game for travel and the rest is split up evenly, then yeah it still is possible teams will occasionally lose money for going to the bowl. If they run it and demand that the home teams be in charge of selling 1/3 the stadium at full price and one of the teams isn’t excited for the game, then yeah I could see once in awhile schools losing money from that too. Let’s not forget that while participating schools have lost money on BCS level bowl games, conferences as a whole have not.
Is there corruption in the bowls? Sure, absolutely and forcing the bowls to tighten up and make bids will help weed some of that out. There is nothing inherent in the bowl system though that makes it less efficient than direct control from the conferences beyond a small nominal amount though.
LikeLike
Ok, now we’re getting somewhere.
RE: Short answer…
By having the conferences in control of the bowl, there’s going to be a more direct avenue of dialogue between athletic directors and conference officials over revenue distribution. I’m sure that many, if not all of the AD’s of the Big 12 and SEC will have at least some input into how the payments from the bowl will be set up. Basically, to answer your question, changing the ownership of a bowl over to conferences allows for greater transparency when it comes time to count and distribute the beans.
RE: Long answer
1. A contingent from New Orleans made up of the same folks who run the Sugar Bowl may very well win the bidding. My guess is that it’ll be between them and Jerry Jones and that, ultimately, the bowl will end up rotating between Dallas and New Orleans (and possibly Atlanta). Regardless, whoever wins the bidding will have to agree to the demands of the conferences.
2a. I have to imagine the SEC and Big 12 stand make more money on this than they would with a traditional bowl agreement. I’ve heard $2 to $3million more per school, but have no real idea if that’s true. Regardless, this should lead to larger payouts for every member of the SEC and Big 12.
2b. I would also have to imagine that the conferences will set this up in a way that eliminates many of the extortionist practices of the bowl swine, i.e. forcing the band to buy expensive seats for each member, dictating what hotels and transportation services the team uses, forcing schools to eat the cost of tickets that are intentionally hard to sell, etc.
If the conferences DID allow those things to happen, they’d be facing mutiny within their ranks. That’s the main difference with this set-up: accountability is in the offices of the conference commissioners, not a remote “bowl committee chairman” who is technically running a non-profit organization.
Think of this more as a conference championship game than a bowl. I honestly don’t have a lot of knowledge about the business set-ups of CCGs, but they certainly seem to make conferences a nice chunk of change, and I haven’t heard any real complaints about athletic departments getting screwed when their team makes it to one. Correct me if I’m wrong about that.
LikeLike
I understand where you are coming from in a lot of these things regarding ways to improve the system and am really not arguing against them. In the end, I don’t see most of it as directly from the bowl structure though and thus don’t think jettisoning it is needed. A few examples:
1. It’s fine if they don’t want to force the schools to pay for expensive seating for band members (and I agree they shouldn’t), but at the end of the day this will be reflected indirectly in the revenue. If you have 1000 seats that disappear from sales, that money is instead going to have to come out of money on the back end. That said, I agree that would be a good approach and something schools should start pushing for more with the bowls. The same thing goes with the hotels/transportation. They can reduce cost by going cheaper, but that’s money that’s going to disappear on the other end too. The bowls aren’t using those services out of the goodness of their heart, they are getting paid and that money circulates back to the conferences and employees (employment being the one area I think there is a case for the conferences making more without the bowls, see #3).
2. I’m not sure I see why there would be a more direct line of dialogue over revenue distribution. The BCS bowls pay the conferences rather than the individual schools if I understand it correctly. The conferences can distribute the money however they want from there (giving as much or little to schools for travel expenses as they decide). I think there is some argument over total revenue increasing, but I don’t think distribution power is really changing much though. The conferences have and will retain that power. Maybe they decide to do it differently, but that’s really a power they already have.
3. I agree that the Big 12 and SEC will make more paired up here. The value of the bowl itself isn’t likely to be substantially different if they run it or an existing bowl runs it though (over the long term). That means the only possible way to save money is by reducing costs. I think they can probably reduce them some with direct control long term, but I don’t think it will be much. The bowls as they exist sell themselves as best they can. The money they make ultimately goes to pay employees (some paid very well), the conferences, and other expenses. The only area that the conferences are likely able to make cheaper are the employment expenses. If they can use some of their existing marketing people and can count on their own heads to run the bowl, they can probably save some, but since that likely will force up some wages on their own end, I don’t think that value is great long term. In short, I don’t see how over the long run they can make the bowl that much more valuable unless they are cutting millions from payroll and that money still has to be divided 11-15 ways (assuming the conference keeps a share).
I haven’t heard the arguments against the CCGs either, but they have never had the scrutiny of the bowl system (since no one has been pushing playoff over them). It could certainly be the structure is better set-up with them, but to me that suggest a change in the bowl games rather than an abandonment of them is called for.
I do agree that whomever wins the bidding will have to meet a variety of requirements the conferences will make. They do have all the power here. I suspect the Sugar or Cotton Bowls committees will win and we’ll see them agree to whatever changes they have to and we’ll the 2 conferences playing in the Sugar/Cotton Bowl on January 1st.
LikeLike
erd, earlier when i lamented using the word bowl in the name, my thought was something along the lines of conference championship game, but, of course, it would often or usually pit two teams, neither of which won the conference.
how about conference challenge game?
LikeLike
maybe southeastern / big 12 post-season conference challenge?
LikeLike
bullet – prior to moving to the Superdome for the 1975 game, the Sugar Bowl was played at Tulane Stadium on Tulane’s campus. Almost as many games have now been played in the Superdome as were played at Tulane Stadium (1935-74). Tulane Stadium never changed its name to the Sugar Bowl. FYI, the Superdome is probably closer to the Mississippi River than the Tulane campus but the river can’t be seen from either location.
Next to the Rose Bowl, the Sugar has the most tradition. Also, the Sugar has hosted more #1 teams than even the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
Alan;
Tulane stadium was nicknamed the Sugar Bowl. And, of course, its been a long time, but I thought I remember driving by and seeing the Mississippi River levee behind the stadium. But I’m not sure exactly where the site was now.
LikeLike
Disagree completely. They want this to quickly feel like a tradition full game. They can’t get that by being the Home Depot Bowl or even the Home Depot Mega Bowl. They will benefit tremendously from having either the Cotton or Sugar Bowl name and I think they end up signing with the Sugar Bowl.
It might change its structure somewhat, but people forget the bowls are ultimately about bringing people to the cities. If the SEC and Big 12 demand that the bowl be completely absorbed into their conferences, the Sugar Bowl committee will likely agree. It’s not like they won’t still need a good portion of the people on the committee anyway.
LikeLike
absolutely disagree.
those names are besmirched and need to be left behind. the new game is getting a new name that isn’t sullied by the old system. important that they do that. symbolic of the new era.
LikeLike
actually, i wish they wouldn’t call it a bowl game. come up with something new. have a contest. winner gets a free weekend.
LikeLike
DeLoss Dodds said it will NOT be an existing bowl. It will be owned by the conferences and bid out. Someone said he mentioned Houston, Dallas and New Orleans. To be more precise, he said, “New Orleans would be good. Dallas is a possibility. Houston is a possibility.” Also said some people were projecting $40 million for the game.
He also said it was done in anticipation of a playoff. The implication was that it didn’t kill the 4 team playoff, but was in addition. Dodds thought the 4 team playoff wasn’t ideal, but it was a good step (He’s been a playoff proponent for a long time). He said the public, coaches and ADs were generally in favor of a playoff. He specifically did not name the Presidents.
LikeLike
Not doubting you, but do you have a link. I’ve seen quotes talking about them bidding it out, but not that it won’t be an existing bowl.
(I’ve kind of assumed that if they are bidding it out, the Sugar and Cotton Bowls would be the two would probably offer the most for the game.)
LikeLike
http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/108844-Clemson-and-FSU-talk-not-going-away/page86
Midway on page 86 of this thread, there is a link to a LHN interview with DeLoss Dodds. Its about a 6 minute interview.
LikeLike
Reading 86 pages of posts on that site is quite an accomplishment.
LikeLike
You’re linked straight to page 86. I started reading that thread somewhere in the middle. I think its been going on for a long time.
LikeLike
What’s the North Carolina equivalent of a Walmart Wolverine or a Kmartin’ Spartin? Whatever it is that North Carolina message board was crammed with them. The first 100 posts extol the virtues of road trips to Tuscaloosa and SEC barbecue, then the wet blanket of truth shows up on about page three explaining in authentic Tar Heel’ese why the Big Ten (with Duke as a partner) is the only plausible choice the ‘University’ would make. Don’t know if it’s true but it made sense.
LikeLike
Target Tarheel?
LikeLike
Carving up the potential ACC carcass:
SEC: N.C. State and Virginia Tech. Places Missouri in the West, where it belongs.
Big 12: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech and Miami: Gives the Big 12 the Southeast in one fell swoop, in a conference stronger and more attractive than the ACC. If it wants to go to 16, add Pittsburgh (reviving the Backyard Brawl) and Louisville (to placate basketball-oriented schools such as Kansas and Iowa State). Who needs Brigham Young?
Big Ten: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia: Locks down the Mid-Atlantic in a bloc whose synergy as a four-team unit would exceed the sum of its parts. Yes, it probably means giving up the Notre Dame white whale, but it’s the same sort of impact with considerably fewer headaches (though UNC would probably agreed to ditch Duke for ND if the Irish wanted spot #16).
That leaves Boston College, Syracuse and Wake Forest — all relatively small, private institutions — as leftovers. Looks as if they might have to return to BC and SU’s old Big East neighborhood, whose population now includes strangers such as Memphis and Central Florida.
LikeLike
I could see most of this happening at some point. At some point, if the football powers (namely FSU) do end up leaving the ACC, that thing is basically doomed in the long run.
It’s hard to see how it stays viable as the gap between it and the other conferences expands.
There’s always a chance that UNC chooses the parochial “Texas” route of sticking with the ACC, but there’s definitely a strong change that the Big Ten makes a play. Those 4 would probably be the Big Ten’s choice picks if it had to go to 16 without Notre Dame.
And let’s not kid ourselves, if Notre Dame wants into the Big Ten, it would go up to 18 after that.
We can’t act like 16 is a limiter anymore. The Big 12-SEC play sort of sets up the eventual 4 conference future…
LikeLike
I agree in regard to ND. I can see the B1G going for a UNC/DUKE UVA/VT foursome, -then, when they’re ready a ND & partner to bring it to 18. Everyone feels more comfortable that way.
LikeLike
Don’t thinK the Big 12 would want Miami, or that Miami would be interested. Miami is a small, private school located on the wrong side of the tracks…..50000 football attendance unless they turn the program around in a big way. ..Not a good fit and the Big 12 won’t really want them, regardless of Frank’s odd affection for them…. Don’t think that GT will want to go to the Big 12…..GT is a very good school that will want to hang with the likes of VA, NC, and Duke, not Oklahoma, OK State and Iowa State. Seriously? . Winning a NC in football is not GT’s main preoccupation. Don’t see the block of four from the ACC ending up in the Big 10 either. The NC schools have been together forever, and that’s all the administrators and politicians care about. VA might as well be in NC. And the BIG 10 won’t add a block of schools from another region…Instant instability. NC has always called the shots, and always will in whatever conference they inhabit….with Duke and Wake as sidekicks…….
I wouldn’t say “never” about MD if the ACC weakens a great deal. I continue to think that MD, Rutgers, ND, and MO remain BIG 10 possibilities down the road, depending on how it shakes out.
LikeLike
Stability isn’t a problem for Big Ten they have a GOR that last for another 25+ years. Once you are in you aren’t going anywhere.
LikeLike
ACC rehabilitation step 1:
Ditch the Coastal and Atlantic divisions and go strictly north/south:
North
Boston College
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Maryland
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Miami
South
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Clemson
North Carolina
Duke
North Carolina St.
Wake Forest
LikeLike
You’re calling for rehab when the patient needs life-saving surgery, stat.
LikeLike
I don’t think so. Nobody has left…yet!
LikeLike
Okay, so let’s try to save it…if you’re Swofford and the ACC Presidents, what do you do? Seriously.
LikeLike
Go back to ESPN and see if they kick in more money? I don’t know how their contract reads, but if the ACC loses teams, then ESPN could be stuck overpaying for ACC content (ESPN can likely renegotiate down like the ACC renegotiated up, but may still be stuck in an over market value deal – and for 15 years). Not to mention, they may end up paying more for less content then they would otherwise have (e.g., they already have all FSU and Clemson content, so why up the Big 12 deal to pay more to get less content. It would likely be offset by a reduction in the ACC deal. But still may be a net loss)
LikeLike
Excluding Miami apparently, which is the southern most school (although I understand why)
LikeLike
Yeah, that is just based on Frank’s contention, which I happen to agree with, that Miami is really a northern school that resides in South Florida.
LikeLike
http://m.stltoday.com/STL/db_259774/contentdetail.htm?contentguide=QkXZ83bO
Saw this posted on a Texas site about B1G distributions.
LikeLike
bullet,
I was reading that and about to link it!
things that jumped out :
a) How / where did that 700K BTN drop per school occur? advertising? subscribers?
b) B1G last year = 22.8M per 11 schools to 19.5M per 12 SEC schools
c) This years jump went from 22.8M to 24.6M = 1.8M – was this the CCG bump?
d) It said UNL did not get a full share, any Nebraska fans care to comment?
LikeLike
UNL does not get a full share until 2016. Because they did not put up any money to start the BTN they are building up equity over five year period. Starting in 2016 (which not coincidentally is when the new national TV contract will kick in) Nebraska will begin receiving a full share.
LikeLike
And yes, the $1.8 million bump was primarily the CCG which is worth $22 million a year.
LikeLike
duffman,
“a) How / where did that 700K BTN drop per school occur? advertising? subscribers”
I’m not sure what we can deduce from the limited amount of information we have. There certainly was a drop in BTN revenue on a per-school basis, but a school was also added to the conference. Nebraska isn’t a full-share member, but they still are getting a paycheck and the money has to come from somewhere.
The other factor is that 2010-2011 was a huge anomaly for BTN revenue. That $7.9 million per school in 2010-2011 was a 21.5% year-over-year increase from 2009-2010, a staggering amount. It has been speculated that huge increase marked the Big Ten Network turning profitable. It is also quite possible there were performance bonuses for reaching targets early that caused a one year bump in revenue to the conference. Then you also have factors like the BTN majority ownership mysteriously flipping to Fox over the past couple of years.
“c)This years jump went from 22.8M to 24.6M = 1.8M – was this the CCG bump?”
Partially, but it also shows they likely got some financial concessions from ABC/ESPN and or Fox over adding Nebraska as well.
“d) It said UNL did not get a full share, any Nebraska fans care to comment?”
This has been known from the start. The assumption based on comments by a Nebraska AD official is that Nebraska is going to start somewhere in the $13 to $14 million range this year and catch up to the rest of the conference by the new television contract in 2017. If this is actually the case, there may be slower growth for the rest of the conference over that time period due to Nebraska’s distribution growth.
I think the take away is that without knowing exactly how much Nebraska is getting paid and where the money is coming from to pay them, looking at anything other than the total conference distribution through 2016-2017 is going to be difficult to draw conclusions from.
LikeLike
Try this if it doesn’t work.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/illini/big-ten-payouts-estimated-at-million/article_41763ece-a120-11e1-b930-0019bb30f31a.html
LikeLike
FSU movement and a rumor about an ACC team contacting the BIG:
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=159&f=4582&t=9003247
LikeLike
Everyone is overreacting. http://atlanticcoastconfidential.com/2012/05/19/big-xii-sec-new-bowl-game-relax-acc-fans/
Now, the overreacting might cause the ACC to fully destabilize. But this new bowl is hardly a reason for anyone to panic.
An unseeded playoff structure might as well not even exist. Some years, you will get 1-2 in a semifinal. Some years, you will get a team that is not even a consensus top 4 involved. Possibly excluding two of the top 4.
LikeLike
Agreed, there has been an overreaction and there will be non-power conference busters make a 4-team playoff under most proposed forms.
OTOH, the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable, too.
LikeLike
You’re still being shunted off the big boys’ table…and the big boys’ money. Hard to put on the front that you’re a top-tier conference when your revenue is substantially less (and, because of that, several of your members want to leave at first opportunity).
LikeLike
I am not being shunted off anywhere.
Kthanks.
LikeLike
I think the big fear is that such a Bowl arrangement will have the Big 4 conferences push for a Bowl +1 scenario, effectively making the Rose and whatever this new Bowl is the national semifinals. Except it would rarely play out that way (as in having real semifinals). And such a plan would obviously piss off anyone not a member of those conferences (including Notre Dame). And it could lead to disastrous results. For example, what if it really did revert to a pre- Bowl Alliance Bowl system, plus one final game?
Last year you would have had OSU vs. LSU in this new bowl. But then Alabama against some Big Ten team (Michigan?). And what if LSU lost, but Alabama won? OSU would have to go the +1 game. But who would go between LSU and Bama? Do you pass over LSU despite a stronger schedule (remember they played Oregon OOC, the SEC championship, and in this scenario a much tougher bowl), the fact they beat Bama on the road, and had a much tougher Bowl game? Or do you reward Bama, effectively for not winning their conference and getting an easier bowl? These potential problems leads me to hope that such a system does not come into play.
LikeLike
A true + 1 is a mess. The Texas AD is saying this is predicated on a playoff happening.
LikeLike
So what if the B1G only wants NC and VA, not Duke and MD?
If the SEC is in heavy discussion with VTech and has reached out to NC and NC St, and the B12 grabs FSU, GA Tech, Clemson, and negotiating for another (Pitt? maybe MD) does UNC throw in the towel?
LikeLike
UNC-Duke probably has huge combo value because of basketball. UNC’s football along with both’s basketball is probably more than enough to justify both.
LikeLike
I’ve been think about the carving up of the ACC since last night. I think a number of different scenarios can play out. Most of them begin with ND’s decision on what they’re going to do.
Now ND is in a slight (well, maybe not so slight) dilemma. As it stand today, they are left out of being in one of the top 2 bowls (Rose & SEC/Big 12). With the money that the SEC/Big 12 is about to rake in with this new deal, I just can’t see the B1G/Pac 12 doing something similar (although I also can’t imagine them not keeping the Rose Bowl as the destination). That will be a lot of money for ND to be ignoring. That doesn’t even cover the ramifications of how this whole playoff situation plays out. What if the SEC, Big 12, B1G, & Pac 12 decide to say to heck with the other conferences and push for a true plus 1 at the end of the bowl season? That would almost assure that the winner of the SEC/Big 12 would play the winner of the B1G/Pac 12 most (if not every) years. Then ND’s chance at a NC is drastically reduced. Even though ND covets their independence almost more than their football program, they may be forced to join a conference just to have a chance in football.
Now let’s assume that ND relinquishes their independence. What will be their criteria in choosing a conference? The B1G offers regional rivals (Michigan, MSU, & Purdue), and the Big 12 offers 3rd tier rights (I don’t think the SEC or Pac 12 is an option in any scenario). They’ll have to make a decision on what means more to them, keeping their 3rd tier rights or their rivals. This has a drastic affect on how the ACC is divided up, especially if they decide to go to the B1G.
Since what I think has drawn most of us to Frank’s blog is expansion scenarios, I’ll outline the different scenarios that I’ve been running through my head in upcoming replies to this thread and you can comment. Again, these are just scenarios. I’m not saying that things will turn out like any of these scenarios. It is just fun speculation.
LikeLike
Let’s say ND chose the B1G. Since they have options, I’m sure they will try and “convince” the B1G to fill the remaining spots with teams that ND wants to play. The question is, how far would the B1G be willing to go to get their coveted “white whale”. If I had to guess, I would think that ND would want at least some of the private northeastern teams (since they have a large alumni group in that area) like BC, Syracuse, UConn and/or Pitt (although not necessarily at private school, but one that they have history with). The B1G may be able to convince them that Rutgers, UVA and Maryland would be good for their alumni groups, but I’m guess ND would still want one of BC Syracuse since they may feel the need to have a like minded private school in the league. I don’t think ND cares at all about UNC. So if ND does end up joining the B1G, I doubt that they go after UNC. In this scenario I could see ND getting one of BC, UConn or SU, the B1G getting MD or UVA, and them both agreeing on either RU or Pitt to go to 16 teams. Again, I know that the B1G doesn’t want BC, SU, or Pitt; but it comes down to how much do they want ND.
Now what does the SEC do. If UNC is still on the table because the B1G couldn’t agree with ND on taking UNC, then that is the first school they go after. I think given the current state of college football, UNC would have to accept unless the Pac 12 made a run at an eastern pod (even if they did, I think UNC would still prefer the SEC, but who knows). Now I very seriously doubt that the SEC would agree to take two NC schools. So the next grab would be a VA team. Now UNC may ask that the SEC takes UVA if the B1G didn’t get them since they have history together. I could see the SEC agreeing to this (heck the SEC might even prefer UVA over VT). If UVA isn’t available, then VT would be the pick.
As for the Big 12, I think FSU, Clemson, GT, and Miami would be invited. That leaves 2 more slots for a 16 team conference. I think if Pitt & MD don’t get a B1G invite, and if VT and NCST don’t get an SEC invite, then they are all candidates. If three are available, they might even knock out Miami.
Now I’ve also been thinking that at 16 teams, the Big 12 is a bit unbalanced regionally wise. You have 9 teams in the plains area, and 8 on the east coast. What if the Big 12 decided to even them out and go to 18 teams? They would have the 9 out on the plains region, and then have say FSU, GT, Clem, Miami, WV, NCST, Pitt, VT, and MD (or UL, SU, BC if MD, NCST, and/or VT aren’t available) on the east coast. Each division would play 8 divisional games, and could play a rotating 2 games for cross-divisional games and still hold 2 games for out of conference games. Or they could stick with just playing the 8 teams in their division, and schedule their remaining 4 games with whoever they see fit to. This might also bring another incentive for ND to join the Big 12 conference, which leads to the next scenario of ND joining the Big 12.
So in this scenario I could see the B1G getting ND, MD, RU, and one of SU, Pitt, or BC (to appease ND); the SEC getting UNC & UVA or VT; and the Big 12 getting FSU, Clem, Miami, GT, the leftover of Pitt/SU/BC, and the UVA/VT leftover. If the Big 12 wants to event the divisions out and go to 18 teams, then they can go with the leftover of Pitt/SU/BC and UL, to go along with WV to make a 9 team eastern division.
LikeLike
I don’t think ND would care about a northeastern rival. They’ll have Navy and USC and maybe Stanford some years. They do NOT schedule BC/Syracuse/Pitt every year as it is, so why would they need them in the conference and need to play them yearly?
If ND joins the Big Ten, it’s about money. The only teams they’ll tell the B16 to add will be the teams that will make everybody a boatload of money.
That said, the funny thing is that everyone is in awe of how the Big 12 teams MIGHT make us much as 20 million a year soon!!! Meanwhile, the Big Ten (under its contract from five years ago) is making its schools 24 milliion a year right now. Yes, ND could make as much as Indiana and Purdue in the Big 12 if they keep tier 3 rights…but how much would they be damaging their brand by joining a conference with zero (count ’em, ZERO) historic rivals. Iowa St….Kansas…Texas…Florida State…TCU…every single year! Now THAT’S Notre Dame football!!!
LikeLike
Pitt and BC are the only NE schools (other than Navy) ND has played regularly in the last 50 years. They didn’t follow through on their promise to play 3 BE schools a year. They were trying to get UConn to play in a neutral site. I don’t think ND is tied to BC and Pitt, but there is noone else specific they would even consider wanting to be a tagalong.
LikeLike
bamatab,
“Let’s say ND chose the B1G. Since they have options, I’m sure they will try and “convince” the B1G to fill the remaining spots with teams that ND wants to play. The question is, how far would the B1G be willing to go to get their coveted “white whale”.”
Pretty far, probably.
“If I had to guess, I would think that ND would want at least some of the private northeastern teams (since they have a large alumni group in that area) like BC, Syracuse, UConn and/or Pitt (although not necessarily at private school, but one that they have history with). The B1G may be able to convince them that Rutgers, UVA and Maryland would be good for their alumni groups, but I’m guess ND would still want one of BC Syracuse since they may feel the need to have a like minded private school in the league.”
I think ND would some subset of BC, Pitt, GT and Miami, but would see value in RU, MD and UVA too. They’ve played UNC recently, too. I think a great compromise would be RU, MD and UNC, or perhaps GT instead of UNC.
“Now what does the SEC do. If UNC is still on the table because the B1G couldn’t agree with ND on taking UNC, then that is the first school they go after. I think given the current state of college football, UNC would have to accept unless the Pac 12 made a run at an eastern pod (even if they did, I think UNC would still prefer the SEC, but who knows). Now I very seriously doubt that the SEC would agree to take two NC schools. So the next grab would be a VA team. Now UNC may ask that the SEC takes UVA if the B1G didn’t get them since they have history together. I could see the SEC agreeing to this (heck the SEC might even prefer UVA over VT). If UVA isn’t available, then VT would be the pick.”
The SEC won’t get UNC if NCSU isn’t taken care of, I don’t think, and the P12 won’t want NCSU without UNC.
LikeLike
Notre Dame does not have to do anything. Unless and until there is a push to make the Rose Bowl and this new bowl semifinal games, there remains the possibility that these two bowls will be the 4th and 5th most important bowl games. Being behind the 1-4 game and the 2-3 game and the ultimate championship game.
But a decision to have unseeded playoff games is absurd. We want #1 playing #2 for the championship, not for the right to play an inferior opponent in an “any given Sunday” type of game. An unseeded playoff will placate few.
Also, given that ESPN saved the Big XII, why would it be impossible to expect ESPN to save the ACC? Maybe everyone sits down and decides that Tier 3 rights can revert to the schools, with ESPN agreeing to form a Seminole Station? Is that any different than what ESPN did for the Big XII last year? The Big XII was on its deathbed and saved.
LikeLike
@acaffrey – This is just a fun speculation on my part of how the other 3 major conference (which I truly believe the ACC is not a part of now, but that is for another discussion) would split up the ACC in a “what if” scenario, nothing more.
But I guess I will discuss the ACC’s 7 ND’s plight. If you think the implications of this new SEC/Big 12 alliance is just about a bowl game, then I’m not sure you are seeing the big picture. I can see this alliance, plus the B1G/Pac 12 alliance, getting together and deciding on the future of major college football. Creating a bowl which the conferences own is a huge deal. I’m betting the B1G/Pac 12 will follow suit in taking control of the Rose Bowl. That is the top four conferences now having a huge stake in how the playoffs work (a lot bigger than before, if that is even possible). Whose to say in June when the conferences meet to finalize the playoff format, those four conferences say, you know what, our presidents believe that the best scenario is to just have a true plus one at the end of the bowl season. In essence you would have a conference champion semi-final anyway with the SEC champ vs the Big-12 champ, and the B1G champ vs the Pac 12 champ. The big difference is that those 4 conferences would get all of the money from those games since they would own those bowl games. That is a huge deal. Now the other conferences and ND would flip-out if they try that. But in the end, those four conference could threaten to leave the NCAA and create their own college football division (which is coming sooner or later). With that said though, I doubt that happens in June. But I do think that will end up being the end game in 5-10-15 years down the road. Those 4 conference will have too much power, and very little to gain by relenting to the lesser conferences. Is that a conspiracy theory? Some might say it is, but it isn’t out of the realm of possibility.
Now let’s say in June they all agree to a top 4 playoff and the 4 major conferences don’t threaten to leave. The money gained by the SEC/Big 12 and the B1G/Pac 12 (if they decide to take control of that game) will still far exceed any money that a bowl would pay for an ACC champ or even ND playing a Big East, MWC, or CUSA champ, or the 6th best SEC team, or the 5th best Big 12, B1G, or Pac 12 team. Plus the fan interest would dwarf the other bowls as well. That is why the ACC teams and even ND may feel they have no choice but to join one of the major 4 conferences. ESPN has been spending obscene amounts of money to try and keep the conferences together. But I just don’t see how that can continue. They would have to pay the ACC what the other 4 conferences are make, plus makeup the money that the other conferences are making with their new bowl ownerships. I don’t see how ESPN/Disney can continue to throw out that type of money.
LikeLike
It is exactly just a bowl game. The power conferences deciding to show that they have power is expected, not extraordinary. If anything, this just shows that the BCS system is dead.
As for the +1, why would the four conferences do that? That would just piss off a bunch of schools and politicians. Also, it would not even ensure a true champion. At least the BCS has arguable #1 vs. arguable #2. In a +1, you might not even get that. Are you willing to accept #2 Alabama being left out of the playoffs because they lose to another SEC team with the same record in the CCG? That is what the unseeded playoff would get you. And that is not unrealistic.
If ESPN is willing to spend obscene money to keep the Big XII afloat, why not do the same to keep the ACC afloat? Why would they? Where does the inventory go if the ACC implodes? If Duke, UNC, Virginia, and Maryland went to the B1G… some stays with ESPN, but a lot goes elsewhere. If the football schools go Big XII, ESPN could ultimately lose them. If Texas, Oklahoma, and fodder was worth saving… I think ESPN can find the money to maintain its own powerful position.
Plus, everyone knows that the ACC TV contract is undervalued because the ACC cannot get out of it and get itself on the open market. If 10-11 ACC schools are worth enough that conferences making $20M per team per year can add them AND make MORE money… that means that the ACC has to be worth at least the $280M to provide each team $20M/year. People cannot have it both ways. Whatever eyeballs the BTN wants, ESPN already has. And so on.
As for the Orange Bowl. You have the top 4 teams in the playoff. Ideally, one of the ACC schools would bump out one of the other conferences’ representatives anyway. If so, the ACC is already in the mix without the Orange Bowl.
If the ACC does not have that, then it is looking at potentially the 3rd best B1G team or the 3rd best Big XII team or the 4th best SEC team. Is that worse than having to play UConn? I think not. A 10-2 Notre Dame v. a 10-2 Florida State would not be too shabby either. The Orange Bowl could just be 10 win Notre Dame or At-Large v Best ACC team not in the playoff.
LikeLike
So now if ND joins the Big 12, they would also probably want some say in who else the Big 12 adds. I’m going to guess that FSU is in regardless. I’m guessing that Miami and Pitt would be agreeable with both the Big 12 and ND. I think Clemson has too much fan interest to not get an invite, so now we are at 5 teams which puts the conference at 15 teams. I think that the Big 12 and the other east coast teams would prefer GT (which ND might have some interest in), but I think that ND would like one of either BC or SU. Now if the Big 12 decided to go to an 18 team league (which I think ND would like a lot if they aren’t forced into cross-divisional games since it gives them 4 games to schedule with their other rivals), then I think the Big 12 gives ND their choice of BC or SU, they agree on GT, and the Big 12 gets to pick between VT/NCST/MD/RU/UL depending on who is available.
Now if ND is off of the table for the B1G, I think it is a no brainer for them to go after UNC, Duke, MD, and UVA (or maybe RU). Let’s assume that the school officials at UNC override the fans/boosters and go with the B1G over the SEC (I think this will end up being a bigger fight than most of us thought it would be, but I’ll save that argument for another time). I think we can all agree that the SEC goes with NCST and VT (unless the B1G decides on RU over UVA, which I doubt).
So in this scenario I could see the B1G gets UNC, Duke, MD, & UVA; the SEC get VT & NCST, and the Big 12 gets ND, FSU, Miami, GT, Clem, Pitt, and two of SU/BC/RU (to go along with WV to form a 9 team eastern Big 12 division).
LikeLike
Bamatab,
The more I think about it the more I see Notre Dame in the PAC
a) They already play Southern Cal every year
b) PAC has strong conference support for olympic sports
c) West coast recruiting for the teams in South Bend
d) MCBB and WCBB would be top in the PAC
e) Playing 1 B1G football school OOC would be already in place
f) Other stuff here
But the biggest reason =
The PAC has limited options on who they can add to get to 14 or 16!
Think about this for a second, and say the end run is Texas in the PAC without the baggage, then follow the progression :
Problem #1
UT can not abandon the other TX schools to CUSA II status
Solution :
Raid the ACC for schools with enough cache to build the B12 into a solid 4th power in college football. Give short term options like the 7 year GOR, and the 5 year bowl deal with the SEC to bridge the current gap and stabilize everybody else
Problem #2
The PAC wants to keep out the likes of BYU, Texas Tech, Baylor, and oSu
Solution :
Taking Notre Dame at 13 is like the B1G taking Penn State, but they take them as a “conditional” member in football only – pending finding suitable future expansion partner. In short ND plays non football in Big East / ACC but CFB remains IND with PAC getting x games per year as consideration for the deal. The end goal is they want #14, but can not get them right away.
.
If 16 is the next 12, then the PAC has 4 slots left and they want the biggest bang for the least baggage. They have a monopoly on the west coast, but are very limited on potential “brand” schools to get maximum value, and they like to work in pairs for rival scheduling. So for your 4 slots you have these possibilities :
#1 Notre Dame – national following, strong academics
#2 Texas – strong regional following, strong academics
#3 Texas Tech – #3 in state, poor academics
#4 Oklahoma – #1 in state
#5 Oklahoma State – #2 in state, poor academics
#6 Kansas – #1 in state, elite basketball, AAU school
#7 BYU – mormons
#8 Air Force – Already plays Notre Dame
This is what is left, and none are PAC quality out west => SJSU, SDSU, FSU, UH, UNLV, UNR, BSU, Idaho, Wyoming, CSU, NM, NMS.
So the PAC really wants 4 of the 5 teams in bold, and a Stanford guy just went to the B12 to run the conference. If the long term play is to get Notre Dame and Texas, then you are planning their exit strategy now for a decade from now.
First, you get Notre Dame, and add maybe Air Force to get to 14
Second, you stabilize the B12 to survive without UT and / or OU
Third, you add UT + OU (football) or KU (academics + basketball)
When this is done UT agrees to play the RRR vs OU if OU can not break from oSu as a OOC game. If OU can break free you agree to schedule B12 TX schools OOC in rotation to keep the politicians at bay. If OU can not break free you take fellow IMG school KU with you and pool your Tier 3 rights into a partnership for year around content. UT gets maybe 75% of the combined entity, and KU gets 25%.
When UT leaves the combined ACC8/B128 they add BYU to take their place, and somebody else to fill the OU / KU void.
LikeLike
Notre Dame and any other schools that would join the Pac would have to regularly transport athletic teams across the Continental Divide. Going from Texas and Oklahoma to Arizona, Colorado and Utah (where UT, TT, OU and Okie State would have done most of its Pac travel) isn’t that big a deal, but it would be from South Bend and other locations east of the Mississippi.
If the Pac wanted to realistically expand, it would probably have to take in Air Force and Hawaii, neither of them optimal choices, but probably the best it could do in that region (assuming Brigham Young is a non-starter). Don’t know about getting to 16 that way.
LikeLike
@duffman – The Big 12 schools are no longer on the table for the Pac 12, at least for the next 13 years (or however long the Big 12 has their grant of rights. The Pac 12 blew it in my opinion when they passed up the OK schools this past summer. They have painted themselves into a corner now, and they don’t have many options left.
As for ND, while they play USC every year, they play multiple B1G & ACC teams every year. So it would be a whole lot easier to join the B1G or a Big 12 that has raided some of those ACC teams, and then play USC every year since that is just one game. They also don’t recruit the west coast as much as they do the mid-west & the east coast. I truely don’t think ND to the Pac 12 is that much of an option.
LikeLike
bamatab,
I’m guessing the B10 only gets RU if ND is coming, too. Otherwise, you can’t get full value out of RU’s proximity to NYC. Still, the chance to bring MI and PSU to town is powerful advertising for the B10. RU would help get full value out of PSU, but their athletics have been so bad for so long, it’s like adding another NW but with less elite academics.
LikeLike
The one scenario I didn’t cover is if the Pac 12 decides to go after an east coast pod. Their main target would be UNC/Duke/UVA/ and MD (just like a ND-less B1G). Let’s say that ND goes to the B1G which knocks UNC out of the B1G’s board. They would be in a bidding war with the SEC for UNC & UVA. If the Pac 12 could get UNC/UVA over the SEC (which I’m not sure is a 100% lock), then they would probably have to take Duke in order for UNC to agree to the Pac 12 over the SEC. So who would the Pac 12’s 4th team be if MD goes to the B1G? Do they go with WF, Pitt, SU, BC or try for GT? If ND goes with the B1G, I could see the B1G getting ND, MD, RU, and one of SU, Pitt, or BC (to appease ND); the SEC getting VT & NCST, the Pac 12 getting UNC, Duke, UVA, and either WF or Pitt; and the Big 12 getting FSU, Clem, Miami, GT, and two of the leftovers of Pitt/SU/BC/UL (If the Big 12 wanted to go to 18 teams, then they could throw in a UConn, USF, or WF.
If ND goes to the Big 12, then I don’t see the Pac 12 getting any of the east coast teams.
LikeLike
The thing is, UNC is probably 3rd on the Big Ten’s board behind ND and Texas.
So why would the Pac-12 even be able to create a pod in the East? The schools they want would all be in the Big Ten or Big 12 or SEC.
I’m not really sure it’s even worth considering a Pac-12 east pod. The logistics make it moot compared to just joining one of the other 3 conferences…
LikeLike
I agree with that. I almost didn’t even put that scenario out there. I just figured what the heck, it give us something to think about. But you are probably correct, the logistics would be a nightmare
LikeLike
bamatab,
“Now ND is in a slight (well, maybe not so slight) dilemma. As it stand today, they are left out of being in one of the top 2 bowls (Rose & SEC/Big 12). With the money that the SEC/Big 12 is about to rake in with this new deal, I just can’t see the B1G/Pac 12 doing something similar (although I also can’t imagine them not keeping the Rose Bowl as the destination).”
If the B10 and P12 can get back to collecting the pure Rose Bowl deal, they’ll be just fine. It always paid more than the other major bowls until the BCS forced them to pay equally. The Slavery Southern Heritage Bowl may pay more, but not by a huge amount.
LikeLike
My LSU Fightin’ Tiger baseball team just clinched at least a tie for the SEC championship by taking 2 of 3 from the 2-time defending national champion (and #2 ranked) South Carolina Gamecocks in Columbia. LSU took game #1 5-2, USCe won game #2 5-4, and LSU pulled out game #3 3-2 in 10 innings. LSU probably also clinched a top 8 national seed.
LikeLike
Congrats on winning, but if South Carolina played that game at Georgia and won, would it have been a tie? Seems like that has been the closest baseball race top to bottom all season long in the SEC perhaps? In the nation?
LikeLike
duff – going into play Saturday morning, USCe was a half game up on LSU, UK & UF. Had USCe played and won the rainout game against UGA, they would have been one game up with one game to go. By taking 2 of 3 from USCe in Columbia, my Tigers still would have been the SEC champions (shared rather than outright) and the #1 seed in the SEC tournament this week. Since UK and UF both lost on Saturday, LSU is the outright regular season champion for the league leading 15th time.
I think LSU and UF have locked up top 8 national seeds for the NCAA tournament. UK and USCe will need impressive showings in the SEC tourney. The SEC could get 9 NCAA bids. Auburn is the only bubble team.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod
I think the Missouri issue is dead. Just don’t see the Big Ten going after Missouri now that it’s actually in the SEC. If the Big Ten had wanted to make that move it would have.
The Big Ten is conserving spots and slow-playing the board.
Obviously, there’s the customary Notre Dame chair. But more than likely, the endgame here is some play for UNC-Duke + 2. I’m not sure it’ll happen any time soon, but that is the most likely play for Delany if it ever comes down to it.
The Big Ten is in no real rush at 12. There’s not many spots left; 4 to 16, 6 to 18. That’s really not many spots if you assume Notre Dame is going to take 1.
Maryland is an obvious choice as is UVa (and/or Va Tech but they probably make more sense in the SEC) if the Big Ten is making a move on UNC-Duke. Maybe it doesn’t happen anytime soon, but that’s really the best possible play for the Big Ten.
Getting the Mid-Atlantic solves the demographics issues and gets the remaining area left on the board.
It all comes down to UNC though. UNC just seems to be the most Texas-like school in terms of its wish to have its own fiefdom, so we’ll see where it goes over time. The money differences though will become much more substantial in the future. The best thing for the Big Ten with respect to UNC though is that it is proximate to the Big Ten region (if you tack on Maryland and a Virginia school), so that takes away the distance argument that Texas had (among other things).
At some point we could be talking about $10M more per school per year in the Big Ten over the ACC (especially if FSU/Clemson bolt) after the new contracts come online in 2017.
LikeLike
Obviously, there’s the customary Notre Dame chair. But more than likely, the endgame here is some play for UNC-Duke + 2.
I agree with most of what you said, but I think the real endgame would be UNC+3 with Duke only part of the package if UNC mandates it. If the Big 10 could grab UNC then Duke would rank behind Maryland, UVA and possibly Rutgers (and of course ND) in value and and that assumes that ND would try require the Big 10 take somebody like BC.
LikeLike
That’s fair. The main point as you note is that the endgame is UNC. At some point if the ACC’s contract isn’t worth anything near the Big Ten, that move should open up…
LikeLike
“The endgame is UNC” acoording to…………………you, and some other internet moguls. I’ve not seen 1 “Big Ten” source, even unnamed, who has EVER, in the course of reallignment mania, mentioned UNC as a possible expansion candidate, let alone the “end game”.
That said, why do you think that the western-most schools in the BIG, the Iowas, Illinois’, and Nebraskas, will opt to add FOUR eastern schools and none from the Midwest? Four schools, I might add, which were not included in the BIG’s expansion study, even though at the time there was a decent chance (certainly discussion by actual insiders) of the BIG going to 16 schools. Doesn’t that seem rather unlikely given that not one of the four was even studied? That’s why I think that the MO issue, although dead until/unless there are cosmic changes, could come into play. MO is the most likely western expansion option.
As to the schools…..Duke doesn’;t fit. It would be the smallest school by far, 4000-5000 less than NW. Southern, exclusive, private, shit for football in both potential and interest/attendance.As for UNC………..they’ve always RUN the ACC. You think they’re salivating at the thought of coming to the BIG and playing 5th fiddle to OSU, MICH, PSU, and NEB? They’d be roughly equal in power to Wisconsin or MSU…..unless the BIG was STUPID enough to add 4 ACC teams, creating instant instbility and conflicts of interest.
As for ND………I really think the alums, who hate the BIG with such passion, are going to prevail. They will do everything they can not to join a conference. If they have no choice, they will pussy out and join the ACC or the BIG 12…….A weakened ACC would not be all bad for ND. Theiy have a better chance to win the league, and the ACC teams have always been good in the minor sports. IF ND balks, the BIG will never go to 16. The BIG’s not going to 16 with the likes of UNC, Duke, Maryland, and VA as football schools. Another reason your silly scenerio will not occur.
So….the only way I see the BIG going to 16 is with ND….and likely Rutgers, Maryland, and Missouri. But I really expect ND to stay put and only go to 14, if forced by developments. The extra 2 would be some combinsation of MD, MO, Rutgers.
LikeLike
As an alum of the Big Ten school that would gain the most from adding Missouri I can safely say the Big Ten has no interest in Mizzou and would add them only if they had no other options. and the western teams are not going to care about adding 4 Eastern teams.
unless the BIG was STUPID enough to add 4 ACC teams, creating instant instbility and conflicts of interest.
You keep saying that but I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The Big Ten has a GOR that lasts (at least) another 25 years. That means there could never be any instability, since nobody could leave even if they wanted to. And equal revenue distribution means nobody would ever be jealous or bullied.
And the conflict of interest is even more bizarre since you haven’t said what interests would be conflicting. Yeah, the ACC schools care more about basketball than the Big 10 schools, but the Big 10 already makes more money from its basketball programs per capita and has much higher attendance so it’s not like they would be losing anything (financially at least) by moving.
LikeLike
Frug…..The Big 10 has expanded 3x in 70 years. It waited 12 years to expand from the odd #ed 11 to 12.
One team was coompletely within its footprint. The others were border states, one midwest, one mideast. All flagship state Us. None look like Duke. None were from states that fought for Gen. Lee and Jackson in the Civil War. In case you haven’t noticed, and apparently you haven’t, Duke, UNC and VA are all very SOUTHERN. There is no FIT here.
Now….how in the hell can you say the BIG 10 has “no” interest in MO, when MO. was very prominent in the studies that led up to adding Nebraska. You’re talking out you ass when you say that.
Af far as the GOR……..sports contracts are MADE to ber broken……..and even if that holds up, why in the hell do you want to try to add fan bases from 4 schools that don’t want to be in your conference? That would be stupid as hell, and not something the very conservative BIG presidents are likely to do.
It’s amazing how much of this same type of wild bs speculation was floated the last time around………with the end result being a very conservative exspansion.
You guys might try to keep in mind what the original purpose of collge conferences when you float your silly mogul plans.
LikeLike
There’s one major difference here: The Big 12-SEC game and the addition of Clemson and Florida State to the Big 12 effectively shuts the ACC out as a big-time football status, relegating it to battle with the Big East for #5 (a Pyrrhic victory at best, given the minimal revenue for conferences outside the “big four”). From an ACC perspective, it might well make more sense for most of the other 12 members to give up the ghost and dissolve the conference if there is some sort of plan that most will be assimilated into other, wealthier conferences (e.g., Big 12: Georgia Tech, Miami, Pittsburgh with Louisville; SEC: N.C. State, Virginia Tech; Big Ten: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke; as for Boston College, Syracuse and Wake Forest, you’re on your own). Being a basketball-oriented conference in a football-oriented world is a recipe for irrelevancy.
LikeLike
None were from states that fought for Gen. Lee and Jackson in the Civil War.
So?
LikeLike
The SEC-Big XII game does not change the landscape. The only thing that will change the landscape is if the next step is taken and that game becomes a semifinal. However, why would the SEC agree to allow only one of its teams to be in a playoff? For that matter, why would the Big XII, B1G, or Pac-12 do that either?
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“In case you haven’t noticed, and apparently you haven’t, Duke, UNC and VA are all very SOUTHERN. There is no FIT here.”
Duke is not all that southern. It has a lot of northern influence with many students from NYC and other northern cities. UVA feels much more southern, as does UNC.
I’m not saying they are a fit for the B10, just that they aren’t all that southern any more.
LikeLike
But the real reason might be a lesson in how geography is viewed from the ESPN offices in Bristol, Connecticut. And how to best maximize the ratings in Florida, which is home to three of the 20 largest television markets (Miami, Orlando, Tampa).
ESPN just inked a new 15-year, $3.6 billion television contract with the ACC, which currently has two schools in Florida (FSU, Miami). ESPN is also currently negotiating a new deal with the Big 12, which has no schools in Florida.
So if FSU were to move to the Big 12, it would give both conferences a foothold in the key state, and the Big 12 would likely gain more of a ratings boost than the ACC would lose.
Would Florida State be better off in the Big 12? Maybe. Would the Big 12 be better off with Florida State? Probably.
But in the end, the biggest winner would be ESPN.
http://www.businessinsider.com/is-espn-pushing-florida-state-to-the-big-12-conference-2012-5#ixzz1vMe2IRIq
LikeLike
That analysis is faulty.
ESPN owns the ACC’s rights lock stock and barrel up to T3.
ESPN splits the Big 12’s rights with Fox. How is it a gain for ESPN to move FSU’s inventory that it owns on the “cheap” to the Big 12 and then have to fork out more for less?
The ACC is the one conference that ESPN has the most interest in seeing succeed. Even more than the SEC because the ACC is the source of the cheapest and widest inventory for ESPN…
LikeLike
I think people are looking for the excitement we had last year, which may not be replicated. The new bowl and random rant of a FL St BOT member do not appear to ignite the demise of a major BCS conference still in growth mode, despite how fun the speculation is…IMHO.
LikeLike
FSU and Clemson leaving for B12.
The Dude of WV is Tweeting multiple times tonight that FSU and Clemson have reached an agreement in principle to join the B12. The agreement includes things like help with the buyouts and profit sharing. Both applications may already be in hand at the B12. The B12 vote will be around May 30 with formal invitations on June 15th.
“President Barron is still looking for any reason to stay in the ACC.”
The Dude then makes the following request:
“Until then I strong urge all CU & FSU fans to let their presidents and BoTs know how they feel. It cant hurt! But it by no means shows I’m not certain.”
Also mocking Pitt:
“If you’re #Pitt you know your program has fallen on hard times when a #WVU guy has pity for you. Poor lost souls….”
LikeLike
How often has a conference taken a vote on membership and then waited 15 days to issue an invite?
LikeLike
Latest from the Dude and several other bloggers on Twitter.
Clemson and FSU are a package deal. Either they both go to the B12 or both stay in the ACC. Clemson is waiting on FSU, and FSU is waiting on President Barron to pull the trigger to the B12. Barron is still reluctant to make the decision. BoT wants him to make the move. Both schools have privately told the B12 they are coming, but neither has withdrawn or submitted an application yet. All the details have been worked out but they must follow the process. New B12 commissioner takes office June 15th. Eric Barron is the key. Everybody at FSU wants to jump except him.
(Is there any chance the Florida Governor steps into this situation?)
LikeLike
@Steve – why would he? Miami is a private school, UF is in the SEC. How is any other public entity in Florida hurt by this move? And according to Wikipedia, Gov. Scott is a graduate of Missouri-KC and SMU Law. So, no personal affiliations like we always have down in Texas.
LikeLike
Heck, this might even get USF or UCF into the ACC.
LikeLike
“Is there any chance the Florida Governor steps into this situation?”
He’s the one squeezing every last dollar out of UF and FSU, I doubt he would want to bring up something that might bring that topic to the headlines (in a way the public would pay attention and get passionate about.) And after Barron’s email I think this is really jumping ahead of the game.
LikeLike
So it’s a done deal, except it’s not a done deal since the President has not signed off? It’s either one or the other…
LikeLike
Wow! Does this guy have a life? Or a job? He’s been burning up Twitter the last few days. Him and some character from Oklahoma State named Greg Swaim are obsessed. Not sure if they know what they’re talking about or just FOS.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t the B1G at least explore adding Florida State? They have long been rumored to look towards the Sun Belt states. If they added Nebraska, they can’t use the academic argument against Florida State. Huge number of households for BTN. Another big time football program, improving hoops. Other solid olympic sports, especially baseball.
Pair them with Georgia Tech. Adds another great academic school. More households for BTN. Solid overall academics.
Factor in the new network contract in a few years, and the added households from the states of Georgia and Florida (plus whatever other 2 schools/states they add if B1G goes to 16), and I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to expect $35-40 million per school between the BTN and the network contract come 2016.
LikeLike
Apparently the B1G presidents had their fill of borderline academic institutions with Nebraska and won’t go down that road again. All future applicants need to be AAU or Notre Dame. At least, that’s the story according to the B1G fans on here.
Also, baseball is no longer an Olympic sport.
LikeLike
Wasn’t Nebraska losing AAU more of a technicality about how agriculture research is counted? I hardly think they’re borderline. FSU might have had a shot at one point because things were always getting better and the research budget got bigger every year. Barron was brought in as president with hopes of an AAU membership because he had a great track record getting research grants. That was before the recession, now we’re lucky to stay where were. Can’t see being close enough to consider for quite a long time now.
LikeLike
They don’t care about ag research that much. So its not a technicality.
LikeLike
“They don’t care about ag research that much. So its not a technicality.”
Just to clarify, bullet, are you talking about the AAU or the CIC?
Without being an expert on the specifics of which types of research the schools share within the CIC, I would assume the Big Ten schools collectively care a LOT about agricultural research. Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan State, Purdue, Penn State, and most likely others I’m not as familiar with all have agricultural research as major components of their universities’ mission.
If it’s the AAU, then sure, they don’t care about ag research that much.
LikeLike
It’s not an issue of what they care about, it’s they don’t count USDA funded research expenditures when making membership recommendations because it is not competitively awarded.
That said, it’s not a technicality either since they the organization doesn’t have firm rules, simply guidelines. All that mattered is that 2/3 of the organization voted to expel UNL.
LikeLike
The AAU and a lot of academics.
LikeLike
@isachar – borderline by Big Ten standards. By other standards, probably a fine academic institution.
LikeLike
Absolutely! But the last few years have been discouraging to say the least.
LikeLike
isachar,
“Wasn’t Nebraska losing AAU more of a technicality about how agriculture research is counted?”
Not exactly. Ag research funding isn’t as competitive as other federal funding according to the AAU, so the AAU doesn’t consider it as important as other funding. To make it worse, the ag faculty still count against the totals so the per capita funding and awards (generally not available in ag) look worse. The other major problem was that their medical school was considered a separate entity since it is in Omaha. Between those two factors, NE really lagged behind in the quantities the AAU tracks for members.
“I hardly think they’re borderline.”
Borderline for the B10 is what he meant. NE came in dead last in the B10, and by a decent margin. IU is USNWR #75 and AAU (IA & MSU are #71, MN is #68). NE is #101 and not AAU.
FSU would be a notch below NE only because NE at least used to be AAU.
LikeLike
Dave,
“Why wouldn’t the B1G at least explore adding Florida State?”
Academics. FSU would join NE at the bottom of the B10, and the COP/C apparently told Delany they didn’t want to be asked to consider any more schools like that.
“If they added Nebraska, they can’t use the academic argument against Florida State.”
Sure they can. Once bitten, twice shy.
LikeLike
Just reading through Swaim’s Twitter, and I found this gem:
Greg Swaim @GSwaim
“@JimmieTramel: SEC already lobbying that it deserves two teams in the #SEC/#Big 12 bowl game.” // BigTime Tweet O’ the Day!!
LikeLike
“I really can’t believe I’m saying this,” one Big 12 school source said. “We might be moving to four superconferences — and the Big 12 would be one of those.”
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/headlines/20120518-source-we-might-be-moving-to-four-superconferences-big-12-would-be-one.ece
LikeLike
Here’s another post from a West Virginia blogger MHver3.
I just got word that FSU is going to agree to terms with the Big 12 on membership. They may be announced alone or with another eastern team in tandem. Going to 12 with FSU and another will bump the contract to close to 24 million per team including Big12 championship game revenue-but not including new bowl with SEC (that could be worth as much as $3 million per team), or Tier 3 rights which FSU will control. FSU is not getting Miami in, Miami does not have the votes to get in. They are promising FSU games with TX and OK every year. Dodds is open to 14 now because of the SEC alliance we are forging. Unless someone like ARK or ND can be turned then 14 is probably as high as we go. FSU will pay $7 million to get out of the ACC because we will pick up the tab for $10 mill and loan FSU the other 3.
So what is the hold-up on Clemson now?…the B12 now has a lot more options to consider. The word is that the SEC wants to stay at 14 for a few years and see how it works out before expanding again. VT and a few others in the ACC are getting nervous. VT is now in the picture for the B12 (as is Pitt, MD, and others) and it seems a school from the ACC has contacted the B1G — and the B1G is listening.
I know that nothing is signed yet, but they have a verbal agreement on these terms and it is in the process of becoming legally binding.
The ACC is dead as a football conference
LikeLike
The ACC is not really dead. Even if FSU leaves, they still have 13 teams. If more leave, they will just replace them. People may knock the quality, but FSU wasn’t lighting things up as is, so not much will really change.
LikeLike
Without a realistic regular opportunity to compete in a college football playoff, the ACC is dead conference walking, a glorified Mountain West.
LikeLike
There’s still a realistic shot. There’s not a set playoff format, but it wil likely be some form of a top 4. And while ACC schools will generally be behind the SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and possibly Pac 12 schools in prestige, that was true before this happened. So not much has changed.
LikeLike
But their chances will have sharply diminished, particularly in a conference deprived of Clemson and Florida State (for strength of schedule).
LikeLike
If this is accurate, then it will be interesting to see how they manage to get FSU games against OU and UT every year. It seems unlikely they would put all three in the same division, but they can’t really them in a division with one and give them a cross over with the other since they would mean OU and UT wouldn’t play annually (and that will never happen).
I guess they could put OU and UT in the same division give them both protected crossovers with FSU and nobody else like the PAC does where the California schools all play each other put no one else has any protected rivalry games.
LikeLike
Sorry for the double post, but I want to add that if this deal (or something similar) comes to fruition the PAC presidents who turned down the OU/OSU package last summer should be kicking themselves. A deal like this will would likely vault the Big XII ahead of them in revenue which means after the SEC renegotiates and Big 10 gets its new TV deal in 2016 the PAC will be a similar (if not slightly worse) scenario than they were before expansion, since not only will they be way behind the Big 10 and SEC but they will also be making less than the Big XII who, unlike the PAC*, could use expansion to continue to increase their revenue.
Turning down the Oklahoma schools in as bad the Big East passing on Penn St. in the ’80s, but will likely be viewed as an extremely shortsighted decision. (Especially since taking OU and OSU would have lead to the Big XII folding within 2 years and giving them at a least a 50/50 shot at a UT/TTU package and leaving them with, at worst, a KU/KSU deal that still would have given them more exposure in the Central time zone, a solid football program and jump start to their anemic basketball conference).
*Without the ability to raid the Big XII the PAC’s best options are New Mexico, Nevada, UNLV, Boise St. and maybe a couple Canadian schools.
LikeLike
Exactly, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would’ve been seen as strong additions but more importantly, it could’ve ended the conference it competes with the most. I never understood why the Pac 12 passed on Oklahoma/OSU. Together they aren’t significant additions but they go a long ways to; 1. weakening the Big XII 2. helping lure Texas to the Pac 12
LikeLike
Two words*:
LA Exposure
Colorado, Utah, Cal, Stanford and the Arizona schools just were not willing to give up annual games in Southern California and a 14 team conference would have required a zipper alignment. (Of course the fact that all those schools were given annual games in LA to begin with was a problem since it encouraged them to make asinine decisions like this one.)
*Yes that’s an abbreviation and a word, but I don’t care
LikeLike
I should one other thing and that is I don’t think the idea of the Big XII signing a GOR ever crossed the minds of the PAC presidents. I believe their thinking was they didn’t need the Oklahoma schools now but if they ever did they would always be there for the taking. Boy were they wrong.
LikeLike
Agree with your last post that the Pac 12 was grossly over confident after signing their big media deal along with starting their Pac 12 Network. Pac 12 likely believed they could have Oklahoma (along with OSU) whenever they picked up the phone. In not taking the Oklahoma schools, the Pac 12 missed a once in a lifetime opportunity to bust a conference that appeared to be on its last leg after losing Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado & Texas A&M…
Maybe Scott didn’t want to ‘bust’ a conference but it looks to me like a huge opportunity lost to a neighboring conference they compete with for tv viewership/time slots.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Scott’s call. The Pac-12 presidents could very well rue the day much like the Big East did wrt Penn St.
LikeLike
@wmtiger
Scott was actually the pushing the addition of Oklahoma schools. He believed that PAC expansion was inevitable and that any future expansion would have to include the OU and OSU in order to maximum value.
The presidents overruled him though, just like the Big East presidents did when Gavitt tried to add Penn St. to the Big East in the ’80s.
LikeLike
University presidents aren’t the game-playing, darwinist expansion moguls that populate this board. in their view, they didn’t want OU and OSU around because they look funny and smell bad.That is, they didn’t want to hang out with trailer trash. They don’t get up in the morning and think of ways they can destroy other conferences.
LikeLike
No doubt about it, the Pac 12 really screwed the pooch by not taking the OK schools when they had their chance. Now the Big 12 schools have locked their 1st & 2nd tier tv rights up for 13 years or so. The Big East’s failure to take PSU is a great comparision. The one saving grace is that since the Pac 12 is so isolated from the other conference, they probably won’t get raided. And they can try and say they rejected the OK schools because of academics, but as you pointed out below, I think the LA exposure bit was the bigger issue. Now they are stuck for at least 13 years, and even then the Big 12 may turn out to be stable for the long haul now.
LikeLike
I can’t believe people are still pushing Duke and UNC into the Big Ten. This is a complete non-starter for me. Their own fans don’t want to watch their football teams, why should I be expected to watch this? ACC football is bad, don’t let it infect the Big Ten and kill the golden goose.
Think like a fan, just this once.
LikeLike
You can’t add all KING football teams. Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State all in the same 16 team conference wouldn’t work. It’s too much competition. You need a balance of demographics, markets, football, other sports, academics…
UNC and Duke as teams 13 and 14 would be stupid. But if you add them along with Notre Dame (and remembering that your last two additions to the league–PSU and Nebraska–were kings), now you have some balance. In my scenario (http://nittanylionsden.com/2012-articles/may/if-the-acc-implodes-big-ten-expansion-scenarios.html), PSU would play mediocre teams (UNC/Duke/UVA) but also Nebraska, Michigan State, OSU every year…plus three other teams (maybe ND and Michigan some years). That doesn’t look like the ACC ruining PSU’s strength of schedule to me.
LikeLike
Oh, ask the SEC about adding awesome football teams when expanding. 🙂
LikeLike
SEC has only added; South Carolina, Arkansas, Texas A&M & Missouri lately…
Not one of them is overly impressive (A&M is underrated imo in the SEC recruiting talent from Texas) but they add up to quite a bit of tv markets, population in places where they have hardcore fans…
States like Nebraska, South Carolina, Iowa, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, Oregon are far more valuable than typically given credit for when you factor in the lack of competition with the NFL or even more importantly, other professional sports. Majority of those states are SEC states who are hardcore college football fans as that is the only option they have in terms of sports in-state… All of the above states #1 college program are in one of the 4 major conferences…
B10 region meanwhile has: Michigan (4 professional sports teams), Ohio (7), Illinois (6), Pennsylvania (8), Minnesota (4), Wisconsin (3) and Indiana (2)…
LikeLike
Valid point. But it’s a different point. I’m simply countering the people who say the Big Ten shouldn’t add any teams with mediocre or poor football teams. I’d never call TAMU and Mizzou “poor” but they’re closer to mediocre historically than they are to “great.”
LikeLike
@wmtiger – I assume you’re only counting “Big 4” pro sports? I’m having trouble getting the numbers you’re coming up with for Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.
LikeLike
Yes, the big four professional sports; NFL, MLB, NBA & NHL… Apparently the source I used, must’ve counted MLS teams.
LikeLike
wmtiger – when I started posting on this board a few years ago, I discussed the value of back-to-back stand-up doubles (Arkansas and South Carolina). They didn’t upset the balance of power in football. They were happy to be in the SEC. They cooperated with existing members. They built up their programs and facilities. They allowed the SEC to be the first major conference to stage a CCG. If you look at where the B1G and the SEC were in the early 90s, a strong argument could be made that the SEC expansion with Arkansas & South Carolina did more to improve the SEC than the addition of Penn State in the B1G.
Also, this fall, South Carolina and Arkansas will most likely be top 10-15 teams and challenging for their respective division titles.
LikeLike
Those are 4 better football schools than UNC, Duke, MD, and VA.
Agree that the BIG doesn’t go to 16 without adding ND.
I could see the BIG going to 14 w/o ND if one or more of the power conferences go to 16.
LikeLike
Alan–You could make that argument….but you’d be wrong.
Adding PSU saved the BIG 10 from mediocrity and projected the Big 10 to the East, no more, no less.
It was MUCH bigger than the SEC adding Ark and SC.
LikeLike
‘shroom – with the SEC the sum (SEC improvement) is greater than the parts (Arky & USCe). With the B1G, the part (Penn State) was certainly more valuable than the SEC’s. I’m just saying that in the early 90s, the B1G was perceived to be the best football conference, while the SEC may have been 3rd. Now, the SEC is without question the dominant football conference, while the B1G is not what it used to be. Is it Penn State’s fault? No. Are Arky & USCe the cause for SEC dominance? No. I’m just saying that the SEC’s early 90s expansion with Arky & USCe set in motion the chain of events that allowed the SEC to dominate the BCS era.
Penn State was definitely a better “get” than Arky & USCe, but the SEC expansion was one of the variables that allowed existing brands to flourish, and assisted some programs in taking the next step.
LikeLike
I sure don’t recall the Big 10 being perceived as the best CFB conference before PSU was added. Actually, it had been in relative decline since 1970 or so. PSU’s addition helped stem the tide for 15 years or so. But the increasing importance.of black football players, once the SEC, the Miamis and the FSUs of the world started playing them, was already happening. For whatever reasons, FSU, Miami, and Clemson have fallen off the table, and the SEC has taken advantage. I don’t see much of that related to Arkansas and SC being added. In fact, the ACC was the clear winner in that expnasion over the SEC.
LikeLike
The Big 10 was known by that name many seem so fond of using on the Big 12 these days, “the Big 2 and little 8.” It was really the 90s the Big 10 revived.
LikeLike
I don’t know that it matters what you already have in the conference. The point is…what kind of teams are you adding to what you already have. Just because the SEC in 2010 was better than the 80s Big Ten doesn’t mean that they have less reason to add strong football programs.
Operating from a position of power, only the SEC has added teams that haven’t been immediate challenge to the league’s power structure.
LikeLike
“Operating from a position of power, only the SEC has added teams that haven’t been immediate challenge to the league’s power structure.”
——-
What conferences are you including in this assessment? Colorado and Utah did not challenge the Pac’s power structure, nor did West Virginia and TCU challenge the Big 12’s power structure.
LikeLike
I’m interested to know what schools would be acceptable to someone who would turn down North Carolina.
LikeLike
Interested as well. Any ratings draw they aren’t in football, they more than make-up for in basketball.
LikeLike
It’s ridiculous.
I mean, the only schools with more comprehensive value than UNC are Texas and Notre Dame when you’re looking for available additions.
It’s ridiculous to set up a faulty standard like that. There’s no way the Big Ten would turn down an opportunity to get UNC if a worthwhile opportunity arose.
LikeLike
North Carolina is a world away. I like the Midwestern identity of the Big Ten and I don’t want to sacrifice it for the almighty dollar.
If that means no expansion, then so be it.
LikeLike
The Big Ten has never identified itself as a Midwestern conference in the way the SEC does as a southern conference or the PAC has a western conference (though that is changing under Scott’s rebranding).
The Big Ten always defined itself based on its academic philosophies and ultrasmooth operations (the only school to ever leave did so on such amicable terms that it is still a member of the conference’s research wing 6 decades later). The fact that the schools happened to be in the same region was just icing on the cake.
LikeLike
Nonsense, at least as far as Big 10 fans are concerned. They have ALWAYS thought of the BIG as a midwestern conference. Otherwise, why would they have given PSU fans and teams such a load of crap for 20 years? There are many old-time BIG fans that wish PSU had never been admitted. I’m not a BIG 10 fan, but PSU got royally screwed by the football regfs for quite some time after being admitted.
LikeLike
Most football fans might not be thrilled, but I can’t imagine basketball fans not drooling. Duke goes to Iowa City? UNC plays in Minneapolis? Michigan travels to Cameron Indoor? Ohio State in the Dean Dome? Again, expansion is largely about football…I get that…but UNC/Duke not only open up the BTN to the state of NC, but they add some awesome non-football sports to the slate of BTN programming.
LikeLike
It also potentially opens up the Northeast to BTN. Not at the higher sub rate as local states, but could potentially get a lot more viewership. The Northeast is the one region of the country that cares about MBB more than CFB, and UNC/Duke could very well make a meaningful impact there.
LikeLike
To further your point, the B16’s next ballsy move is just around the corner. What DO they have in mind in 2016, or whenever it is that their ESPN deal comes due again?
I could see Delany pulling tier 2 stuff off of ABC/ESPN (never tier 1 though)…and going BTN with them. Imagine three games every Saturday on the BTN (and not just in September). Imagine a college basketball game (maybe ranging from Minnesota to North Carolina?) every night of the week, and not just in November or December. All the way through. In the midwest/east coast corridor, that kind of channel would border on ESPNU popular easily.
LikeLike
If UNC can increase B1G popularity, that means they are worth $25M? Apparently, a slew of football schools are also worth $25M+. At what point is ACC’s contract is so wholly undervalued that maybe Swofford does need to go.
ESPN is getting such a bargain that it might cause itself to lose it.
LikeLike
Oops… meant profitability, not popularity.
LikeLike
acaffrey
The ACC’s problem is that it’s bottom half is all private/smaller public football schools. It’s an inventory producing machine, but it doesn’t produce very much premium content (especially with the on-field struggles of FSU and Miami).
It’s not about what UNC produces in terms of value. It’s more about what the ACC looks like (a few schools that pull their weight along with many schools that are smaller private or smaller public schools).
FWIW, UNC is probably more valuable than any non-king in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
metatron,
“I can’t believe people are still pushing Duke and UNC into the Big Ten. This is a complete non-starter for me. Their own fans don’t want to watch their football teams, why should I be expected to watch this? ACC football is bad, don’t let it infect the Big Ten and kill the golden goose.
Think like a fan, just this once.”
They’ll come into town and lose like they are supposed to, then in return you get games in NC to help with mid-atlantic recruiting. All they ask in return is to abuse some basketball teams that fans don’t care about (IA, NE, PSU, etc), and get some good games from the hoops powers (IN/UNC to replace IN/UK? Duke/MSU?). In that exchange, they’ll bring a ton of hoops revenue (shares earned in the tourney plus BTN coverage all across the state).
LikeLike
Big XII goes 12 or do they keep bringing teams in and go to 14?
LikeLike
Big Ten payouts estimated at $24.6 million
Each Big Ten school will receive a record of approximately $24.6 million in shared revenue from the conference this year, according to figures provided by the Illinois athletic department.
The projected payout is based on budget estimates and is expected to include $7.2 million from the Big Ten Network, a drop from last year’s $7.9 million. However, contracts with ESPN/ABC and CBS will result in $10 million per school, which is a 22 percent increase over last year.
Nebraska, which is completing its first year in the Big Ten, does not receive a full share of revenue yet.
The Big Ten paid its 11 members close to $22.8 million last year. TV revenues have allowed the conference to maintain its status as the richest in the country. By comparison, the Southeastern Conference paid an average of $19.5 million in 2011.
The Big Ten has jumped from paying $18.7 million in 2008 to nearly $25 million thanks largely to the creation and success of the Big Ten Network.
Illinois actually received more money from the conference than it budgeted the last two years. Last year’s payment exceeded the estimate by more than $300,000 (Note: Michigan had projected $22.56M in total conference distributions for FY 2011).
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/illini/big-ten-payouts-estimated-at-million/article_41763ece-a120-11e1-b930-0019bb30f31a.html#ixzz1vPwxEAhM
Big Ten Conference distributions include television revenue from football and basketball, NCAA basketball based distributions, football bowl games and other miscellaneous items.
For FY 2012 (ends June 30), Michigan budgeted $17.58M from television, $3.17M from the NCAA basketball tournament, $2.23M from football bowl games and $773K from other sources for a total of $23.75M. It would appear the estimate was about $850K short of the actual amount received ($24.6M).
See http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-11/2011-06-X-13.pdf
Michigan’s total budget for FY 2012 was for $122.22M in revenue and $109.84M in expenses for a profit of $11.38M.
UM’s FY 2013 Athletic Department budget should be released in about four weeks.
LikeLike
B1G breaks its own record for per team payout.
Each Big Ten school will receive a record of approximately $24.6 million in shared revenue from the conference this year, according to figures provided by the Illinois athletic department.
The projected payout is based on budget estimates and is expected to include $7.2 million from the Big Ten Network, a drop from last year’s $7.9 million. However, contracts with ESPN/ABC and CBS will result in $10 million per school, which is a 22 percent increase over last year.
Nebraska, which is completing its first year in the Big Ten, does not receive a full share of revenue yet.
The Big Ten paid its 11 members close to $22.8 million last year. TV revenues have allowed the conference to maintain its status as the richest in the country. By comparison, the Southeastern Conference paid an average of $19.5 million in 2011.
The Big Ten has jumped from paying $18.7 million in 2008 to nearly $25 million thanks largely to the creation and success of the Big Ten Network.
LikeLike
Why would the BTN payout drop? Unless the previous year included a 1 time payout from Fox’s exercise of it’s 2% controlling option?
LikeLike
Kevin,
I’m wondering the same thing and the one year bump would explain the 2% flip as well. Two years ago (2010-2011) the BTN payout went up to $7.9 million, a 21.5% year-over-year increase. Many on here at the time speculated that it was the network turning profitable for the conference, but that it is less clear now.
Other mysteries of the BTN… Why did the ownership structure flip to Fox as a majority owner at some point in the past couple of years (we may have the answer to this one at least partially now) What is actually included in the $2.8 billion estimate for the network?
LikeLike
There’s also the various extensions. It’s been extended twice now beyond its original terms. So that $2.8 billion estimate is way outdated a few years in…
LikeLike
zeek,
It has not been extended at all to my knowledge. The original deal is 20 years with a Fox option for an additional 5 years, hence the $2.8 billion over 25 years.
LikeLike
Ah, well that was back when there was 11 schools though regardless. I mean that $2.8 billion figure was being thrown around as far back as 2008 and included the 5 year option as you say.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2008/03/20080303/This-Weeks-News/Big-Ten-Could-Reap-$28B-From-Network-Deal.aspx
“If News Corp. hits its financial projections, which are based on a guaranteed rights fee, an equity share agreement with the league, the full 25-year life of the deal and hitting all sales thresholds, it would translate into an average of $112 million annually paid to the conference and $10.18 million to each school.”
LikeLike
Additional question. Since Nebraska does not yet get a full share, does that mean their money gets redistributed to the other schools? I don’t know the exact figures, but that sounds like the existing schools get maybe $1 million more right now over what an equal 12 way split would be.
LikeLike
It only means they are paying off a ‘stake’ (like buying a stake to be a partner in a law firm) for a portion of the BTN.
LikeLike
Right, but that money has to go somewhere. If every school got $24.6 million, the total amount of money is $295 million (24.6 times 12). Since Nebraska either is not getting a full share or some of their share goes back to the Big 10, then the total amount of money might be more like $280 million (since I have no idea what Nebraska gates this is just made up). $280 divided by twelve drops it down to $23.3 per team. I don’t think the difference is this dramatic, but the point is that once Nebraska gets a full the share, the amount per school would actually go down (if revenues stayed flat).
It’s not a big difference, but it should be acknowledged if you want to compare conferences.
LikeLike
That is not how that works… Nebraska is buying in to the BTN, which half is owned by Fox. That money is going to Fox.
LikeLike
Naw wmtiger.
He’s right.
The Big Ten Conference owns 49% of the BTN. Nebraska is taking a smaller share as a part of its “buy in”, but it’s not an actual buy in because the conference owns the 49% stake. The schools do not own any part of the BTN on their own.
Nebraska is simply giving the other schools bigger shares over a couple of years as a form of buy in…
LikeLike
@ Jericho
The reason it was set up this way was so that the other 11 schools wouldn’t take pay cuts.
The contract isn’t growing fast enough (because it isn’t fully revalued until 2017). Thus, Nebraska is taking a smaller share until the ABC/ESPN portion of the contract is revalued.
If Nebraska had gotten an equal share, then everyone would have either taken a paycut or come close to it.
Instead, Nebraska is taking a smaller share that approaches the equal share until 2017 when the new contract goes into place. It’s effectively a form of buy in if you want to call it that. But it’s also so that the other 11 schools don’t take pay cuts until the ABC/ESPN portion of the contract is revalued.
LikeLike
wmtiger,
If you and I agree to split a pizza 50/50 and later you decide to give 1/2 of your 1/2 to Jerico, it doesn’t affect me at all. I still get my 1/2 of the pizza. In our BTN analogy here I am Fox. Adding Nebraska doesn’t have any effect on Fox’s 51% ownership of the network. It does impact how the Big Ten distributes revenue from their side and or the ownership structure on their end.
And if anything Fox is actually paying more now for Nebraska, not getting money from Nebraska. Remember, the BTN has sort of hybrid structure. You have the profit side from the ownership. But you also the traditional television contract rights fees. On that end, Fox is very likely paying more.
LikeLike
The Pac presidents’ decision not to bring in Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may have killed a conference…the ACC. But since they weren’t properly equipped with football armor, this isn’t as much of a surprise as you may think.
LikeLike
The best (or most ironic) part is that the loudest complaints about the ACC come from FSU and Clemson fans when they’re the ones whose teams have more or less damaged the reputation. Clemson’s annual implosion with FSU’s (and Miami’s) decade of irrelevance are the reason the conference is hurting in terms of perception.
Pretty amazing that we talk about the ACC’s perception in football as so lacking when it’s pretty much the 2nd best conference for NFL talent behind the SEC.
LikeLike
Even when FSU and Clemson were down, absolutely no one else picked up the slack. VA Tech has tended to basically win the league by default (as their ugly OOC and BCS bowl results in years they won the league have shown).
LikeLike
FSU and Clemson are not just “down,” they have been irrelevant. At least Virginia Tech has kept the ACC relevant.
LikeLike
Echoes of Nebraska and A&M…
LikeLike
@zeek,
I love the ACC and hope, somehow, that FSU (my favorite team since I was 7 years old) doesn’t leave. But I do not understand the contention that FSU fans are “whining” when they complain about the disappointing TV money, especially when the argument is something along the lines of, “Well, look in the mirror, FSU. You guys, Miami, Clemson, and VT haven’t done your part.” Baloney. It’s the rest of the league that hasn’t done its part. Every other league routinely puts a variety of teams into the top 25, not just its biggest brand names, but the ACC is overly-reliant on its top programs. When those teams fail to deliver, the whole league suffers in a way that other leagues don’t
In the Big 12, Nebraska had an even worse decade than Florida State, but the Cornhuskers had two other schools playing like the powerhouses that they are, and the supporting cast of Ok. State, Texas Tech, K-State, and Missouri kept the Big 12 as a strong conference throughout their long downturn. In the Big Ten, Penn State had tOSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, and even Iowa to make up for their poor play in the early 2000’s. In the SEC, EVERYONE steps up. There are annually 2, 3, or even 4 teams finishing in the top ten, and it’s not even the same teams every year.
In the ACC, the burden falls far more disproportionately on 3-4 teams. Even in the Pac-12, USC has had Oregon to step in as a top 5-10 program in its recent slight downturn. In the ACC, the other schools have not broken into the top ten at all, save for Georgia Tech’s 2009 season.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
I love the ACC and hope, somehow, that FSU (my favorite team since I was 7 years old) doesn’t leave. But I do not understand the contention that FSU fans are “whining” when they complain about the disappointing TV money, especially when the argument is something along the lines of, “Well, look in the mirror, FSU. You guys, Miami, Clemson, and VT haven’t done your part.” Baloney. It’s the rest of the league that hasn’t done its part.
Really? What have the other ACC schools ever done to indicate they were anything but what they are now – mediocre football schools? FSU knew what they were joining. You say nobody else has stepped up. I’ll ask you, how does FSU continue to lose to all these teams that haven’t stepped up? The more you put down the rest of the ACC, the worse it makes FSU look.
Every other league routinely puts a variety of teams into the top 25, not just its biggest brand names, but the ACC is overly-reliant on its top programs. When those teams fail to deliver, the whole league suffers in a way that other leagues don’t
Unlike the P12 if USC is bad? Part of the ACC’s problem is they are the #5 AQ league. Of course the SEC, B10 and even B12 have more depth. Someone has to be fifth. But conference order changes all the time. The B12 would look a lot different with UT and OU both in their ’90s doldrums. The SEC of 10 years ago isn’t the SEC now. Hell, the ACC looked imposing when Miami and VT joined with FSU still a shining star.
LikeLike
“The best (or most ironic) part is that the loudest complaints about the ACC come from FSU and Clemson fans when they’re the ones whose teams have more or less damaged the reputation.”
Isn’t it interesting that the ACC’s monetary value suffers so greatly when FSU and Clemson falter, but the Big Ten’s remains intact (and is growing) even when Ohio State has a bad year, or when Michigan has several bad years, or when Penn State has several bad-to-mediocre seasons? Sure the B1G has taken more of its fair share of media criticism, but its monetary value hasn’t suffered at all. This is because the Big Ten has not only its core “kings” but also strong programs like Michigan State, Iowa, Wisconsin, and even Purdue (early 2000’s) and Northwestern (once in a while) who step up and win 9-10 games all the time. FSU and Clemson cannot rely on those kinds of programs to step up and maintain the value of the league when they’re down.
From an FSU fan’s perspective, I argue this: Yes, the Noles have failed to meet their end of the bargain. But so has Maryland, who has no excuse for going 2-10 twice in three years. So has Duke, who at one point lost something like 40 ACC games in a row. So has Boston College, who can’t deliver their market and couldn’t break the 8-win mark. So has UNC, whose academic & agents scandals embarrassed the league and ruined a real chance for a national title in 2010 (just look at their draft class from last year). So has Miami, who further embarrassed the league with scandal and hasn’t even won its division yet (FSU has won its division twice). So has Virginia Tech, who inexplicably has lost winnable BCS bowls against Michigan and Kansas. So has almost everyone. It’s been a collective failure.
LikeLike
The ACC’s problem is the lack of football passion. They’ve made plenty of pro-football decisions, but the lack of fan passion kills them. Passion is why SEC is #1, B10 #2 and B12 #3. Lack of passion make P12 and ACC #4 and #5. When FSU/Clemson complain about basketball-centric decisions, they are flat wrong. Or maybe just really complaining in a roundabout way about being in a conference that doesn’t have the dedicated fanbases. Clemson has an SEC fanbase. FSU almost does, but not really.
LikeLike
I think everything you said is fair.
I would say FSU has an “SEC fanbase,” but it’s on the smaller end (maybe around where Arkansas is) simply due to the lack of a history of multiple generations supporting the program. It’s status as a power program didn’t begin until the late 70’s and wasn’t clearly established in the public mindset as a mainstay until the late 80’s or early 90’s, so there just aren’t as many of fans. But the passion is definitely there. This is no wine-and-cheese, UNC type of fanbase.
My in-laws, huge NC State fans, illustrate things pretty well. They describe last year’s season as “good enough for me.” Mind you, they lost at blah Cincinnati and lost 34-0 at FSU, finished 8-5, and had to have the greatest comeback in ACC history to beat 2-10 Maryland. And they drove away Russell Wilson before the season even started.
Expectations of mediocrity from the fanbases, not expectations of excellence.
It’s sad. It really is. Other than the scandals the football team has endured, Florida State leaving the ACC is the second-most disappointing story out of FSU that I’ve experience as a fan of the school in my life. Bobby’s forced retirement was #1. But in both instances, I understand it. FSU has to keep up with Florida and the other college football powerhouses financially if it expects to maintain/regain its status as a powerhouse itself.
Regardless, no one is going to see me celebrating this. It’s such a shame.
LikeLike
You’re right in both posts Michael.
The problem with the ACC is that its entire football brand value is held by 4-5 football schools.
With the Big Ten, you can fall back on Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Iowa if Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Nebraska stumble.
The ACC can’t fall back to anyone when FSU, Miami, Clemson, and Va Tech can’t carry them (especially the first two). No one trusts Clemson or Va Tech in big games. The ACC’s football brand has been far too top heavy for a while.
LikeLike
Thanks, zeek.
I’ll just add that the ACC’s football brand has been too top heavy for more than a while. It’s been that way forever. Pre-FSU, there were 2-3 teams in the top 25, ever. With FSU for the first 9-10 years, it was the Seminoles and the 8 dwarves (throw in maybe 5 total season among UNC, UVA, and Clemson in that time span). FSU’s only bowl games it lost in those years were national championship games (’96, 98, ’00), and in two others, they won it all. Post-expansion, it’s been Va. Tech “dominating” the ACC, even though VT has only swept the ACC once as opposed to FSU’s seven times in nine years.
ugh…
LikeLike
So you want to add four of those lesser football schools and their passion-less fans to the Big 10? Makes a lot of sense……………..not
LikeLike
I think the actual worse decision for the PAC-10 was by Scott in 2010. It’s impossible to know how things could have ended up, but reading somethings later, it sounds like Texas would have come over if they could have had the Longhorn Network. In other words, if the PAC-10 had been willing to leave tier 3 rights with the schools, it could have very well been the PAC-16. Over the short run that’s probably fine given their great deal and coming PAC-12 Network. Over the long term though, that was probably their only chance.
LikeLike
Over the long-run, the LHN could have have introduced too much discord. Remember that the Pac is also top-heavy in geography/recruiting/brand value.
LikeLike
So, what should the ACC do in response to the B12-SEC play? Here’s my proposal…
The ACC’s best move would be to take a page from those two leagues by asserting itself as a league into control when it comes to the terms of its champions’ bowl game arrangement. So, like the SEC and Big 12, the ACC should declare its plan (which I will explain below) without committing to a particular site or pre-existing game, and then either allow existing games to bid on it or to create a new one.
The ACC Champions’ Bowl (for lack of real name) should be set up so that it will get a highly-ranked, at-large opponent to face the ACC champion, rather than committing to the SEC No. 2, Big Ten No. 2, Big East champion, or someone else. Instead, the bowl would pick the highest-ranked team not in the Rose Bowl, SEC/B12 Bowl, or playoff, regardless of the location of that team. The ACC Champions’ Bowl would get the ability to pick ahead of all other bowl games regardless of their tie-ins, including teams who would otherwise go to the Capital One Bowl, Cotton, Outback, etc. This would set up the ACC’s bowl game as still a premier bowl game, probably better than what it has been under the BCS.
To offer incentive to the rest of the FBS conferences to agree to allowing the ACC Champions’ Bowl to pick their teams ahead of the bowl games which have their own tie-ins, the game would have a unique payout arrangement, with something like this:
– The ACC would receive 40-50% of the total bowl payout
– A conference whose team is in the bowl in a given year would receive the higher of 20% of the bowl payout OR $500,000 more than their highest non-Rose/SEC-B12 Bowl
– An independent that participates would receive 4% of the total payout, or $100,000 more than what it would receive from the bowl game it would have been in otherwise
– A “Big Four” conference without a team in the bowl in a given year would receive a higher portion of the remainder than the Big East and former non-AQ leagues
– A Notre Dame team that doesn’t make the bowl game would receive 1% of the total payout. A BYU, Army, or Navy team that doesn’t make it would receive less than 1%.
Again, the game would be specifically designed to be ACC Champion vs. the highest ranked team outside of the playoff, Rose, and SEC/B12 game. The bowl game itself could pass over a higher-ranked team in the rankings only in order to avoid a rematch, not to avoid non-brand names or distant programs.
The arrangment would mean that the higher-ranked team would ranked, at worst, #9 in the country, and possibly as high as #5, which is a huge improvement from many Orange Bowls of late. In fact, if the game is #5 ACC Champion vs. #6 Notre Dame/Big East Champion/Non-AQ team, the matchup would be the best bowl game outside of the playoff. As a side effect, the game would most likely have to be located outside of Florida in order to make it more convenient for teams from farther north and west.
It may sound like it pales in comparison to the “Big Four” conferences’ bowls, but here’s the flip side: it’s essentially the same type of arrangement that made the Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, and Sugar extremely successful before the Bowl Coalition/Alliance/BCS era began. In those days, the Fiesta had always picked two at-larges, the Sugar picked an at-large to face the SEC champ, the Cotton picked an at-large to face the SWC champ, and the Orange picked an at-large to face the Big Eight champ. In this new arrangement, the opportunity for a great bowl game is similar. While it can’t get a top four team (nor can the Rose or SEC/B12 bowl), the ACC Champs’ bowl won’t have to compete with other bowl games for the top at-large teams. It would get first dibs on Notre Dame, BYU, the Big East champion, a top non-power conference team (i.e., the next Boise/TCU sensation), or the next-highest ranked Big Four conference team.
If this arrangement had been in place over the past four seasons, (ACC Champs’ Bowl featuring the top non-top-four ACC team vs. the top team not in the Rose, SEC-B12 bowl, or 4-team playoff), these would have been the games:
2011 Season
Playoff teams: #1 LSU, #2 Alabama, #3 Oklahoma State, #5 Oregon (assuming process mandates their selection over runner-up Stanford)
Rose Bowl: #10 Wisconsin vs. #4 Stanford
SEC/B12 Bowl: #6 Arkansas vs. #8 Kansas State
ACC Bowl: #15 Clemson vs. #7 Boise State
2010 Season
Playoff teams: #1 Auburn, #2 Oregon, #3 TCU, #5 Wisconsin (assuming process mandates #5-ranked league champion over #4-ranked non-champion)
Rose Bowl: #6 Ohio State vs. #4 Stanford
SEC/B12 Bowl: #7 Oklahoma vs. #8 Arkansas
ACC Bowl: #13 Virginia Tech vs. #9 Michigan State
2009 Season
Playoff: #1 Alabama, #2 Texas, #3 TCU, #4 Cincinnati
Rose Bowl: #8 Ohio State vs. #7 Oregon
SEC/B12 Bowl: #5 Florida vs. #14 Nebraska
ACC Bowl: #9 Georgia Tech vs. #6 Boise State (or #10 Iowa, #11 Penn State, or #12 LSU)
2008 Season
Playoff: #1 Oklahoma, #2 Florida, #3 Texas, #5 USC (assuming process mandates #5-ranked league champion mandates league champion USC over #4-ranked non-champion Alabama)
Rose Bowl: #7 Penn State vs. #17 Oregon
SEC/B12 Bowl: #4 Alabama vs. #7 Texas Tech
ACC Bowl: #19 Virginia Tech vs. #6 Utah
Whattya think? Would there be buyers for this game, including both those inside and outside of the ACC, and would it generate enough money to keep the ACC competitive with the “Big Four”?
LikeLike
Won’t work; it would still be perceived as a second-tier bowl, because it would be tied in with a second-tier conference (especially if Florida State and Clemson leave).
LikeLike
Doesn’t look any worse than Oklahoma-UConn. If the #2 or #3 teams in the SEC are worthy of gazillions in the new bowl, I think a #3 Big 10 team will do fine as an Orange Bowl participant.
LikeLike
The biggest problem is getting conference tie-ins. How do you guarantee the “next best team” if the SEC and/or Big 10 align themselves with more bowls. You need the other side to agree to participate in the bowl too…
LikeLike
If the Orange Bowl is going to pay more $$$, problem solved.
Again, ACC’s survival is reduced to ESPN’s benevolence. If ESPN wants to save the ACC, it can.
LikeLike
From Dave Stiller of the Tulsa World
https://twitter.com/#!/DaveSittler/status/204252144201777152
I think it’s safe to say that the school is pushing hard in favor of expansion is WVU and the one pushing hard against it is Texas.
As for the rest?
OU has said they would feel more comfortable if the conference got back to 12 teams and Oklahoma St. has echoed that sentiment (though to a lesser degree). TCU has spoken positively about expansion (though they have stopped short of actually endorsing the idea).
At the other end of the spectrum I still believe that KU, KSU and ISU will oppose any expansion that would put them at further disadvantage for Texas recruiting (i.e. no putting the Texlahoma schools all in one division like they did before).
That leaves TTU and Baylor. They each have reasons to both support and oppose expansion but my gut instinct (and that is all it is) tells me TTU is in the opposition camp while Baylor is a supporter.
LikeLike
I disagree with FtT. I think schools like UNC are going to want to land on a feather bed with their ‘life-partner’ ASAP -and 25 million feathers a year is a lot more comfy than anything a roundball conference is going to offer. That, on top of the fact the B1G is an incredible fit academically. ESPN could make up the difference I suppose, but If the B1G wants to make a B1G splash on the east coast I think it happens sooner rather than later. A lot will depend on whether GT goes to the B12 and VT breaks away from Ginny for the SEC.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with this point of view, but I’m not so sure on the timeline. UNC and the schools like it know that football is where their bread is buttered regardless of the fact that they’re more successful in basketball.
If the differences between the ACC and the rest of the Top 4 conferences become substantial enough, they will likely consider bolting in some fashion.
The question is of timing as to that “if”.
LikeLike
That all sounds like a bunch of baloney, at least in regards to Clemson and FSU.
If there is any conflict, it’s probably over whether to go beyond 12 if the opportunity is there.
LikeLike
Why? If you are Texas, you are already wealthy. A few more million does not matter much.
Conversely, if you are one of the little 8, why would you dilute your chances of qualifying for a top tier bowl. Who wants to be the Ole Miss of the Big XII?
And the idea that Florida State is automatically going to increase the share for other Big XII schools is not clear. First, who is going to finance this exit fee? The expansion helps FSU a lot more than it helps the other schools. If anything, the Big XII should be tougher negotiators. They were desperate with WVU. If FSU wants to come, they can sit back and make FSU pay for their own exit fee. Same with Clemson.
If the Big XII finances both exiting the ACC, that’s upwards of $2M per current team (assuming each school pays half). Meanwhile, are two programs that have not been nationally relevant in 10 years. Syracuse has as many 10-win season as Florida State since 2011.
It looks to me like FSU wants to be the Wake Forest of the Big XII–sucking on the teat of Texas, content to have its 8-4 finishes rewarded more handsomely.
I think the move happens, ultimately, unless ESPN steps up to the plate for the ACC. But the Big XII schools are in the position of strength now. They can accept those schools on their terms. Unless the SEC is going to grab FSU and Clemson (which seems doubtful), the Big XII can wait to see what happens with the playoff structure.
LikeLike
But the Big XII schools are in the position of strength now. They can accept those schools on their terms… the Big XII can wait to see what happens
That’s what the PAC thought when they turned down OU and OSU last summer and look how that turned out…
LikeLike
Who says the Pac-12 is disappointed? The only people that care are people who need 4 conferences of 16 and cannot figure out how to get the Pac-12 to 16.
In order for FSU and Clemson to make sense for the Big XII, those two schools have to lead to an increase in revenue, right? That means $20M + $___ x 12. To get each Big XII school $5 more that means that Florida State and Clemson are worth $100M ($25M x 12, less $200M). To get each school $2M more, then we are talking a much more reasonable $64M ($22M x 12, less $200M). But even that is $32M per school. Is ESPN willing to pay that when it already has both schools’ rights in its contract with the ACC?
And who is paying the exit fee? Why would the existing schools give up THEIR money to land (a) at best, obstacles to success; and (b) at worst, another mid-tier program sucking at the Texas teat. If this was the 1990s’ FSU, maybe it is a no brainer. But now? Not so sure.
LikeLike
Who says the Pac-12 is disappointed? The only people that care are people who need 4 conferences of 16 and cannot figure out how to get the Pac-12 to 16.
Actually, anyone who cares about the PAC’s longer term health cares.
Yeah, the PAC is fine as long as it doesn’t need to expand, but what happens if it does? The PAC has boxed itself in.
LikeLike
Why would they “need to” expand? Nobody has ever needed to expand. The conferences just wanted to.
And what kind of logic suggests that you should do something now because you might “need to” do it some time in the future? Why doesn’t the B1G go to 20 schools? What if the paradigm someday is 20 schools–better do it now. Just in case…
The Pac-12 is fine as it is. They are wisely avoiding expansion for expansion’s sake. There is no magic in 10, 12, 14, or 16 teams. Really, 9 is a great number. HTH for 8 football games. And then a round-robin for hoops at 16 games.
Again, it all boils down to people being uncomfortable with all conferences not jumping to 16.
LikeLike
@acaffrey
See my post below for a longer explanation, but just remember that the Big East didn’t “need” to add Penn St. back in the ’80s and they have regretted it every day for the past 20 years.
LikeLike
Right… back then, the Big East was looking at then-present, where football TV revenue did not dominate the landscape.
Saying the Pac-12 should have added schools is looking at the now-present, where football TV revenue does dominate the landscape.
Check back in 20 years to see who these conferences should have added.
LikeLike
Right… back then, the Big East was looking at then-present, where football TV revenue did not dominate the landscape.
Saying the Pac-12 should have added schools is looking at the now-present, where football TV revenue does dominate the landscape.
Check back in 20 years to see who these conferences should have added.
The simple fact is this; the PAC has completely boxed itself out of ever making any meaningful expansion additions. Now if you think that the PAC will never need to expand, then yes passing on the Oklahoma schools is a justifiable decision. However, if you think there is even a chance that somewhere down the line the PAC will need to try and make some meaningful additions then they will look back on turning down OU and OSU as one of the most shortsighted decisions in recent realignment history.
(As for comparing the the then-present to the now-present, keep in mind that then Big East commissioner Gavill practically begged the the conference to add Penn St. just as Larry Scott did last summer)
LikeLike
Pac’s not boxed in to the west and north! Since Scott is talking about the Pacific, he can add a school in China and British Columbia.
LikeLike
The Big East equivalent would be if the Pac-12 opted to not take USC because they were private–a university right within their borders. That would be a poor decision, obviously. More recently, in order for the Pac-12 to expand, they needed to go significantly eastward.
The Pac-12 does have other options. BYU or Utah State might some day be a possibility to pair with Utah. Colorado State or Air Force to pair with Colorado. New Mexico and New Mexico State make some geographic sense. UNLV and Nevada.
Perhaps someday they take the San Diego State and Gonzaga basketball teams only. For a conference that barely had anyone in the top 30 all year, they might need a hoops boost. Actually San Diego State and Boise State for football only might not be too shabby either. With a network, the Pac-12 could indulge the luxury of a hybrid to create inventory.
I was always a big believer that the Big East blew it by not following the Big 10’s lead with a network. Even if the revenue was 25% of the Big 10’s, hitching your wagon to ESPN did not solve any long-term problems for the Big East. And it looks like ESPN might not save the ACC.
LikeLike
You’re right, BYU would have value… if the PAC hadn’t made clear that they will never add any religiously affiliated schools. I guess that might soften eventually but it will be a long time (if ever).
Other than that, the only way those schools add any substantial value is if one of them goes a Miami style run and turns into a super power.
And actually, that wouldn’t even solve one of the PAC’s biggest issues which is they would still be trapped playing their games when half the country has gone to bed. The PAC is in desperate of exposure East of the Rockies but none of those schools would get them into the Central Time zone.
This was a shortsighted decision based on the naive belief that the Oklahoma schools would always be there for the taking and the North Cal., Arizona and Mountain schools refusal to give up annual games in LA.
LikeLike
How funny will it be if Texas coerces TT, Baylor, and TCU to vote against expansion???? The FSU fans were crying about the UNC power. GOR or otherwise, these are 100-year decisions not 13-year decisions.
If I am the Big XII, I tell FSU to sit quietly for a few years.
LikeLike
And in a few years FSU may not be available.
When you get a once in lifetime shot you take it and deal with the details later. That’s why the SEC went ahead and took Texas A&M before they had any idea who they would get to balance out the divisions or what scheduling would look like.
It’s a lesson they learned from the Big East who decided that adding Penn St. didn’t make any sense in the short term and that the PAC may soon be learning themselves.
LikeLike
Frug: The BE unequivocally would have benefited from adding PSU, but it’s not at all clear even long-term that adding the OK schools would have been a definite benefit to the Pac. Certainly not a certain home run. The Pac already has a good-sized population footprint that is growing; it’s the unchallenged number 1 league in its footprint and won’t be losing members in any realistic scenario due to geography. Adding the OK schools actually would decrease it’s average population per school. It’s actually uncertain if their TV deal would be that much better with the OK schools. Remember that the PTN money hasn’t even started flowing in yet; when that does, I have a hard time seeing the Pac being much behind the B10 even after the new mid-decade B10 Tier 1 deal, likely would do at least as well in TV revenue as the B12 (even if they add parts of the ACC) if not better, and likely would even take in more than the SEC per capita (because, while I expect a revaluation of the SEC TV deal due to the additions of TAMU and Mizzou, I don’t expect the SEC to be able to double their TV rights fees).
LikeLike
Well Penn St. wouldn’t have increased the Big East’s population base either, but that’s neither here nor there.
My real point is this. The defining characteristic of college sports over the past 3 and a half decades has been the consolidation of power by the major conference. They started by cutting D1 in half, then they got their TV rights back from the NCAA, then they killed off all the the independents, then they created a caste system, then starting building their own TV networks and all of them expanded multiple times. By passing on the Big XII schools the PAC has effectively boxed itself in. Now if things stay exactly as they are now, then yes the PAC will be fine. The problem is that happening would run counter to everything that has happened in college sports over the past 35 years and the predictions of the PAC’s own commissioner.
If the Big XII expands the PAC will end up right back where it was before they hired Scott; trapped west of the Rockies playing their games when half the country has gone to bed and making substantially less money than the other power conferences.
(Also keep in mind that taking the Oklahoma schools would have meant the death of the Big XII within two years giving them at least a 50/50 shot at Texas and leaving them with no worse than a KU/KSU package available to them).
LikeLike
To reiterate something I said above, I don’t expect the failure to add the Oklahoma schools will do nearly as much damage to the PAC as passing on PSU did to the Big East but they will still come to regret it if the Big XII continues to expand.
LikeLike
Chip Brown’s latest from the FSU site entitled “Wild Speculation.” His piece suggests the real target is Notre Dame and then mentions FSU and Clemson. At this point nothing is certain.
LikeLike
I can’t take any claims of Notre Dame joining the Big 12 in all sports seriously. The Big 12 would be way down the list of possible landing spots. It is possible Notre Dame would join in all sports but football, much like they have with the Big East. Why the Big 12 really would want this, I do not know. I know it was floated a while back that Notre Dame could promise to play more games against Big 12 teams in exchange for such an arrangement, And I suppose that is something, but I still can’t really see it being worthwhile to the Big 12 for less than full membership.
LikeLike
Texas has a four-game football series with Notre Dame starting in 2015 and Oklahoma starts a home-and-home series with them this year.
If Big XII teams want to play Notre Dame, then all the conference has to do is open the scheduling up so that ND can play them in October and November. With the Big Ten taking up three scheduling slots in September and with Navy and USC in the mix, what the Irish need are quality teams willing to play them in the latter two months of the season. The Big XII doesn’t need to have Notre Dame join them as an associate member to do that.
We’ll see what happens. Michigan and Notre Dame have a three-year rolling agreement to play one another, so either school can cancel it immediately and the final game could be in 2014 or 2015, if necessary. That would also open up a slot for Notre Dame in its early season schedule as well.
As far as Notre Dame’s other teams are concerned, they’re mostly affiliated with the Big East when possible. If ND is willing to pay the price in terms of travel costs, etc. to shift those competitions to an expanded Big XII, then that may be what they’re willing to do in order to maintain their football independence while maintaining a position within the post season playoff or bowl lineup.
LikeLike
This also makes one wonder how Notre Dame’s influence might affect Big 12 football expansion past 12, even if it weren’t a member. It would seem to bolster Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh’s chances of joining, as both have had a long, if intermittent, football series with ND. The same thing applies, to a lesser extent, with Miami and Syracuse (I doubt the Big 12 has any interest in Boston College). I suppose the Big 12 could go to 16 with Georgia Tech, Pitt, Miami and Syracuse, with Notre Dame as basketball member #17, though going to 14 with ND as 15 might be more palatable. All in all, bad news for Louisville. .
LikeLike
Exactly cutter. A full membership Notre Dame is a great get. But on the chance that Notre Dame does fully join a conference, does anyone really think it will be the Big 12? I still have a hard time seeing it not being the Big 10. But if its not them, I’d have to think the ACC (unless somehow the whole conference disappears – which I doubt) is next.
A partial member Notre Dame does not really bring much to the table. The schools benefits from housing their non-football sports in a major conference. But what would the Big 12 get out of it? The best Notre Dame can offer is to schedule a certain amount of Big 12 opponents. But since they already have Texas and Oklahoma scheduled – it would not add much. I suppose there’s always the hope that if the Big 12 accepted them on a partial basis, then they may go full time. But ask the Big east how that turned out.
Culturally, the ACC makes the most sense. They actually have more than one token private school. They are East Cost based, where much of the alumni comes from. They are generally strong in non-football sports. They are strong academically. They have many of Notre Dame’s quasi-traditional rivals. And the Domers could do very well on the football side of things. Let’s be honest, a good Notre Dame team (even if a member of the ACC) would still get access to a playoff. But it probably won’t happen.
LikeLike
I would have guessed that when Notre Dame joins a conference (I think it will happen, just not soon) it would be about 60% ACC (more like schools), 35% B1G (do they really care about Purude and Michigan St. or geography?), 5% Big 12(flexibility). After the Big 12/SEC deal, Notre Dame is boxed out of the two biggest bowls. I would say its about 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. ACC even w/o FSU and Clemson still has a chance. No big bowl, but similar schools to Notre Dame.
LikeLike
The same guy that said definitively that the Texas/Okie foursome were on their way to the Pac.
…until they weren’t. With exception to maintaining their third tier rights I can’t think of any earthly reason why they would join the Big12. They are academically, culturally and geographically antithetical. They just built a new hockey facility, are they still going to play in Hockey East, or drop their east coast sports all together? The ACC is an understandable landing spot but I can’t believe ND would agree to this based on the fact their presidents like to slap each other on the back. The ‘University’ would go ape-sh*t. Odds of happening 10%.
LikeLike
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/05/fsu-to-the-big-12-it-is-inevitable/
Florida State leaving the ACC this summer will culminate a process that began with initial talks with an intermediary representing the Big 12 last November. Florida State did not officially reach out to the Big 12 until a week before the ACC’s most recent deal with ESPN was announced.
[Emphasize mind]
If this report is right (and who knows if it is), it appears that this isn’t just a reaction to the new ACC contract (though that is what pushed them over the edge)
LikeLike
They’ve had a good idea of where the contract talks were going for a while. I can’t believe Swofford just negotiated the deal the last 2 weeks and dropped it on their desks. And the Big 12 has had a good idea for a while.
LikeLike
The article is conceivable but one issue is Clemson or Georgia Tech will face the same exit penalties as Florida State. Is the Big 12 going to give each ACC school 10 mil?
LikeLike
Has a couple of errors (14 not 12 SEC schools, I don’t think Texas applied to the PAC), but doesn’t detract from his point.
I am one of the few who continue to be able to recognize the Big 12 as a fundamentally instable coalition. Between its new bowl partnership with the SEC and a 13-year “grant of rights” which binds each member institutions’ media rights (TV games) to the conference, the leagues’ future appears secure. I don’t however find a commitment genuine when it’s given at the point of a gun. The current schools’ commitment to the Big 12 was given when none of those schools had any other option for a conference home. Fact is Texas (and Texas Tech) and Oklahoma (and Oklahoma State) would rather be in the Pac 12 than Big 12. They applied for membership and were denied. Florida State and Clemson, if they do join, would much rather be in the SEC than Big 12, but were not invited. The Big 12 is a marriage of convenience at best and more likely of last resort. Eleven of 12 SEC member institutions if given the ability to join any conference would choose to remain with the SEC (I’m sure Missouri still deep-down covets Big 10 membership.) Twelve of 12 Big 10 schools and 12 of 12 Pac 12 schools would choose to stay in their league. If the Big 12’s membership could magically determine its own conference affiliation how many of them do you think would stay in the Big 12? Maybe Baylor and TCU? Kansas State and Iowa State?
A lack of options and now money are the only things binding the Big 12 schools together. They share none of the brotherhood and vision for the future which exists in the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 12. When other options present themselves, or more money is available elsewhere, you can bet your bottom dollar the Big 12 will again destabilize as its members continue to seek a more desirable home.
I never viewed a potential move by Florida State UNIVERSITY to the Big 12 simply in football terms. In this discussion, no one else has been able to move past that point. For better or worse a school’s conference affiliation influences the university at large in a number of ways I don’t think have ever been fully examined and that I don’t pretend to be able to predict. I can say this with certainty however: Florida State University allowing its football program to spearhead a decision of this magnitude and reach is dangerous.
Finally, and perhaps most inexcusable of all on my part, was my failure to remember that smart people do dumb things every minute of every hour of every day and they always have and always will.
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/05/the-miscalculations-which-lead-to-my-missing-the-fsu-to-big-12-story/
LikeLike
this thing is so chock full of wishful thinking and petulant hurt that it isn’t fit to comment on.
LikeLike
Important thing that I noticed: The Big 12 and SEC have not talked at all about this bowl hosting a semi-final. This could be because the playoff structure is still in flux or it could be because a rotation of bowls in more likely than the bowls being based off tie-ins 😦 If it’s a rotation of bowls, I suspect this bowl (whatever it is) will not be included although the Rose Bowl will be.
LikeLike
Actually come to think of it, there is a way for most the conferences to get what they want here and to divide the money in a way that benefits the big conferences.
Every conference and independent would sign a contract with 1 BCS bowl to host their team if it’s #1 or #2 (and a back-up as well). This would override other commitments of the bowl, but the bowl wouldn’t otherwise have to have that conference/independent outside of being ranked #1 or #2.
This would have the effect of pushing more money to the power conferences as that’s a lot more likely to happen with them than the smaller conferences (although some money would be divided among everyone). It would also allow for things like the Big 12 and SEC to have bowls separate for the playoff that are different than the bowl against each other. For example (using existing bowls for convenience):
Sugar Bowl: It will have the SEC champ if they are in the playoff
Fiesta Bowl: It will have the Big 12 champ if they are in the playoff
Cotton Bowl: It will have the Big 12 and SEC champs if they are not in the playoff and take 1st replacements if they are.
Actually I could picture the primary contracts (1st choice of bowls, if #1 and #2 have the same bowl agreement, then one of them switches to secondary agreement) working something like this:
Rose Bowl: Big Ten/PAC-12
Sugar Bowl: SEC/Conference USA
Fiesta Bowl: Big 12/Mountain West/WAC/BYU
Orange Bowl: ACC/Notre Dame/Big East/MAC/Sunbelt/Army
(note: The Cotton Bowl in this scenario signs no one so that it will always have the highest Big 12 vs. SEC teams although you could switch that and give them the same bowl alignment here).
LikeLike
I live in area that has a good deal of ND fans (southwest michigan), I don’t think you can understate their desire to remain independent. It is their identity. It is what makes them think they are special. If they join a conference, they lose what makes them unique as a handful of other football programs (Alabama, USC, OSU, Michigan, Oklahoma) have the tradition they have…
ND’s fans biggest fear is just being another midwestern school. They see its crucial to play a ‘national’ schedule; playing at least a couple Pac 12 schools a year (USC, Stanford, etc.), playing their B10 rivals (M, Purdue, MSU), at least one game each year near NYC and they’d like to start up a rivalry in Texas to get recruiting pipelines in Texas..
I can’t see ND in the short or medium-term considering joining a conference even with a massive increase in media revenue. ND’s athletic department doesn’t have the money issues that face a handful of schools in the ACC and Big East. Along with this, alums (which are quite wealthy) are saying they’ll stop donations if ND joins the B10, Big XII, ACC or any conference…
ND isn’t a realistic option for any conference right now, maybe after nearly another decade of irrelevance they’ll change their mind. For now, they take tremendous pride in their independence (they don’t have much else to) and place that above all else.
LikeLike
I agree. Even if the school administration ends up wanting to, the alumni would revolt if they joined a conference. We’ve seen in the last year how powerful they can be at other schools (especially Texas A&M) and they are probably a lot bigger deal at a private school than a public.
LikeLike
Well they did shut down Big 10 membership when the administration and faculty were in favor of it in 1999. But I think we have a fundamental shift in college football and Notre Dame is being shut out of the 2 top tier bowls. If the Big 12 takes ACC schools, there’s a good chance the Big East collapses (do the bb schools want to be with UH, Memphis, UCF, USF and w/o UConn, Rutgers, Louisville?). The odds are they don’t move now, but its more possible than it has been in a long time.
LikeLike
If they are actually shut out of the playoffs then yes, but I don’t think that’s very likely.
LikeLike
If the Big E falls apart, ND has an open offer for the same arrangement with the Big 12. Also, if the ACC is significantly weakened by departures, they may well rethink their stance on the matter of not allowing ND in as a non-football member.
I just don’t see ND ever being “forced” to go to any congerence………..they still have too much power to affect ou=tcomes for that to happen.
LikeLike
I expect the Irish’s non-football sports to likely end up in the ACC, they might even promise some games vs Syracuse, Pitt, etc. to make it worth it to the ACC.
LikeLike
Agree with all of this………and as I stated on an older blog, I think the smartest move for the Big 10, which it will NEVER do because of pride, would be to admit ND as a non-football playing member.
ND is obviously a great school, and its olympic sports teams are top notch. Adding ND to the BTN for olympic sports only (including hockey) would increase the BTN’s value. Obviously, ND would only get a small cut of BT proceeds……….by some contractural relationship.
I’ve been following this stuff for years, and I just get the vibe that ND will NEVER join the BIG in football…..many of their alums, their big $ donors, would rather take a stake through the brain.
And what would it be like if ND did join the BIG in FB? Think of the BS that has gone on between UM and PSU fans the last 10 years and multiply it by 5. Is that what we really want? On the other hand, it would suck big-time were ND to join the Big 12 or ACC after all these years……..so why not just solidify the staus quo with ND and football, while still benefiting the BIG in other areas……………that way, if ND DID ever decide to join a conference, it would be a no brainer as to which it would join.
In the meanwhile, the BIG could add some combo of Rutgers, MD, MO to go to 14 if necessary……
LikeLike
I live in Texas so I have to assume you guys are right as far as Notre Dame bitterly clinging to God and Independence. However, if Big 12 goes to 16 It could be palatable for ND.
ND’s pod could be BYU, Pitt and Georgia Tech, all schools they play semi-regularly anyway.
Other pods would feature one each of Texas, OU and Florida State, which still makes for a fairly national and varied schedule.
Big 12 could go to 8 games, leaving 4 non conference games for ND to schedule whomever they’d like.
That set up would give the Big 12 an inventory of 56 conference games plus a CCG.
ND could set up it’s own network with NBC, which already has ND hockey and could televise their non-conference home football games, which would probably be 3 a year, and 1 conference game.
Even that may not fly with Notre Dame but I’m sure this is what DeLoss is trying to sell them. And if Notre Dame was to join a conference at this point, this would be the closest thing to independent that Swofford could sell the alumni on.
LikeLike
I don’t think Notre Dame will ever join a conference for football unless all of its other options for taking part in a playoff are exhausted — and I doubt any new system would come to that. However, I could see the Big 12 placating Notre Dame’s desire to have some access to the Northeast and its student/alumni base by including Pittsburgh and Syracuse, along with Georgia Tech and Miami, in an expansion and letting ND keep football independence while agreeing to play several games a year against Big 12 members while putting its basketball teams and other sports in the Big 12. (Yes, that would result in 16 teams for football, 17 for hoops, so the 14/15 setup might be preferable.) And the ND “Big 12” football games would rarely, if ever, consist of trips to Lubbock, Stillwater or Ames.
LikeLike
I agree that is the set up Notre Dame will want. Not sure if the lesser Big 12 schools will allow that since it theoretically opens the door for Texas to do the same.
I think Big 12 will go for Florida State +1 and get to 12 for the time being if it isn’t sure what Notre Dame will do.
LikeLike
One thing that I think is important to the disussion arond P12 going to 14 with OU/OSU is that their dalliance took place after the P12’s new TV deal. The P16 attempt was what they thought they needed to do to get big TV money. They were probably somewhat surprised to get it with their current P12 setup, and probably didn’t want to upset the apple cart to get two schools from a small state that is a gigantic roadtrip for most P12 schools.
Also, if PSU joined the Big East in the 1980s, its quite possible that they would be the big fish in the current conference moves, rather than making the BE some long term football league.
LikeLike
Article is about the Big East, but details college football’s “New York problem.” This may be the biggest reason UConn and Rutgers are still in the Big East.
http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2012/5/21/3033799/how-the-big-east-died-and-was-dead-all-along
LikeLike
And remember, you need both big spenders and die hards. If your sport only has big spenders then it’s the Henley Regatta. If it only has die hards then it’s a tractor pull
A funny line and somewaht true. The Big East’s problem is geography. No one in the northeast really cares about colelge football and that’s not changing fast. So you’d have to get schools that cared about football. The problem is, most of them were in a conference to begin with. And none of those schools were leaving an existing conference for a might be. Even if the Big East landed Penn State way back when, who’s to say they don’t bolt at the first good offer?
LikeLike
Matt Hayes (@matt_hayessn)
SN sister pub Sports Business Journal: #SEC near SEC Network deal, begin early as 2014. Also #CBS balking at major $ increase with Mizz/TAMU
LikeLike
Bryan Fischer (@bryandfischer)
Can’t say I’m surprised at my bosses’ bosses’ bosses balking at major $ increase for SEC. Mizzou/A&M don’t do much for broadcast network
Yup. RT @mattsarz: If CBS doesn’t get any more games, particularly in primetime even if they coexist w/ESPN, can’t really justify it.
CBS is a broadcast network, been in those for decades. RT @BigEisy: @BryanDFischer only adding the Texas and St. Louis markets. NBD though.
This adding of markets idea only matters for cable distribution folks. If CBS inventory stays the same, adding A&M/Mizzou does little.
And keep in mind, the whole reason ESPN paid a bunch of money to the SEC in the first place was so they wouldn’t start their own network…
LikeLike
I can’t blame CBS for balking if they don’t get more weekly games to go along with their tier 1 package. The extra games created by the TAMU & Mizzou additions apparently will affect ESPN and/or this new SEC Network that he referenced. I could see ESPN giving the SEC a bump in money in order to make the per team payout what it was before the new additions, and then allowing the SEC to create this new SEC Network for the rest of the content they don’t have room for (but I’m guessing they will want some percentage of ownership in the new SEC Network), which will give the SEC the extra money that will truely increase the per team revenue. It’ll be interesting to see how many games the SEC gets to keep for their new network (if what he is reporting is accurate).
LikeLike
CBS is not a surprise. They already broadcast nationally. They get good ratings in Texas. Missouri and A&M aren’t going to be on a lot normally. CBS isn’t getting any more inventory. The additional content on ESPN is where those schools would have to pay for themselves.
The news is that an SEC network deal is close. Getting that done is like herding cats. And there are a lot of Wildcats, Tigers, etc. going in different directions. I’ll still believe it when I see the announcement. There are a lot of school’s underlying agreements that would have to be dealt with.
LikeLike
And there wern’t underlying agreements to be dealt with forming the BTN and P12N?
LikeLike
Not to the extent schools have now. And the SEC school’s have big deals. Very few of the pac were at that level. And the Big was several years ago when the market was lighter.
LikeLike
I believe AZ’s wasn’t too far off Fla’s.
LikeLike
The Big Ten has owned its members schools Tier 3 rights since the late ’80s so they didn’t have to work around existing Tier 3 contracts like Florida has with Sun Sports.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone expected a big increase from the CBS deal. They only broadcast one game a week so their inventory doesn’t really expand with the addition of A&M and Mizzou.
The real upside will come from renegotiating ESPN’s deal and using realignment to start a conference network. These broadcast deals look puny just a few years after signing anyways, so getting equity in a conference network is hugely important for long-term revenue upside.
LikeLike
If you read any SEC sites, they almost all thought everyone would open the bank.
LikeLike
Pretty much what everyone at FSU thinks is going to happen if they go to the Big XII.
LikeLike
The difference is that the Big 12’s ESPN contract hasn’t been finalized yet. The SEC has a 12 year deal that they can’t get out of.
LikeLike
I have no doubt the SEC will get a hefty increase overall, so maybe the SEC sites you are referring to will be correct. But the increase will primarily come from ESPN, as the CBS deal is very small ($55MM per year) compared to the large ESPN deal. CBS airs one game a week and the additional inventory from Mizzou and A&M will fall to ESPN, thus they should be the ones paying up for it.
A USA Today article from this weekend suggested the SEC will see $25MM in TV revenue per school after renegotiation, and that excluded any upside from a conference network, which likely would push it to over $30MM. That seems like a reasonable projection to me.
LikeLike
It was a projection of what they were worth, not what they would get in their look-in. Assuming the CBS deal paid the average per school, that would mean the ESPN deal would go from $155 million to $285 million per year. I would be very surprised if ESPN did that.
LikeLike
Fair enough, and it’s hard to argue since none of us are privy to the negotiations. But despite their protestations, I expect CBS will end up increasing their per school payout slightly – maybe by another $1-2MM to $85MM annually? I also suspect ESPN gives the SEC a healthy increase, especially if the two have agreed to partner on an SEC Network.
LikeLike
For the ACC to get a boost in their payout per school, they had to extend their existing undervalued contract with ESPN for another 3 years. I expect the SEC will have to make a similar compromise to go beyond a pro rata increase.
LikeLike
I think it may be in the best long term interests to make a move. However, they should wait for the TV contracts to be inked, the new playoff system to be finalized, etc. so they can be sure about the benefit being achieved. Do not see the ACC going away except as a football power conference even in the unlikely event the XII added 4 ACC schools. The XII can pay most of the ACC exit fees for the first two with CCG revenue but do not see the XII benefit in paying to get to 14.
:
There will not be 4×16 team conferences happening in 20+ years if ever. The PAC got its money, and two schools (CO,UT) that want more CA exposure. As CO said, it did not want to go back to playing KS and TT. CO is not being snooty, they feel the same about NC and VA. The 4 eastern most PAC schools see eastward expansion against their long term interests so it will not happen.
:
The new SEC/XII Bowl is the wave of the future for most top tier bowls. It will allow the conferences to shop matchups to the bowls for the highest bid. I expect the SEC/B1G will reach an agreement to shop one or two bowls between the conferences. The effect will be to increase distributions to the schools and reduce profits retained by the bowls.
LikeLike
The ACC will soon be rendered completely impotent as a football brand, and I can’t imagine schools such as Virginia Tech, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, N.C. State, Georgia Tech and Miami being satisfied with the status quo, basketball be damned. Unless they want to be members of Mountain West East, they’ll want out, too.
LikeLike
Bryan Fischer @BryanDFischer
RT @richarddeitsch: I can report ESPN has removed Pam Ward from its college football coverage.
Free at last, we’re free at last!
LikeLike
A really good article on where the SEC negotiations are at.
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-05-21/sec-espn-cbs-media-rights-deal-cable-channel
LikeLike
Here is another interesting blog that discusses the SEC Network part of that Sporting News article. I don’t know how accurate this blogger is, but he may not be too far off.
http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2012/5/21/3034252/sec-tv-network-mike-slive-texas-am-missouri
LikeLike
Has anyone else heard that UVA is the ACC school that reached out to the B1G?
That would be big news to me, signaling that they are not that committed to their ACC rivals (future stability is really that weak?), or they expect that those rivals would eventually come as well.
LikeLike
I’d be very surprised if that is true. IF VA were to “reach out”, which I doubt, I can only see it being in conjuction with some combo of UNC, Duke, and MD.
LikeLike
It would be more dangerous for them to that than just about anyone else. Odds are they’d be rejected, but them reaching out means Virginia Tech could to and that would destabilize the ACC.
LikeLike
Yep. Plus it only really makes political sense for one to bail if the other is getting a good home, and VA Tech to SEC rumors are already strong.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised if Tech and UVa are working in tandem with NCSU and UNC, in order to defuse any political problems from two going to the SEC and the other two to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
It’d be a surprisingly astute move. Basically seeing the writing on the wall and reacting before it reaches crisis. Similar to Nebraska and the Big Ten. Assuming there’s mutual interest I could definitely see this working, with say UVA and UNC to Big Ten and NC St and VA Tech to SEC. Not sure if Big Ten would want to jump to 16 or stop there, though. It’d be a bit of an odd arrangement just at 14. Maybe they’d also add MD/Duke for a Southern pod? Or try to get GA Tech or Pitt in the mix somehow?
LikeLike
Were the rumors of Notre Dame to the Big 12 eventually for football after its NBC contract expires true — and one has to be initially skeptical of such a move — that puts ND and Texas out of reach for the Big Ten, and with the ACC now drastically devalued, admitting the “core four” of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Duke is probably the best move the Big Ten can make.
LikeLike
Hey Brian and Nostradamus:
http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2012/5/21/3034252/sec-tv-network-mike-slive-texas-am-missouri
LikeLike
Also, clearly, if this is true and the SEC is setting up a network, there is little doubt the SEC will make the most money of any conference. Likely at least in the low to mid $30Ms, maybe high 30s.
LikeLike
I’m thinking SEC breaks the $100M barrier.
LikeLike
How do you break down the increase? If the SEC is currently making 17 MM how are you getting to your new number?
LikeLike
Big 12 currently makes $20M for tier 1 & 2. SEC will likely negotiate up to somewhere between $22M and $24M. SEC network will likely make between $6M and $10M. Total will be between $28M and $34M. I think these are faily conservative estimates.
LikeLike
I never said an SEC network wouldn’t happen. Here is what I said on 3/14
As for the SEC network talk, I’m not convinced they can do it right now. ESPN overpaid the SEC to keep them from starting a network. I have faith in ESPN that they foresaw the possibility of the SEC expanding and by default will control the additional inventory CBS doesn’t pick up from Texas A&M and Missouri. I suppose the SEC could cut some sort of a deal right now with ESPN to launch a network.
If an SEC network gets launched, what I wrote above is exactly how it is going to happen. I went on to say the following.
I’m not sure that is in their best long-term interest though. I’d equate it to getting a payday loan. Yeah ESPN will pay you right now, but it is more on ESPN’s terms than those of the conference. There is a reason Delany and Scott did it to coincide with new media deals. It allowed them to pick and choose what to hold back for the network.
And we can evaluate that when we see the terms of the deal.
LikeLike
I have read your blogs with interest since November of 2009. Your blog is a Big Ten blog and is a “homer blog”. And with good reason, you have a great conference and tremendous football heritage. But you also close your eyes to what other teams and conferences think because they are not in accordance with your own thoughts. Two examples are your absolute statements about Missouri and Texas A&M. Like for example, the SEC will never invite a school with the recent football track of A&M to their conference; the University of Texas will never permit A&M to leave for another conference; the Big Ten can have Missouri any time they want Missouri and Missouri will be quite content to wait for a Big Ten invitation; Missouri thinks Midwest not Southern. Well the actual results speak for themselves.
The University of Texas is one of my least favorite institutions of higher learning but I do give the devil his due. They are probably the very best carrot and stick negoititors anywhere. They may have learned at the knee of Sam Rayburn and L.B. J. Just witness the Big 12 TV contract as opposed to the ACC. Just witnes their new Bowl playoff with the SEC. And they never stop spinning their story and their wishes. Witness “Bullet” on this blog even when he is caught dead wrong.
At any rate, this post below is from a person who, well in advance of the happening, correctly posted the leaving of Nebraska, A&M, Missouri and WVU. Not trying to inflame nor will I post follow up statements. Just leaving these thoughts with you.
——————————————————————————–
Truths –
1. FSU and Clemson have agreed in principle to join the Big12, and will.
2. FSU and Clemson will soon release a statement to the ACC declaring their intent to review their options, and then “file an application” with the Big12, a common path as we learned with TAMU-SEC.
3. There will be FOUR teams that go from ACC to Big12… there’s a LOT of work going on right now on whom the other two will be.
4. Once the Big12 raids it’s 4 teams, expect the SEC to take two more, likely NC (state of) and Virginia (state of) schools.
5. The Big12 is assisting on the buyouts, or is paying the full amount. One reality that TAMU faced was that when leaving and having to pay the buyout, the money difference was profitable enough to where the move would pay for itself in just a couple years. The same is true with FSU, Clemson and others…
6. Expect Virginia to look to go to the Big10 as well as Maryland. Those 2 teams will have the biggest attraction.
7. The ACC likely WILL NOT DIE…. but it will become “like the big east” or any other mid-major conference. There are too many schools that need a home, and not enough slots.
8. Miami is in big danger – and could fall to true mediocrity over this whole deal. Right now they honestly don’t have a clue the impact, and they’re pledging a sinking ship. FSU wants to take them to Big12 to help hold the presence in Florida and territory coverage…. but Miami’s balking hard. Idiots. Remember this – UCF (Univ. Central Florida) out of Orlando with it’s cash base, Orlando locale, disney backing and size will soon overtake Miami was one of the “Big 3” in the state of Florida – you watch. It’s coming. Miami’s facilities are overly horrible, the school has no cash, big-time coaches don’t want the job anymore as the area is bad to raise family, etc. True story. Think I’m full of it? Head to the coaches convention next year and talk to dozens like I have.
LikeLike
None of this is far fetched but if it all comes to fruition it would be the most massive realignment to date.
This would leave 2 spots for maybe 5 schools in the Big 12.
If I’m the Big 12 this is my wish list:
Virginia Tech
Georgia Tech
Miami
Pittsburgh
Louisville
However
VA Tech could go SEC
GA Tech and Miami could turn their nose up
Are Pittsburgh and Louisville worth going to 14 for?
LikeLike
I think NCST & Maryland are probably also on their wishlist (depending on who the SEC & B1G decide to go after if they decide to expand).
Pitt might be worth it. It gives WV their traveling partner/rival, while also getting a presence in the Pittsburgh market. But I just don’t see L’ville being worth it.
LikeLike
Why is NC State always listed as an expansion candidate? Do they provide any real value other than location? At best they will be the 2nd or 3rd most popular school in the state of North Carolina. Is that valuable enough for the SEC or Big 12? I’m not convinced.
LikeLike
bamatab – I wouldn’t sell Louisville short as a Big XII expansion candidate. Of the teams on the table (ACC & Big East), Louisville is second only to Florida State in athletic department expenses according to USAToday’s handy chart published last week. FSU spends $87mm on their athletic programs, while Louisville spends $82mm with Big East revenue.
For some perspective, Louisville spends a little more than Georgia and a little less than Nebraska. UNC and UVA are in the low $70mm range, while UConn, VA Tech, Maryland, UNLV & Rutgers are all in the low $60mm range.
LikeLike
Big 12 expansion might stop at 12 depending on what the schools want. Adding FSU and Clemson makes sense in a move to 12 with the CCG and extra pay that would all entail.
Going past 12 requires different calculations. How often do the schools get to play against Texas and Oklahoma among other things. How do you split the conference up and assign crossover opponents. How many games on the schedule?
As for SEC expansion, do they want to expand? They’re at 8 games right now and staying at 8 because they don’t want 9. Do you go to 16 teams and stay at 8 games (that would seem impossible)?
I think the logistics of making 14 team schedules work is going to give the SEC some pause on moving to 16 unless they find a school that’s a slam dunk in terms of justification.
If they’re working on an SEC Network, more than likely they’d focus on getting that going, and trying to figure out how to keep everyone happy in a 16 team configuration is going to require a lot of work. It’s not an easy move to go to a pod system or whatever configuration would be needed with 16 teams. Especially with how the move to 14 went…
LikeLike
Staying at 8 games in a 16 team conference wouldn’t be impossible. If you went to a pod system you would play the 3 teams in your pod, the 4 teams in the pod you were aligned with, and then 1 game against a team from one of the other 2 pods. If you rotated the pods every year, you could still play every team in the conference every 3 years.
LikeLike
I agree some of those, but not all.
1. We know Florida State and Clemson are likely looking and most of us would probably give it better than 50% odds at this point of happening (although we shouldn’t forget other moves have made it much further than this and not happened; PAC-16 being the biggest case).
2. If they do go that’s probably the route they take.
3. If they do go, we don’t know the Big 12 is going to 14. I think it would make a lot of sense in some ways, but Neinas said people in the SEC actually advised them beyond going past 12 due to the scheduling issues. While I don’t think the Big 12 is necessarily going to listen to those comments (particularly if going to 14 works out financially), I also don’t think it’s going to be in a super rush to get there. It was fine at 10 and will still be fine at 10 if the ACC options don’t pan out so stopping at 12 isn’t going to be seen as bad even with good options out there (heck, we aren’t even sure how many in the Big 12 don’t think going to 12 even for great members is worth it).
4. Possible, but expanding to 14 created a lot of issues with scheduling. Going to 16 will bring all those questions up again and the only likely way things could go there are with pods. Given the success of the divisional structure in the league, I’m not sure everyone is going to be in favor of that. Beyond that, Virginia Tech still isn’t guaranteed to be able to leave without Virginia (big deal as Virginia is what got them in the ACC) and isn’t North Carolina State run by the same committee from North Carolina U (not sure this is right, but think it is). If North Carolina decides the ACC is still best, North Carolina State might not be able to leave either.
5. Probably true to a large extent, but if 4 members are coming the aide the Big 12 can provide is going to be somewhat limited. I imagine Florida State would get a little more help than others since they are the power broker. The others would make back the money over time though you are right.
6. Virgina and Maryland are unlikely to add enough dollars to the Big Ten to make them worthwhile. Even if the conference wants to expand (and it doesn’t feel like it does), they are going to need at the very least a Notre Dame/Florida State/Miami (FL)/Virginia Tech in there to break even.
7. If the ACC loses 4, I agree it’s basically what the Big East was 10 years ago. It will be a conference with some decent middle tier programs, but which has lost its big names (other than Miami)
8. Miami (FL) could slide (and will never return to its former prominence), but it won’t take a lot to get them back to the top level (especially since they’ll be in a depleted ACC). If they start winning big for even a little while in the next several years national attention will return. Central and South Florida, even with other advantages, are going to struggle more since they don’t have the name brand to fall back on. They can’t really catch up on that without being in the national title race for a long time, something neither has been close to before (outside early in a year or two for South Florida).
LikeLike
NC State is a part of the UNC system. 8 of its 13 board members are appointed by the UNC board.
It’s really hard to see UNC and NC State splitting up unless it’s something they mutually want.
This is very different from the theorized Texas/A&M constraints or OU/OSU constraints, since those were all political in nature.
NC State probably has very little freedom of movement without UNC’s blessings…
LikeLike
One quick correction, Frank never said that Missouri would hold out for a Big Ten invite. He actually said they would stupid not to go to the SEC.
I agree with most of what you said otherwise, though I get the feeling it is more the Big XII has an issue with Miami than the other way around. Until the Shapiro mess is worked out the Hurricanes are radioactive (nobody wants to add a school that could well be sanctioned back to the stone age).
LikeLike
Neinas comments from today suggest that the Big 12 may be against expanding beyond 12 teams. He claims an anonymous SEC President recommended to not go about 12 because 14 is too unruly. I doubt he would even publicly mention this if he wasn’t trying to subtly push an agenda.
LikeLike
Neinas also favored a conference champs only playoff but that didn’t really change the Big XII’s minds either (or at least it hasn’t yet).
LikeLike
Alan,
I think the women survived the weekend to advance in softball, so both are doing well in Baton Rouge. Think the NCAA had next year on their mind as you had to beat TAMU to advance and now you must beat Missouri to advance!
B1G status
Northwestern beat Texas and Houston before falling to Texas twice – eliminated
Michigan beat Kentucky and Louisville twice – advanced to meet Alabama
LikeLike
duff – I was thinking the same thing last night. Sent out to explore newly acquired territory, the LSU softball team is the SEC’s Lewis & Clarke.
LikeLike
Going from Louisiana into Texas, they’re more like the less-heralded Freeman & Custis:
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/F/FR019.html
LikeLike
So, I need a professional opinion. I graduated from TCU and I’m currently in grad school at OU. So far I’ve held off on adopting Sooner fandom, but if I cheer for OU at the softball super-regional against Arizona this weekend (or even -gasp!- wear an OU hat), am I being disloyal? I didn’t think this would be a problem when I got here, but then the Frogs had to go and join the Big 12. Note: TCU does not have a softball team.
LikeLike
Pfft, cheer for whomever you want, especially if you have ties there.
I grew up an FSU fan and still am. I went to Appalachiantate and am a fan of thmy Alma mater, obviously. I lived in Lafayette, Indiana, near my wife’s former employer, Purdue; I’ve done the Boiler Up cheer more than a few times. I lived in Indianapolis during Butler’s Final Four runs and gladly jumped on that bandwagon. I even pull for the local ACC team to some extent, NC State, since my in-laws are fans of them. No apologies for any of that.n that bandwagon. I e
LikeLike
I wouldn’t unless you are Sooner born or Sooner bred. You don’t want to end up Sooner dead.
LikeLike
Its ok as long as you don’t wear the hat!
LikeLike
Jake – I know how you feel. While LSU and Tulane aren’t in the same conference, there’s a lot of unnecessary bad blood between the schools. Since LSU was my undergrad school and I live in Baton Rouge, I’m a Tiger. But I do casually follow Tulane, wish the Greenies well, go see an occasional football game, make a baseball or basketball game when I’m in NOLA for other reasons, and give some money to the athletic department – just not as much as I give to the law school (not that I give much to them either). I want the Greenies to win every game in every sport, except when they are playing LSU. I want Tulane Law School to beat LSU’s law school in the USN&WR and state bar passage rankings.
With my daughter going to TCU in August, she’s going to have a very difficult time in 2013-14 when LSU and TCU play their home & home football series. She’s been attending LSU sporting events since she was 3 years old.
LikeLike
Speaking of, you hear anything about that home-and-home series? I heard the SEC was adding a ninth conference game and LSU was looking to drop an OOC as a result.
LikeLike
Jake – I haven’t heard anything about a 9 game SEC schedule or LSU dropping TCU. The only question I know of is whether TCU will play on campus and put up with 5,000 Tigers fans or move the game to Cowboys Stadium and lose their homefield advantage, but make a boat-load of money off of 50,000 Tiger fans.
LikeLike
And since this is what we do here, Greg Swaim’s sources tell him Notre Dame will soon be joining the Big 12 for non-football sports, and then football as well once their TV contract expires:
https://twitter.com/#!/GSwaim
Also, the ACC is “quickly dying.”
LikeLike
As Frank wrote above, this is likely a case of “ND to the B12 for everything but football” with the B12 fans/writers ASSUMING it means that ND will join the B12 WITH football after the contract expires.
LikeLike