Thanksgiving Adult Table and Kids Table: A New College Football Playoff and Bowl System FAQ

Posted: November 14, 2012 in Big East, Big Ten, College Football, Illinois Fighting Illini, Major League Baseball, NBA Basketball, Sports
Tags: ,

The sports world has been throwing me some curve balls over the past week, with my Bears and Illini combining for only 3 fields goals worth of offense, the Lakers trying to tell the public with a straight face that Mike D’Antoni is a “better fit” as a coach for their team than Phil Jackson, and the Marlins just handing over half of their team to the Blue Jays after fleecing Florida’s citizens out of public funds to build a brand new ballpark.  Let’s try to digest what has actually occurred with the new college football playoff system by answering some frequently asked questions:

(1) What exactly is the new playoff and top tier bowl format? – For someone like me that constantly dives into the minutiae of these details, this seems like a basic question, but it’s apparent to me after reading a lot of questions from people out there that the powers that be haven’t really done a good job of explaining how the new postseason format is going to work very clearly to the public.

What we know is that there will be 6 top tier bowls, with 3 of them being “contract bowls” with contractual tie-ins (Rose Bowl with the Big Ten and Pac-12, Sugar Bowl with the SEC and Big 12, and Orange Bowl with the ACC and SEC/Big Ten/Notre Dame) and the other 3 being “host bowls” (likely the Cotton Bowl, Fiesta Bowl and Chick-Fil-A Bowl) that provide “access” slots (the equivalent of at-large bids in today’s BCS system).  The major new news is that the FBS conferences just announced that one of those access slots will be allocated to the highest ranked champion of the conferences that do not have a tie-in with a contract bowl (the Big East, Mountain West, Conference USA, Sun Belt and MAC, who are generally referred to in the media as the “Gang of Five” and I call the “G5” here).  Over the past month, the powers that be had considered adding a 7th bowl that would match up the top G5 champ against a team from the Big 12 or Pac-12, but the feedback from the marketplace was that such game would not be worth very much.  Thus, the compromise was to incorporate that G5 access into the 6-bowl rotation.

A 4-team playoff will be played within the confines of those 6 bowls, meaning that 2 bowls will be designated as semifinal sites each year and the other 4 bowls are “normal” bowl games.  In a year when a contract bowl is designated as a semifinal, the champions from each conference that it has tie-ins with are guaranteed a spot in one of the host bowls if such conference champ is not a semifinalist.  For example, if the playoff were in effect last year and the Rose Bowl was a semifinal site, Wisconsin, as the Big Ten champion that did not make it to the semifinal, would have an automatic slot in one of the host bowls.  On the flip side, when a contract bowl is not a semifinal, it is guaranteed to have teams from its tie-in conferences no matter where they are ranked.  So, in another example, if the playoff were in effect this year where the Rose Bowl is not a semifinal site and Oregon is the Pac-12 champion and finishes in the top 4, the Rose Bowl would take another Pac-12 team to replace Oregon whether such team is ranked #5 or #50.

The 4-team playoff field will be determined by a selection committee, presumably with at least one representative from each FBS conference.  That selection committee will also determine who receives the at-large host bowl slots and which G5 conference champ is the highest ranked.

(2) How will the revenue be split? – Some of it is very clear while other parts of it is up in the air.  While every conference expects an increase in revenue on an absolute basis, a chosen few are going to receive the lion’s share of the gains.  The contract conferences (Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC, Big 12 and ACC) will retain the media revenue from their respective contract bowls in the years that such bowls are not hosting semifinals.  The Rose Bowl signed a TV contract with ESPN worth $80 million per year.  The Sugar Bowl is believed to be making the same $80 million figure under an ESPN deal finalized today while the Orange Bowl is estimated to be worth $60 million per year.  This means that all of the contract conferences are expected to make $40 million each in the years that their respective contract bowls are “normal” non-semifinal bowl games.  The G5 doesn’t touch this money.

A separate pot that includes the national championship game, semifinals and host bowls has a tentative deal on the table from ESPN worth approximately $475 million to $500 million per year.  This is where the revenue distribution issue gets a bit murkier.  The FBS commissioners have said that a portion of that pot will distributed in the form of fixed annual payments to the various FBS conferences and independents, while another portion will be allocated based upon who actually attains bids to the semifinals and host bowls.  It is unclear how those portions will be split up.  The current understanding regarding the fixed annual payments is that the contract conferences will take the bulk of that money on top of their contract bowl revenue in equal shares among those 5 leagues, with a CBSSports.com report that it would be an overall 80%/20% split with G5 conferences compared to the current 85%/15% split in the current BCS system (although that “give” by the contract conferences is a quite misleading since that doesn’t include contract bowl revenue that the power leagues keep 100% of in the new system yet was shared in the current BCS system, so the net effect is essentially nothing in terms of overall percentage splits).

(3) Is the Big East a winner or loser in all of this? – I’ll give the lawyerly answer here: it depends.  The new G5 access slot to a host bowl has been positioned by a lot of people in the media as a “win” for the Big East*, but whether it’s truly a win is different for each of the members of that conference.

(* Regardless of what anyone thinks about how much the Big East will be worth in the TV and bowl marketplaces going forward, a massive amount of credit has to be given to the league’s new commissioner Mike Aresco for completely managing the media in all aspects on this playoff issue along with the recent Notre Dame defection.  If this announcement were made during John Marinatto’s tenure as Big East commissioner, the news stories would be talking about how the Big East is dead with the loss of an auto-bid as opposed to being anything close to a winner.)

The Big East is really the entity that is most affected by the changes in the postseason system since it went from being an AQ league where its champion was guaranteed a spot in a BCS bowl (the equivalent of a contract conference in the new format) to one where its champ is pooled in with the champs from the other G5 leagues to fight for one spot (the equivalent of a non-AQ conference in the current format).  From that vantage point, it’s very difficult to call the old members of the Big East (Louisville, UConn, Rutgers, Cincinnati and South Florida) as “winners” since this is a clear downgrade.  Even if they make more money in absolute dollars in the new system, they will be behind the power conference teams that they were once grouped with on a relative basis in terms of revenue and access.  The old members of the Big East in the negotiations with the powers that be in the playoff negotiations were basically in the position of Lando Calrissian in The Empire Strikes Back, where Darth Vader told him, “I am altering the deal.  Pray that I don’t alter it any further.”  As a result, the best that you could say for the old members of the Big East was that it could have been worse, where the power conferences might not have provided any dedicated bowl slot to the G5 at all.

On the other hand, the new Big East members (Temple, Central Florida, Houston, SMU, Memphis, San Diego State and Navy) are definitely winners.  They have received an upgrade in top bowl access (albeit not a great of an upgrade as they might have originally anticipated) and will take home multitudes more revenue compared to the current BCS system.  There’s really very little downside for any of them, if only because they could only go up from where they are in the BCS landscape.

In theory, the Big East is in the best position to win this G5 bowl access slot year-to-year since it is the strongest conference of that group from top to bottom.  That being said, I believe that theory only holds true where the Big East champ has the same record as any of the other G5 champs.  The danger for the Big East is not necessarily other conferences passing them by, but simply when another team from one of those conferences has a hot year.  For example, a 1-loss Louisiana Tech team is 1 spot ahead of 1-losss Rutgers and only 1 spot behind 1-loss Louisville in this week’s BCS rankings… and that’s while playing in a WAC league that will no longer be in existence when the new playoff starts in 2014.  That seems to indicate that a 1-loss Louisiana Tech team would definitely jump 2-loss Louisville and Rutgers teams if the new system were in place today (and it’s already virtually dead even with all of them having the same records).  At the same time, even though the Big East conference games will provide its league members with stronger strength of schedule rankings compared to the conferences games in the other G5 leagues, that can be mitigated by the fact that other G5 teams are more willing to take one-and-done guarantee games on the road with power conference teams.  Using Louisiana Tech as an example again, they have stronger BCS computer numbers than both Louisville and Rutgers this year based on playing one excellent SEC team (Texas A&M) and two craptacular Big Ten (Illinois – ugh) and ACC (Virginia) teams in road one-and-done games.  As a result, Big East teams can’t get very comfortable at all about thinking that this G5 slot is always going to go to their league.  That might be true when all records are equal, but if the Big East champ has a worse record than one of the other G5 champs, then it’s a major risk.

(4) What other winners and losers are there? – The other G5 conferences are overall winners since they have managed to obtain better access and revenue compared to the current system despite generally having weaker leagues on the field due to defections with conference realignment.  Of course, lest that you believe that the power conferences have been charitable, the Big Ten and SEC are definitely large winners, as well.  In part of the announcements this week, the champions from the SEC and Big Ten will always play in one of the host bowls if they are not semifinalists instead of the Orange Bowl (which those leagues have a secondary tie-in with shared with Notre Dame).  So, instead of, say, a #5-ranked SEC champ heading to the Orange Bowl when the Sugar Bowl is hosting a semifinal (thereby freeing up a host bowl slot for someone else), that SEC champ will go to one of the host bowls and the Orange Bowl can take another SEC team on top of that.  Jim Delany and Mike Slive definitely pulled a fast one there, particularly when the media seems to intimate that this was some type of concession.

(5) What happens to independents, particularly Notre Dame and BYU? – Independents (excluding Navy who will be joining the Big East in 2015, these currently consist of Notre Dame, BYU and Army and will include conference-less Idaho and New Mexico State next year) do not have any prescribed access to the semifinals and host bowls outside of ranking high enough for the selection committee to choose them for those slots.  However, Notre Dame has a contractual tie-in with the Orange Bowl, so host bowl access would have been gravy to them, anyway.

Most speculation about the impact on independents has centered around whether the new G5 bowl slot will spur BYU to join the Big East.  As I’ve stated in other blog posts, I don’t believe that BYU will end up in the Big East because its interests are much more about providing maximum TV exposure for the football program and the LDS church as a whole, which is exactly what they get now as an independent with an ESPN contract, as opposed to making the most TV money possible.  Now, I do believe that the bowl access situation will give BYU and LDS leaders (never forget that they are intertwined here) something else to chew on, but if you take a step back, you’ll realize that nothing has actually changed for the school in terms of top tier bowl access.  As of today, the only way that BYU can get automatic access to any BCS bowl is to qualify for the national championship game itself, which is practically no different than BYU only gaining automatic access if it qualifies for a semifinal in the new system.  Since BYU chose independence under the current BCS circumstances with virtually no prescribed access at all, no one should assume that the new G5 bowl spot will seriously alter their thinking.  At the end of the day, I continue to believe that Air Force will end up as football school #14 in the Big East while BYU will maintain its independence.

(6)  Any other unusual details? – Well, Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolahan has some loose lips, where he provided some quirky information from the BCS meetings to the Baton Rouge Advocate (h/t to Alan from Baton Rouge):

While the nonplayoff Sugar Bowls will be exclusively between SEC and Big 12 teams, much as the Rose Bowl is exclusively between Big Ten and Pac-12 teams, the semifinals can feature teams from any conference, although if an SEC or Big 12 team is seeded first or second, its game will be in the Sugar Bowl.

********

The rotation for the semifinals is yet to be set. Hoolahan said he did not know which year would be the first for New Orleans to host a playoff game but understood the Sugar Bowl would be paired with the Rose Bowl.

“That way, we’ll have an uninterrupted afternoon and evening of playoff games,” he said. “That’s going to be exciting.”

The first portion of Hoolahan’s info doesn’t surprise me, where the contract bowls would get preferences to host their respective conference partners when they are semifinal games.  It makes complete sense that a #1 or #2-ranked Big Ten or Pac-12 team ought to go to the Rose Bowl if that game happens to be a semifinal site for that particular season.  However, the second portion about how the Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl would always be semifinal games in the same year is completely perplexing to me.  I understand Hoolahan’s point that the years when both of them are hosting semifinals would make for an exciting New Year’s Day, but the flip side is that there would now be no New Year’s Day semifinals at all in 1 out of every 3 years.  A clear and logical annual setup of 1 host bowl being a semifinal on New Year’s Eve and 1 contract bowl being a semifinal on New Year’s Day seems to be thrown up in the air with this information.  Usually, I’m able to understand the intent and reasoning behind various actions by the powers that be (even if I don’t personally agree with them), but I’m at a loss as to why the commissioners believe that this is a good idea.

All-in-all, there has been a flurry of progress over the past couple of weeks on the playoff front after a long pause in deliberations.  Hopefully, we’ll get some final information about how the semifinal rotation will be set up, confirmation that ESPN will be the television partner, and where the national championship game itself will be played sooner rather than later.

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

(Image from Sports Illustrated)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. bullet says:

    Sugar and Rose being semis the same year doesn’t make sense. Maybe they are still brainstorming.

    Like

    • hskrfb fan says:

      My first thought was to agree with most everyone that having the January 1st Sugar and Rose with semifinals the same year or having 2 semifinal games both on December 31st didn’t make much since. I thought grouping Orange/Cotton, Sugar/Fiesta, Rose/Chick-fil-A would a good geographical groupings so we all could enjoy one semi on 12/31 & one on 1/1 each year.

      After looking at future January calendars, I think I understand how it may work. I believe that the BCS v2 would like to have the National Championship game on a Monday around the the 7-13th of January each year. The winners of the semifinals need at least a week off for rest and prep time. There may be years where having both games on 12/31, 1/1, or 1/2 would be best. Other years, splitting them up would be better.

      For example, here are possible dates for the upcoming National Championship games and what semifinal combo might work best:

      January 13th 2014 – any semifinal combo would work
      January 12th 2015 – any semifinal combo would work
      January 11th 2016 – any semifinal combo would work
      January 9th 2017 – it would work well to have both semifinals on Saturday December 31st.
      January 8th, 2018 – it would work well to have the Sugar & Rose host the semifinals on Jan 1st
      January 7th, 2019 – it would work well to have both semifinals on Monday December 31st.

      It will be interesting to see how the BCS v2 will set rotations for future years because the desire to avoid conflicting with the NFL & the desire to have the championship game on a Monday as early in January as possible.

      It will be interesting…

      Like

  2. If I had to guess, I’d say having Rose/Sugar either both in or both out made the logistics of organizing access for everyone simpler. Total guess though.

    Like

  3. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!

    Like

  4. CJ says:

    A couple of quick questions:
    1. Do conference runner-ups from the 5 power conferences guaranteed a spot in a host bowl in years in which their conference’s contract bowl is a semi-final site and their conference’s championship team makes it to the playoff?

    2. If the highest rated G5 team makes it into the playoff, is the next highest ranked G5 team guaranteed a spot in a host bowl?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      CJ,

      “A couple of quick questions:
      1. Do conference runner-ups from the 5 power conferences guaranteed a spot in a host bowl in years in which their conference’s contract bowl is a semi-final site and their conference’s championship team makes it to the playoff?”

      No, the team has to be good enough to qualify for a host bowl. Take the B10 as an example:

      Rose is normal -> champ in the Rose
      Rose is normal and champ in the semis -> the Rose automatically gets a B10 runner up

      Rose is a semi -> champ goes to a host bowl
      Rose is a semi and champ in the semis -> no B10 runner up is promised a spot in a host bowl

      “2. If the highest rated G5 team makes it into the playoff, is the next highest ranked G5 team guaranteed a spot in a host bowl?”

      No. They are guaranteed one spot total.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Brian:

        Didn’t FtT specifically, and through example, state the opposite of your response to #1? Or have I completely whiffed at understanding this easy to understand, simple system?

        “On the flip side, when a contract bowl is not a semifinal, it is guaranteed to have teams from its tie-in conferences no matter where they are ranked. So, in another example, if the playoff were in effect this year where the Rose Bowl is not a semifinal site and Oregon is the Pac-12 champion and finishes in the top 4, the Rose Bowl would take another Pac-12 team to replace Oregon whether such team is ranked #5 or #50.”

        Like

  5. m (Ag) says:

    1) I don’t think it’s clear that the $500 million-ish figure for the playoff system doesn’t include the contract bowls. It hasn’t been clear in the articles I’ve read, and I’ve frankly wondered if the reporters covering this understand the system well enough themselves to ask the question.

    2) The Big East are winners in the sense they are getting more than they would under a free market; the Orange Bowl negotiations combined with the ‘7th bowl’ negotiations are 2 clear examples that they aren’t nearly as valuable as any of the ‘Power 5’ conferences. Now, they may have given up concessions in the shared revenue in order to get greater access that offsets their ‘win’.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I saw one article saying $608 million that said it included the contract bowls. Now that would only be $393 for everything else, so that’s not consistent with other reports.

      Like

  6. greg says:

    Go rebuilding hawks.

    Like

  7. bamatab says:

    RTR!

    Like

  8. Denogginizer says:

    GBR

    Like

  9. Eric says:

    The notion of the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl hosting together is definitely odd. I’m trying to picture how the set-up would work. If they stick to New Years Day and New Years Eve as the standard (and it seems like they are given they have a tentative deal with ESPN), then that will give you two semi-finals on New Years Eve one year. If it does go that way though, I guess it will look something like this.

    Year 1:
    Peach Bowl (New Years Eve 5pm) and Fiesta Bowl (New Years Eve 8pm) host semi-finals

    Year 2:
    Cotton Bowl (New Years Eve 8pm) and Orange Bowl (New Years Day 1pm) host semi-finals

    Year 3:
    Rose Bowl (New Years Day 5pm) and Sugar Bowl (New Years Day 8pm) host

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Eric,

      Yes, that’s roughly what I expect. 2 out of 3 years they get back to back semifinals in the late afternoon and evening (once on 12/31, once on 1/1). In the other year, they get prime time on 12/31 and the early afternoon on 1/1. Getting a semifinal doubleheader most years may have been their plan. Maybe TV told them that was more valuable than splitting days all the time. The year with the split should still do well with the 2 strongest bowls following the early afternoon semi on 1/1.

      Like

  10. bullet says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8633324/acc-orange-bowl-finalize-12-year-deal-sources-say

    Article says Orange Bowl deal is $55 million. Not surprising to me, but to some, ACC will split evenly with B1G or SEC opponents. Interestingly, though, Notre Dame doesn’t get as good a deal. Notre Dame gets “significantly less” than half the amount.

    Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      Wondering where that extra money goes when ND makes the Bowl. Does the ACC, B1G, and SEC split that?

      Also interesting to see that, if there’s a rematch with the top team from the SEC/B1G/ND pool, the Bowl can bypass them take the next highest-ranked team. Given that there’s a lot of potential re-matches against ND or teams from the SEC, this helps out the Big Ten.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        m (Ag),

        “Wondering where that extra money goes when ND makes the Bowl. Does the ACC, B1G, and SEC split that?”

        I’d think the SEC, B10 and ND all get paid some amount every year and the team that makes it gets paid more. I’d assume ND gets paid less because it’s the only fair way to make up for them getting paid every year they aren’t in it.

        Rough idea:
        ND in = $9.2M (B10 and SEC also get $9.2M each)
        ND out = $3M (B10 and SEC also get $9.2M each, plus extra $6.2M for being in game)

        B10/SEC out = $9.2M
        B10/SEC in = $15.4M

        Maybe they won’t do this, but it’s what I’d expect. The ADs would prefer a more steady revenue stream they can count on from this bowl spot than getting a huge sum once every few years.

        “Also interesting to see that, if there’s a rematch with the top team from the SEC/B1G/ND pool, the Bowl can bypass them take the next highest-ranked team. Given that there’s a lot of potential re-matches against ND or teams from the SEC, this helps out the Big Ten.”

        Agreed, although B10 teams also play the ACC a decent amount now (esp. VT).

        Like

        • m (Ag) says:

          From the article:

          “ESPN will pay an average of $55 million annually for the bowl, sources said.

          That amount will be split evenly between the ACC and the SEC or Big Ten, depending on which conference has a team is in the bowl. However, when Notre Dame plays in the bowl, the Fighting Irish will receive a “significant amount less” than the $27.5 million payout the SEC or Big Ten will receive, sources said.”

          Like

          • Brian says:

            The ACC won’t get the extra, so the B10 and SEC must split it. It’s dumb to agree to letting the whole $27.5M go to the conference in the game, but that’s what they want apparently. Pencil that in as an extra $2M per team per year for the SEC until the media bias changes.

            ND in = $15.5M (B10 and SEC also get $6M each)
            ND out = $0
            B10/SEC in = $27.5M

            Like

    • Brian says:

      bullet,

      That just continues what the BCS does. ND doesn’t get the same share as a conference does when they go to a BCS bowl, they get much less.

      2012 BCS payouts:
      non-AQ AQ – $28.2M
      AQ champ – $23.6M
      At large – $6.2M
      ND in – $6.2M
      ND out – $1.9M
      Army/Navy/BYU in – $6.2M
      Army/Navy/BYU out – $100k each

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Well that was new with the last contract. Previously they got the whole amount. The philosophy seems to be that they are treated as a 2nd team from a conference so that they don’t get a windfall, but do get some guarantees.

        But it could also be part of their deal with the ACC. They may have to share bowl revenue (while sharing in the ACC’s $ as well).

        Like

        • Jericho says:

          I have no real idea, but I might guess the ACC gets it. Notre Dame shouldn’t get the same share that an entire conference gets. If the ACC/SEC/Big 10 are in the Orange, the money is split among the entire conference, not the individual schools at the Bowl. If Notre Dame gets it, Notre Dame alone keeps its share.

          My logic is that since Notre Dame is otherwise part of the ACC outside of football, that maybe they made concessions on the Bowl revenue to help fund the conference. Just a thought.

          Like

  11. Hodgepodge says:

    Re: the Maryland to the B1G rumors (see twitter), apparently this all originated from some Maryland radio station (don’t know which one) on Monday that was talking like it is all but a done deal. Allegedly a Columbus radio station (97.1) is going to be talking about it tomorrow as well.

    I’m skeptical, but one of these rumors is bound to be right one of these days.

    To get it all out of the way, no, their football program doesn’t move the needle and basketball doesn’t drive the bus, but it is a good market and academically they are a great match for the B1G. What all that means in the broad scheme of things is anyone’s guess.

    Like

    • Elvis says:

      The ACC gets less money than the Big 4 in almost every area (including the Orange Bowls new $55 Million payout versus $80).

      Add that to the fact that the ACC just doesn’t care to complete in football….of course Maryland wants to leave.

      Like

    • StevenD says:

      It doesn’t make sense for the B1G to go after Maryland and then subsequently take Rutgers (or somebody) to even up the numbers. However, it does make sense for the B1G to go after Maryland if they need Maryland to even up the numbers after landing a White Whale.

      So the question is: has the B1G secretly landed a White Whale? And who qualifies as a White Whale? Notre Dame, certainly, but who else?

      Stanford would definitely be a White Whale (the B1G would take them in a heartbeat), but it’s unlikely that anybody from the Pac12 (or B12 or SEC) would desert. So who have we got? Any White Whales in the ACC?

      Like

      • @StevenD – Purely in terms of football and money, Florida State and Miami are the white whales in the ACC. There really isn’t anyone that combines the massive football fan base with top academic research capabilities, though. Miami is probably the closest on those measures despite being a private school with a fair weather fan base and potential NCAA sanctions on the horizon.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I wonder how much of the value of the BTN is due to basketball. Basketball certainly fills more air time than football. That could make a Maryland or a UNC more attractive.

          I do think the 4 Carolina schools don’t leave the ACC until the waves are covering the deck. Even if Maryland and FSU left, I think they stay together. It would take something beyond those two to break up the ACC. If the money was equal, I don’t think any ACC school would leave for any conference except maybe Pitt and Maryland for the Big 10.

          Like

          • @bullet – Basketball is actually pretty important. Football is kind of like the steak for the network: it’s the most expensive and might be most people’s favorite food, but you can’t have it every single day. In contrast, basketball is like a McDonald’s cheeseburger and fries – it’s not the highest value product, but it provides high volume with a constant flow of customers. Remember that the Big Ten Network generally negotiates its carriage rates by state, so a place like Indiana would consider Hoosier and Boilermaker basketball as a must-have on the level that Nebraska citizens value Husker football.

            You can see this other conferences, too. Before the Longhorn Network was created, Kansas actually had the most valuable third tier rights in the Big 12 based on the demand for its basketball games, while the likely SEC network will leverage Kentucky basketball more than football when trying to get the maximum carriage rate in the Bluegrass State. College basketball is more valuable for conference networks and regional carriers compared to national networks similar to how regular season Major League Baseball games are more valuable for regional sports networks (on a relative basis) than national channels. It’s actually much easier to survive as a Big Ten football fan without the Big Ten Network than it is to survive as a Big Ten basketball fan.

            Like

        • schwarm says:

          IMO, GTech >> Miami. Better academics, and solid revenue sports. Their non-revenue sports are weak, but I think access/cost to/from Atlanta from B1G schools more important. GT fan base/ school mission much more like a B1G school than Miami.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Neither is much like a Big 10 school. GT has a relatively limited range of majors and only about 20k students. GT has historically been an engineering school and limited in other areas. Its just recently been expanding. Its why UGA fans refer to it as “that trade school on North Avenue.”

            Both have relatively weak fan bases by Big 10/SEC standards.

            Like

          • schwarm says:

            Gtech is public, AAU, 1.6 billion endowment with much better travel access.
            To me it’s a much better fit than Miami.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        StevenD,

        The problem with ACC schools is generally they would be good in sports or in academics for the B10, but not both.

        Academics – MD, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT
        Athletics – VT, Clemson, FSU
        Both – Miami?

        I don’t see the B10 making the leap to Miami.

        The only white whales are ND and UT and they are both off the board.

        Combos:
        MD and VT
        MD and UVA
        MD and RU

        MD, UVA, VT and RU
        MD, UVA, UNC, Duke

        I think MD and RU is the most likely pairing because we know the B10 can take RU at will, but I don’t consider that very likely at all.

        Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          Brian you’re conflating football with ‘athletics’.

          Saying Virginia, North Carolina & Duke don’t have strong athletic prorams is completely off the mark.

          Composite Directors Cup standings over the past five years:
          6 UNC
          7 Virginia
          9 FSU
          14 Duke
          32 Maryland
          37 VPI
          47 Clemson
          52 Georgia Tech
          84 Rutgers

          While I’m not one to put too much stock into this story as of yet either. Maryland was one of the two ACC schools that wasn’t happy with the new exit fees. So if they do plan to jump ship, sooner is better than later when it comes to how much they’ll end up paying to get out.

          The other school was of course FSU.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Scarlet_Lutefisk,

            “Brian you’re conflating football with ‘athletics’.”

            Mostly, yes. But you need to re-read what I wrote. I said where they’d be good for the B10, not where they’re good. Adding more basketball teams or lacrosse or whatever isn’t all that valuable to the B10. Adding quality football teams is.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Except that you are being myopic in what the conference ‘needs’. If it were merely about adding quality football teams Oklahoma would be a member right now. In reality it’s about what is going to be best for the long term stability & growth of the member institutions.

            You don’t base 100 year decisions on the tenure of Frank Beamer.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            No, I’m not. The conference doesn’t need anything. The most valuable thing a school could bring would be quality football, but they have to have solid academics to be a candidate which is what eliminates many good FB schools. Superior academics are also useful, but the athletics can’t dilute the current value which is why some great academic schools aren’t considered..

            The COP/C wants to stay at 12. There is no pressing reason to expand, unlike with 11 teams. The COP/C has never shown a desire to expand the B10 just for academics (otherwise U Chicago would have partners), so athletics have to be the driver. Few schools fit the needed combo of academic and athletic excellence.

            Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        I certainly don’t buy the rumor……however, if it were true it would be the best possible 50 year solution for the Big 10…………both would be natural fits….and the BIG could print $ in the next TV negotiations.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      Hodgepodge,

      As I noted on Frank’s previous post, an OSU message board on a blog said they first heard it from a friend on Philly who heard it on a local station (radio, I assume). Certainly a MD station could reach Philly.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Repost:

        Message board on an OSU blog
        http://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/football/2012/11/maryland-to-the-big

        Maryland to the BIG?
        “Friend who lives in Philly said that a local channel is reporting that there are talks taking place. Maryland has been rumored for awhile, so we’ll see if there is any substance”

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Repost:

        I’ll believe it when I see it, but MD would be a nice addition for all but football. It should appease PSU, too. I assume Rutgers would be the 14th team.

        Divisions:
        Geographical (in order of locked rivals)
        North – MI, PSU, WI, MSU, MD, MN, RU
        South – OSU, NE, IA, NW, PU, IL, IN

        Podlike (in order of locked rivals)
        Middle – OSU, MI, MSU, PU, NW, IL, IN
        Ends – PSU, NE, WI, IA, MD, MN, RU

        Geographical 2 (in order of locked rivals)
        East – MI, PSU, MSU, PU, MD, RU, IN
        West – OSU, NE, WI, IA, NW, IL, MN

        Pods:
        East – PSU, MD, RU
        North – MI, MSU, NW, IL
        West – NE, WI, IA, MN
        South – OSU, PU, IN

        Pair S & W for 2 years (in order of locked rivals)
        A = S&W – OSU, PU, IN, NE, WI, IA, MN
        B = N&E – MI, MD, IL, PSU, MSU, NW, RU

        Then pair S & N for 2 years (in order of locked rivals)
        A = S&N – OSU, PU, IN, MI, MSU, NW, IL
        B = W&E – PSU, MD, RU, NE, WI, IA, MN

        Like

        • Brian says:

          In response to this, Frank liked my North/South split but thought IA/MN would be locked instead of IA/WI.

          I replied with this:

          Realistically, yes, but I paired them by conference W% so they’d be more fair. WI/IL would be an empty rivalry and give WI the same sort of advantage they have now. MN would still have the ax and the jug, so maybe the pig could go on the back burner for a while.

          Total games played:
          MN/WI – 119
          MN/IA – 104
          MN/MI – 98 (missed 1911-1918, or it would be 106)

          WI/IA – 86

          Ideally you’d keep all 3 for MN, but WI/IA is almost as important.

          Like

    • Jericho says:

      I love how twitter, West Virginia message boards, and random radio stations always have the inside scoop on sports that ESPN, CBS, Fox, and NBC don’t. I wonder why that is….

      Like

    • vp19 says:

      As a Maryland fan, I would love it for reasons both academic (CIC) and athletic (even with Notre Dame as a quasi-member, the ACC has no football brand to speak of in the Washington-Baltimore area, whereas the Big Ten would electrify College Park each autumn), but I’ll believe it when I see it. But if the Big Ten is looking long-term, a Rutgers/Maryland combo would give the conference much more of a footprint along the NYC-D.C. corridor. Plus, it would probably enable Connecticut to take Maryland’s place in the ACC.

      Like

  12. Brian says:

    Frank,

    A couple of nits to pick:

    1. The Orange is worth $55M, not $60M

    2. BYU can get a BCS AQ as #3 (unless 1 & 2 are from the same conference) or #4 (unless #3 used the exemption)

    And more details we know:
    10% of each conference’s distribution will only go to those schools that meet a minimum APR score

    Since the Rose and Sugar are paired, the other pairs must be either Cotton/Orange and Peach/Fiesta or Cotton/Peach and Orange/Fiesta

    All 6 bowls will host an equal number of semis (according to McMurphy)

    The contract bowl pairings will not automatically be preserved when those games host a semi

    If a contract bowl hosts a semi and one of its champs makes the playoffs, the replacement has to be good enough to qualify for the access bowls instead of being an automatic replacement from the same conference

    Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      “If a contract bowl hosts a semi and one of its champs makes the playoffs, the replacement has to be good enough to qualify for the access bowls instead of being an automatic replacement from the same conference”

      Where was this stated? The article Bullet linked to on the Orange Bowl seems to dispute this:

      “When the Orange Bowl hosts the national semifinals, the ACC champion and the highest-ranked available team from Notre Dame, the Big Ten or the SEC will be placed in an access bowl instead.”

      Like

  13. Michael in Raleigh says:

    Maryland and Rutgers are heading to the Big Ten. Just ask twitter and some radio stations.

    In related [fake] news, Florida State and Clemson are going to the Big 12. So is Notre Same. Or was it BYU? Did I say BYU? I meant to say Louisville.

    Like

    • Nemo says:

      I would tend to agree with you except that the head of the University of Maryland system is Brit Kirwan who was in the Big Ten for a time (OSU, I believe). The President of Maryland, Dr. Liu, was recruited from the Big Ten.

      I’d say that the Administration types with an sway on this would be “FOR” which may explain the MD votes against raising buyout money along with FSU which itself may have eyes elsewhere. Whether it is true or not is beyond me.

      Like

  14. greg says:

    Has this tidbit been mentioned here? I also didn’t realize the Orange Bowl will fluctuate between Jan 1 and Dec 31.

    “The standards include at least three guaranteed appearances over the 12 years for both the Big Ten and the SEC and a maximum of two with no minimum for Notre Dame.”

    http://thegazette.com/2012/11/15/big-ten-enters-into-agreement-with-orange-bowl/

    Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      That hadn’t been mentioned before, which brings up its own question:

      If the Orange Bowl is hosting a playoff, and Notre Dame get’s picked for the Big Ten/SEC/ND ‘slot’ to be put in an Access Bowl, does that count as one of its 2 appearances? You could ask the same thing about a Big Ten or SEC school.

      If it doesn’t count, there will be 8 years the Orange Bowl doesn’t host a playoff; the SEC will have 3, the Big Ten 3, and Notre Dame up to 2.

      Like

      • @m(Ag) – That’s a good question. If I’m thinking like the SEC, Big Ten and ND and they presumably got what’s in their best interests, my semi-educated answer would be no. The 3/3/2 split seems to be pretty intentional in covering the 8 non-semifinal years. There is also likely a revenue difference between getting the Orange Bowl slot versus an access bowl slot, so they can’t really be considered as equal.

        Like

        • m (Ag) says:

          That’s my thoughts, as well.

          Again, it sometimes seems like each article is describing a slightly different agreement. It wouldn’t shock me to find out that the other article got it wrong when it said the B1G/SEC/ND slot was guaranteed to appear in an Access bowl when the Orange Bowl hosts a playoff. No writer has written a comprehensive article confirming all the little details that have leaked out, leaving me to wonder if some of the sources the reporters are using might themselves not completely grasp the final agreement.

          Like

      • Brian says:

        m (Ag),

        “If the Orange Bowl is hosting a playoff, and Notre Dame get’s picked for the Big Ten/SEC/ND ‘slot’ to be put in an Access Bowl, does that count as one of its 2 appearances? You could ask the same thing about a Big Ten or SEC school.

        If it doesn’t count, there will be 8 years the Orange Bowl doesn’t host a playoff; the SEC will have 3, the Big Ten 3, and Notre Dame up to 2.”

        Well, they don’t split the Orange’s $55M when the Orange hosts a semi so those years shouldn’t count.

        ND 0-2
        B10 3-5
        SEC 3-5

        It make more sense of the payout.

        Like

    • Eric says:

      Here’s the full ACC release on it.

      http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/111512aaa.html

      It specifically says, “the historic bowl game will either be played in an exclusive prime-time window New Year’s Eve or on New Year’s Day, pending the schedule of the new collegiate postseason playoff games.” So we can probably figure it will always be about 8pm New Years Eve or 1pm New Years Day.

      This combined with the statement about the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl hosting in the same years leads me to two new possible ways they could decide to set it up.

      1. The semi-finals are on New Years Eve 8 of the 12 years. In years when the Orange Bowl hosts, it is guaranteed the prime time slot on New Years Eve and someone else moves to 1pm New Years Day (Peach being a good candidate given it’s historic ACC affiliation).

      2. The comment about the Rose and Sugar being played the same year is wrong and they want 2 playoff games on New Years Day most years. In years when the Rose Bowl or Sugar Bowl hosted, the 1pm slot would be the first playoff bowl. This would allow the playoff bowls to be on New Years Day (or January 2nd if New Years is a Sunday) 8 of the 12 years.

      I don’t think a decision has actually been made yet, so things are probably still in flux. My guess is we get something pretty close to #1 though now.

      Like

      • m (Ag) says:

        Or perhaps it’s New Years Eve most years and gets pushed up a day if New Years Eve is a Sunday.

        Like

        • texmex says:

          So I guess based on the above and what was written, this could be a potential schedule
          Still looks backwards ass if you ask me

          Year 1
          NYE – Peach Bowl – 11:00
          NYE – Cotton Bowl – 3:00 (playoff)
          NYE – Fiesta Bowl – 7:00 (playoff)
          NYD – Orange Bowl – 12:00
          NYD – Rose Bowl – 3:30
          NYD – Sugar Bowl – 7:30

          Year 2
          NYE – Cotton Bowl – 11:00
          NYE – Fiesta Bowl – 3:00
          NYE – Orange Bowl – 7:00 (playoff)
          NYD – Peach Bowl -12:00 (playoff)
          NYD – Rose Bowl – 3:30
          NYD – Sugar Bowl – 7:30

          Year 3
          NYE – Peach Bowl – 11:00
          NYE – Cotton Bowl – 3:00
          NYE – Fiesta Bowl – 7:00
          NYD – Orange Bowl – 12:00
          NYD – Rose Bowl – 3:30 (playoff)
          NYD – Sugar Bowl – 7:30 (playoff)

          Like

          • Brian says:

            texmex,

            Everyone thought Saturday night was a terrible time to play games until they tried it and got huge ratings. NYE may turn out the same way.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          m (Ag) says,

          “Or perhaps it’s New Years Eve most years and gets pushed up a day if New Years Eve is a Sunday.”

          There’s a comment above that showed how this could fit the changing calendar every year.
          https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/thanksgiving-adult-table-and-kids-table-a-new-college-football-playoff-and-bowl-system-faq/#comment-144073

          Like

    • Brian says:

      greg,

      That article explains a lot.

      1. Orange Bowl revenue
      “The standards include at least three guaranteed appearances over the 12 years for both the Big Ten and the SEC and a maximum of two with no minimum for Notre Dame.”

      Orange appearances:
      ND 0-2
      B10 3-9
      SEC 3-9

      At worst the SEC will triple the amount the B10 gets from this. Having at least 3 appearances make more sense for the all or nothing payout.

      2. Pairing the Rose and Sugar for semis
      “The opportunity to partner with ESPN to showcase the game on either New Year’s Eve or New Year’s Day provides us with a terrific way for fans to ring in the New Year in South Florida.”

      Now it becomes clear. Once every 3 years they’ll be back to back semis on 1/1 after the Orange. The other 2 they’ll have back to back semis on 12/31 with the Orange in prime time as a semi or on 1/1 as a bowl. Maybe TV told them having back to back semis was the way to go.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        Actually reading a tweet from another site (sorry can’t remember the source), it sounds like the Orange Bowl’s standard time will now be New Years Eve primetime unless two of the access bowls are hosting in which case it goes to 1pm New Years Day.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          That would make the schedule:
          4 out of 12
          1 Peach
          4:30 Fiesta
          8 Orange

          NYD
          1 Cotton
          4:30 Rose semi
          8 Sugar semi

          4 out of 12
          1 Peach
          4:30 Fiesta semi
          8 Orange semi

          NYD
          1 Cotton
          4:30 Rose
          8 Sugar

          4 out of 12
          1 Peach semi
          4:30 Fiesta (probably still 4:30)
          8 Cotton semi

          NYD
          1 Orange
          4:30 Rose
          8 Sugar

          Like

          • Richard says:

            I can’t see a semifinal playing in the early afternoon of a workday.

            An 11AM local time start for the Fiesta once in 3 years would be fine; planty of games in the Midwest as well as NYD bowl games start that early. Didn’t the Cotton use to regularly kick off at 10AM local time?
            BTW, the times are more likely to be 1:30PM, 5PM, & 8:30PM.

            Like

          • @Richard – I agree. My guess is that the Orange Bowl having variable time slots is more likely to ensure that one semifinal is played on New Year’s Day in the early afternoon time slot in the years that the Rose and Sugar aren’t hosting back-to-back semifinals. Maybe I just can’t fathom that the powers that be would go through all of this and there could still be years where semifinals aren’t played on New Year’s Day at all. Of course, the powers that be seem to be more than willing to do the unexpected these days.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            “I can’t see a semifinal playing in the early afternoon of a workday.”

            I agree. They seem to be trying for back to back semis every year. Attendance in Atlanta wouldn’t be an issue, but TV ratings might be.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Frank the Tank,

            “@Richard – I agree. My guess is that the Orange Bowl having variable time slots is more likely to ensure that one semifinal is played on New Year’s Day in the early afternoon time slot in the years that the Rose and Sugar aren’t hosting back-to-back semifinals.”

            I just don’t see that. If they wanted 1 on 1/1 every year, that would have been easy to do. I think they’ve decided on back to back semis as the best approach. Otherwise, the Orange would always be on 1/1. They want a primetime semi every year which makes sense. Apparently they have decided that leading in with the other semi is better than spreading them over 2 days.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            They may have decided that the two finalists having an equal number of days to rest & prepare after the first round is the most fair thing.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Very true. An extra day for coaches to watch film and scout would be a huge advantage.

            Like

  15. Read The D says:

    As far as access goes, the independents and G5 got the short end, but Notre Dame and the independents got really screwed.

    Let’s take this year. Several ifs, but here goes. If Notre Dame loses to USC, let’s say that would drop them to 10th in the BCS or Selection Committee rankings.

    If the semifinals were to be the Orange and Cotton, the bowls would look like this, using current BCS rankings and dropping a 1-loss Notre Dame to 10th:

    Orange
    1. Kansas St. vs 4. Georgia
    Cotton
    2. Oregon vs 3. Alabama
    Rose
    13. Stanford (Pac Champ) vs 14 Nebraska (B1G Champ)
    Sugar
    5. Florida (SEC Champ) vs 12. Oklahoma (B12 Champ)
    Fiesta
    6. LSU (B1G/SEC/Notre Dame spot) vs 19. Louisville (G5 spot)
    Peach
    9. Florida St. (ACC Champ) vs 8. Texas A&M (At Large)

    This year, as it stands, the SEC would get 5 of the 12 slots. A 1-loss Notre Dame gets left out of the whole deal. I’m no Notre Dame apologist but that is absurd and this system is absurd.

    Like

    • Part of the problem is you’re plugging in current BCS rankings as if that would rule. This seems unlikely, even if final rankings stayed as they currently were (which they won’t, partially since Bama-UGA play each other, and partially because other teams can still get upset in the next couple weeks).

      The standard is best teams as a committee evaluates, not as the current BCS evaluates. That strikes me as making it unlikely any league would get 5/12 spots even if it had been far and away the best (which pretty obviously isn’t the case this year, see 4-5 vs AQ’s and multiple losses to non-AQ’s).

      Like

      • JMann says:

        agree with Matthew – Ga/Alabama will play each other, also, FSU/Florida will play each other, so these will change. Also, BCS rankings are a terrible tool to estimate given that computer rankings will not be part of the new system and the coaches pool is so flawed. The AP pool with adjustments for the stress on “conference champions” is probably the best estimate for a selection committee. Also, no conference will ever get more than 4 of 12 slots. Finally, for the G5 slot, if it was this year, i think an 11-1 Louisana tech who only lost by 2 at Texas A&M would get consideration over a 11-1 Louisville (who they are only one spot behind in current BCS standings)

        Like

    • acaffrey says:

      I think a 1-loss ND will always find its way into the mix. In this instance, over a two-loss Texas A&M team.

      Like

      • Read The D says:

        @JMann and Matthew Smith

        I understand that the rankings will change and everything else. I’m simply working with the data we’re given. What makes you think the selection committee will be better than the currently approved and constantly tweaked BCS rankings?

        Alabama dropped a whopping 3 spots after an SEC loss so it’s tough to assume a selection committee (or poll, or rankings or whatever term you want to use) would drop other SEC schools too low if they lose to each other.

        Whether the G5 spot goes to Louisville or Louisiana Tech is irrelevant. The point is Notre Dame and all other indies and G5’s are basically competing for 1 at large spot.

        My beef is with all the guaranteed locks. If the SEC or B1G gets 2 in the semifinals they’re guaranteed a 3rd and have about a 50% chance to get a 4th in, and potentially a 5th. I would rather see more in high profile inter-conference match-ups at the end of the year than what this system appears to be giving us.

        To state another way, why go to the trouble of encompassing 6 bowls? Why not just let the conferences contract with each bowl and set their own value and select the 4 best teams each year for the semis.

        Like

  16. JMann says:

    in reality too, the selection committee will not have to continually rank teams until they come to a highest ranked G5 team. Since these teams are competing against each other for one spot, the committee simple has to look at that group of teams and decide who is the most deserving of that one spot in the six bowls.

    Like

  17. Craig Z says:

    Go Bucks.

    Like

  18. Penn State Danny says:

    Will the Fiesta Bowl have to regularly host a game at 1:00 Eastern time on New Year’s Eve?

    Will people come for a game that is at 11:00 local time on what is a work day for many?

    Like

    • Eric says:

      I’ve wondered about that two. I’m guessing the Fiesta/Cotton/Peach will have a rotation going for the New Years Eve 1pm/5pm and New Years Day 1pm (with one team, getting 8pm on New Years Eve instead of 1pm on New Years Day).

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Penn State Danny,

      “Will the Fiesta Bowl have to regularly host a game at 1:00 Eastern time on New Year’s Eve?”

      I doubt it. I think they’ll either rotate that through the 3 access bowls (so once every 3 years) or keep the Fiesta out of that slot altogether.

      “Will people come for a game that is at 11:00 local time on what is a work day for many?”

      Yes, because many of the people working aren’t those who would buy tickets. There will be thousands of visiting fans, plus retirees and those off from work.

      Like

  19. mushroomgod says:

    So……I’m looking on the BT boards to see what people are saying about the MD rumors….and I see quite a few “maryland would suck” type comments, which is quite ignorant, imo….

    I fully expect Delaney and/or MD officials to come out in the next day or two and say there’s nothing to the rumors, but if there WERE, MD has a heck of a resume….

    38000 students, including 10000 grad students….55th in US News ratings…huge research $s…proximity to DC..

    On the athletic front…..new 18000 basketball arena, and overall sports facilities have been voted #1 in the US…..38 NCs…..

    On the negative side….relatively small football stadium (54000 with plans to go to 60000 on hold), questionable football support, and have lost a million straight games to PSU….but, on the whole, MD would be at least as good an addition as NEB….and darn near as good as PSU…

    Like

    • Brian says:

      mushroomgod,

      “So……I’m looking on the BT boards to see what people are saying about the MD rumors….and I see quite a few “maryland would suck” type comments, which is quite ignorant, imo….”

      I think there are several sources for that:

      1. Most B10 sites are populated by FB fans that think about nothing but FB (see the comments on ESPN, etc). They’re the ones that ignore factors like academics and cultural fit when discussing expansion. If all you look at is recent football success, MD sucks.

      2. Many B10 fans want the B10 to be a midwestern conference. They grudgingly accept PSU, but were much happier with NE, and don’t want an east coast school contaminating their league.

      3. Many B10 fans don’t want to expand more. They pooh-pooh all candidates.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Agree with you on all those points…….

        From my perspective……IU football always sucks, so my interests broaden out. Obviously basketball, but also women’s basketball and fast-pitch softball…like to watch all of those on BTN….

        As far as the BIG being a MW conf, can’t dispute that…..but I can definately see it as more of a ‘northern” conference…..basically all of the really large state flagship schools from NJ to NEB….I think that creates an interesting north-south competition with the sec going forward…….being a

        history buff, I’ve been to Antietam and Gettysburg…recreate that in a sports setting…from a strategic point of view, it solves the demographic and market issues of BT expansion.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          mushroomgod,

          I think the mistake many fans make is they take a incidental attribute and mistake it for a necessary or desired quality. The B10 started as a midwestern league, but that was back when teams took trains everywhere. The schools had to be close together, so OSU was as far east as they expanded and Iowa as far west as they went (they told ISU and NE no). It’s not that the B10 schools were worried about being a midwest conference, they had to be one. A century later, travel isn’t the constraint that it was. Being in the midwest isn’t a requirement for the B10 any more, but many fans see it as a defining characteristic of the B10.

          Like

    • danimation707 says:

      Mushroom can you provide a link to the site that lists Maryland as having the #1 overall athletic facilities? I find this incredibly difficult to believe.

      Like

  20. Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

    From the Maryland SBNation blog:

    As the Conferences Turn: Maryland, Big Ten rumors back in vogue…

    http://www.testudotimes.com/2012/11/16/3656634/as-the-conferences-turn-maryland-big-ten-rumors-back-in-vogue

    Like

  21. morganwick says:

    Does the lack of concessions for independents make BYU consider the Big 12 more, where the same bending-over-backwards the conference does to accommodate the Longhorn Network also helps BYUtv (which already doesn’t have more than one or two football games a year), at least in theory? Regardless of what you say about the Big East, you can’t deny that BYU is now in a uniquely disenfranchised situation compared to almost all the other FBS schools.

    Like

    • Richard says:

      I really doubt that it was BYU rejecting the B12 in the first place.

      As for postseason access, as Frank pointed out, it’s little different for BYU compared to the current system. Under both the new and old system, BYU is “disadvantaged” compared to the BE (or B12), yet that did not compel BYU to join the BE or B12, so what has changed?

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Correct. If the B12 had capitulated to BYU’s conditions (that would probably make the LHN seem totally benign), or if BYU accepted the conditions required by the B12, they would probably be in. So who rejected who? Rejection requires someone willing to accede, but is rebuffed anyway.
        BYU is BYU. External pressure works seemingly less well on them than on ND.

        Like

    • m (Ag) says:

      The difference between Notre Dame and BYU right now in the playoff bowls appears to be that Notre Dame can get to the Orange Bowl twice in 12 years and BYU can’t.

      There are 4 playoff spots BYU can reach every year, plus one or 2 at large spots it will possibly reach.

      I’d be more interested in what sort of Bowl arrangement they can get for the bowls outside of this system. If they can get an arrangement with a big conference (like ND has with the ACC) they’ll be fine. If not, they may be resigned to low-level bowls most years, every now and then possibly qualifying for a playoff bowl.

      Like

  22. zeek says:

    If the Big Ten was going to add Maryland, then why didn’t it go for Missouri + Maryland when Missouri was available?

    That’s my 2 cents. It might not mean much, but I have a hard time seeing Delany add Maryland as a #13 without a #14 right behind it, and is there a better choice for #14 right now than Missouri was a year or two ago?

    I don’t see it. But I don’t mind being proven wrong. I’ve thought of Maryland as a fit for a while.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      zeek,

      “If the Big Ten was going to add Maryland, then why didn’t it go for Missouri + Maryland when Missouri was available?”

      If this happens, that’ll be a very good question. I only see these answers:

      1. The 14th team (Rutgers or whoever) is seen as much more valuable than MO.

      Academics? A great desire to expand into the east? It’s hard to see in terms of financial value unless #14 is a surprise team.

      2. MD didn’t want to come back when NE was added.

      Hard to think much has changed in such a short time.

      3. The 14th team didn’t want to come back when NE was added.

      Hard to think much has changed in such a short time.

      4. The COP/C didn’t want to go beyond 12 when NE was added, but now is willing.

      They haven’t said anything to that effect. Is it simply because the new TV deal is now much closer?

      I can’t think of a good reason for this to happen now when it didn’t before.

      “That’s my 2 cents. It might not mean much, but I have a hard time seeing Delany add Maryland as a #13 without a #14 right behind it, and is there a better choice for #14 right now than Missouri was a year or two ago?”

      Possibly. If the east is seen as more valuable than MO, then RU could bring better money and academics. I doubt MD could bring a significantly better #14 than MO would have been.

      “I don’t see it. But I don’t mind being proven wrong. I’ve thought of Maryland as a fit for a while.”

      I don’t see it either. I don’t see a reason to go past 12 without a powerhouse.

      Like

      • frug says:

        4. The COP/C didn’t want to go beyond 12 when NE was added, but now is willing.

        They haven’t said anything to that effect. Is it simply because the new TV deal is now much closer?

        This seems like the weirdest thing about all this to me. Unless ND is the 14th team, I can’t envision what motivation the Big 10 has to expand before the new TV deal in 2016. I mean, if they have an expansion clause like the SEC and ACC, then they could renegotiate the deal early, but since they could just go to the open market in two years anyways why would they want to do that?

        The timing just doesn’t make any sense.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Agreed on those points.

          Unless Florida State or Virginia Tech is joining with Maryland, I just don’t see the point for having these discussions right now.

          You have to have a team that brings value to this addition beyond just the grab at TV markets and academics.

          Like

      • zeek says:

        Yeah all of those thoughts match my thinking for the most part.

        http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8644587/maryland-terrapins-rutgers-scarlet-knights-talks-join-big-ten-conference-sources-say

        Well, now ESPN has it as the top story so you know this is going to get blown up.

        Like

      • m (Ag) says:

        Unless I mis-remembering, 2014 is when the B1G starts a new TV package, so it’s the right time to add teams for the next decade or so. Wasn’t this the original time-table that the Big Ten had to expand?

        I think the BTN is going well and Rutgers & Maryland will make money for the B1G in the short term (more money from the network in their states + more inventory in terms of games). In the long-term, they probably will grow in the way South Carolina grew in the SEC.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Yeah, the main deals get renegotiated in 2 years to start anew in 2016.

          As for the future who knows. I mean my only issue is that if we were throwing a lifeline to build Maryland, why wait until after they run into huge financial troubles and are facing a $50 million buyout.

          I could understand that rationale being applied 2 years ago if we had just gone to 14 at that point in time, but waiting till now just seems weird.

          I still think that this doesn’t happen without Florida State or Virginia Tech. If you add one of those to Maryland, the expansion turns into a home run.

          Otherwise, it’s a long-term building project. I’m okay with that, but it just seems like we misplayed the timing and should have “bailed out” Maryland before the events of the past two years…

          Like

          • bamatab says:

            I have a feeling that UMD feels they probably won’t have to pay the full $50 mil. All of these teams that have swap BCS conferences have been able to negotiate lesser buyouts. Plus since UMD didn’t vote for the $50 mil buyout, they may have a window to exit without that penalty being enforced. That obviously is a guess on my part.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Yeah, no way pays a full exit fee unless they are also breaking another commitment (like a waiting period). The going rate is about 50%.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            Yeah, I was off as to when the new deal starts again.

            Reasons to make this move now:

            1) Maryland can probably make a good case to use the old exit fees as a starting point for negotiations if they move now. They can say the conference raised the fees over their objection and they then started the procedure to leave as soon as possible.

            2) The new playoff agreement resets the college football landscape for 12 years; re-setting the Big Ten alignment at the same time means you can negotiate things like bowl agreements now knowing what your conference will be over this time. (the Pinstripe Bowl vs. and ACC team is a given, right?)

            3) With the Big East still in complete flux, now is a good time for Rutgers to leave while arguing they aren’t doing more harm than any other recent departure (I know it’s hard to believe, but there may be a time in the future where the Big East has the same membership for consecutive years)

            4) Even if most of the Big Ten had realized Notre Dame was never going to come, there may have been a few holdouts who thought they could wait and they would come around.

            5) Having the 2 schools join with 4 years remaining on the tv contract wasn’t ideal, but 2 years is acceptable. If ABC/ESPN doesn’t come to an agreement on an appropriate add-on, they can always put every Rutgers & Maryland home game on the BTN for 2 years, ensuring there won’t be holdouts in getting the BTN in the new states.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        To answer my own question, this is what the ESPN article (espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8644587/maryland-terrapins-rutgers-scarlet-knights-talks-join-big-ten-conference-sources-say) says:

        “A source told ESPN.com that the Big Ten has been itchy about further expansion since Notre Dame made its official move to the ACC two months ago in all sports other than football. The source said the Big Ten can justify Maryland and then possibly Rutgers since they are all contiguous states to the Big Ten footprint.”

        Like

      • frug says:

        What I said above notwithstanding, I can come with two more reasons why the Big 10 would want to expand early:

        1. The Big 10 is considered that the Penn St. situation will do serious damage to the conference in the Northeast and feel they need to get a couple of teams in the region.

        2. Delany thinks if he grabs Maryland he can get FSU to jump to the Big XII, leading to a mass exodus from the ACC giving the Big 10 their choice of ACC teams.

        Obviously these are both long shots, and #2 is downright Machiavellian, but weirder things have happened.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          He might think that he has to do this now before the ACC becomes unpoachable in a couple years time.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          frug,

          The ESPN article mentioned ND half-joining the ACC as the trigger.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            This is a good point, also echoed by frug.

            ND half-joining the ACC makes it a lot harder for Delany to think “we’ll always be able to grab Maryland + 1 in a move to 14” given that over time you’d expect the ND/ACC arrangement to tighten.

            If ND is off the board, then you have to try to get Maryland while they’re available.

            Once the shifting tectonic plates start to cool, it’s a lot harder to rejigger pieces.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Perhaps it is also a way of telling ND be careful. The bed you are making may change, and not in your best interest. Still two spots in the B16…I mean B1G.

            Of course, this is currently nothing but rumors.

            Like

          • Peter says:

            This is about Notre Dame, but not entirely that way. Maryland was blatantly positioning itself to go B1G in the last round of realignment. They want in the CIC, badly. That’s a much bigger deal to them than the football (where, realistically, they’re gonna get whipped). Maryland is one of the biggest research universities in the country.

            If Notre Dame wasn’t going to happen, Maryland is perfectly happy to skip to the front of the line. In every way other than football, they’re a far better fit than Notre Dame.

            Rutgers is a complimentary doormat but also a superb academic institution and Rutgers + Maryland + PSU should get the BTN on cable packages between NY & DC and possibly including those ends.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Translation: Long-term, we always planned to expand past 12, and now that waiting for ND is illogical, we’re proceeding with Plan B.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            In relation to the CIC and how Maryland might view that, I saw some interesting statistics on funding for Texas. (the Available University Fund is the funds from oil land in West Texas)
            1984-85
            Total Budget $503 million
            State funding 47%
            Available University Fund 12%
            Gifts and Endowments 3%
            Tuition and Fees 5% (around $200/semester in-state back then)
            Research grants and other 33%

            2012-13
            Total Budget $2.35 billion
            State Funding 13%
            Available University Fund 8%
            Gifts and Endowments 9%
            Tuition and Fees 25%
            Research Grants and other 45%

            Not only are research grants and other 45% of the budget, they have grown from $166 million to $1.06 billion in 28 years.

            Like

    • Andy says:

      Missouri would have been a stronger addition than either Maryland or Rutgers overall. I think it’s all about timing. Big Ten wasn’t ready to expand because they were still waiting on Notre Dame. Missouri wanted to move right away, so they jumped for the SEC. Now that the Big Ten is ready to expand Missouri is no longer an option. They missed their chance.

      Like

      • frug says:

        I agree that Mizzou would have a been a better addition than Rutgers, but I don’t see Mizzou having any major advantage over Maryland.

        Plus, technically Missouri still isn’t out of the question. The SEC prides itself on not having any exit fees, waiting periods or a GOR so Missouri could still leave anytime they wanted. I think it’s a longshot they would, but it wouldn’t even be close to being the most surprising thing that has happened in college sports over the past 2 and a half years.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          The big questionmark though is the partner of course. I think Missouri is out of the question.

          They would have gone for Missouri if it had made sense previously given that it was a free agent.

          They might be airing these rumors to see if they can jar loose Virginia Tech or Virginia or Florida State. That’s how the previous expansion went.

          The Big Ten destabilized the Big 12 and then grabbed Nebraska. This may be a similar play. Right now, I doubt we see Maryland/Rutgers as the actual pairing.

          Like

          • frug says:

            If they are trying to jar loose V-Tech or FSU it is because they want them to jump the Big XII or SEC in order to destabilize the ACC. After the debacle with Nebraska, I pretty sure the Big 10 isn’t going to add any school who isn’t in good standing with the AAU or located in South Bend, Indiana.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I think Rutgers adds much more to the Big 10 than Missouri (not competitively, but financially). The Big 10 already is strong in St. Louis. With Rutgers, the Big 10 can leverage all the Big 10 alumni in the NYC area. So its not just Rutgers, its Michigan, Penn St., Ohio St….

            If college football was working together and trying to crack open the NY market, Notre Dame and Rutgers would join the Big 10.

            Like

        • bamatab says:

          I know that Mizzou offers new markets that Slive and the SEC presidents value for the upcoming SEC Network, but as from a pure football standpoint, this SEC fan wouldn’t be hurt if you guys poached Mizzou. That would probably force UF to give in to their refusal to allow FSU into the SEC. I then think that with UMD & FSU getting poached from the ACC, it would further weaken them to the point where both the SEC & B1G could grab more ACC teams and their markets. The longer that the ACC is allowed to remain intact, the harder it will be for those teams to negotiate out of the full $50 mil buyout.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Good points, it’s also worth noting that outside of say UNC or Texas, the Big Ten and SEC haven’t really been going after the same schools during these expansion attempts (not directly anyways).
            C

            Carving out the ACC helps both.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        Andy,

        “Missouri would have been a stronger addition than either Maryland or Rutgers overall.”

        Meh. That depends on how you weight the variables.

        FB – MO > MD > RU
        MBB – MO = MD > RU
        Academics – MD = RU > MO
        Population (which means BTN money) – NJ > MO = MD
        Appeasing PSU – NJ = MD > MO

        There are plenty more to consider, too.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Those are fair points.

          Also, considering the future; the Big Ten needs to be on the East Coast considering that’s where the people are going (although I don’t think it’s as big a deal as people like to make it out to be).

          Maryland is pretty essential to getting to the doorstep of the Mid-Atlantic region.

          Like

        • Andy says:

          All basically true, but it’s all a matter of how you weight those factors, and how much of an advantage each holds over the other.

          In football, Missouri is averaging 68k fans per year this year. Maryland averages around 42k and Rutgers averages around 44k. MU is about to qualify for their 8th straight bowl game and 9th in 10 years. Maryland and Rutgers aren’t anywhere near that level. So Missouri has a quite large advantage in football.

          In basketball Missouri has averaged 27 wins per season over the last 4 seasons. They’re ranked in the top 15 now. Maryland has had some success in the past but they’ve struggled for a while now. Rutgers is awful at basketball.

          As far as academics, MU is a large AAU school with 36,000 students. It’s not quite as good as Maryland or Rutgers but it’s solid enough.

          The state of Missouri has 6M people, and a couple of good TV markets. Maryand and Rutger have good tv markets too, but I doubt you’ll find any studies showing those schools getting better TV ratings than Missouri.

          You can sugar coat this all you want but it’s fair to say Missouri would have been a stronger pick. Maybe not by a lot, but by a noticable amount.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            The problem though is that the Big Ten has seemed to want to go East because the Mid-Atlantic is looking like the strongest growth area of the next 50 years that’s near the Big Ten.

            It’s why there were all those ND + Maryland/Rutgers scenarios being tossed about for years.

            Missouri might be the better play independent of region, but this doesn’t happen independent of region.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Andy,

            “All basically true, but it’s all a matter of how you weight those factors, and how much of an advantage each holds over the other.”

            Which is just parroting exactly what I said.

            “You can sugar coat this all you want”

            I didn’t sugar coat anything.

            “but it’s fair to say Missouri would have been a stronger pick.”

            As an opinion, it’s fair. It’s not a statement of fact.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            I never said it was a statement of fact. I said “it’s all a matter of how you weight those factors, and how much of an advantage each holds over the other.”

            Like

          • Brian says:

            And I never said you were wrong.

            Like

          • frug says:

            You forgetting that Maryland also opens up other potential expansion opportunities by weakening the ACC, something Mizzou would not have done. Mizzou also wouldn’t help them counteract the demographic shifts.

            Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but I would say Missouri would be at best a minor short term improvement over Maryland while offering considerably less long term upside.

            (But I do completely agree about Missouri being better than Rutgers.)

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Sure, there are arguments for both. But still, Missouri is averaging 68k fans per game for football this year. Maryland is averaging 42k. Maryland has a long way to go. Maybe they’ll be better long term, maybe not.

            Like

          • One of the issues with Missouri is that it’s dead-end with regards to further expansion. If the Big Ten wants to remain contiguous and only have top research universities there really isn’t much to add on that side of the conference. If they add Maryland and the ACC collapses they could possibly add UVA and UNC. They would give them two of the bigger markets that may be in play for realignment and would add to the conference in academics and basketball. It would also give them a strong presence in the fast growing part of the country that isn’t the Deep South or the West.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            None of that is what the Big 10 needs. They’re competitive in football and basketball and have lots of schools with bigger stadiums. They can afford an Indiana if it adds other things.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            B1G could use a little football help this year, but that’s cyclical, and Missouri wouldn’t add much this year.

            Like

          • danimation707 says:

            Andy that is great that Missouri is averaging 68k in average attendance during its first year in the SEC. But guess what, that number is going to drop back to its typical 50k range. How much fan support will be there when Missouri continues to be a doormat in the SEC from both Missouri fans as well as fans that traveled this year from SEC schools to check out Missouri? It will decrease by a good amount.

            By the way Nebraska’s expansion project to 92k will be complete for the start of the 2013 season and is sold out. There will be almost a 40k per game difference in attendance between UNL & Missouri in the not to distant future.

            Again UNL was a no brainer. Also why do you keep coming over here to try to prop up Missouri? They are irrelevant to this discussion.

            Like

      • Peter says:

        The B1G never wanted Missouri. That was very obvious from the Nebraska saga.

        Like

        • Andy says:

          Actually not at all. Missouri was in discussions to become school #12 in the Big Ten. Reports on how those discussions went vary, but in the end the Big Ten did not take Missouri as school #12. That in no way means the Big Ten wouldn’t have taken Missouri as school #13 or #14.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Andy,

            “That in no way means the Big Ten wouldn’t have taken Missouri as school #13 or #14.”

            Agree totally.

            Like

          • Peter says:

            This isn’t complicated. If they wanted Missouri, they would have taken Missouri before Nebraska even entered the picture.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Peter,

            Not wanting MO as #12 isn’t the same as not accepting them as #14. NE brought more value to the table as #12. If the B10 is really talking with MD then certainly MO would have been a reasonable partner for them. I assume they are off the table after going to the SEC, otherwise many would suggest adding MD/MO rather than MD/RU. MO fits the footprint better and would help balance the divisions while MD assured PSU of getting an eastern partner.

            Like

          • danimation707 says:

            Andy,

            Missouri is doing exactly what I said they would in SEC football. 5-5 overall and 2 wins in thr SEC. One in triple OT vs 4-6 Tennesse & Kentucky. Could’ve easily only won 1 SEC game this year. Look for this trend to continue with no SEC titles in at least the first decade in the SEC.

            Also Missouri had been begging the B1G to let them in for years yet still no invite. You school isn’t wanted in the B1G. Deal with it.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Mizzou will be bowl eligible for the 8th straight year in a couple hours. Dominating Syracuse at the moment.

            The only reason teh B1G isn’t iviting Missouri right now is because Missouri already joined the SEC and won’t move again.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            I remember someone here theorizing (reporting?) last year that Nebraska was added to make the western schools happy before the conference looked East. Of course, we forgot about that once realignment seemed to stop.

            It could be they planned to add Missouri to get a conference championship game until Nebraska came along, and now they want the population of the East Coast.

            Like

          • danimation707 says:

            Well golly Andy. That was a tough loss to Syracuse. Missouri has now dropped to 5-6 & 2-5 in the SEC. I will go ahead and call it that Texas A&M will beat Missouri to drop you to 5-7 & 2-6 in the SEC. So you won’t be bowl eligable.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Amazingly bad luck with injuries this year. 5 O linemen out with injuries and can’t protect the QB at all. Then he goes down with a concussion and is out for the game. We fall apart, lose our big lead and lose the game. That’s how it’s been all year. Nonstop injuries. Sucks.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Andy – injuries happen in the SEC, and not just to Mizzou. LSU lost three starting offensive linemen, a starting linebacker, and its starting halfback to injury. It’s not flag football. Mizzou will have to recruit bigger, faster, and stronger players (and more of them) in order to compete. Also, little running QBs not named Johnny Football aren’t successful (or healthy) in the SEC.

            Like

          • Andy Rutgers can be a close comparision to Missouri actually. It is sad that you are an unabased homer and won’t come to grips with reality. Missouri had a short run of college football success where they won NO conference titles. Missouri’s last conference title was 1969 and that has an asterics next to it. Talk about steeped in tradition…come on man. Missouri’s bowl record since 1983 is 5-6. They missed out on bowl games from 1984-1996, 1999-2002, 2004, and this year 2012.

            Let’s take a look at the bowl games that Missouri was in from 1983 to 2011: Holiday Bowl x2; Insight Bowl x2; Independence Bowl x3; Sun Bowl; Cotton Bowl; Alamo Bowl; Texas Bowl. So over 19 years that is the resume that Missouri has in football. No conference titles and a bunch of mediocer bowl appearances while staying home during the postseason 18 out of the past 29 years including this season. So maybe you should pipe down about talking down at Rutgers and saying that programs don’t have any prestige etc.

            No Andy the B1G 100% wanted Nebraska and was merely thinking about Missouri. The B1G being in discussions with Missouri does not equal an offer being extended or the the B1G being anywhere near being close to making that decision. That is the facts. Also compare your move to the SEC where you are one of the top academic institutions and where more of an academic play vs. an athletic play. When you consider that Missouri ranked very closely to Nebraska (2012 UNL #101 & Missouri #97). Nebrasa is last in the B1G in academics, although pretty decent with research. The academics side is pushing hard to better the University and much like PSU became a much better institution over 20 years in the B1G UNL will do the same. UNL will also increase it’s research dollars by being a part of the CIC. The SEC doesn’t have that by the way. That really shows you what these two conferences are about. The biggest part of conferences is research money not the TV money etc.

            The only thing that you & other folks knock on UNL about is academics & mainly AAU status.

            UNL lost its AAU status due to the following reasons:
            1) Texas pressed the AAU membership very hard to get UNL out. Texas wasn’t happy that Nebraska destroyed their little fiefdom in the big12.
            2) The AAU took away the emphasis on agricultural research which UNL is very strong at.
            3) UNL made a planning mistake by building the University of Nebraska Medical & Reseach Center in Omaha instead of Lincoln. Therefore UNL gets no credit for all of its medical reseach.
            Having said all that above Nebraska and Missouri have similar research dollars that they bring in per year and Nebraska has a larger endowment which exceeds $1 Billion.

            UNL football is massively better than Missouri. Even though UNL isn’t very good right now they are very relevant and most college football fans are aware of how they are doing whereas if you ask casual fans about Missouri you will get an I’m not sure how they are doing response. Missouri’s basketball program is significantly better however basketball doesn’t drive expansion. Also Nebraska has $220 million in basketball projects on the go with the practice facility complete & the new arena that will be ready for the 2013 season.

            Maybe UNL will enter the sleazy AAU basketball realm and pay players and coaches to get basketball recruits like Missouri and be more competitive someday. Lol

            Like

        • Peter says:

          New Jersey brings a lot more money than Missouri does. It has 50% more population and is far more affluent. If the B1G just wants money for #14, there’s no contest here between Missouri the school and Rutgers.

          And that’s without the motherlode of getting on basic cable in the NYC market.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            Rutgers is weak athletically. They get poor tv ratings.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Andy,

            Sure, they get bad ratings now. The question is what their ratings would be when playing PSU, OSU, MI and NE. Several B10 schools have a lot of alums in the NYC area, and playing more interesting teams always helps.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Considering they have basically no tradition of success in any major sport and their average attendance will rank in the lower third of the Big Ten I think it’s fair to say they’re weak athletically, and it would take a lot to change that. And I am struggling to think of a single that is weak athletically that gets good tv rankings, no matter who they play.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Rutgers, however, has the recruiting grounds to be a perennial top 20 team. Before the ’80’s, Miami never amounted to much either, but it would have been foolish to bet against them going from 1980 forward, and that was almost solely due to the talent in their backyard.

            Like

    • Richard says:

      Maryland and Rutgers probably always ranked higher than Mizzou in the pecking order (in the eyes of the B10). Not by much; probably just by a tiny amount.

      As for why now, this may be a gambit to shake a king loose for #14. Remember that Expansion Round 1 was started by the B10 stating that they were going to 12. They also said that they would not be first to 14, preferring to let another conference do that first. Well, now, some conferences have, which allows the B10 to learn and (more importantly, allow the member schools and fanbases to grow familiar with the concept of a 14-school league). Shake loose UMD and the whole ball of twine that is the ACC may come apart. FSU may start calling. The whole southern part of the ACC (south of NC) may defect to the B12. Then a bunch more opportunities open up. Would ND still want to align with a weakened ACC? Would the VA schools or UNC or Duke stick together in a smaller, weaker league?

      Like

      • Nemo says:

        @Richard

        I know rumors are not worth spit, but Georgia Tech has been said to have an interest and was working on Maryland as a possible partner. I’m fairly certain they are AAU, and the Rambling Wreck brings in the Atlanta area. What is your take on that?

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Nemo,

          GT is AAU, but they don’t really bring Atlanta. Sure, the ABC coverage map would, but UGA dominates Atlanta. Still, the SEC isn’t strong enough to get ESPNU on the expanded basic tier despite all the SEC games on ESPNU. The same would be true for the BTN.

          Like

      • Brian says:

        Richard,

        A small part of me wonders if this is a Machiavellian attempt to get ND again. Now that they’ve dipped their toes into the waters of joining a conference, that’s one less objection the fans can raise. If you add some non-midwestern schools to increase the appeal, maybe the B10 offers ND a similar deal as the ACC did as a bridge to full membership in football in 10-20 years.

        It doesn’t really make sense, but people will think it. I suppose if the B10 adds 2-3 ACC schools ND might consider being #16 eventually. RU, MD and GT would get them 3 major cities on/near the east coast.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Yeah, I’ve stated in the past that an expansion to 16 with ND, GTech, RU, and UMD made sense (and would be pretty excited about it). Structured the right way, ND would visit each region of the country almost as often as they do now as an independent (a little more in the Midwest, but not much).

          Like

        • frug says:

          If you add some non-midwestern schools to increase the appeal, maybe the B10 offers ND a similar deal as the ACC did as a bridge to full membership in football in 10-20 years.

          I agree that this could be a possible plot to poach ND, but any deal that let’s ND remain an independent after the expiration of their current NBC contract (2015 I believe) is a non-starter for the Big 10.

          Like

      • Andy says:

        I’ve never seen anything to suggest what you’re saying is true re: Rutgers being favored over Missouri all along. I’ve heard quite the opposite from sources that should probably know.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        Back after ND rejected the B1G about 10-12 years ago, they publically stated they were looking at Rutgers, Missouri and Kansas and considering staying at 11 or going to 12 or 14.

        Of course, that was when Nebraska was considered untouchable and when basketball was closer to football in value.

        Like

  23. Hodgepodge says:

    Brett McMurphy (@McMurphyESPN) tweeted at 5:07 PM on Sat, Nov 17, 2012:
    Maryland in negotiations w/B1G. If Terps go, Rutgers would also join B1G sources tell @ESPN http://t.co/61l9q8bM

    Rittenberg/Bennett (@ESPN_BigTen) tweeted at 5:12 PM on Sat, Nov 17, 2012:
    Report: B1G could add Maryland, Rutgers http://t.co/ePOrR4gz

    Like

    • bullet says:

      One thing that supports Rutgers to the Big 10 is that they never seem to have been much in any of the Big 12 rumours. Louisville is constantly mentioned and lobbying the Big 12.

      Like

  24. Brian says:

    A silver lining to the cloud that is expanding with MD and RU:

    They should provide some wins to bolster the traditional B10 schools.

    Like

  25. zeek says:

    Assuming Maryland/Rutgers in a move to 14: who moves to the Legends (West) division?

    It has to be Illinois right? You can’t move Wisconsin without destabilizing the balance of power right?

    You can only move Wisconsin to the other division if it’s Maryland + football power (Va Tech or whoever); I would assume. Any reasons to think otherwise?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Northwestern-Purdue (previous rivalry)
      Illinois-Indiana (border rivalry)
      Michigan State-Rutgers
      Iowa-Maryland

      Maybe make those 4 the new crossovers?

      Like

      • Ross says:

        Maybe they will finally use this as justification to redistribute the divisions?

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Ross,

          Finally? It’s been 2 years.

          Like

          • Ross says:

            Well, I think fans have been clamoring for a better distribution since day 1. There was also plenty of discussion and support for different models (specifically, OSU and UM being together) beforehand.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Ross,

            “Well, I think fans have been clamoring for a better distribution since day 1.”

            I’d reword that to say some fans have been clamoring for a different distribution since day 1. Many fans didn’t complain about the split, and better is definitely in the eye of the beholder. It’s not like everyone that complained agreed on the same alternative.

            “There was also plenty of discussion and support for different models (specifically, OSU and UM being together) beforehand.”

            Among fans, maybe. The ADs and COP/C never showed any interest in keeping OSU and MI together. Even OSU and MI fans seemed split about 50/50 on the issue.

            Like

          • metatron5369 says:

            Michigan doesn’t want to be in the East. I like playing MSU, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota every year.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            metatron5369,

            MI doesn’t want to be in the East as currently designed, no, but I remember plenty of MI fans saying they wanted to be in the same division as OSU for various reasons:

            1. To avoid a possible rematch the next week
            2. To avoid The Game being moved earlier
            3. So The Game would almost always have stakes (division title)

            Others were against pairing them for one main reason:

            1. So they could play for the B10 title

            Like

      • Brian says:

        zeek,

        If the did just move IL:

        East – OSU, PSU, WI, PU, MD, RU, IN (1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14)
        West – MI, NE, IA, MSU, NW, IL, MN (2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12)

        You’d get better balance moving IN than IL based on conference W% since 1993. Also, WI will continue to bitch since they have to travel so far and nobody else does.

        That said, I’d make these pairs:
        OSU/MI
        PSU/NE
        WI/MN
        PU/IA
        MD/NW
        RU/IL
        IN/MN

        Like

    • Brian says:

      zeek,

      “Assuming Maryland/Rutgers in a move to 14: who moves to the Legends (West) division?

      It has to be Illinois right? You can’t move Wisconsin without destabilizing the balance of power right?

      You can only move Wisconsin to the other division if it’s Maryland + football power (Va Tech or whoever); I would assume. Any reasons to think otherwise?”

      I don’t think it has to be that simple. I believe they’d take the time to reconsider the divisions. I posted this earlier, but I’ll put it here too:

      Divisions:
      Geographical (in order of locked rivals)
      North – MI, PSU, WI, MSU, MD, MN, RU
      South – OSU, NE, IA, NW, PU, IL, IN

      Podlike (in order of locked rivals)
      Middle – OSU, MI, MSU, PU, NW, IL, IN
      Ends – PSU, NE, WI, IA, MD, MN, RU

      Geographical 2 (in order of locked rivals)
      East – MI, PSU, MSU, PU, MD, RU, IN
      West – OSU, NE, WI, IA, NW, IL, MN

      Pods:
      East – PSU, MD, RU
      North – MI, MSU, NW, IL
      West – NE, WI, IA, MN
      South – OSU, PU, IN

      Pair S & W for 2 years (in order of locked rivals)
      A = S&W – OSU, PU, IN, NE, WI, IA, MN
      B = N&E – MI, MD, IL, PSU, MSU, NW, RU

      Then pair S & N for 2 years (in order of locked rivals)
      A = S&N – OSU, PU, IN, MI, MSU, NW, IL
      B = W&E – PSU, MD, RU, NE, WI, IA, MN

      Like

    • frug says:

      You can’t move Wisconsin without destabilizing the balance of power right?

      Actually, with PSU being sanctioned back to the Stone Age they could probably move Wisconsin to the other division without shaking things up to much competitively, especially if the Big 10 only views 14 teams as a temporary step in further expansion.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        frug,

        “Actually, with PSU being sanctioned back to the Stone Age they could probably move Wisconsin to the other division without shaking things up to much competitively, especially if the Big 10 only views 14 teams as a temporary step in further expansion.”

        Huh? PSU would be down so replacing WI with MD wouldn’t hurt the balance between divisions?

        By current status, that’d be:
        East – OSU, PSU, PU, MD, IL, RU, IN (1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14)
        West – MI, NE, WI, IA, MSU, NW, MN (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12)

        And then you have PSU and PU in decline (vs only IA on the other side).

        Like

        • frug says:

          Misread what was written. I was thinking a “pure” East/West split;

          East: OSU, Michigan, MSU, PSU, Indiana, MD, Rutgers
          West: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue

          I doubt they would do that since I guessing all the pre-PSU schools want to be in a division with either OSU or UM, but it wouldn’t be a bad alignment from a competitive balance perspective.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            OK, that makes more sense. I’m all for a division of OSU and the dwarves, but I assume most people would frown on that.

            Like

    • Eric says:

      I can’t stand the fact this is likely happening as it’s going to make the Big Ten feel like 2 separate conferences (that we could really be playing Rutgers and/or Maryland every year and Iowa and Michigan State twice in 12 years seems absurd). With that said, I think the best thing to do if they are coming is redo divisions entirely. With the extra teams, any set-up which does not require locked crossovers, makes things easier as you can rotate everyone else equally.

      Division A
      Ohio State
      Michigan
      Michigan State
      Illinois
      Northwestern
      Indiana
      Purdue

      Division B
      Penn State
      Maryland
      Rutgers
      Wisconsin
      Iowa
      Nebraska
      Minnesota

      The only big game that think we miss out on this is the Little Brown Jug which is a shame, but no worse than what has already been done to Iowa-Wisconsin. Division B has a stronger middle, but I think the scheduling/rivalry stand point of things outweigh that.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Eric,

        “I can’t stand the fact this is likely happening as it’s going to make the Big Ten feel like 2 separate conferences (that we could really be playing Rutgers and/or Maryland every year and Iowa and Michigan State twice in 12 years seems absurd).”

        Take some advice from Bob Knight and lay back and enjoy it.

        “With that said, I think the best thing to do if they are coming is redo divisions entirely.”

        That seems like the likely course of action. Otherwise, they could just move IL west and put the newbies in the east.

        “With the extra teams, any set-up which does not require locked crossovers, makes things easier as you can rotate everyone else equally.”

        There is no reasonably balanced setup that doesn’t require locked rivals since the ADs and presidents insist on keeping OSU and MI apart.

        “Division A
        Ohio State
        Michigan
        Michigan State
        Illinois
        Northwestern
        Indiana
        Purdue

        Division B
        Penn State
        Maryland
        Rutgers
        Wisconsin
        Iowa
        Nebraska
        Minnesota”

        Yep, I proposed the ends versus the middle line up above (https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/thanksgiving-adult-table-and-kids-table-a-new-college-football-playoff-and-bowl-system-faq/#comment-144183). But we all know that’s a no go with OSU and MI together.

        “The only big game that think we miss out on this is the Little Brown Jug which is a shame, but no worse than what has already been done to Iowa-Wisconsin.”

        Well, you also miss OSU/PSU, NE/MI, WI/MSU, PSU/MSU and NW/IA. Various groups may consider those big games.

        Also, the LBJ game has been played more often than WI/IA (99 to 85), and WI/MN has the most in all of CFB with 122.

        Like

      • StevenD says:

        I love your divisions. There is a natural cluster of 3 in the east (PSU, Rutgers, Maryland) and 4 in the west (Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Minn). Putting them together creates a clean group of 7. Excellent!

        Like

    • bullet says:

      Suspicions that PSU will be down for a decade or so? Realign to KISS with Michigan/MSU/and NW or one of the Indiana schools east?

      Like

  26. Bo Darville says:

    I don’t like this Maryland and Rutgers business. It doesn’t make sense. Might as well just add Idaho and New Mexico State.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      And not be accused of raiding…

      Like

    • Peter says:

      It makes a lot of dollars and sense. There’s an eight-fold increase in rate for BTN between states that have no B1G team in them and states that do. Maryland and New Jersey have 15 million people between them. That’s a lot of TV households to be getting 8x the money for.

      And that’s before the pending TV contract and the changes in cable tiers in the NY-DC area. This is huge money with two perfectly acceptable AAU research universities.

      Like

  27. wmtiger says:

    For the love of god, please no pods!!!

    Like

    • Brian says:

      wmtiger,

      I highly doubt the B10 would use pods. Maybe if they went to 16 teams, but they don’t like to think outside the box that way.

      Like

      • bamatab says:

        They could divide it up by regions though. You could put the Eastern schools together with the Western schools (PSU, UMD, RU, Neb, Iowa, Minn & Wisc), and the central schools together (OSU, UM, MSU, IN, PU, NW & Ill). Seems to be somewhat even from a competitive standpoint (especially over the long haul once PSU gets over their sanctions). It also gives some geographic rhyme & reason to help those of us outside of the B1G to keep up with which teams are in which divisions. Plus you can keep the Legends & Leaders names for the divisions. 🙂

        Like

        • Brian says:

          bamatab,

          Yeah, I listed some option above including doing a podlike thing.

          As for the division names, I look at the OSU and PSU troubles as karmic retribution for them.

          Like

  28. frug says:

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bal-maryland-considering-a-move-to-the-big-ten-conference-20121117,0,3451967.story

    The University of Maryland is in serious discussions to join the Big Ten, and the Board of Regents plans to meet Monday to discuss the proposed move, according to two sources with knowledge of the talks.

    The regents were told about the talks this weekend but had not received a written presentation as of early Saturday night. Not all of the regents favor leaving the Atlantic Coast Conference, and there is expected to be a lively debate, said one official who declined to be named because the matter is ongoing.

    Ultimate proof that there is fire under all this smoke; the UMD BOR is meeting to discuss a possible move.

    Like

  29. frug says:

    Larry Scott has to be going out of his mind right now. I’m guessing it is talking all his willpower not to call the PAC presidents and yell at them for killing his plans to grab the Oklahoma schools and the PAC-B1G alliance that he likely viewed as the first step towards a quasi-merger of the conferences.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      If that is what occurred, I agree. However, regarding the Oklahomas, I remember a competing rumor that Scott was informed (through aTm) of OU using the threat in negotiations with UT (never actually planing to go), informed the presidents and called it all off in the middle of the night.

      Scuttling the B1G/PAC alliance was…well, dumb doesn’t seem to properly cover that. Does that show the PAC is run out of Heritage Hall? Again showing a conference is worse off for caving to its King, rather than “helping” them understand the longer term benefits?

      Like

    • bamatab says:

      Something tells me it won’t be long until Texas is ready to leave the Big 12. Their LHN isn’t living up to expectations, and aTm’s success can’t be sitting too well with the PTB at UT. If aTm continues to do well in the SEC, Texas will be pressured to do something to combat aTm’s momentum in that state. The question will be whether or not UT can find a way to nullify the GOR deal that the Big 12 has in place.

      Like

      • Ross says:

        I think Texas is happy where they are. Brand new networks take time to develop, as evidenced by the BTN. I think would be shortsighted of UT to forgo the network they fought for because A&M had a few good seasons, assuming they continue their success, and the network had issues in its first year. It certainly doesn’t seem as if A&M’s success is impeding Texas right now, as their issues would seem to stem from coaching, more than anything.

        Like

      • Richard says:

        Texas is absolutely rolling in dough right now. I’m sure they they would have preferred that TAMU didn’t bolt, but going forward, do you see a situation they’d prefer over the one they currently have?

        Like

        • bamatab says:

          Texas’ current cash flow isn’t the issue. The issue is how aTm is looked upon 10 – 20 years from now. If aTm can stay competitive in the SEC, they could equal (or maybe even pass) UT’s position as the more desireable destination for the elite high school recruits in Texas.

          I’m not arguing that UT is in a good spot for the present. But these decisions are “100 year” decisions (as aTm’s president put it). The Big 12 has very little room for popularity, economic, and/or school expansion growth. Their only hope is if they can somehow pull FSU, Clemson, and a couple more ACC teams. But even that might not be enough to push them past the SEC. If the LHN doesn’t take off, and if the SEC Network does, then that will be another revenue stream that aTm will be capitalizing on that UT won’t (a true Big 12 network would never be able to match a SEC Network).

          I think that the PTB at UT are at the very least, concerned by aTm’s possible future growth potential in the state. Look at it from a Texas recruit’s standpoint. In 10 – 20 years, if aTm can put itself in the top echelon of the SEC, would that recruit prefer to go to aTm where they can compete in the SEC (which gets a big chunk of the national media publicity), while playing the likes of Bama, LSU, Arky, UF, USCe, Tenn, UGA; or would the recruit rather play in the Big 12 against OU and a bunch of lesser schools like Texas Tech, Ok St, KSU, Kansas, Baylor, ect.?

          Like

          • frug says:

            Texas isn’t worried at all. A&M seems to start making up ground on Texas once every 15 years or so and it never lasts. I mean, A&M won the first two Big XII South titles before doing what they have done for the last 80 years; play third fiddle in the state behind Texas and Oklahoma.

            Plus, it’s just as likely (in fact probably more likely) that A&M won’t see continued success in the SEC and will end up as a punching bag for Bama, LSU and Arky.

            And for all the talk of lesser schools, the Big XII has been the strongest conference in college football for the past two years and looks fine for at least the next few.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bamatab,

            Where are the rumors of the SEC picking at the ACC carcass? Shouldn’t you be going after 2 of FSU/Clemson/VT/NCSU again?

            Like

          • bamatab says:

            @frug – The difference while aTm then as opposed to now is that they are now in a different, better conference with much more upside. And while I won’t put up much of an argument that they Big 12 might’ve been the best conference last year, that is the exception and not the rule (just look at the BCS top 10 for proof of which conference is the best this year, and has been for most of the past decade). And those lower 8 Big 12 school are considered lower by me because they really don’t draw the viewing interest on a national level as the majority of the SEC teams outside of Vandy & UK.

            @Brian – I’m guessing the SEC is biding its time, waiting to see what the aftermath of the UMD move will be. We might still get an opening to the NC/VA markets yet.

            BTW…The SEC is back in the BCSCG picture! Apparently the rest of the college football world can’t get rid of us that easily. 🙂

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Texas isn’t concerned at all. They are right where they want to be.

            Like

  30. Guido says:

    Until I hear a firm comment from someone in the know at Maryland, I’m chalking this up to one of the many “ACC Raid” rumors/hoaxes we’ve seen over the past couple of years. At a minimum, even with a negotiated exit fee, Maryland cannot come close to justifying, let alone finding the money necessary for the move.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      The exit fee will likely be negotiated below $20 million. This is definitely a likely possibility right now.

      The story doesn’t get this far with sources this high up unless there’s a fire somewhere.

      Like

      • Pablo says:

        ACC has a lot to lose if it can’t enforce the exit fee. The ACC is too unstable. FSU and other southern schools will be tempted by the B12 if the ACC compromises in any way.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          B12 couldn’t enforce their full exit fees. How would ACC be made more vulnerable, or the B12 more attractive, by suffering the same?

          Like

    • frug says:

      The Big 10 can always help them finance the exit penalties. WVU didn’t pay $20 million to the Big East. WVU paid $5 million in cash, the Big XII paid $5 million itself and gave WVU a loan to cover the remaining $10 million.

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      In the end I see a repeat of the ND fiasco of some years back……looking at the MD boards, I see a major pushback coming from the MD fanbase…with a lot on egg on the BIG’s face…..

      Like

      • danimation707 says:

        And pass up the BTN & more importantly the CIC money? They would be fools. However you may be right.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        mushroomgod,

        You always have to remember that message boards aren’t representative of a fan base, and especially not of the fans that matter. The boomers that donate $1M per year aren’t on scout.com with the mouthbreathing fans that never donate a dime.

        Like

        • Agreed. At Notre Dame, it big wig alums ultimately killed its move to the Big Ten. At Maryland, its one big wig (the founder of Under Armour) just cashed out over $60 million a few days ago that would just happen to be enough to cover the ACC’s exit fee. We’ll see if that’s a coincidence. Maryland ain’t Notre Dame, either. An athletic department that just had to cut a bunch of programs last year is in much less of a position to choose to stay in a conference for non-financial factors than one that will always be flush with funds.

          Like

          • Also, most of those Maryland fans on the message boards that I’ve seen clearly don’t understand the basic fundamentals of conference realignment. When the vast majority of the complainers are talking about losing *basketball* rivalries, the administrators at the school that have to balance the books are going to freely ignore those complaints.

            Like

  31. zeek says:

    Wetzel’s piece is a fair take on the subject: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab–maryland-s–rutgers–potential-move-to-big-ten-looms-as-risky-gamble-for-conference-17501209.html

    Dodd’s is a bit too pie in the sky for me: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/21030684/delanys-long-term-play-for-big-ten-network-riches-maryland-rutgers-to-big-ten

    I think the truth is closer to Wetzel’s piece. This is a play for historical trajectory, 30 or 50 years from now. It’s hard to judge right now.

    Comparing it to the 3 most recent expansions:

    SEC: Texas A&M + Missouri

    Pac-12: Utah + Colorado

    ACC: Pitt + Syracuse

    I honestly think that Maryland + Rutgers is better than both the ACC and Pac-12 expansions (not a particularly high bar but a decent measure). It’s obviously not going to compare to adding a school like A&M and a second good candidate, but it’s not really that far off if you’re thinking about making a big grab at TV sets and population zones in general.

    It’s a 30 or 50 year play. The reason is that at 14; you can always make a future play at a combination of 2 schools in Virginia and North Carolina if you have to later down the road in a move to 16.

    Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Unless this is really a “done deal”, which I doubt ( I expect MD’s Trustees or Board or whatever to end up voting no), I think this does exhibit some realistic anxiety amoung the BIG’s higher ups about the medium to long-term future, with the BIG staying at 12 while the SEC and ACC got bigger. The BIG just doesn’t have many good expansion options….to risk another public turndown shows a little desperation.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      zeek,

      “Wetzel’s piece is a fair take on the subject:”

      He focused too much on the sports side of it, though. It sounds like the CIC may be important to MD’s decision.

      “Dodd’s is a bit too pie in the sky for me:”

      You know he’s full of it when he suggests the B10 would add UNC for FB only so they could play Duke in hoops.

      “I think the truth is closer to Wetzel’s piece. This is a play for historical trajectory, 30 or 50 years from now. It’s hard to judge right now.”

      It’s some of both. A money grab now and a hedge against the future.

      “Comparing it to the 3 most recent expansions:

      SEC: Texas A&M + Missouri
      Pac-12: Utah + Colorado
      ACC: Pitt + Syracuse

      I honestly think that Maryland + Rutgers is better than both the ACC and Pac-12 expansions (not a particularly high bar but a decent measure). It’s obviously not going to compare to adding a school like A&M and a second good candidate, but it’s not really that far off if you’re thinking about making a big grab at TV sets and population zones in general.”

      Since you’re using that time frame, might I suggest that the comparison should really be NE, MD and RU against those pairs? I think you can make a much better case for the B10 and SEC expansions being on par in that light. TAMU brought more population, but NE is a bigger brand.

      In fact, I’d take the longer view.

      SEC – SC, MO, AR, TAMU
      B10 – PSU, NE, MD, RU

      When added, SC wasn’t expected to add much on the field. Times change. MD and RU might become solid in the B10. NW did, after all.

      “It’s a 30 or 50 year play. The reason is that at 14; you can always make a future play at a combination of 2 schools in Virginia and North Carolina if you have to later down the road in a move to 16.”

      I think 16 might be in the near future rather than later. Once the ACC nut is cracked, how long until the SEC and B12 go after some teams? If they can take another 2-4 teams, especially the FB teams (Miami, FSU, Clemson, GT, VT), what happens to the ACC then? Would 2 more willing schools chat up the B10? Could you basically see the new ACC be the old ACC hoops schools plus the remaining FB schools from the BE? Could it be VT and NCSU in the SEC with UNC and UVA in the B10, with the B12 chasing FSU and Clemson (and maybe Miami and GT, too)?

      Like

    • bullet says:

      Should the ACC get raided (MD to Big 10, FSU to Big 12), that even split among the Big 5 might be re-thought. Everything isn’t complete. If the ACC were to lose FSU, the B1G, SEC and Big 12 would all benefit from a split based on historical performance as opposed to the even split now. The ACC would be very much in between the Big 4 and Big East without FSU and probably closer to the BE w/o FSU and Clemson or Virginia Tech.

      Like

  32. frug says:

    And now America’s paper record (well one of them) is on the story;

    http://m.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/university-of-maryland-in-talks-to-join-big-ten/2012/11/17/a9a8cde4-3104-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_story.html

    Most interesting tidbit (to me at least) is the second to last paragraph;

    According to an individual with knowledge of the situation, the ACC’s addition of Notre Dame as a full member in all sports except for football irked top Maryland officials, because it broke with the conference’s traditional requirement that all members must participate in all sports.

    If true (and it probably is) then it would put an end to the silly idea partial membership for ND was a good idea for the ACC.

    Like

    • Jericho says:

      I would not read too much into it. Is Maryland leaving simply to spite Notre Dame’s addition? I really doubt it even factors into the conversation.

      Like

      • frug says:

        The ND move isn’t the reason that Maryland is leaving (or considering it at least), but it could be what pushed them over the edge. The fact the ACC was violating one of its historic principles may have given them the sort of scare they needed to jump.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      FWIW, the Post’s poll is 70-30 against the move.

      Like

  33. Quiet Storm says:

    It will be interesting to see how Mike Aresco, the new Big East Commissioner handles this crisis and how he manages to keep the conference together should Maryland (and Rutgers) decide to move. The Big East could also lose UConn when the ACC looks for a replacement. Rutgers would be the 7th team (8th technically if you want to consider TCU a former member) to leave the conference since 2004.

    I don’t know how much more of this the remaining original basketball members can/are willing to take. For them the league worked from a basketball standpoint because you still had an eastern core of Rutgers, UConn, Providence, St John’s, Seton Hall, Villanova, Temple and Georgetown. Potentially losing those 2 members changes that east coast feel which has always been important to them. I’m sure the BB schools will want teams located within the east as replacements but the question becomes who.
    UMass – may satisfy the BB schools but doesn’t replace the value lost in FB.
    East Carolina – may be the best from a FB standpoint but doesn’t replace the value lost in BB.
    Villanova – add them as a FB member and invite a BB only member like VCU or Drexel.

    Since they still don’t have a TV contract signed the timing of this couldn’t be worse.

    Like

    • frug says:

      The only things keeping the Big East hybrid together are Louisville and UConn. Without those two the non-FB schools would probably split. Not sure what would happen if UConn left and Louisville stuck around.

      Like

  34. Guido says:

    I don’t see that long term view, you can add any combination of 2 or 4 schools at any time. 2 now does not necessarily open a previously closed door for 2 later.

    Isn’t it possible this is a PR move by the Big 10? All the media will be focusing on is whether the power broker Big 10 is expanding and the ACC is in trouble. As opposed to a relatively bad year where the conference is not in the National Tittle discussion when the other 4 big conferences are (if you count ND or think Fla St or Clemson have a shot). Plus the awkwardness that you do have an undefeated Ohio St that cannot win their own division or play in a bowl. We’ve seen before that it takes very little to be front page news with expansion rumors, and there are really no penalties if you are wrong.

    This may all be legit, but odds are probably against it IMO

    Like

    • danimation707 says:

      No. Take the tinfoil hat off.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Guido,

      Targeting 2 mediocre FB teams is hardly a smart PR move.

      As for the closed door, I think the COP/C is highly unlikely to add 4 teams at once. They’ve yet to add 2 teams at once. I think the B10 has to go in steps of 2 if it’s going to grow, so yes, adding 2 could well open a door for adding 2 later. In addition, taking 1 ACC team could open the door for candidates that were unavailable before.

      As for timing, I’d point out several things:
      1. The new higher exit fee for the ACC might be more vulnerable to negotiation now rather than later. MD voted against it and could argue the old fee should apply to them as they’re leaving as soon after that vote as they could (sort of like when a CC changes your agreement you get 60? days to drop the card if you don’t like the new terms).

      2. The new playoff starts in 2014. It will bring a windfall of several million per team, which makes paying an exit fee easier. It also means that now is the time to set your conference lineup as the details are still being ironed out.

      3. The B10’s new 1st tier rights deal starts in 2017. That means a new school would only be on the old plan for 3 years before the new deal starts, and the new deal will be highly lucrative ($30M per year total including the BTN?). It will be easier to negotiate an appropriate deal with new teams now than re-open negotiations of an existing contract.

      Like

  35. Hodgepodge says:

    An interesting development to go along with this is that Fox is in negotiations to buy the YES Network (it took almost 3 hours to get my last post to get approved, so no linky). It is entirely possible that Fox would try to bundle that and BTN to New York customers. Imagine the furor if a cable or satellite company told Yankee fans they couldn’t watch games because they wouldn’t pay. Combined with Rutgers and all the B1G fans there, and it would be a near slam dunk that The BTN would get a significant rate.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Yeah, that was also mentioned by Swarbrick I think. So it’s definitely a big point that the Fox-Yes deal could have a big impact on BTN negotiations down the road if Rutgers joins.

      Like

  36. greg says:

    I know we’re all excited to talk about the Big Ten adding two ground ball singles, but the #1 and #2 teams in the country both just lost.

    Like

  37. frug says:

    Wow. K-State and Oregon both go down. Crazy stuff.

    Like

  38. […] agreement with ESPN SB Nation: New college football playoff system means more power for all Frank the Tank: A New College Football Playoff and Bowl System […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s