Earlier this week, we had a flurry of concrete conference realignment news crammed into a 48-hour period, and then we went cold turkey (no pun intended) over the Thanksgiving holiday. That has left Twitter rumors to fill the void and potentially affected fan bases on edge (culminating in Cincinnati fans chanting, “ACC!” when they saw the school’s president walk through the stands). For what it’s worth, I take extra care to not pass along Tweets with every single realignment rumor that comes my way (and believe me, I pretty much get them all ). (For those that aren’t following as of yet, my Twitter handle is @frankthetank111.) My personal filter is to make sure that the original Tweeter has some real reason or connection to know what he/she claims to know and/or apply my own view of plausibility. As most of my regular readers know, I’m not a believer that a world of 4 16-team superconferences are inevitable (at least not in the short term) or that the ACC and/or Big East are one or two losses from complete destruction. I certainly don’t see a rush by the Big Ten or SEC to get to 16 members in this round of conference realignment. These are interesting Armageddon scenarios, but I tend to believe in a more logical downward pressure in the conference ranks, or as people say colloquially, “S**t rolls downhill.” Maybe the ACC will lose some more schools, but that league will backfill from the Big East, who in turn will backfill from Conference USA and/or the Mountain West, and so on and so forth.
Without any concrete news, we’re basically left with trying to parse out what is legitimately plausible and whether the proverbial smoke around certain topics indicates either a real fire or just some dude in his basement toking. From my vantage point, there are two themes coming together that have relevance:
(1) ACC Mindset Change and a Surge of Support for Louisville – In my last couple of posts, I stated that I would bet on Connecticut getting an invite to the ACC. If the ACC follows its prior actions and academic and TV market criteria for expansion candidates, UConn would be near a 100% lock. As a result, the mere fact that there is even a debate about Louisville going to the ACC at all (much less Louisville being ahead in the race, which a number of observers are claiming) indicates that there’s a major mindset change in the conference brewing (or at least some schools outside of the Duke/UNC old-line faction that are throwing their weight around, particularly Florida State).
Whether it’s right or wrong, the widespread perception is that Louisville would be the “football smart” move for the ACC and anything other than that could lead to Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and/or others bolting to the warm arms of Texas and the Big 12. As I’ve stated elsewhere, I don’t believe that Florida State would leave for the Big 12 all, but the ACC obviously can’t take any chances with its most important football member.
One interesting example of Twitter having fans on edge was a Tweet from Brian Miller, a Tallahassee Democrat reporter that said that the ACC wouldn’t even make a choice between Louisville and UConn, but rather add both of them along with Cincinnati* to create a 16-team conference. By the time that Tweet spread like wildfire, Miller had removed it from his timeline. Time will tell whether that was removed because it couldn’t be backed up or the information was too sensitive for the reporter’s source to put it out there for public consumption immediately. The ACC may very well have the most incentive to grow to 16 first to create a perception of strength in numbers (even if it might not look like the most financially lucrative move).
(* Much like the athletic departments at Louisville and UConn, I have a ton of respect for what Cincinnati has been able to do on-the-field during its time in the Big East. The Bearcats have arguably been the most consistent football program in the circa 2005 version of the conference, so it would be sweet justice to see them land softly. We’ll see if that soft landing actually happens, though.)
Regardless, Louisville and the school’s surrogates are getting the message out that they are the best football move for the ACC (despite being a basketball school by any other measure). The wants and needs of fans rarely matter to commissioners and university presidents in conference realignment, but if enough Florida State fans are out for blood (similar to how Texas A&M fans pounded their administration to push for a move to the SEC), this might be one instance where the fans win out if Louisville ends up getting the ACC invite.
(2) Prospect of Big East Catholic Schools Splitting Off – For many, many, many years, one of the easiest reflex responses that I’ve had in conference realignment discussions was that the Big East football schools and non-football Catholic members wouldn’t split into a separate leagues. Up to this point, it made zero financial sense for either side – the value of the Catholic schools were enhanced by the presence of Louisville, UConn and Notre Dame (even without Syracuse, Pitt and West Virginia) while the football members needed the traditional brand names and major media markets of the non-football schools. While the two sides might not have liked each other, they were worth more together than they were worth apart.
Notre Dame has left the Big East for the ACC as a non-football member, though, and at least one of Louisville or UConn is heading out the door possibly as soon as next week. Heck, even Cincinnati might be heading out with them. Going forward, it may no longer be truism that the Catholic schools would make more TV money staying with the football members, in which case Georgetown and company are likely wondering whether it’s worth it to deal with constant football-related defections in a hybrid league when they could have a league all to themselves and be considered power players in the non-football marketplace that they inhabit.
Pete Thamel of Sports Illustrated indicated that there have been informal discussions of a nationwide basketball conference (“think Georgetown to Gonzaga”). At the same time, the Kevin McNamara of the Providence Journal has brought up the possibility of the Catholic schools voting to dissolve the Big East entirely and go off on their own, which would be possible when Louisville and/or UConn leave since they’ll have the voting majority in place to do it (as the new members such as UCF and Houston don’t have voting rights yet and any defecting members won’t have votes, either).
I could spend hours dreaming up national basketball conference scenarios (all of which would include Pepperdine because visiting that school is like visiting a beach resort), but my semi-educated guess is that in the event of a Big East split, the Catholic schools would team up with the top handful of Atlantic 10 members to form a new league. For discussion purposes only, it would look something along the lines of the following:
Georgetown
Villanova
St. John’s
Seton Hall
Providence
DePaul
Marquette
Xavier
Dayton
St. Louis
Duquense
Butler
It’s not unfathomable that ESPN could step in and pay that type of league the same amount that the Big East Catholics would have received in a new Big East hybrid TV contract or more if only to keep top college basketball brand names such as Georgetown and Villanova under the Worldwide Leader’s control. From my vantage point, I see a lot more Big Monday-worthy matchups coming out of that league compared to a new Big East without Louisville and/or UConn.
Once again, I have never been a Big East split believer or proponent, but the latest conference realignment moves could be upending the conventional wisdom.
In any event, there’s a full slate of spectacular college football games to be played on-the-field on Saturday. Even as a conference realignment aficionado, here’s to hoping that we all can concentrate on the games themselves for a day.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Restricted Data)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Its a Thanksgiving Miracle!!!! A new post!!!
LikeLike
I was hoping for Festivus for the rest of us
LikeLike
Happy Thanksgiving Miracle!
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
GBR !!
LikeLike
O-H!
LikeLike
I O !
LikeLike
Texas might hold all of the keys to keeping the ACC intact.
If Dodds knows that the Big Ten and SEC are after the Virginia/North Carolina based programs, and he also knows that they won’t leave until the Big 12 makes a move…
Then why not just be insistent on not disturbing the detente over there.
Similar to the Big Ten not going after Kansas or a bunch of Big 12 programs (if they had no GOR), which would force Texas and its herd out West to the Pac-12.
Why wouldn’t Texas just decide to respect the ceasefire in the East by not going and setting off the powder keg by grabbing FSU?
If you’re Texas, then you don’t want to be responsible for setting the Big Ten and SEC up for moves to 16…
LikeLike
If Dodds knows that the Big Ten and SEC are after the Virginia/North Carolina based programs, and he also knows that they won’t leave until the Big 12 makes a move…
Then why not just be insistent on not disturbing the detente over there.
Why they could destroy a competitor? Sure, they would be helping the B1G and SEC, but they would still improve their own conference both in an absolute sense and relative to the rest of college sports.
Hell, if the Big XII could pull off something like FSU, Clemson, G-Tech and 3 of Louisville, Pitt, Duke and Miami they would probably move past on the PAC on the pecking order of most power conferences and provide further distance between themselves and the have nots in college sports.
LikeLike
Duke to the Big XII!?! Duke would NEVER bolt to another conference without UNC. The ACC will protect arguably the greatest rivalry in college basketball at all costs!
LikeLike
Then why does everyone and their mother think UNC would leave without Duke?
LikeLike
@morganwick – I personally don’t think UNC is leaving without Duke, although it’s more that I don’t believe that UNC is leaving the ACC at all (at least in this round of conference realignment).
LikeLike
I don’t, which is why I believe there will be a Big18/20.
LikeLike
Very logical thinking. Texas likely would not move, unless they got something out of the deal that they wanted. I think they may have just about everything they could possibly want right now. Does not seem to be much in “disturbing the detente” out east.
I don’t think any of the schools the Big Ten or SEC would want will be available unless something more happens.
LikeLike
I’ve thought of that too, which is why I think FSU won’t trigger the collapse of the ACC (unless the B10 goes against all conventional wisdom and offers them; or the SEC). No, it would be triggered by VTech. OK, associating with the ACC bluebloods is nice, but the SEC is far more stable (the football and money are better as well). We’ll see if the Hokie fanbase forces a move to the SEC the way A&M’s did.
LikeLike
I’m guessing they would have some assurances from ESPN that they would boost the TV contract with a net increase of two teams. Otherwise the ACC would be potentially diving the same pot of money into 16 portions rather than 14, which I can’t imagine would go over well.
For that metter, even if ESPN is willing to change the contract, it would be hard for me to believe that they would pay enough for teams to make more than they are under the contract that was just signed. None of those teams (USF as well, if you believe that it is they or UC that is in contention for the sixteenth spot) have particularly large fanbases and probably don’t do much to command the attention of neutral observers.
LikeLike
Alternately, the ACC could just be expecting further defections before they would reach 16.
LikeLike
I hope you are right…I enjoy this stuff too much for it to stop.
LikeLike
As soon as I post about parsing Tweets, I’m trying to figure out this cryptic Tweet from (of all people) Luther Campbell (formerly of 2 Live Crew):
I interpret “Bull Nation” to mean the USF fan base. Luke knows everyone in and everything about the Miami program, so it wouldn’t be a stretch to think that he knows the ACC expansion plans. The semi-tinfoil hat in me suggests that there’s some more credence to the Louisville/UConn/Cincinnati 3-team expansion rumor.
LikeLike
You don’t think he was just talkin smack about the beating USF took tonight? They looked utterly inept…
But it could be the expansion stuff too.
LikeLike
I’m not sure. He just Tweeted this right before I posted it in the comments, so it was a few hours after the game was over.
LikeLike
#lolhat
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Go Green!
LikeLike
GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!
WAR Damn Eagle!
Gig ’em Aggies!
Fight on Trojans!
Hunker down Dawgs!
Go Beavers!
LikeLike
Also, go FSU!
LikeLike
As I Villanova grad, I would like to see us in a seperate basketball conference. And I like the league Frank has suggested without Seton Hall. They should do everyone a favor and just drop their sorry-arse athletic department altogether. If UL, Cincy and Connecticut leave I think this is a very likely result.
LikeLike
To clarify: A new BE basketball conference may be a final result of an ACC raid. SH will will still have an athletic department.
LikeLike
RTR!!!
Today the barn burns!
LikeLike
YES! All day barn burner!
LikeLike
Gbr!
LikeLike
Go B1G Red, bring on Bucky.
LikeLike
I couldn’t concentrate on the games Friday. I’ve never seen a worse lineup of Black Friday games. Nebraska-Iowa was the only one that meant anything and it was expected to be one-sided. AZ/ASU was the only one I watched any of and while I was watching it was pretty sloppy.
Today’s a pretty good slate.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Did you notice how Carey’s had an addition to his first name? Announcer couldn’t mention him without saying “nation’s leading rusher, Ka’Deem Carey.”
LikeLike
bullet,
On the bright side, NE/IA wasn’t one sided. It was a snoozefest, but not a blow out.
LikeLike
Marshall, Central Michigan, and West Virginia were all playing for bowl eligibility, and for a while it looked like one-win UMass had a chance to ruin the Chippewas’ bowl hopes. East Carolina was trying to keep their hopes of going to the C-USA title game alive. Kent State and Northern Illinois were trying to make the MAC title game a showdown of ranked teams undefeated in conference. Syracuse was keeping its hopes of a share of the Big East title and maybe even an outside shot at a BCS bowl berth alive, as was Cincinnati with the former. And the Apple Cup had a ridiculously thrilling finish even if it meant little other than the Huskies dropping out of the BCS.
All in all, though, Black Friday got really unlucky; LSU came in with two losses in a conference with three one-loss teams, and the Golden Boot game was going to be more interesting before Arkansas became a comedy of errors. And had West Virginia kept playing the way they were when Geno Smith looked like the Heisman front-runner, West Virginia-Iowa State would have been really interesting. I wonder if ESPN might regret not having an ACC rivalry, specifically Florida-Florida State, on Black Friday.
(Ever since my house upgraded to Comcast’s sports package, I’ve been having way more fun than I should running my own version of RedZone for college football now that I have BTN and FCS, out of dissatisfaction with Goal Line being restricted to ESPN games – and not even Longhorn Network games – and missing a big part of Red Zone’s appeal by going to games for long stretches whenever possible rather than flipping back and forth to wherever the action is.)
LikeLike
I don’t really see that UL brings more for football than UConn. They are a little better, but that is like saying Michigan St. adds more than Purdue. Its very marginal. UConn makes much more sense in that it fills in gaps in existing ACC territory rather than expanding outward.
I almost wonder, if the all 3 rumour has legs, if it is part of a super-hybrid. ACC 13 + BE 3 + ND + Georgetown, Villanova and St. John’s. The Big East is reduced to A10 or CUSA 2004 level and no longer is a threat to be the best bb conference.
LikeLike
I just don’t see how Louisville (let alone Cincy) make any sense for the ACC. They don’t have TV markets, they’re not national names in football and they are totally alien academically. These are neither research universities nor ultra-quality private undegrad schools.
Maybe FSU just hates the idea of UConn *that much* but the proposal does nothing to fix the money issue that might pull OTHER schools to the SEC or B1G. If anything, it makes it worse.
LikeLike
Cincinnati is a bigger research university than a few Big Ten schools. Just not a part of the CIC/AAU circle jerk.
LikeLike
There’s a reason Cincy isn’t close to AAU despite the ramp in research dollars they’ve been getting in the past few years. It’s a snooty reason – pretty much the academic flipside of US News’ establishment circle jerk on institutional reputation – but the ACC elite and the B1G are nothing if not two groups of very proud, snooty academics.
LikeLike
According to The Center of Measuring University Performance, Top American Research Universities:
School – Top 25 Controls, Top 26-50 Controls – Total Research in $ Millions
1-25
TSUN – 8,0 – $1,007
Wisconsin – 7,1 – $952
Minnesota – 6,2 – $741
Northwestern – 5,4 – $515
Chicago – 4,5 – $378
Ohio State – 4,4 – $716
Illinois – 4,3 – $564
PSU – 3,4 – $663
Purdue – 1,6 – $454
MSU – 1,5 – $373
Maryland – 1,4 – $409
26-50
Iowa – 0,6 – $330
Rutgers – 0,3 – $320
Indiana – 0,2 – $157
Cincy – 0,2 – $357
>50
Nebraska $235
-IU is listed ahead of UC in the public (only) research universities list with 2 Top 25 controls & 2 26-50 controls. UC is 1,5 Top 25/25-50.
-UNL is in the middle of the top 26-50 public research universities with 3 Top 26-50 controls.
-All of the other schools on the list are in the top 25 public research universities with Northwestern being in the top 25 private research universities.
LikeLike
I know it’s a joke among Ohio State fans and coaches, but it took me quite a bit to figure out what “TSUN” meant; I thought the “T” stood for “Texas” or something. Maybe “Mitten U” or something?
LikeLike
It’s not a joke. Woody Hayes refused to call them by name, and fans respected him enough to follow suit.
LikeLike
I think these numbers are from 2009. I’ll post some updated numbers at the bottom of the page that I think are interesting.
LikeLike
lemmings.
LikeLike
Seeing “TSUN” initially made me think it was a misspelled Cal State Northridge (CSUN). If you don’t want to say the dreaded “Michigan,” can you at least write “Ann Arbor” so we know what the hell you’re talking about?
LikeLike
Cincinnati is one of the largest research universities in the country, and both Louisville and Cincinnati are the largest TV markets that the ACC could actually add. Historically both schools had the mission to produce an educated workforce for their respective cities, but there has been a massive focus change in the last 20-30 years from serving the home market to becoming similar to Michigan State, Iowa State, NC State, Virginia Tech, etc as second university of the state (behind UK and OSU respectively).
The ACC seems to have decided to own North Carolina & Virginia and then have the 2nd most popular university in the large eastern states (Pitt, FSU, Ga Tech, Clem – Lou and CIn make sense in this paradigm). BC, Syr, UConn are similar in that their areas do not care much about college sports, so they are on par with the rest.
LikeLike
I’m assuming you don’t think the ACC can or will add one of the Big 5 schools, even though taking in Villanova would fit a general raid of the Big East Catholics, and that the ACC is probably strongly considering Georgetown in order not to completely lose Maryland. Beyond that, however, take a look at this: http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/public%20factsheets/tv/2012-2013%20DMA%20Ranks.pdf
Hartford-New Haven, including all of Connecticut except for the county that includes the panhandle, is a larger market than Louisville or Cincinnati. And considering Connecticut’s success in both types of basketball (and Syracuse’s success on the men’s side), I have a hard time believing they’re all that apathetic. The Northeast outside Western PA may turn its nose about this college football thing everyone’s talking about, but the sheer number of until-now Big East basketball powers in the region suggests that doesn’t apply to all sports. Even NYC isn’t that apathetic about college sports, as that Nate Silver piece Frank linked to a couple posts back suggests; if Syracuse could relocate to NYC they might be the richest basketball program in the country.
LikeLike
UConn does nothing as well. It is a LOT poorer than Louisville and has horrible facilities compared to Louisville.
Your argument is at BEST that the ACC should add nobody.
LikeLike
I don’t think they should add any of these, no. You are right that Louisville at least has obvious institutional concern for their athletics.
Realistically, none of these schools are fit for a “major” conference.
LikeLike
Contraction is probably the ideal outcome for the ACC at this point… even though no one ever talks like that.
There is a strong case to be made for the ACC for “addition by subtraction” when you consider some of the schools in the conference.
Tossing out Wake Forest would do more for that conference than adding anyone…
LikeLike
zeek,
Of course they won’t toss anyone out, as you well know. If it only made sense in some way (financial, demographic, whatever), I’d love for the B10 to help everyone out and take Pitt and ISU. But neither one makes any sense.
LikeLike
I think they could go for “Subtraction by Addition”.
Add Louisville, UConn and Cincinnati then put them in a division with Miami, V-Tech, Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Boston College.
That leaves the old ACC teams in their own division: North Carolina, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Virginia, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Florida State.
Play just one cross over game (Miami-Florida State and Virginia-V.Tech are the obvious ones) so you basically have two separate conferences.
In basketball you could have four pods. Always play home-and-home against your pod mates, then one game against the other 12 teams every year for 18 total games.
Pods would be: the four Carolina schools; Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Virginia; UConn, Syracuse, Boston College, and Pittsburgh; Louisville, Cincinnati, Miami, and V-Tech.
Oh, and tell Notre Dame, “goodbye and good luck!”
LikeLike
Louisville and Cincinnati together add a media market of 3m+, and while its not a big market in East Coast terms, as a pair they would have a much bigger share of that market than college sports will have in the East Coast markets. And they are more valuable as a pair than they are individually.
So if its not necessarily a move that would automatically expand football conference value on a per-team basis (the ACC has already MADE those moves), they could well be seen by ESPN as being worth bumping the contract up by enough to keep the per member value stable.
Especially given that the ACC is ESPN’s biggest source of programming, that keeping FSU happy is part of keeping that source of programming viable long term, and that Louisville / Cinci / UConn seems like the move that would best placate FSU.
LikeLike
I have read several places that the ACC is ESPN’s biggest source of programming (I have also seen that posts indicating FOX has been instigating moves – save this for another post). This statement implies that ESPN has a stake in the ACC’s future beyond televising its sports. To date, it seems that ESPN has been hands off. I get the ESPN is a business and has a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders, so they are not arbitrarily going to overpay for the ACC. What is ESPN’s role on the future of the ACC?
LikeLike
I don’t subscribe to the “One night in Bangkok” theory (“I’m only watching the game, controlling it….I don’t see you guys making the kinds of moves I’m contemplating”), but there were rumours that Swofford and ESPN, among others, were trying to discourage the Pac 16 creation in 2010. Whatever they do, it has to make financial sense for them. And with ties to all the conferences, going beyond what they did with the Big 12 (telling them what they would be worth when the contract renewed), is really legally risky for them.
LikeLike
How is that different than Fox/YES’s involvement in selecting Rutgers and Maryland?
LikeLike
I don’t believe Fox told the Big 10 who to take. But when the YES deal came up they worked together.
LikeLike
FOX through its investment in the BTN, and therefore the B1G was actively looking for opportunities to expand the brand. If ESPN valued their investment and the ACC wouldn’t they also be looking for opportunities to expand and strengthen the brand as well?
LikeLike
Hawks.
LikeLike
I could also see the ACC going to an 18 school array, by adding UConn (or Louisville), plus Georgetown, Villanova and St, Johns. That takes them to 14 in football and fills in the northern half of the “Atlantic Coast” nicely. Georgetown helps make up for the Maryland loss and Villanova and St Johns adds the east’s other big metros. If they split north & south and move VaTech north, they have the potential to create schedules that build nicely on existing rivalries and tradtions.
LikeLike
FSU would leave the next day if the ACC did that.
LikeLike
Everyone please remember the one iron-clad rule of conference realignment, demonstrated and reinforced with every move over the last 25 years. No matter what happens, no matter which schools move, no matter what conference wins or loses…
it will negatively impact Rice.
LikeLike
I wondered if the rule was it negatively impacted any school nicknamed Owls. Temple looked like it would benefit, but now that’s not so sure.
Go Owls! Beat UTEP! Rice could be one of 4 bowl eligible teams in CUSA (5 if SMU upsets Tulsa) and go to a bowl for the 3rd time since JFK asked, “Why do men go to the moon? Why does Rice play Texas?”
Nice when things aren’t so tightly controlled as they are now at the big schools. I was there when Rice beat SMU to qualify for the 1st time in over 40 years and my daughter was on my shoulders high-fiving the Rice players on the field after the game. It was fun. The players were having fun.
LikeLike
Well, Florida Atlantic did get left behind when FIU moved up to CUSA. Maybe this Owl theory is more general than I thought.
LikeLike
Now that we have multiple conferences at 14 and have analyzed 16 team configurations ad nauseum, what’s the best 18 team configuration?
Would it look something like what the Big Ten had as an 11 team conference (each team had 2 paired rivals) but with 6 pods of 3 teams each?
6 pods with 3 teams each, and each team has 1 designated rival. You combine 3 pods to form a division and do home-home for 2 years. Then after that 2 years, you switch the combination of 3 pods again. With 9 game schedules, each team plays the teams in their “division” for 2 years along with their designated rival if their designated rival is not in their division.
For example, say the Big Ten goes after UVa and Georgia Tech, and then later adds UNC/Duke and goes to 18.
Fixed rivals are in parenthesis:
Big Ten Plains
Nebraska (Penn State)
Iowa (Michigan State)
Minnesota (Wisconsin)
Big Ten North
Michigan (Ohio State)
Michigan State (Iowa)
Northwestern (Illinois)
Big Ten West
Wisconsin (Minnesota)
Illinois (Northwestern)
Purdue (Indiana)
Big Ten South
Ohio State (Michigan)
Rutgers (North Carolina)
Indiana (Purdue)
Big Ten East
Penn State (Nebraska)
Maryland (Virginia)
Georgia Tech (Duke)
Big Ten Atlantic
North Carolina (Rutgers)
Virginia (Maryland)
Duke (Georgia Tech)
So, here’s what the first two years look like (home-home):
North+West+Plains Division
Michigan (Ohio State)
Michigan State
Northwestern
Nebraska (Penn State)
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Purdue (Indiana)
South+East+Atlantic Division
Ohio State (Michigan)
Rutgers
Indiana (Purdue)
Penn State (Nebraska)
Maryland
Georgia Tech
North Carolina
Virginia
Duke
Basically, each team plays the 8 other teams in their division and 1 cross-over game.
Since only 3 fixed cross-over games aren’t already being played, you can just match up the remaining 6 squads in each division for a cross-over game.
So the final 6 games that need to be made: Michigan State-Rutgers, Northwestern-Maryland, Iowa-Georgia Tech, Minnesota-North Carolina, Wisconsin-Virginia, Illinois-Duke.
(I just went in order to match them up for this exercise).
I think this is the best 18 team configuration since it has 6 headliners for the divisions: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and evokes the 11 team configuration that the Big Ten used in the mid 90s and 00s.
LikeLike
Each team plays 3 teams every year (2 in division + designated rival) and the other 6 games each year rotate through the other 14 teams. You get through most of the conference every 4 years…
LikeLike
I think that what you have laid out shows that 18 teams could work out, at least in theory.
I have continued to rationalize reasons why Georgia Tech could be a target (because if they were added, I think it would be as a way to reach 18 teams). Georgia Tech would not be an end game by itself.
Outside of great academics and location, they do not add much. There is obviously the perspective that they would further make the ACC unstable, which could help bring in the primary targets.
The final reason I think that Georgia Tech *could* be a possibility is that it helps make it more politically possible for Virginia and North Carolina to eventually join. By adding Georgia Tech, you would be signaling that we are not the “Northern” conference, but rather a collection of top athletic and academic schools that happen to be in the North. That fact could help make it more politically tolerable for other university presidents to make the move from the ACC to the Big Ten.
Now – do I think this is likely to happen? No. I doubt that we take Georgia Tech with the “hope” that we land others. But I think it’s pretty clear that the lines of communication are open between us and other ACC schools. If they were to signal that this would be one way that they could accept moving to the Big Ten – then I think that the Big Ten would certainly pursue it.
LikeLike
I’ve thought about this and I believe you can have 2 fixed rivals (one in a pod that you play 2/3rds of the time). I’ll have to work through it to see if the Little Bown Jug game & Iowa/Wisconsin vs. Northwestern/Illinois mash of games can be preserved (or at least played 2/3rds of the time).
About the only hard rule to me is that Wisconsin/Iowa/Minny is in a pod (so that they play each other annually).
LikeLike
I personally prefer twenty – I posted this on another board, but this seems cleaner IMO:
I’m pretty unhappy with the fact that we expanded to 14, but at this point, I hate 14 even worse than I hated 12. If we go to a two 7 school per division split (and presumably maintain the 8 game conference schedule), each school would play 6 “divisional” games per year & 2 cross division games. Let’s assume that the “locked” cross division games are eliminated – that means that Iowa could theoretically go nearly a decade (7 years) without even playing Ohio State or Michigan – if the conference maintains the “locked” crossover games it would be even longer than 7 years.
My opinion, at this point, is that the B1G needs to expand to the point where we get to pods for the purpose of playing each other on a regular basis. And I don’t think we should stop at 16. My ideal number at this point is 20, and I think that creates the best overall balance for the conference.
First things first, this would be my expansion plan if I were Delaney & the presidents:
Great Plains Division
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois
Great Lakes Division
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Northeastern Division
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers
Northwestern
Duke*
Southeastern Division
Virginia
North Carolina
Georgia Tech
Clemson
Florida State
*Duke gets in to appease UNC if ND says no when the B1G is at 19. I thought about throwing BC in at this spot as well, but ultimately I think you need to make UNC comfortable, which gave Duke the tiebreaker in my mind.
At first this seems outlandish, but keep in mind we’re maintaining the “contiguous state” requirement held by the CIC & adding some extremely prestigious universities in this expansion. Obviously Florida State & Clemson don’t fit the academic mold, but they do fit the athletic mold – and the presidents may be OK adding FSU/Clemson if it means adding major research schools like UNC/UVA/Duke/Ga Tech.
I think the above would be my ideal scenario at this point. It preserves geographic rivalries & appeases nearly every school in the B1G with the exception of Illinois/NW – I threw NW out east because it means that NW/Rutgers would play ever year – I’m sure the networks would pick up a game between NYC & CHI (kind of). The problem when putting together these pods is that the Illinois/NW & Indiana/Purdue rivalries are very difficult to maintain because there isn’t a traditional “king” amongst those four.
The above is much better than two 7/8/9 school divisions because you can use the pod scheduling system to ensure each school competes with one another with some form of regularity. It would work like this:
In 2014/2015 the “Great Plains Division” would play the “Southeastern Division” – the school with the best record of the two divisions competes in the CCG against the school with the best record between the other two divisions – no “locked crossover” games – thus the CCG is NEVER a rematch, which preserves the integrity of the CCG. Each school would play each school in their own division (4 games) and every school from the rotating “sister division” (5 games) – which means the conference would have to go to 9 conference games. As you can probably see, the biggest positive of this system is that it ensures every school in the conference competes against every other school in the conference twice every six years, whereas two divisions means you could go a decade without playing certain schools even one time.
The really important thing about the mid-atlantic additions (and the reason that the B1G should be targeting all of the mentioned schools) is that it adds a HUGE number of subscribers to the BTN, and perhaps even more importantly, lots of good content (think Baseball for the summer).
At this point, this kind of expansion is the only way I can see myself being happy with the way things are going.
LikeLike
Clemson’s never getting in the Big20.
I had ND&Miami instead of FSU/Clemson in my Big20 (and thus slightly different pods). I didn’t thrown Northwestern out east because a bunch of the old Big10 teams want to visit Chicagoland often (for alumni outreach purposes). I did have Northwestern/Illinois and IU/PU be OOC a bunch of the time, however. Probably not a problem because many B10 schools wants to play each other very often & and all of those 4 except maybe Illinois don’t need 7 home games. Northwestern/Illinois OOC could even be at Soldier Field to kick off the season (helping to fulfill the Illini’s desire to have a game in Chicagoland every year).
BTW, I’m almost certain they go to 9 conference games with 14.
LikeLike
Urgh. Excuse the grammar mistakes. I was tapping on my phone.
LikeLike
BTW, good point about no rematch in the title game being a positive. UCLA could get an easier team to beat (IMHO) by throwing the game against Stanford today to avoid Oregon in the title game.
Those are awful incentives due to an idiotic setup.
LikeLike
zeek,
While 18 is a horrible idea, there are multiple ways to deal with it. The best one depends, in part, on the 4 added teams.
Your additions – UVA, UNC, Duke, GT
Your proposal – 6 pods of 3
I think that’s just too many moving parts. The obvious counter plan is 2 pods of 5 and 2 pods of 4.
Boring counter plan:
Pair N&W and S&E, then N&S and E&W. 8 division games, 1 rotating game.
I don’t like this plan since the pods are so unequal and it limits how often you play each other.
Better plan:
3 pods of 6
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
W1 – NE, NW, IL
W2 – WI, IA, MN
E – OSU, MI, MSU, PSU, PU, IN
E1 – OSU, MI, IN
E2 – PSU, MSU, PU
S – RU, MD, GT, UVA, UNC, Duke
S1 – RU, Duke, MD
S2 – UVA, UNC, GT
Split the S pod into 2 half pods that rotate between playing W and E:
8 division games and 1 rotating game through the other 2 pods.
Pair W&S1 and E&S2, then W&S2 and E&S1. Then rotate:
W&S1 and E&S2
W&S2 and E&S1
W&E1 and S&E2
W&E2 and S&E1
S&W1 and E&W2
S&W2 and E&W1
Frequency of playing:
Subpod mates – 6/6
Other half of your pod – 4/6
Other pods – 3/6 with rotating games
LikeLike
Can you do eighteen in two divisions? I think not, which raises the question whether you can have a conference with more than two divisions with only one championship game? Its the assumption of two divisions and one division championship game that makes people imagine 16 team superconferences: nine games in conference, seven with division rivals, two across division playing through the opposite division across four years. Fourteen is more comfortable, nine conference games giving all division opponents, one locked cross division rivalry and playing through the other six in three years.
LikeLike
To answer you first question, yes you can, with pods.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Can you do eighteen in two divisions?”
Of course you can. 9 teams in each, play 8 division games and 1 crossover.
“I think not, which raises the question whether you can have a conference with more than two divisions with only one championship game?”
No. The NCAA rule requires 2 divisions that play round robin with the champs meeting in a CCG.
“Its the assumption of two divisions and one division championship game that makes people imagine 16 team superconferences: nine games in conference, seven with division rivals, two across division playing through the opposite division across four years. Fourteen is more comfortable, nine conference games giving all division opponents, one locked cross division rivalry and playing through the other six in three years.”
And 12 is even better. Pods will increase the minimum frequency with which you play everyone else, but at the cost of playing fewer teams every year.
LikeLike
16-team conferences are ridiculous enough that if we go beyond that, they will probably undergo mitosis and split into two conferences each, probably when the sports rights bubble inevitably pops.
LikeLike
Zeek – I like your format for 18 teams. However, realistically, The Big Ten office can’t think that deeply, since they appear to be taking the easiest, simplest approach to a 14 team conference (moving Illinois) as opposed to improving the system. If they go to 18 teams, they will just keep adding to the existing structure and it will be two divisions of nine teams. Not saying I agree with that.
LikeLike
Its a pity WVU isn’t an option for the ACC at this time.
ND can’t be too thrilled about the prospect of regular football games against Louisville (last played never), Cincy (1900) and/or UConn (once, 2009) much less regular visits to any or all of those schools. Assuming they could cancel the ACC agreement, would they? With likely demise of the Big East, just how badly does ND need the ACC at this point, both as a home for its olympic sports and to fill Oct/Nov football dates?
LikeLike
Notre Dame didn’t seem to mind sharing a league for a decade with Lou, Cin and UConn. I think ND would want games in Lou & Cin due to large Catholic populations and wants to play UConn since it is close to NY. ND also didn’t seem to mind taking Cincy’s coach 3 years ago.
LikeLike
It’s hard to tell because Notre Dame has basically said that they need the ACC to fill up their October and November slots.
With the Big East in ruins having lost virtually all of its football membership under your scenario, and the fact that Notre Dame is not likely to be able to add much from the Pac-12 (already have Stanford/USC), Big 12 (1 usually or 2 max in this region), SEC (0), Big Ten (down to 2 from 3 with cancellation of Michigan); they need the ACC to fill a lot of the slots on their schedule going forward.
That need won’t go away, and the fact that they’re unlikely to want to play more teams from the other conferences means that they need the ACC more…
LikeLike
WVU was never, ever going to happen to the ACC. To be reasonably polite about it…people in North Carolina and Virginia are a little “provincial” in their opinions of West Virgina.
To be less polite about it…see WVU message boards when the ACC’s “opinion” of them came up.
LikeLike
I’m sure the message board reactions had a great deal to do with why WVU didn’t wind up in the ACC, just like they’ve been the deciding factor in every other decision up to this point….
It would be ironic if Louisville winds up in the ACC now, given that “academics” and TV markets were the purported reason for excluding WVU. Louisville and WVU, I believe, are tied in the USNWR academic rankings, and the Big 12’s market research determined that WVU’s TV rights were worth more (though probably not by much), than Louisville’s.
LikeLike
There’s a difference between “that schools teams suck” or ” we’re a Southern school, those are northern schools” on the one hand and “those people are illiterate, inbred rednecks” and “#&!* those bigot liberals in the ACC” on the others.
Genuine antipathy and disrespect is a real problem, not just a “fit” issue.
LikeLike
FWIW Some of the WV posters have said UNC and Duke basically said the 1st to Oliver Luck’s face and blackballed WV. I don’t believe it, but many of them do.
LikeLike
I bet the origins of West Virginia as a state have something to do with those opinions, at least on UVA’s part. It’s actually a bit of a shame, because a WVU/UVA rivalry could have been as heated as the Kansas/Missouri Border War.
LikeLike
Why would they be unthrilled by a Louisville/UConn/Cinci expanion? It doesn’t change the number of contracted ACC games. Given their cherished independence, filling Oct/Nov football dates with enough teams that will not totally kill their strength of schedule perception is easiest with this kind of deal, and the ACC seems like the strongest conference they can reach this kind of deal with ~ the Big 10, SEC and Pac-10 would want them as full members. Those three boosting the perceived quality of the ACC as a basketball conference and making the basketball participation more appealing would just be gravy on top.
LikeLike
And it’s not like Louisville, UConn, and Cincinnati are a step down from Maryland from a football standpoint. Heck, all three are probably a step up.
LikeLike
Money is probably the issue. Is ESPN going to fork over the extra $450 million over 13 years to pay for 16 instead of 14 teams if the extra two are 2 of 3 from UConn/Louisville/Cincy?
LikeLike
I cannot see a scenario where the ACC takes Louisville, Connecticut, and especially Cincinnati, The Bearcats are essentially a Wake Forest type athletic program (Nippert Stadium seats about 39,000 people), coupled with an academic ranking of 139. Even South Florida although ranked lower academically speaking (170), brings more growth potential to the table (See the TV Florida Market), and could fill a real void if Florida State & (or) Miami are no longer available. Speaking of The “U”, where they will be playing (Or not) in 2013 and beyond, is something that must be determined by the ACC before they decide if they are expanding, and if so, who is being added.
LikeLike
UCF probably would be the ACC’s best long-term option just because of their location and gigantic enrollment, but they can’t add them so long as FSU and Miami are around.
LikeLike
The ACC doesn’t have the same type of footprint issues as the B1G & SEC do. The latter two have their own cable networks and realistic quality additions outside of their footprint. The ACC doesn’t have either as a factor.
ACC financial math is just different than B1G/SEC math and much harder to tease out.
LikeLike
Oh, UCF was predicated on my belief that FSU (and maybe Miami) will be leaving eventually anyway.
LikeLike
Adding UCF or USF is not so much a network footprint issue, its a FSU pitching a fit and bolting for the Big 12 issue. ESPN does not want to lose FSU to a Fox Sports `conference.
LikeLike
UCF and USF combined would pale in comparison to FSU. Realistically, I only see the ACC adding either one if Miami leaves as well (or gets hit with something akin to the death penalty), for the same reason the Big 12 eventually added TCU.
LikeLike
The funny thing about UCF and USF is that they’d probably have a better shot at the Big 12 if they had better names (e.g. U. of Orlando and U. of Tampa). There’s a lot of negative stigma with directional schools. USC is about the only exception I can think of.
LikeLike
The school formerly known as Texas Western agrees. And USC is almost the exception that proves the rule, because they’re more known as “USC” than anything else and California is practically two states anyway.
LikeLike
I just commented on the USF thing. But I think it makes great sense for the Big XII to add them if/when it ever decides to go to 12. Imagine adding UCF and USF as a Florida flank. If the Big 10 can invest in Rutgers and Maryland… why can’t the Big XII invest?
LikeLike
Why not add FSU and Miami instead?
LikeLike
I don’t know. If they wanted to go, they would have.
Along the same lines, why didn’t the Big 10 add Virginia & North Carolina? If that is who the Big 10 covets, why screw around with Rutgers and Maryland?
Florida State and Miami were great in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Would the Big 10 or SEC have wanted them in the 1970’s?
LikeLike
The B10 can still add UVa & UNC after Rutgers and UMD.
Would FSU want to fit in to the same conference as UCF and USF?
Would the B12 want 4 FL schools?
Adding UCF&USF closes possibilities in ways that adding UMD & Rutgers does not.
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC Expansion Thoughts: 16 teams? | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
Since UConn and Louisville are playing today, you know there will be a few members of the media who will read way too much into the on field performance as it relates to an invitation.
LikeLike
The same scenario played out last year with WVU and Louisville and the disputed Big XII invite. Louisville won the game but didn’t manage to pull out the invite. I highly doubt that the media in Louisville will be reading too much into this outcome but I agree that this is the type of inane storyline that the sports media in general is likely to gobble up, past experience be damned..
LikeLike
I generally agree. But, at the same time, UConn getting blown out by 40 might have shown that they were so far behind Louisville in football that the football schools would have deemed the addition of UConn absurd. By keeping it close (and perhaps winning), this hurts Louisville’s claim that they are so much better of a football school.
West Virginia has a history of football that Louisville did not have. UConn does not have that edge over Louisville. But Louisville also does not really have that edge over UConn, as they both hit the BCS-conference realm at the same time.
UConn is helping its cause today by not getting blown out…
LikeLike
Does anyone else think that UConn pulling the upset in a single game might actually convince Florida State that they wouldn’t be a completely horrible addition for football purposes? I think FSU might realize so anyway, but not because of a single game. It wasn’t that long ago that Louisville was a joke in football and UConn was going to BCS games.
LikeLike
Add.
LikeLike
Chip Brown @ChipBrownOB
I’m hearing the #BigTen may not be done with expansion yet.
If he is the mouthpiece for Dodds, as asserted by some, them what is his angle?
LikeLike
Maybe trying to scare Notre Dame to the Big XII
LikeLike
Possible. I kind of think it is a signal that the B12 is not going to move first to be honest. Delany has been the “bad guy” every step of the way, and it appears others want him to continue doing it.
Fortunately for the Big Ten…Delany wants what he wants…and he is not afraid of the timing of the whole “appearances” thing.
LikeLike
Ok, now c’mon. Chip Brown? Really? People still take this guy seriously?
LikeLike
Well, I was just showing you what I have seen…thats all.
LikeLike
Actually, this Tweet is can’t possibly be wrong.
LikeLike
He’s Dodd’s minister of propaganda and disinformation.
LikeLike
Baghdad Bob always pops into mind when Chip Brown starts tweeting expansion rumors.
LikeLike
Actually, I’ve always thought that Texas would like to leave behind a large portion of the old Big XII north and form a Super Conference.
Texas
Oklahoma
Okie State (included for political reasons)
Texas Tech
Kansas
then recruit
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Clemson
Miami
Notre Dame (Texas pipe dream to be in a conference with ND)
maybe 2 more schools somewhere to get 12 total and separate into east/west divisions.
I guess West Virginia could be one in the east. Probably another Texas school in the west so the Longhorns can have another game close to home. TCU>Baylor in that regard
LikeLike
Chip Brown @ChipBrown OB
Water is wet, or so I’m hearing.
LikeLike
If all 3 are added, could the 8 former Big East teams be in one division? Would that appease the old guard? Would it placate FSU? I think “yes” to both.
I hope this rumor is true. I doubt it is though.
LikeLike
FSU probably would like that. Actually, that may be a way that expansion would be acceptable to all of the ACC old guard.
“Don’t think of it as adding Louisville, UConn, and Cincinnati. Think of it as getting rid of Boston College, V-Tech, Miami, Syracuse and Pittsburgh.”
Basically, how I imagine Larry Scott pitching the addition of Texas, T-Tech, Oklahoma, Okie State, Colorado, etc to the California and pacific NW schools, “Think of it as getting rid of Arizona and Arizona State…” Except, Scott could have also showed them a huge bag of money. But still, getting Cal and Stanford to accept T-Tech and Okie State must have needed an extra incentive.
If the ACC kept an 8 game schedule, they could have one permanent cross over rival (and not even count it in the conference standings) that would be more like a non-conference game.
Atlantic Division – East Division
Florida State – Miami
Virginia – Virginia Tech
NC State – Cincinnati
Duke – Boston College
North Carolina – Syracuse
Wake Forest – Louisville
Clemson – UConn
Georgia Tech – Pittsburgh
LikeLike
P12 proposed, and pres ok’d exactly that in advance. UT vetoed. May be harder now as Colo and Utah are gaining history and connections in Cali and would probably join the Az schools in resisting being exiled to the B12 division of a P16.
LikeLike
Agreed, I think the Pac missed whatever chance they had to exile the Arizona schools in an eastern division now that Colorado and Utah have a voice in the matter.
Wasn’t Colorado one of the schools that was against the Pac adding just Oklahoma and Oklahoma State last year?
LikeLike
Yep. In fact Colorado’s president had indicated they might have proposed a deal that included Texas as well.
They really didn’t want to give up any exposure on the West Coast.
LikeLike
opposed not proposed
LikeLike
The intent isn’t to exile anyone. Perhaps being placed in the E division would be necessary in order to achieve the desired makeup of the conf. It’s not like sacrifices haven’t already been made to get to 12. The NW schools gave up considerable access to CA to allow Cal and Stanford (north division) yearly games with both UCLA and U$C.
LikeLike
I think the California schools would still drive the bus on whatever happens in the conference if push came to shove.
LikeLike
One permanent crossover rival, and you have Cincy-NC State and Louisville-Wake? Shouldn’t that be switched? Cincy-UL and NC State-Wake?
LikeLike
Read it again. Both of those pairs aren’t crossovers.
LikeLike
Oops, my bad. I just glanced at your comment and saw “permanent crossover rival” and then a breakdown of teams in pairs and jumped to the conclusion.
Note to self: Reading comprehension classes…
LikeLike
My impression is that no one is unhappy with the Arizona schools in the Pac-10/12. They’ve been an even better addition than Penn State and Nebraska in the Big 10.
LikeLike
It’s hard to imagine that the old-guard ACC schools would be in favor of adding 3 schools. Especially given that each of the 3 candidates will create problems. Louisville is good in athletics and seems to understand how to create value, but it is an academic and geographic outlier. UConn is in the footprint, has solid academics and is OK in athletics…but they don’t move the needle in economic value (basically, this would just give a partner to the northern schools: BC/Syracuse/Pitt…while angering fans of the FSU/Clemson/VT programs). Cincy does not make any sense.
If there is serious consideration to simultaneously adding all 3 schools in the ACC, then further defections by existing ACC schools must be in the works. Allowing Notre Dame as a partial member made the most sense if it helped solidify the ACC. Two months into the ND-ACC partnership, it appears that joining forces was more an act of desperation by two weak entities. ND gets to keep its precious football independence for another decade…the ACC can maintain a seat at the power table (although having to defer to the B1G & SEC whenever they need additional revenue).
The miracle would be if ND somehow decided to start leading in the formation of a new ACC. Rather than allow the ACC to become another Big XII or -more likely- Big East, having a strong and enviable conference is still possible.
As a UVa grad who enjoys a lot of college sports, all the love for the VA and NC schools and markets is flattering. Living in the Philly Main Line…if UVa in the B1G occurs (not a preference, but a possibility), it would be convenient to see them at Happy Valley, College Park and Rutgers. Even joining the SEC (a lesser likely possibility) would likely increase UVa’s exposure. Yet UVa will lose too many great rivalries and traditions if the ACC is no longer an option.
The best option for creating a relevant ACC is probably to cool off on expansion and not create more damage.
LikeLike
Actually, I think Cincinnati makes the most sense of those three schools. I keep hearing these three names pop up as backfill/additions so I did some research on-line. Cincinnati has over a billion dollar endowment and a much larger student body than I ever imagined, something like 40k enrollment. Their academic credentials are no Duke’s (then again how many schools are? – sorry couldn’t resist), but are a lot better than the other two schools and many of our current members. The overall undergrad academic ranking isn’t that high, probably because they have such a large student body like FSU and NC State, but their grad school rankings (particularly law school and med school disciplines in US news) are impressive and at least in the middle tier of the ACC. UL and UConn have better basketball teams over the past few years, but Cincinnati football looks to be better by far than UConn and by a bit over UL if not a wash. But I agree, it might be better to cool off on expansion for now and wait until (if) the Big 12 takes FSU and Clemson. I get why the Big 12 would want FSU, but what does Clemson have to offer? On a national level, who really cares about Clemson besides the people who went there and is rural SC a television market the Big ~10-14 (depending on what month it is) conferences are dying to get into?
LikeLike
I really hope Gene Smith enjoyed his trip to the Gator Bowl last year because it probably cost them a trip to at least Pasadena and maybe the NCG.
LikeLike
Secretly, I think many Buckeye fans are happy. I think this OSU team was very good in a down Big Ten. They would not likely win against any of the other “elite” teams this year. They finish unbeaten, without having to actually play another elite team.
LikeLike
I don’t think they’d beat Bama or Georgia, but I think they’d have a chance against ND. It’s unfortunate, but I’m just trying to relish the undefeated season capped with a big win against Michigan. Now Urban can focus on recruiting and improving some of the glaring holes this team has.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
Yup. Anyway, OSU broke the rules and got punshed for it. I’m not going to whine about what could have been.
LikeLike
Pretty much. Would love to have the shot, but don’t break the rules and you won’t have this problem.
LikeLike
It’s the beauty of being a king program. We can realistically tell ourselves we’ll get another shot soon, so wasting a 12-0 season isn’t a huge deal. I’m guessing other fan bases would react differently.
LikeLike
YEs, but people said the same thing about the ’02 squad…
LikeLike
No debate from me that OSU is not legit. I am simply saying that, the chances are slim they would win the national title game…and the chance of losing in the rest of the BCS really is not worth the risk. Urban gets to recruit as an unbeaten coach at OSU…I think that is a very big thing myself.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine them not wanting a chance. Now when Texas had 1 loss in 2001 prior to the ccg, I didn’t mind they didn’t get the chance to lose to unbeaten Miami, but that team wasn’t unbeaten. I don’t think Ohio St. is top 6, but noone has proven otherwise and every team has flaws.
LikeLike
I do not doubt they would want a chance to play for the title. The other BCS games carry more risk than reward for them to be honest. That is just my opinion.
LikeLike
frug,
The 2002 team had an elite defense (at least 15 of the 2 deep got drafted), 2012 doesn’t. 2002 had a senior QB and a lot of talent at the other positions. 2012 has an elite athlete at QB and some decent talent at the other positions.
LikeLike
Not to nitpick, but Krenzel was a junior in 2002. The rest I agree with though.
LikeLike
Nick,
We haven’t all been secret about it. I’ll cash out my chips at 12-0 and be happy for now. Bowl season will be stress free for once.
LikeLike
Thats about what my friends think too. They want the chance to play for everything. But do not wish to just play for a BCS bowl game or whatever. I think this is a net win for the Buckeyes myself.
LikeLike
Just wondering: If Virginia says yes, UNC and ND say NO, VT and GT miss the cut academically/geographically, does the B1G admit them w/o a definite 16th? How long could/would the B1G just stay at 15? Would they consider Pitt despite not adding a new market?
LikeLike
I would say they will not add Pitt. I would not be surprised to have them sit at 15 for a year and see what the instability brings. It would be almost a certainty that, with the Big Ten at 15, unless the ACC signs a GOR…there would be more movement in the short term.
LikeLike
John O,
If they get UVA, they have to take a 16th. With divisions, you can’t have unequal numbers and schedule properly. 11 worked because everyone missed 3 teams. The crossover games can’t work with 15.
LikeLike
You could just count division games for the title and let 10 schools play 9 games and 5 play 8 total conference games-for a temporary period of a few years. Let UM, OSU, PSU, UNL and WI, the 5 biggest stadiums, play 8. 15 is different than 13 in that you have a decent number of division games to decide the division. 5 is (in a 6 team division) just too few.
LikeLike
I doubt the B10 would take that route. They like to treat all schools the same. It’s much easier to take an acceptable #16.
LikeLike
They’d poach Syracuse with Virginia… maybe…
LikeLike
Georgia Tech will be #16 if there’s no one else available (UNC).
If UVa comes a-calling, you don’t say no.
LikeLike
OK. Would anyone else be on the table other than GT? BC, Syracuse, VT? GT is not a bad addition, I am just asking what other schools people think would get consideration if the Big Ten feels absolutely compelled to go to 16, and is not content at 15 in adding UVA.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech isn’t a bad addition. It’s the exact same as Pitt… but maybe slightly more valuable to the Big Ten.
You need to think about it in reverse:
What does Pitt do for the ACC? Decent program located in a city with a state dominated by local giant (Penn State versus Georgia). Far more Big Ten alumni in that city (from Ohio State and other places) than ACC alumni, I would guess. Similar result in Atlanta.
Atlanta is a bigger city than Pittsburgh and is located in a state that’s a recruiting hotbed, etc.
On the margins, Georgia Tech does slightly more in those areas for the Big Ten than Pittsburgh does for the ACC.
Keep in mind I just made a comparison of what Pitt adds to the ACC and said it adds slightly less in those areas (Atlanta is bigger than Pittsburgh, better recruiting angle, more Big Ten alumni going south as opposed to ACC alumni going to Pittsburgh of all places).
Pitt doesn’t add any of those things to the Big Ten… (Syracuse and BC are generally worse fits that Pitt as institutions; neither is a research giant like Northwestern, and they’re located in markets that will never be interested in football).
Now, is that enough to make Georgia Tech #16? That’s what will determine whether we take them at #16 if they don’t want to go for Virginia Tech on the AAU question.
LikeLike
Nick,
Sources have said the B10 is high on GT. Other options I’ve heard for #16:
VT – locks up VA, but academics and 2 schools in VA
Syracuse – adds a large state and helps with NYC, but dropped from AAU
Kansas – AAU and hoops king, but small state, weak academics, tied to KSU
Pitt – solid candidate except for being in PA
MO – solid candidate except for being in the SEC
LikeLike
Yea, I have a feeling it would be GT…and that would not be terrible. I just feel like, for the first time, it would be an indisputable reach by the Big Ten. That worries me.
GT is a great school, great research, good tradition, great location (in my opinion Atlanta is the best semi-realistic location for all of the Big Ten’s needs in the country). However, waiting at 15 for just a year could do wonders for who may be available.
At any rate…GT has been a persistent rumor, and it makes sense on many levels.
LikeLike
Nick,
While I doubt they wait a year at 15, they could wait several months to similar effect. Signing someone now or in June doesn’t make much difference since it’s the same school year (BE being an exception due to their 27 month rule).
LikeLike
Nick, I doubt you end up having to worry about this as a legitimate issue.
When UVa does move (if it ever does), it will be as a package. I don’t see them bolting on their own like Maryland.
LikeLike
Virginia probably isn’t joining without V-Tech, especially if the Big Ten doesn’t have a definite 16th otherwise. State legislatures’ power should never be underestimated.
LikeLike
FWIW, if the Big Ten really wanted UVA and believed that UNC would never come, then I would certainly consider adding Virginia Tech. VT is hardly Texas Tech in terms of academics – it’s at #72 in the latest US News rankings (tied with Iowa and Michigan State and ahead of Indiana and Nebraska) and excellent in engineering. It’s an example where the lack of AAU status really shouldn’t be outcome determinative. Plus, VT actually has a great football program on-the-field with a top notch fan base. If the idea is to lock down the entire DC area plus the rest of Virginia, then it may require all of Maryland, UVA and VT.
LikeLike
Notre Dame clearly doesn’t want to be in a sinking Big East, even if it doesn’t have to be play football on that league. They’ve been there, done that, and left before matters got worse.
Well, the ACC has a real threat of becoming the Big East itself, and in more ways than one. It has already added five Big East teams for football (excluding ND) and will likely add a sixth on order to replace Maryland. Meanwhile, like the Big East, the ACC is in danger of being picked apart of its most valuable members. It also has similar dynamics to the old Big East where there is a large number of private schools, and where its most important members leave only to be replaced by schools that stronger conferences wouldn’t ever consider.
Notre Dame should see the writing on the wall: the ACC is on track to have the same fate as the conference it just left. There is no GOR to keep the league from being picked apart. But as time passes, there will be no other northeastern conference with similar-sized schools and private schools left. There will only be the Big Ten, a league which Notre Same clearly does not want to join.
The one thing that could keep Notre Dame in a strong conference for its non-football sports for the long haul is for the conference it gladly chose to join to secure a GOR. The only way the ACC can get a GOR, though, is to get a skyrocketing increase for its TV contract, providing security for everyone from Clemson and FSU to UNC and Virginia. And the only way to get that huge TV $$ increase is to get ND to add three more ACC games/year to its football schedule. Indeed Notre Dame must join the ACC for football in order to avoid having to be in another drowning Big East or having to join a league it does NOT want to join: the Big Ten.
Short of that, the ACC turns into the Big East in every manner, and Notre Dame is stuck in a league it doesn’t want to be in, no matter which league that is.
LikeLike
Going in on a 7 game ACC football commitment would be ND’s best chance of creating and leading their own conference. It still provides ND with 5 games to play traditional (Navy, USC, B1Gs/Stanford/other) rivals.
LikeLike
Buckeyes 12-0.
LikeLike
congrats to the Buckeyes. They didn’t often win pretty, but they did what was necessary. Shame an unbeaten team gets shut out, not that I think they are as good as the rest of the top 6 or 7, but noone has proven otherwise. People didn’t think that championship team should have been on the field with Miami. But sometimes teams do just what they need to do to win.
SMU did that today vs. Tulsa. They were up 28-6 at half and I was looking at the stats on ESPN to see if former UT QB Garrett Gilbert was having a good day. He was 4/15. Tulsa had 19 FD vs 6 for SMU and was 22/42 passing. They had 268 yds vs 171 (half on 1 play). Looking at the play by play, it was turnovers and special teams. SMU blocked a punt and took over on the 3. They got a fumble on the 31. They got an interception on the 35. Coverted all 3 to TDs while Tulsa would drive in to SMU territory repeatedly and fizzle. Gilbert did have a good moment when he scrambled for a 74 yard TD, which was most of SMU’s 1st half offense. Final score was 35-27. 13 FD vs. 32. 305 yds vs 591. And 0 turnovers vs 3.
LikeLike
This year is evidence as much as any other for how hard it is to go undefeated.
Look at the escapes by Notre Dame and Ohio State to this point. It’s a high wire act at times.
LikeLike
been a rough WE for ranked teams so far. 3 UGA and 23 Kent St. won easily. 6 KSU(after a loss) and 22 (Boise) were off. 16, 18, 19, 20, 24 and 25 in the BCS have lost already.
LikeLike
Actually it was even better. Last play of the game Tulsa completed a pass from the 35 for 34 yards. SMU stopped them 1 yard short. Earlier they stopped them on downs 3 times-on the 8, 21 and 24.
LikeLike
“…not that I think they are as good as the rest of the top 6 or 7…”
Ohio State matches up just fine against at least 3 of those teams (Florida, ND & Oregon). To be honest having Alabama, Georgia & Florida 2,3 & 4 illustrated perfectly how broken the system is.
LikeLike
I don’t like the D vs OR. Tackling issues will get you killed against them, like Shoelace’s long TD when 2 guys bounced off instead of wrapping up.
LikeLike
I don’t like how the back 7 match-up but once you start putting hats on the QB the Oregon O folds. The Buckeye D line is quite capable of doing that.
LikeLike
Like in tOSU’s game against the P12 “power” they faced this year?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
Yes. Or like pretty much any game all year.
LikeLike
Sorry man, but OSU would stand a chance against Bama, UGA, or UF this year. I watch the game this morning, and the players just seemed slower than overall. It was almost as if the plays were going in slow motion (well I might be exaggerating a little, but their is a speed difference). The defenses are just way to strong and fast on those SEC three teams.
LikeLike
Oops…meant would not stand a chance against those 3 SEC teams.
LikeLike
bamatab,
I don’t disagree on your general point, but SEC players would run slower in cold weather too.
LikeLike
Yeah. You just play a little slower in 30deg weather this time of year. OSU has shown in the past that their defense can play the speed game. Some years anyway, not 2006-7. But 2002, 2009 Rose vs Oregon, 2010 vs Arkansas for sure.
I agree with the overall assessment, but not the rational.
LikeLike
For an extra data point, Urban Meyer says we could play with anyone this year. Take it FWIW, obviously, but he said the opposite a few weeks ago.
LikeLike
My statement was more in regards to the defensive side of the ball. I realize that the temperature played a roll in today’s game. But I also noticed it defensive speed difference in the Bama/Michigan game at the beginning of the year (and there didn’t seem to be much difference in the UM & OSU defenses in regards to speed). I also noticed it in the only other OSU game that I watched some of this year (the OSU/Neb game).
manifestodeluxe – I was talking about this year’s team specificially. That 2010 OSU defense that beat Arkansas looked pretty fast, but this year’s defense just looks a step slow. But give Meyer time, he’ll have that defense stacked in another year or two (and will probably own the B1G for the near future).
LikeLike
OSU wouldn’t stand a chance against UF? Somehow ULL did. Somehow Missouri came close. Somehow Kentucky had a chance against Georgia.
If you want to say UF or GA would take 6 or 7 out of 10 from OSU, go ahead, but to say “OSU wouldn’t stand a chance” is just more sec hubris.
LikeLike
@bama:
I can accept that. Losing Simon before the game hurt (although kudos to Washington/Spence for filling in), but the linebackers have been so-so this year. They only gelled after moving Boren over from FB, and as much as I love what Boren brought to the table he’s not the most gifted athlete on the field. That’s why he was a FB.
I’m not sure it’s a guarantee that OSU would have no chance against any of those three SEC squads, but it’s unlikely they’d win. I don’t think they’d do well against Oregon — slow/questionable LB play would be rough against that spread.
LikeLike
greg – So you’re saying that 3 out of 10 times are good odds? That doesn’t sound like much of a chance to me if the opposing team would win 70% of the time. Plus UF wouldn’t take OSU lightly, like they did those other teams. Heck, what do you think the betting line would be on that game? I’m thinking you’d be lucky if OSU was at -14.
LikeLike
bamatab, so you are admitting you were totally overstating your case that OSU “wouldn’t stand a chance”? I never said I agreed with 7 of 10, nor did I call them “good odds”.
Ah, UF “took them lightly”. Always the best defense when you struggle against a team with a worse record, it couldn’t be that they just played you well that day.
OSU would be a 14 point dog against Florida? Jiminy christmas you sec homers live in dream land. Well, I guess the game would have to be in florida for it to take place, so that may be possible.
LikeLike
bamatab,
Without getting into this argument, I’ll just point out that 70% odds of winning is more like a point spread of 9-10 generally. 14 is more like an 80% chance of winning.
LikeLike
greg – Maybe I should’ve said wouldn’t stand much of a chance. And they are projecting a Bama vs ND point spread to be 13 pt by the time of kickoff. I don’t think that a OSU vs UF point spread would be much different.
Here is a link stating the projected Bama vs ND odds at game time:
http://linemakers.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/2012-11-19/bcs-odds-to-win-championship-notre-dame-vs-alabama-point-spread-line-georgia
brian – I was just using 70% because of the 7 out of 10 number that greg used.
LikeLike
Sorry man, but Bama has beaten exactly one decent team all year. Parroting the ‘speed’ chestnut tell me all I need to know. Bama’s offense poses no ‘speed’ challenges. The only reason I would give Alabama the nod is because of the line play on both sides of the ball. Florida & Georgia are solid teams but nothing special.
To be blunt Alabama at #2 is a joke.
LikeLike
Fuck Michigan. Have a nice day.
LikeLike
This Northwestern team has been one of my favorites since I started following them:
9-3; losses to Nebraska and Penn State (blown double digit leads with a few minutes in each of those) and Michigan (3 point lead with 20 seconds left and punting).
In fairness, we won a couple of games that we held on to, so it’s not fair to look at the losses like that.
@Frank, the Illini have a lot of work to do; looks like a 3-4 year rebuilding project; way more depleted with a lot of coaching issues compared to Zook’s squads of the past few years that were always ready for this game.
LikeLike
@Nick
Chip Brown is right that the Big Ten isn’t done expanding.
Delany’s mentioned 16 teams a couple of times.
Maryland “leaked” exact financial information comparing the two conferences to SI… (and Delany gave a full interview right after the leak).
Dave Brandon mentioned that we could go to 16; and some administrators have told media outlets that 14 isn’t a good number.
You add it all up, and the Big Ten wants 16; there’s too much that all points in that direction. The question is whether we can get everyone in a tizzy and free up some prizes in the process. The schools that make people say “oh this is why they took Rutgers and Maryland and now #3 and #4; looks like a solid expansion”…
As for Chip Brown’s angle, who knows; wouldn’t be a surprise if the Texas people were analyzing the situation and came to that conclusion and told him.
LikeLike
OK. My question would become, what if some of the real prizes are not there to be had? I have no question that the Big Ten is expecting to free up UVA at some point, and is still holding out hope for ND. But what if UVA is not available? I cannot imagine just snagging GT and seeing what happens…
I agree completely with you though, that the Big Ten did not grab Maryland and Rutgers to stop there. It is moving more pieces into place for the next move…
LikeLike
When you look at Big Ten expansion scenarios, Georgia Tech is like Rutgers (they’re “even-numbered” additions). Make no mistake on that; they aren’t an “odd-numbered team”. What do I mean by that?
When you consider expansion, odd-number teams have to bring value or be somewhat like a prize that lets you get another prize down the road.
Maryland insomuch as it is anything, is an “odd-numbered” team; it gets you the D.C.-Baltimore markets while simultaneously giving you all sorts of angles on other schools in the Mid-Atlantic. Maryland is the most similar school to UVa and UNC that is not in the ACC; think about that for a moment. It makes it easier down the road to grab them with Maryland as the bridge.
Georgia Tech will be #16 if we absolutely have to move on a school like UVa at #15 and decide to round out to an even number because UNC is sticking it out in the ACC…
Georgia Tech is playing the role of a Missouri, or Rutgers, or Utah. There were scenarios where none of those would end up in their new homes if a difference #14 had shown up…
LikeLike
Yea, that all makes sense, but I do not see why it may not jjst be wise to sit at 15 for a bit and see what develops rather than rushing and grabbing a team like GT. I am not a believer that the conference will get bigger than 16 teams, unless ND ever wanted to join. So really…aren’t the next two additions likely to be final for a while? That is why I am sort of anti GT (not full out, I just feel we can do better).
LikeLike
It depends on whether they think they can move to 18 or 20 in the future.
Now that we’re at 14, you could take UVa and Georgia Tech (if UNC, ND, Texas are unavailable for #16).
In the future, you could go for UNC/Duke.
LikeLike
Write up a schedule for 15 teams with 2 divisions:
8 team division = 7-2 schedule
7 team division = 6-3
2 * 8 = 16
3 * 7 = 21
Either 5 schools only play 8 conference games or 5 play 10 conference games. How do you work that for the standings? Do you still split the money equally? How do you rotate which 5 teams play fewer/more games?
LikeLike
Is it possible that Brady Hoke (or his brain trust Al Borges) could have called a worse game?
Having the Gardner/Robinson combo worked so well in the first half they thought they would ditch it for some ’74 era Bo-Ball in the second- minus the fullback.
Fourth and two on the fifty? Let’s run ‘er up the gap!
I swear. There are four downs left in Denard Robinson’s college career and you have him doing jumping jacks on the sideline? Congratulations Hoke, you eeked out a win last year against the worst OSU team in fifty years. Now we have the Urban Era to look forward to.
Alright, Mr. Harbaugh, you win, we’ll sign the lease to the Big House over to you, just get here quick!
LikeLike
Maybe they could have run 156lb Vincent Smith up the gut YET AGAIN!!!
LikeLike
I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. I had to go into a zen-like lock down to keep from spontaneously combusting.
LikeLike
“There are four downs left in Denard Robinson’s college career and you have him doing jumping jacks on the sideline?”
-Much like Mike Hart on a stationary bike I see it as perfectly fitting.
LikeLike
Is there any chance OSU’s D had something to do with it, not just coaching failure by MI?
LikeLike
Even if Michigan would have ‘freaked’ out a win, I wouldn’t have thought they deserved it. Ohio State, though sloppy, was the better team. The reason this game was so painful for certain Michigan fans is that it had unsettling echoes of a bygone era that does not bode well for Michigan’s prospects on a national stage. As much as I love Mattison, Borges and Hoke simply aren’t in Urban Meyer’s league. Ohio State is going to be a beast for years to come. Harbaugh could have met that challenge head on. Miles as well (perhaps) but Hoke? Nothing I’ve see so far has me encouraged. Put the f**n head set on caveman!
Hopefully Michigan’s retrograde play calling doesn’t stat to turn off a potential recruits.
LikeLike
Whew! Yes, that was a bit of stress reduction. I feel better now. MgoBlue!
LikeLike
It won’t hurt with recruits because recruits love that staff.
LikeLike
Sure, but Hoke and Borges have refused to use Denard Robinson to his strengths all season. It’s either incompetence or sabotage.
LikeLike
Thanks for trying to give it to us. It takes great effort to leave that many points on the board and still manage a victory.
LikeLike
LOL I was actually thinking about that during the game. It’s like they wanted to give us one final reminder of the things that have driven people crazy all year.
LikeLike
What do you mean?
There wasn’t a blown coverage for a big play. Oh, wait. Well, here wasn’t bad tackling that allowed a big play. Oh, wait. Well, there weren’t a whole bunch of bad penalties that hurt the team. Oh, wait. Well, at least Miller didn’t take any dumb sacks for big yardage. Oh, wait. Well, the special teams didn’t give up any big plays. Oh, wait.
Maybe you have a point.
LikeLike
Plus a reminder of their saving grace: they found a way to win.
LikeLike
It has been rumored for many years that Coach K at Duke and Coach Williams at UNC would veto UConn admission. Academic and ethical issues at UConn basketball negate the attractiveness of the Huskies. Perhaps that changes with a new basketball coach and AD.
Both UNC and UVa must be looking closely at the financials of the B1G over the long term. Both are likely to entertain a discussion. Duke and UNC are aligned in basketball, but UNC and UVa are bookends as Universities and athletic programs. Delaney is a UNC graduate and former basketball player. It would be his crowning achievement to bring his alma mater into his B1G.
LikeLike
I have always believed UNC is his white whale. Yes he would love ND, and would do whatever he could to get them, but UNC, being an alumni/player would probably give him the most personal satisfaction.
LikeLike
I think people overvalue his desires in all of this. He serves the COP/C, and they decide who to chase. He presents them with options and they choose which one(s) they prefer.
LikeLike
I agree, but his opinion certainly carries a lot of wait. He has been correct about many things for a long time in the conference…and he has made their athletic departments wealthy. Certainly if he thought they should head in a certain direction, the COP/C would weigh that consideration heavily.
LikeLike
Brian is right though.
I mean, the COP/C have been driving this expansion bus. They were described as “giddy” by both Delany and Gene Smith.
Mary Sue Coleman put out a statement about how grand a day it was to add prestigious AAU’s to the conference (or something to that effect).
The real test of Delany’s influence in my mind is Georgia Tech. I could see the presidents want to add them, but I could see the bean counters saying “wait a minute.”
Let’s see how that plays out…
LikeLike
Well, I didn’t say Brian was wrong. I simply said that to think that his opinion on the matter does not matter is naive.
LikeLike
Nick,
I wasn’t trying to deny his input is valued. I just tire of seeing people talk about this like Delany makes all the decisions and the presidents are just a rubber stamp (not as much here as elsewhere). For example, if the B10 goes after UNC it won’t be because Delany played hoops there.
LikeLike
Brian,
100% Agree with your statement there. Delany’s desires mean little if anything at all. His opinions are what he is paid for, and he has turned many of those opinions into a lot of money. So those opinions become valuable. But his desires are likely only slightly more valuable than mine.
LikeLike
It was stated that the Maryland/Rutgers discussions started at the COP/C level, not at the Delany/AD level. The Maryland/Rutgers additions are much stronger at the institutional level than the AD level.
LikeLike
greg,
“It was stated that the Maryland/Rutgers discussions started at the COP/C level, not at the Delany/AD level. The Maryland/Rutgers additions are much stronger at the institutional level than the AD level.”
As it should be. It was a little different when adding #12 because then the athletic conference had an actual need and FB was key to the decision. This expansion was about demographics for the universities and research funding and Delany was probably asked more about if this would lose money for schools or not. As long as it was at least revenue neutral for the athletic side, this was in the COP/C’s hands.
LikeLike
Yes, Maryland was first approached two years ago at the AAU meetings by the Big Ten presidents asking whether they were interested in joining.
No doubt, similar conversations have already been broached with UVa and UNC.
I think we can just sit back and let this play out. Sullivan over at UVa has as many (if not more) ties to the Big Ten COP/C as Loh.
Still a big questionmark over Georgia Tech. It comes down to what the presidents want. If they want Georgia Tech and the “want” is reciprocated, it will happen.
It doesn’t matter worth a damn what Delany thinks if the presidents decide that they want a school that wants to join…
LikeLike
Disagree about that being a good thing. If they want to expand the CIC, they can do that without expanding the Big Ten. The move greatly effects the athletic schedules going forward and the athletic departments should have been the biggest influence on this decision.
LikeLike
Eric,
Good thoughts about the interplay between CIC and the athletic side. However, this is where Delany comes in. This hypothetical school that the presidents want, that would be a big loser on the athletic side, would be shown to lose them money. This would likely cause them to back off.
I think one school that could fit this bill is University of Buffalo. AAU, good research, has DI athletics. However, even if the COP/C wanted this school, Delany would likely show them that it is a financial loser, and would be a net drain on both the athletic and academic sides. If they wanted to, they could still force the addition, but they would do so knowing it would be an academic loser.
If that is the case, then I would imagine the COP/C would back off so as to not lose money on either the academic or athletic sides.
LikeLike
Eric,
The athletic departments are afterthoughts. There not going to listen to fans upset because of some slight schedule changes.
LikeLike
These schools budget 8-10x as much in research as they do athletics spending. It’s just hard to fathom why they would really care what their sports fans think, many of whom are just t-shirt fans (obviously we’re different in that we’re pretty much all alumni), but even then, they don’t care.
Regular fundraising for the academic side of the institution is far more important as well.
Athletics is one of the smallest portions of a university’s budget/spending, and while it’s influence is outsized, the COP/C’s job is to keep that in perspective.
LikeLike
FWIW though Eric, I do hope that they really give a thought to the athletics side of this.
Obviously, I think everyone here is okay with UVa/UNC.
But I’m among those who think that the only backup plan should be UVa/Va Tech.
LikeLike
I guarantee you that almost every one of the Big Ten schools are getting a bunch of angry letters from fans, donors, and their political masters right now. Even if you’re not against Maryland or Rutgers right now, some people find the extension of this “eastern strategy” unpalatable.
LikeLike
Does that mean they will vote UNC out of the ACC.
LikeLike
Not only that, but the ACC has Miami as a member, but they’re concerned about UConn’s ethics issues?
LikeLike
What’s the old saying about glass houses?
(I suspect the ACC will kick Miami out of the conference in a heartbeat if it gets death penalty-like sanctions, perhaps especially if Florida State leaves.)
LikeLike
That would certainly explain why the ACC would be considering Louisville ahead of UConn, if even the basketball powers would prefer it.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8671564/penn-state-nittany-lions-attendance-lowest-2001-beaver-stadium-renovation
There was a big drop in attendance for PSU this year. It’s been dropping every year since a high in 2007. New pricing and donation levels started in 2011, causing part of the problem. The scandal obviously hurt them this year, though.
Capacity = 106,572
2007 ave = 108,917
2008 ave = 108,254
2009 ave = 107,008
2010 ave = 104,234
2011 ave = 101,427
2012 ave = 96,730
LikeLike
In addition to just the cost of everything, including tickets and travel, I gotta think that HD TV is taking a toll. It is just easier to stay at home or go to a bar and catch a good view of the game.
I think this is a trend that is easy to see with PSU given the circumstances, but not exclusively their problem.
LikeLike
Nick,
I might buy that but CFB attendance is still rising overall.
LikeLike
Is it rising as an average per school, or only at the huge programs who constantly expand their stadiums?
Genuine question, I do not know.
LikeLike
I think a lot of schools are going to experience declines this season. I’m not particularly sure why, but it just seems that way from the numbers I’ve seen.
LikeLike
Zeek,
I have heard that the NFL is beginning to struggle with this as well. Some teams likely still “sell” all their tickets, but a big part of the home field advantage is people actually coming.
LikeLike
Nick,
Smaller schools have more room for growth than the big boys, but I was just talking total attendance. I-A was slightly down in 2011 versus 2010.
Here are the top 10 schools with increases in 2011 vs 2010:
1. La.-Lafayette
2. Arizona St.
3. Stanford
4. Iowa St.
5. Temple
6. Florida St.
7. Oklahoma St.
8. Ball St.
9. San Diego St.
10. Western Mich.
That’s half AQs and half non-AQs.
LikeLike
TV being better is a bigger issue in the NFL, where there is a genuine cartel refusing to lower prices, where a lot of stadiums being built in recent years haven’t given enough attention to the fan experience in the name of more money-making luxury boxes, where fantasy football is a bigger deal so the ability to surf is more important, where RedZone provides an unmatched experience and all the football coverage you ever need. On the other hand, going to a college football game is as much about everything surrounding the game as anything else, which TV shows little of, and most people in the stands tend to be students making a short trip.
LikeLike
I also think the the crappy economy has taken a tole. Folks are a little more cautious with their discretionary income. While attendance is down in the NFL and CFB, TV ratings were at all time highs for the NFL.
LikeLike
Kevin,
CFB attendance isn’t dropping, but PSU’s is.
LikeLike
Brian, Do you have data to support that? Regarding PSU’s attendance I think they may have lost a percentage of their fan base from the Sandusky issue. Hopefully they can turn it around but it may be another 5 years or so.
LikeLike
Actually, FBS only makes more sense.
1985……………………………………………………………. 105 605 25,434,412 42,040
1986……………………………………………………………. 105 611 25,692,095 42,049
1987……………………………………………………………. 104 607 25,471,744 41,963
1988……………………………………………………………. 104 605 25,079,490 41,454
1989……………………………………………………………. 106 603 25,307,915 41,970
1990……………………………………………………………. 106 615 25,513,098 41,485
1991……………………………………………………………. 106 610 25,646,067 42,043
1992……………………………………………………………. 107 617 25,402,046 41,170
1993……………………………………………………………. 106 613 25,305,438 41,281
1994……………………………………………………………. 107 614 25,590,190 41,678
1995……………………………………………………………. 108 623 25,836,469 41,471
1996……………………………………………………………. 111 644 26,620,942 41,337
1997……………………………………………………………. 112 655 27,565,959 42,085
1998……………………………………………………………. 112 651 27,674,217 42,510
1999……………………………………………………………. 114 666 29,032,973 43,593
2000……………………………………………………………. 114 661 28,839,284 43,630
2001……………………………………………………………. 115 688 30,298,574 44,039
2002……………………………………………………………. 117 775 34,384,264 44,367
2003……………………………………………………………. 117 772 35,085,646 45,447
2004……………………………………………………………. 118 711 32,495,401 45,704
2005……………………………………………………………. 117 709 32,641,526 46,039
2006……………………………………………………………. 119 796 36,814,468 46,249
2007……………………………………………………………. 119 791 37,146,661 46,962
2008……………………………………………………………. 119 798 37,483,158 *46,971
2009……………………………………………………………. 120 *809 37,441,060 46,281
2010……………………………………………………………. 120 808 *37,678,722 46,632
LikeLike
Kevin,
“Brian, Do you have data to support that?”
Yes, but others have posted numbers so I won’t replicate that. Obviously I don’t know what 2012’s numbers will be, but 2011 reset the total attendance record for CFB.
“Regarding PSU’s attendance I think they may have lost a percentage of their fan base from the Sandusky issue. Hopefully they can turn it around but it may be another 5 years or so.”
Most of us expected them to lose some fans short term, and the poor start didn’t help, but the PSU fans were insistent about how they rallied around the team. This just provided some evidence for the magnitude of the drop. It’ll probably rebound a little next year as the immediate stink of the scandal will be gone.
LikeLike
Total CFB attendance continues to trend upward, and per game attendance is on a recent upward climb, but its interesting to see the per game average pretty similar to the 1978 number.
More teams and more games per year drive the total number. Higher top-end stadium capacities, and more bottom-end teams joining D-I balance the average, I’d guess.
Click to access Attendance.pdf
Annual Total NCAA Attendance
(Includes Only NCAA Teams, All Divisions)
No. Total P/G Yearly Change
Year Teams G Attendance^ Avg. Total Att. Percent
1978………… 484 2,422 32,369,730 13,365 — —
1979………… 478 2,381 32,874,755 13,807 Up 505,025 +1.56
1980………… 485 2,451 33,707,772 13,753 Up 833,017 +2.53
1981………… 497 2,505 34,230,471 13,665 Up 522,699 +1.55
1982………… 510 2,569 35,176,195 13,693 Up 945,724 +2.76
1983………… 505 2,557 34,817,264 13,616 dn 358,931 -1.02
1984………… 501 2,542 35,211,076 13,852 Up 393,812 +1.13
1985………… 509 2,599 34,951,548 13,448 dn 259,528 -0.74
1986………… 510 2,605 35,030,902 13,448 Up 79,354 +0.23
1987………… 507 2,589 35,007,541 13,522 dn 23,361 -0.07
1988………… 524 2,644 34,323,842 12,982 dn 683,699 -1.95
1989………… 524 2,630 35,116,188 13,352 Up 792,346 +2.31
1990………… 533 2,704 35,329,946 13,066 Up 213,758 +0.61
1991………… 548 2,776 35,528,220 12,798 Up 198,274 +0.56
1992………… 552 2,824 35,225,431 12,474 dn 302,789 -0.85
1993………… 560 2,888 34,870,634 12,074 dn 354,797 -1.01
1994………… 568 2,907 36,459,896 12,542 Up 1,591,352 +4.56
1995………… 565 2,923 35,637,784 12,192 dn 822,112 -2.25
1996………… 566 2,925 36,083,053 12,336 Up 445,269 +1.25
1997………… 581 2,998 36,857,849 12,294 Up 774,796 +2.15
1998………… 595 3,044 37,491,078 12,316 Up 633,229 +1.72
1999………… 601 3,137 39,482,657 12,586 Up 1,991,477 +5.31
2000………… 606 3,122 39,059,225 12,511 dn 423,432 -1.07
2001………… 608 3,193 40,480,823 12,678 Up 1,421,598 +3.64
2002………… 617 3,395 44,556,215 13,124 Up 4,075,392 +10.07
2003………… 617 3,401 46,144,539 13,568 Up 1,588,324 +3.56
2004………… 612 3,266 43,105,548 13,198 dn 3,038,991 -6.59
2005………… 615 3,304 43,486,574 13,162 Up 381,026 +0.88
2006………… 615 3,392 47,909,313 14,124 *Up 4,422,739 *+10.17
2007………… 619 3,412 48,751,861 *14,288 Up 842,548 +1.76
2008………… 628 3,493 48,839,003 13,982 Up 87,142 +0.18
2009………… 630 3,489 48,284,673 13,839 dn 554,330 -1.14
2010………… *639 *3,547 *49,670,895 14,004 Up 1,386,222 +2.87
*Record ^Includes reclassifying teams that are not included in divisional attendance figures.
LikeLike
FSU and Clemson…, not a great night for the ACC.
Going to the Big 12 isn’t going to solve their problems, to put it mildly.
LikeLike
Also, GT got crushed by UGA and WF got whipped by Vandy earlier.
LikeLike
Yep. And let’s not forget that NC State (which beat FSU) lost to a Tennessee that got its only SEC win against Kentucky…
Doesn’t matter whether it’s computers or people, it just doesn’t look good.
The marquee ACC win over the SEC was Clemson 26-19 over Auburn, let that sink in…
LikeLike
Bad bad bad day. Seminoles would a could a should a had a chance if they hadn’t turned the ball over five @*#-$! times!
Congrats to the Buckeyes on an undefeated season.
Congrats to the Irish! Thank you for keeping the &%@+# Gators out of the NCG. They’re the only good thing to be salvaged from this horrible day.
By the way, Irish, celebrate your victory by joining the ACC, and not in a half-ass sort of way. In a for-real way. The league is rapidly going from a stable, tradition-laden, proud league to the Big East (with the Big East becoming Conference USA).
Wait, stop laughing and walking away! Join the ACC! You could kick everyone’s rear end for years to come, apparently including Florida State.
LikeLike
Look on the bright side. FSU should still win the ACC and beat the BE champ in the Orange Bowl. Then you can start next year as a preseason top 5-10 team with everyone saying FSU is really back this year.
LikeLike
“Then you can start next year as a preseason top 5-10 team with everyone saying FSU is really back this year.”
Sounds like 2012, and 2011, and several years throughout the 2000’s that ended with 4-6 losses.
Your Buckeyes are looking pretty bright for the future, though, and not just in a superficial, preseason hype way, but in a, “Hey, we’re coming off a 12-0 season in Year One of Urban Meyer” kind of way. That kind of season builds well for the future. I don’t know what to expect for the future with FSU.
LikeLike
Yeah, he’s laid a solid foundation. Mostly I think he showed how poorly OSU was coached last year. Now he needs to bring in another class loaded with talent to fill some holes. Then he can spend spring practice fixing all the issues the team had this year. People scoffed when, right after his hiring, I pointed out how well 2013 set up for OSU.
2013 OSU Schedule:
Buffalo
SDSU
@ Cal
FAMU
WI
@ NW
IA
PSU
@ PU
@ IL
IN
@ MI
Note – Vandy dropped out just recently, so OSU had to replace them at the last minute.
The OOC schedule is very manageable, leading into a tough B10 opener. NE and MSU rotate off the schedule to be replaced by IA and NW, plus there are 2 bye weeks at good times. The finale will be tough, of course.
LikeLike
Assuming that @Cal doesn’t trip up Northwestern or Ohio State; that OSU@NU game could be interesting.
LikeLike
It’s hard to judge Cal. They have talent, and next year they’ll have a new coach so they could be solid.
LikeLike
Is there any school any more strongly driven by their alums as ND? And ND alums are set on independence. So that’s that.
LikeLike
Is there any reason why, should Notre Dame end its football independence, it wouldn’t be with the Big 10 if they’re willing?
LikeLike
Let’s take a quick look at the bowl picture now:
W – #1-5, 7-9, 12-14, 23
L – #10-11, 15-21, 24-5
bye – #6, 22
NCG – ND vs AL
Rose – NE vs Stanford
Fiesta – KSU vs OR
Sugar – UF vs OU
Orange – FSU vs Rutgers
Cap 1 – MI vs UGA
Outback – NW vs SC
Gator – WI vs Vandy
BWW – MSU vs TT
Houston – MN vs Baylor
Dallas – PU vs ISU
Pizza – empty
LikeLike
Bad week for MAC/SunBelt it seemed. Looked like a dozen 5 win teams got their 6th wins today.
LikeLike
Some of those teams had to win. There were a ton of 5 win teams, several playing each other. There are only 71 bowl eligible teams right now, so only 1 team has to miss out (probably CMU). A few more teams still have a shot next week, though.
LikeLike
I think its only 70. UTSA has 2 of its 8 wins vs. Division II schools and 2 vs. FBS, so they really only have 5 that count. That 70 excludes OSU/PSU/UNC/Miami. There are only 3 more schools that can qualify. Pitt, UConn and GT all have to pull upsets (2 in a row for Pitt and UConn).
So CMU at 6-6 & WKU at 7-5 appear to be on the bubble. Someone else, but not sure who. Depends on where the extra bowl is-Ohio at 8-4, MT/ASU loser next week at 8-4? Not sure if they will make an exception for GT at 6-7 like they did UCLA last year.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I think its only 70. UTSA has 2 of its 8 wins vs. Division II schools and 2 vs. FBS, so they really only have 5 that count.”
Agreed. I was just counting asterisks.
“That 70 excludes OSU/PSU/UNC/Miami.”
Of course, because they aren’t bowl eligible by definition.
“There are only 3 more schools that can qualify. Pitt, UConn and GT all have to pull upsets (2 in a row for Pitt and UConn).”
Agreed. Some of the late games weren’t done yet so there were more earlier.
“So CMU at 6-6 & WKU at 7-5 appear to be on the bubble. Someone else, but not sure who.”
6-6 Rice?
“Depends on where the extra bowl is-Ohio at 8-4, MT/ASU loser next week at 8-4?”
I don’t think the MAC gets screwed this year. They had some good OOC wins. I think a 6-6 CUSA team (Rice, SMU) is more at risk.
“Not sure if they will make an exception for GT at 6-7 like they did UCLA last year.”
They shouldn’t. They passed those new rules for how to fill bowl slots, and they put a 6-7 CCG loser behind all 6-6 teams.
LikeLike
Rice is fine. CUSA has 5 slots and 5 schools. Only conferences with more teams than slots:
Big 12-1 will do fine (and probably BCS)
Pac 12-1 will do fine (and it will be BCS)
WAC-2 and 10-2 SJSU and 9-3 LT will be fine
MAC-4
SB-3
It will come from the MAC and Sun Belt if any of the other 3 schools make it (and BE has 4-6 schools with 6 slots-so they will all make it).
LikeLike
I can’t keep track of all the secondary and even tertiary bowl agreements so I just went by least deserving teams. Usually the WAC, MAC and SB suffer that fate.
LikeLike
Those secondary and tertiary connections (when the Big 10 doesn’t send a team to the Papa John’s conference X gets the slot) play out. But MAC and Sun Belt don’t have enough primary connections so they are the ones who get left out. The secondary has tended to help the Sun Belt.
LikeLike
If Nebraska beats Wisconsin (not a given) and UCLA beats Stanford then the Huskers will play two rematches in the same season. Not sure if that has ever happened before.
LikeLike
“If Nebraska beats Wisconsin (not a given) and UCLA beats Stanford then the Huskers will play two rematches in the same season. Not sure if that has ever happened before.”
The crazy thing is that would make two rematches for UCLA as well.
And the two NU-UCLA games would even be in the same venue.
LikeLike
That 2013 OSU schedule is going to keep OSU out of the NC if there are 3 unbeaten teams. The computer ranking will be horrific.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“That 2013 OSU schedule is going to keep OSU out of the NC if there are 3 unbeaten teams. The computer ranking will be horrific.”
There are too many variables to say that. First, we don’t know how good any of those 12 teams will be. The OOC looks weak, in part because Vandy bailed on OSU at the last minute, but you never know. WI, NW, IA and PSU could all be good to very good. At PU and at IL have always caused OSU problems. Kevin Wilson has IN improving, so they could be a solid bowl team next year, and MI may be back to par with a pro style QB and another strong recruiting class. Second, we don’t know who the other 2 teams are or who they played.
I’ll be happy to deal with that situation if we go 13-0 next year, though. That’d be 25-0 under Meyer heading to a bowl game. I think that would garner a lot of #1 votes to help offset the computers.
LikeLike
I agree with your last paragraph – which sucks, and is why the playoffs cannot get here fast enough for me.
LikeLike
It’s not a playoff. It’s a four team invitational being called a playoff.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“It’s not a playoff. It’s a four team invitational being called a playoff.”
That’s crap. Most playoffs are invitationals. There is no way to not make it an invitational in CFB without it being ridiculously large and unwieldy. The BCS was a 2 team playoff plus some other bowls. This will be a 4 team playoff.
LikeLike
How large and unwieldy are we talking about? Because really, the NCAA Tournament is an invitational too. Are we talking every single bowl-eligible team? Every single team period?
LikeLike
It’s a playoff and bigger than I wish it was.
LikeLike
BCS slots are getting defined. #15-#21, #24 and #25 all lost, making the top 14 secure. Don’t think #22 Boise will squeeze in high enough.
BCS game is ND vs. AL/UGA winner.
KSU or OU go to Fiesta
RU or UL go to BE bowl, probably Orange
FSU/GT go to Orange
ST/UCLA go to Rose
NE/WI go to Rose
Notre Dame has 1 of the 4 open slots. Florida gets one-the Sugar. Oregon gets one-the Fiesta. Last slot is only one in any doubt. Almost certainly goes to Oklahoma. Could go to Kansas St. if they lose and OU wins B12. Longshot is Clemson beats out KSU or OU if they lose (both play next weekend). Super longshot if OU loses and Texas beats KSU decisively, UT slips in as a #14 ahead of OU and gets picked ahead of Clemson who probably ends up #13 with an OU loss.
With the 2 school limit and SEC schools entrenched at 2,3,4,7,9 & 10, there won’t be many decisions to be made.
LikeLike
bullet,
“BCS slots are getting defined. #15-#21, #24 and #25 all lost, making the top 14 secure.”
They aren’t secure yet. Clemson could drop below OrSU, FSU could lose the CCG and so could NE. The other 11 should be safe, though.
“Don’t think #22 Boise will squeeze in high enough.”
At best Boise can be a co-champ with a head to head tiebreaker. They could also have a 2008 B12 South event in the MWC. They don’t have official tiebreakers in the MWC apparently, so I’m not clear whether Boise can use the top 16 champ rule anyway. Let’s assume they could, but I agree that it’s iffy whether they make the top 16.
“BCS game is ND vs. AL/UGA winner.
KSU or OU go to Fiesta
RU or UL go to BE bowl, probably Orange”
Nobody else will want the BE champ.
“FSU/GT go to Orange
ST/UCLA go to Rose
NE/WI go to Rose”
Yep.
“Notre Dame has 1 of the 4 open slots. Florida gets one-the Sugar. Oregon gets one-the Fiesta. Last slot is only one in any doubt. Almost certainly goes to Oklahoma. Could go to Kansas St. if they lose and OU wins B12. Longshot is Clemson beats out KSU or OU if they lose (both play next weekend). Super longshot if OU loses and Texas beats KSU decisively, UT slips in as a #14 ahead of OU and gets picked ahead of Clemson who probably ends up #13 with an OU loss.”
Clemson will drop like a rock with this loss.
“With the 2 school limit and SEC schools entrenched at 2,3,4,7,9 & 10, there won’t be many decisions to be made.”
Pretty much.
LikeLike
Since everyone below them lost, I don’t think Clemson drops very far. #15-#21, #24 and #25 lost. #22 is Boise and #23 Kent.
S. Carolina and OU probably move to #10 and #11. FSU and Clemson probably just drop to #12 and #13. Maybe Clemson falls to 14 behind Nebraska. No further.
LikeLike
They’ve played 2 good teams and lost both games. FSU also lost to confirm that the whole ACC is weak. I think that feeds back through the computers and the voters to hurt them while OrSU lost to a top 5 team, for example.
LikeLike
Vandy? I’ve got to think that LSU or MSSt. Would get picked before them.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Vandy? I’ve got to think that LSU or MSSt. Would get picked before them.”
The Gator gets the 7th actual SEC pick, so after AL, UF, UGA, SC, LSU and TAMU. Vandy is 8-4 (5-3), coming off 6 straight wins and is in the east. MSU is 8-4 (4-4), coming off 4 losses in their last 5 games and is in the west. Based on that, I picked Vandy.
LikeLike
OK, well, Vandy and MSSt. are roughly the same distance from Jacksonville, and the Gator seems to prefer the bigger fanbase regardless of what happens on the field, so I predict that they will take MSSt.
LikeLike
Either choice is possible, but I favored a hot team versus a cold team, especially since Vandy’s fans will be more excited about a Gator Bowl than MSU’s anyway.
LikeLike
So I was doing some digging, and realized if Rutgers better start showing to their home basketball games or the Big 10 is going to lose its streak of 36 straight years of leading the nation in MBB attendance. I just ran the numbers based on 2011-2012 and a Big 10 with Maryland and Rutgers would have finished behind an ACC with Syracuse, Pitt, ND and either Louisville or UConn.
LikeLike
For the record, Rutgers averaged 5,362 fans. For comparison, that is about 1,600 fewer fans than Penn St (lowest Big 10 public school), 2,700 fewer than Nebraska (second lowest) and 7,500 less than the average Big 10 school.
LikeLike
Won’t Nebraska give the numbers a big boost when they their new arena up?
LikeLike
Er, forgot a *get* in there.
LikeLike
Actually, I need to amend what I said. They are averaging about 4,700 less than Nebraska (not 2,700).
To your point though. Logic dictates that it should boost attendance, but at 10,019 fans per game it’s not out of the question that UNL, a football school whos basketball program is best known for the fact it exists, has already near its limit. There just may not be a lot of room for growth.
Plus, if the ACC adds Louisville (21,503) it won’t really matter how fans many Nebraska adds, the Big 10 isn’t going to catch them.
LikeLike
When Nebraskaetball is competitive fans will show up. However, Nebraska hasn’t been competitive since ’98. Very hard to watch the product Nebraska has been putting out since Danny Need was fired.
LikeLike
But realistically how much more can they average even if they are good. They are 10,019 now. For comparison Florida and Texas which have been far more competitive and have much larger enrollments average 10,434 and 11,950, respectively.
There may be some room for improvement, but I doubt there is much.
LikeLike
I guess what I should say is Nebraska’s high end is likely 12,000 which would be a solid improvement, but not enough to push the Big 10 past the ACC alone.
LikeLike
Creighton averages over 16k and is a much smaller school in roughly the same market. Nebraska averaged 14k for conference games for a chunk of the 90’s (~12k overall) in a 14,500 seat arena. The new arena will be larger Fwiw.
LikeLike
The Omaha metro area has almost 3 times as many people as the Lincoln metro are (577,000 more people) so it isn’t really the same market.
But you are right, they did have solid attendance in the ’90s so we’ll see what happens.
LikeLike
But Creighton is good.
LikeLike
@frug – there are a lot of Nebraska fans in the Omaha area who make the trip to Lincoln for basketball games. Many of those attend Creighton games as well.
LikeLike
Frug,
Statistically speaking, they could just as well combine the two metro areas (Lincoln and Omaha)… According to RandMcnally, Lincoln and Omaha are separated by 58 miles. I live in St Cloud, MN; which is 72 miles from Minneapolis, and St Cloud metro is included in the Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area population of the Twin Cities.
Having travelled both routes more than once, I guarantee you it is quicker to get from Omaha to Lincoln, than it is for me to travel from St Cloud to the ‘cities (Mpls-St Paul), distance having little affect—population/traffic being the factor.
Regarding attendance—UNL’s likely will increase… I’m still crossing my fingers for UNL to come up with a D-1 Hockey team… Losing some of the WCHA rivalries for a six team B1G league sucks… Need a couple more players to make more worthwhile in my mind…
LikeLike
Should be 4,700 fewer than Nebraska (need an edit button)
LikeLike
I haven’t seen this discussed yet:
We’re generally assuming there are three kings left in play (at least as long shots) for the Big 10: Texas, UNC and Notre Dame. But is that really the case?
Now that Maryland and Rutgers have been added, let’s take a best case scenario and assume the BTN/YES package is successful throughout NYC. If that were to happen, how much value does Notre Dame still offer the Big 10?
And as a corrollary, if that value is still high enough to warrant 15 or 16, is it really high enough to go past 16?
LikeLike
Mike,
ND is a national ratings booster and would bump the value of the TV deal. They would also make the BTN more money (more subscriptions plus more ad revenue due to more viewers). They will always be worth adding.
Also, UNC isn’t a football king.
LikeLike
By “kings”, I meant those school that justify expansion in and of themselves, regardless of the circumstance. For example, Virginia may be an “odd numbered” addition, but if we get to 16 without them and they want to join at a later date, I think they’re out of luck.
I think it’d be instructive for us to clearly define who the kings in this expansion are. What schools would cause the Big 10 to go past 16? I think Texas is obvious. I’d also argue for UNC, but maybe there’s room for debate.
The problem with Notre Dame is their value is so difficult to quantify. Purely from the BTN side of things, I believe the biggest boon was expected to be in the NYC area. As Zeke mentioned, the question then becomes how much more a Notre Dame package gets you compared to one with Rutgers/Maryland/YES Network.
As you said, Notre Dame’s biggest effect could be in the TV deals. But again, with Notre Dame being a national school, an exact number is difficult to pin down.
I guess my question is: if we take Patrick’s numbers as accurate enough, how much of Notre Dame’s $47 million is already assumed by Rutgers/Maryland/YES?
CANDIDATES TOTAL ADDED REVENUE ESTIMATE
Texas $101,369,004
Rutgers WITH NYC $67,798,609
Nebraska $54,487,990
Maryland $50,818,889
Boston College $48,382,692
Notre Dame $47,629,255
LikeLike
I wouldn’t assume that the overlap is on Notre Dame’s side.
The synergy that you get with Rutgers/Maryland is additive; it’s a positive sum game.
LikeLike
Mike,
The B10 would always say yes to several teams, but I’ll skip any SEC or P12 teams.
1. ND
2. Texas
3. maybe UNC, but probably only if UVA and/or VT is already in or part of the deal
LikeLike
(not the same Mike who started the thread)
If I had to rank the possibilities:
1. Virginia
2. North Carolina
3. Kansas
I don’t think ND or Texas will ever want join.
LikeLike
Me neither, but that wasn’t what he asked.
LikeLike
North Carolina justifies expansion in and of themselves (despite their mediocre and troubled football program), but Duke doesn’t?
LikeLike
Yes. Duke doesn’t bring the state of NC, UNC does.
LikeLike
If UNC is a king, then so is Kansas and Kentucky.
LikeLike
Not by his idiosyncratic definition of king. KS and KY are too small to be TV draws. The academics of UK are too weak while KU is borderline.
LikeLike
North Carolina has 2.4 million more people than Kansas and Kentucky combined, and much stronger academics than either. It is significantly more valuable than both.
LikeLike
For what its worth, UNC is also has a strongest FB program of the three.
LikeLike
A prettiest pig contest if I ever saw one.
LikeLike
It’s valuable, but mostly in it’s current position. We aren’t operating in a vacuum, these gears have to work together to power the machine. Don’t get me wrong, the Tar Heels will make money wherever they go, but to expect the same return after they’ve left all of their rivals and alienated their fanbase is ludicrous – it’s like asking USC or Alabama to join us. Nebraska only worked because they no longer had any attachment to the Big XII; Penn State is still imperfect in it’s assimilation.
I know I’ve been pushing Kansas a lot. I’m not actually a Jayhawk fan; I couldn’t care less about them. I just think that everyone’s glossing over the very real problems with adding UNC, not to mention arrogantly assuming that they would jump just because Virginia came. The same could be said for Virginia as well.
This isn’t a game. Some of you need to stop treating this like Risk or Civilization.
LikeLike
@metatron
This isn’t a discussion about whether UNC would come. It is a discussion about their value if they did come.
All I pointed out was that they would be far more valuable to the Big Ten than KU or UK. And they would. Period.
LikeLike
I never said they wouldn’t be, merely that they wouldn’t. I also argued that both parties would be running a huge risk in doing so.
LikeLike
Adding UNC would be risk at all for the Big 10. North Carolina’s population isn’t going to shrink if UNC changes conferences and UNC will be able to deliver those TV sets.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that Kansas was a national title contender in football not too long ago. Kansas and Kentucky basketball would bring the same thing to a conference as Nebraska football.
LikeLike
Basketball’s roughly half as valuable, so a program that is a basketball king is roughly half as valuable as a football king (and as valuable as a middle-of-the-road football program).
LikeLike
There are several considerations:
1) broadcast network value
2) cable subscriber value
3) cable advertising value
No matter how you slice or dice it, it’s always worth adding kings in terms of money. You can always go past 16 for those schools because they always increase the broadcast network value and the cable advertising value enough to cover themselves. As for cable subscriber value, it’d make it easier to charge better rates on BTN in the NYC market if you end up getting carriage there regardless, I’d guess. These agreements do get renegotiated on cycles…
LikeLike
List of bowl eligible teams I care about:
1. Rice
2. Notre Dame
LikeLike
Everyone should care about a bowl eligible Duke!
LikeLike
ACC bowl-eligible teams above .500:
10-2 Florida State (should soon be 11-2)
10-2 Clemson
7-5 NC State
That’s it! Three teams out of 12. Any wonder why FSU had such horrible computer rankings, only worsened by the UF loss?
Three others (GT, Duke, and Va. Tech) are bowl-eligible at 6-6, while two others above .500 but aren’t bowl eligible (UNC at 8-4 and Miami at 7-5).
LikeLike
Duke will take what they can get….
LikeLike
Absolutely. It’s a pretty big deal around here, at least a big topic if conversation. Too bad they still struggle to get people to go to games.
BTW, if (when) GT loses next weekend, they lose their bowl eligibility since it would drop them below .500, but they might get a waiver like UCLA did last year.
LikeLike
NCAA bowl ineligibles did really well this year:
OSU 12-0
PSU 8-4
UNC 8-4
Miami 7-5
LikeLike
Actually, GT isn’t really bowl eligible. They have to win the ACC CG to make a bowl. If they lose, they fall to 6-7 and would fall behind all 6-6 teams. Since there are 71 bowl eligible teams without them, GT will miss out.
LikeLike
GT is widely expected to be granted a waiver due to their appearance in the CCG.
LikeLike
UCLA got a waiver at 6-7 even though two 6-6 teams were left out of bowls.
LikeLike
Nick, frug; they changed the rule last year so that now 6-7 is behind 6-6.
LikeLike
Nick in South Bend,
“GT is widely expected to be granted a waiver due to their appearance in the CCG.”
By whom? The NCAA installed new rules for bowl eligibility this year. First, all the 6-6 or better teams. If bowl slots are left, then:
1. 6-6 teams with a win over a I-AA that didn’t have enough scholarships
2. 6-6 teams with 2 I-AA wins
3. 6-7 teams that lost their CCG
There are more, but the point is that’s where GT should fit in. Unfortunately for them, there are enough bowl eligible teams as is.
Now, it’s possible they get a waiver because Miami and UNC can’t go to the CCG, but that’s far from assured.
LikeLike
My bad.
LikeLike
@Brian
The theory behind UCLA’s exception was that the Pac 12 couldn’t fill its bowl committments. That would be true for the ACC. But they are frowning more on losing teams going to bowls, so an exception isn’t certain. And GT ended in a 3 way tie. The only reason Miami was certain to go to the ccg because UNC was on probation. Not sure how the tiebreaks would have worked as each beat the other.
And as I pointed out above, UTSA doesn’t qualify as they only have 4 wins vs. FBS, so the number of qualified teams is 70 right now, not counting GT.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The theory behind UCLA’s exception was that the Pac 12 couldn’t fill its bowl committments. That would be true for the ACC.”
But that was before they made new, explicit rules on how to fill those slots. There’s no reason to expect them to give a waiver to circumvent their brand new rules when there is no need to do so. The new rules say being eligible trumps conference affiliation now.
“And GT ended in a 3 way tie. The only reason Miami was certain to go to the ccg because UNC was on probation. Not sure how the tiebreaks would have worked as each beat the other.”
The applicable tiebreaker is how they did against the 4th place team. That was VT, and VT beat GT but lost to the others. That takes it to Miami versus UNC, and UNC won head to head.
LikeLike
It’s that out-of-conference record:
@DavidHaleESPN: ACC ends season 7-19 vs. AQ non-conf teams, (1-5 vs SEC) Beat: UConn, USF, Aub, Army, Temple, PSU
LikeLike
Army is AQ?
LikeLike
Latest bowl projections:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/bowls/predictions
Donations being accepted to send loki to Hawaii…
LikeLike
@Frank,
One of the arguments I have read about that goes against the idea of the Catholic schools voting go dissolve the conference is that it would invite lawsuits from those schools scheduled to join next year. Houston, SMU, Memphis, Temple, and UCF all are scheduled to leave their basketball leagues next year, and they have no where else to play their sports. The A-10 and C-USA have already made replacements.
Wouldn’t they have a case for damages against the schools voting to dissolve a league that voted them in?
LikeLike
Couldn’t they just all team up with the remaining football schools to play as a “conference” whether in name or just form? If you have those 5 plus USF, plus whomever of Cinci/UConn/Louisville is left, you have enough for a reasonable schedule playing everyone home and away. And if the ACC only takes one team, it would be pretty decent in hoops.
I guess you don’t get the automatic bid to the tourney though…. wonder if they could petition to keep the Big East’s bid?
LikeLike
Oh, and Rutgers is still in the league in 2013-14.
LikeLike
If the Big East votes to dissolve Rutgers will likely be playing in the B1G next year despite the problems inherent with 13.
LikeLike
@Scarlet_Lutefisk – There’s still a BCS bowl AQ bid for the Big East next year, so I doubt that they’ll dissolve the football side with $18 million plus coming just for existing.
FWIW, I find it more likely that the remnants of the Big East football side will rebuild even if the league loses all of Louisville, Cincinnati and UConn. It’s still got the ability to be a better league for everyone left than going back to C-USA or the MWC.
LikeLike
If the BB only schools can push the vote to dissolve (which is the rumor we are talking about yes?) then the football side doesn’t exist. There will be no Big East, period.
IF (and it is certainly a very big if) that were to happen then the best option by far for Rutgers would be just to join the B1G a year early. I am reasonably certain the league would go ahead and assist them in that regard rather than leave them hanging for a year.
LikeLike
Considering Frank was the one who suggested the scenario to begin with, I think he may be hinting at the Big East football members forming their own all-sports league, possibly a back door way to perform the long-rumored split.
That depends on how many of their number they lose. If Boise and San Diego State go back to the Mountain West and Memphis and Temple leave with the Catholic schools, Houston, SMU, and the Florida schools may be best off trying to muscle their way back into Conference USA or even (for Houston and SMU) the Big 12, at least outside of football. On the other hand, if they keep everyone except Navy, I could see them snapping up New Mexico State and some more Conference USA teams to fill out a new league – probably any three of East Carolina, UAB (for basketball purposes), Rice, UTEP, and Louisiana Tech, with Idaho having an outside shot and maybe even trying to recruit BYU. (My picks: UAB, Rice, and Louisiana Tech.) Temple might still leave in that circumstance, though Memphis really wouldn’t want them to, and attempt to resume their football-only membership in the MAC, but the options for their basketball program would be really limited unless the Big East Catholics took them in.
For football, the result would probably be one of the two strongest non-power conferences with Houston, SMU, UCF, USF, Boise State, and some combination of UTEP, East Carolina, and Louisiana Tech. I could see them being bowl partners with the Mountain West in that case. On the basketball side, it’d be a moderate step up from what Memphis left in Conference USA with San Diego State, Temple, and possibly New Mexico State, but that’s very dependent on the whole remaining together.
LikeLike
Be that as it may he was directly referencing a statement regarding where Rutgers would end up if the Big East votes to dissolve. If that happens Rutgers will not spend one year in whatever pick-up conference the remaining FB schools manage to cobble together. That is the only point I was making.
LikeLike
Another reason the Catholic schools wouldn’t dissolve the conference is because they might lose their NCAA Tournament credits. I think it’s more likely they simply vote to drop football like the WAC has done, especially if Boise and San Diego State come crawling back to the Mountain West. The downside is that it’s harder to kick the other all-sports schools out of the conference, but I also think they’d be very willing to take Memphis and certainly Temple along with them as they have very strong basketball programs, unless they’re absolutely committed to a new conference having a strong Catholic or at least private (Butler isn’t Catholic) identity.
LikeLike
Actually, if the Catholic schools really wanted to create an all-Catholic conference, I think they do this instead of adding Butler:
Dear Notre Dame,
We know you’ve been worried about the stability of the Big East. We know you saw the writing on the wall when Pittsburgh and Syracuse left town, and that’s why you left for the ACC. You wanted a conference stable enough outside football that you could continue to be independent in football.
You see just how stable it really was. Your very presence, and demand to be left out of a football conference, is an inherently destabalizing influence. Maryland has left the conference, and while the ACC will probably/has replaced them with one of your former Big East buddies, it’s not clear that there won’t be more defections in the future.
The core of the conference is pissed off at you and what you represent. Great, you get to play Duke and North Carolina every year. Except they genuinely hate you so much they might just consign the northern half of the conference to its own division that barely plays the southern half at all. You’ll have effectively lost Georgetown, Villanova, and any schools the ACC doesn’t take and the best basketball schools you’ve really added are Boston College, maybe Virginia Tech, an off chance at the Florida schools.
Meanwhile the ACC is forcing your football team to play a bunch of schools you don’t care about. Oh, your fanbase will get excited for Florida State and Miami, assuming Miami doesn’t get the death penalty, but will any of them care about any of the others? And will Florida State even still be in the ACC?
We want you to take a look at the new Big East. No longer do we have a football arm nagging you to drop your independence. You’ll be in a conference consisting solely of others like yourself, bound by a shared Catholic mission and a shared territory in the Midwest and Northeast. You’ll get to keep Georgetown, Villanova, and St. John’s, while losing Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and the schools the ACC just added. I’m pretty sure you care more about the former than the latter. Besides, we’ve made up for the losses of the football schools with some great basketball-playing Catholic schools, like Xavier, Dayton, and Saint Louis, schools that help maintain and carry forward our conference’s legacy of basketball excellence. Plus, your football schedule will be free to be set however you see fit.
You are the only one of our number we’ve lost in all of conference realignment. With all the emphasis on football, we can assure you that our conference will be the strongest, most cohesive basketball conference in the nation. No one will raid our members to make a quick buck in football, nor will any of our members wish to leave for a marriage of convenience.
It’s time to come home, Notre Dame.
Signed,
The Big East Conference (or the conference built on its ashes)
LikeLike
I suspect that ND would probably consider a Big East made up of nothing but the Catholic schools, Memphis and Temple to be too weak to house their non-revenue sports (BB would be good but almost everything else would be terrible).
LikeLike
I was referring to Notre Dame replacing Butler in Frank’s list.
LikeLike
That is incorrect. If a conference dissolves all of the credits will revert back to each individual institution. That is per NCAA bylaws.
LikeLike
Is the video of the week “Sabotage” by the Beastie Boys or “Rumor Has it” by Adele?
LikeLike
The funny thing about that image in retrospect is that it’s essentially saying “Do NOT question the military-industrial complex! Those people who keep going on about peace and love and crap like that? They just want to sell us out to the COMMIES~! NEVER question the government’s policies, because the government is always right and only ever looks out for the best interests of America!” It’s incredible how close we got to 1984 for a while there in the McCarthy era…
LikeLike
Some talk on the conference realignment board about UL and Cicny and/or U Conn to ACC…..
Other rumors about VA and U Conn to BIG….
As to the latter, I kinow U Conn is not AAU, but it is rated highly by US News, so Presidents might sign off. Also, Delaney’s fond of the eastern market….Still, smallish school and that would be 4 average,at best, football schools added….
Seems hard to believe, but no harder than GT.
LikeLike
Not only is UConn not AAU, they are ranked much lower than GT too.
LikeLike
I find it difficult to believe that the Big Ten would add any school to the northeast of the Penn State/Maryland/Rutgers trio.
It feels like the Big Ten has made it’s play on the East Coast and clearly signaled that the intent is to go South to pick up some of the programs that are located in stronger recruiting grounds.
Rutgers was really the only school in the Northeast with a huge amount of potential upside given its huge student/alumni base in the region as well as the fact that it has strong recruiting grounds in New Jersey.
The goal is to go to where the population, recruits, Big Ten alumni, etc. are; to go where the future of the country is.
The only schools that we’re looking are South of the footprint (other than Notre Dame).
LikeLike
Maybe…..however, if VA wants to come but UNC doesn’t, nor does VA Tech….and if the ACC takes 3 teams now…and if it came down to a choice between U Conn and GT, I’d take U Conn…better basketball, only significant school in it’s state, gives some access to the New England market….GT is always going to be second fiddle to Georgia……today’s loss was their 10/last 11 years….plus it would be a real outlier…..I actually like U Conn more than KU (but not as much as MO),
LikeLike
UConn’s bball revenues are actually second-rate. I do not expect them to be a bball king without Calhoun.
Syracuse bests UConn on pretty much all criteria (so does Pitt, but they’re already in the footprint).
LikeLike
Not only that, but NY >> CT as far as gaining a state for TVs. On top of that, it would work better RU to penetrate NYC more.
Unfortunately, Syracuse voluntarily dropped out of the AAU because their mission is drifting away from the AAU’s ideal. Since the B10 and AAU agree, that’s a tough sell to the COP/C.
LikeLike
UNC is not a football giant. It has decent prep football, but not on the level of Ga, Fl, and smaller states La, Miss. You could argue SC has better per capita football talent. Prep basketball is king in that state. UNC is one of 5 FBS schools in NC, only one is outside a 2 hour driving radius – ECU. NC, currently is too saturated to produce a football power. Wake and Duke would have to dump their FBS teams to clear way for UNC to have a chance at dominance. Only room for two football powers in NC: NCSt and UNC.
LikeLike
Per capita football talent, NC is solidly below SC and well below the rest of the south.
LikeLike
@Greg: Given that that graph has California below every team in the south except North Carolina, and in fact has Texas below Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, *and* Mississippi… no, just no. Not sure how they got their numbers there, but I have a hard time believing Mississippi outpaces Texas, Florida, *and* California in terms football talent.
LikeLike
I’m not surprised that on a per-capita basis, some small state leads in the rankings.
LikeLike
Yeah, they really care about football in the South, while California, Texas, and Florida get by on sheer numbers. It is a little surprising to see Texas so relatively low, though.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“UNC is not a football giant.”
No, it isn’t. Nobody ever said it was, though.
“It has decent prep football, but not on the level of Ga, Fl, and smaller states La, Miss.”
Oh, you mean the state of NC. No, it isn’t an elite HS FB state. But it’s better than most of the B10 and is growing. It’s also much larger than mANY SEC states, so it doesn’t have to produce as many players per capita to be highly valuable.
NC – 6.7M
AR – 2.9M
MS – 3.0M
KY – 4.4M
LA – 4.6M
SC – 4.7M
AL – 4.8M
“UNC is one of 5 FBS schools in NC, only one is outside a 2 hour driving radius – ECU. NC, currently is too saturated to produce a football power. Wake and Duke would have to dump their FBS teams to clear way for UNC to have a chance at dominance. Only room for two football powers in NC: NCSt and UNC.”
That makes zero sense. The next player Duke or Wake steals from UNC will be the first. It’s like saying OSU needs all the MAC schools to go away.
LikeLike
I think you’d always take the school that’s a distant second in a massive market like Georgia/Atlanta that’s football crazy over the school that’s somewhat dominant in a much smaller market.
But that cautionary note about w/l record should apply to UVa.
As much as we talk about UVa as an amazing addition, they’ve lost like 13 of their last 14 to Virginia Tech.
LikeLike
zeek,
That’s one reason why I’d look to take both or just VT. Vt is bigger, more popular and better at FB. It also is improving academically. The COP/C would disagree with me, I’m sure.
LikeLike
Brian, that’s the one thing that worries me about expansion (and should worry any conference raiding the ACC).
I’m really not interested in “importing” built-in rivalry losses to the SEC.
LikeLike
Eh. The past is not prologue.
VTech was nothing before Beamer and they actually haven’t been recruiting that well lately (kind of akin to JoePa’s twilight years). They are the bigger school, but I wouldn’t presume that the less elite school located in the Appalachians would naturally perform better than the much more established school smack dab in the middle of the growing part of the state going forward.
LikeLike
zeek….you’re the one talking about VA as an amazing addition, not me. It’s a smallish, snobbish, southern school that looks better on film than in person.
VA’s academic standards are way too high to be an elite football school or basketball. and the neighborhood’s too tough. It’s great in the rich white boy sports…VA is Miss Congeniality in the football expansion pageant.
Richard, as to Syracuse v. U Conn…..you’re wrong again. Syracuse is an isloated, frozen outpost. It’s smaller than U Conn, and isolated, and declining. U Conn is relevant, bigger, public, improving.
LikeLike
As a football prospect, there’s questionmarks about UVa.
What the presidents are looking for in terms of #15… only UVa fits the bill right there.
I just hope they go for both Virginia schools.
LikeLike
Brian….no way the BIG would take VA Tech without VA………for one thing, 90% of Va Tech’s fans/alums want the SEC, not the BIG….only way it’s palletable to them is if VA comes along to beat up. Also, VA Tech’s got a lot of that A@M marching cadet bs about it….w/o VA, too much of a cultural outlier.
LikeLike
zeek….VA looks SO much stronger as an addition if packaged with VA Tech or UNC….v.. let’s say, KU.
As someone mentioned, adding VA w/o VA Tech is adding a football loss to the neighboring SEC school 2/3 of the time….plus, there’s a big enthusiasm gap as far as the public goes between VA Tech and VA…..
As to UNC, it has to be looked at as a sleeping giant in football…..at worst, it should be cranking out MSU/Wisconsin type seasons….
Taking VA with UNC or VA Tech lets the BIG focus on VA’s great academic history and rep, market, political influence, and olympic sports program…..
LikeLike
Mushroom:
If ‘Cuse is isolated, where is UConn? You do know where Storrs is, right?
Syracuse bball also pulls in far more revenue than UConn bball.
Finally, UConn only has several thousand more undergrads than ‘Cuse while upstate NY has several million more people than CT.
You do have to use facts when you argue, mushroom, instead of simply saying “you’re wrong”.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“VA’s academic standards are way too high to be an elite football school or basketball. and the neighborhood’s too tough.”
I can hear Stanford laughing from here.
LikeLike
@Brian: Agreed. It’s not like Stanford and Northwestern haven’t been good in the past (and present in Stanford’s case). And East Palo Alto ain’t exactly paradise.
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s undergrad academics aren’t too shabby, either, and they’ll be playing for the national championship in a few weeks.
We obviously have to separate the academics of the school overall versus what the athletic department is willing to tolerate. UNC is right up there with UVA in the academic rankings, yet they’re mired in a nasty academic scandal regarding their athletes.
LikeLike
@Frank: For all the good it’s done UNC on the field.
LikeLike
@Frank: “We obviously have to separate the academics of the school overall versus what the athletic department is willing to tolerate.”
And here we get to the root of the Rice problem. They don’t think they should separate the two. We lose recruits to Stanford because our process for letting in borderline athletes is so screwed up.
LikeLike
Advantages GTech has over UConn:
1. In a large growing state with terrific football talent instead of a small non-growing state with little football talent.
2. In a major city with a bunch of alums instead of out in the wilderness (OK, UConn plays football in E. Hartford, which isn’t much better).
3. AAU
Advantages UConn had over GTech:
They had a bball coach who won national titles. He’s now gone.
LikeLike
Since when has the BIG added a school that is so clearly second fiddle within it’s own state, and will always be? (before you say MSU….they had won 2 NCs coming into the BIG).
I’m not advocating U Conn, just reporting the rumors, but you missed a few “advantages” there…
First, U Conn dominates it’s market…GT is an afterthought, both in sports and in the public imagination. Second, U Conn fits better with MD, PSU, Rutgers. Third, U Conn is northern, not southern. Adding true southern schools will add a third cultural dynamic–who’s to say if it will work in the long run. Fourth, U Conn is realtively close to PSU, MD, Rutgers…GT”s not close to any school. Fifth, we’re not only talking Men’s basketball, but also the best women’s program ever…when was the last time GT won ANYTHING?
LikeLike
UConn really won’t be considered seriously though.
I think they’d rather go after Virginia Tech if they have to…
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“Since when has the BIG added a school that is so clearly second fiddle within it’s own state, and will always be? (before you say MSU….they had won 2 NCs coming into the BIG).”
MSU joined in 1950, before their titles. Their athletic teams joined in 1953, but the school was already a member. Meanwhile, MI won titles in 1947 and 1948 on top of their 8 pre-AP titles.
1940-1949 W%:
MI – 82.1%, #2 nationally
MSU – 63.1%, #36 (and behind WMU too)
MI was riding a 10 game winning streak over MSU, too. MSU was very clearly second fiddle in the state when they were admitted.
LikeLike
Michigan State wasn’t AAU either when they joined yet that’s never really mentioned nowadays other than around here.
LikeLike
Well, the B10 hasn’t added many schools and even fewer as the 2nd school in the state. Forgive me for pointing out a clear example that even he brought up but then tried to dismiss with incorrect facts.
And no, MSU wasn’t AAU back then although they weren’t far away (joined 15 years later). It’s also entirely possible that the COP/C has changed their opinion on the importance of AAU status over the past 60 years.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“Fifth, we’re not only talking Men’s basketball, but also the best women’s program ever…when was the last time GT won ANYTHING?”
1990 split football title
1990, 2004 final fours
2007 women’s tennis national title
LikeLike
The B1G Chancellors/Presidents hate US News.
UConn to the B1G is ridiculous. They’re not AAU, they have no endowment, no research money, no history of success in football.
LikeLike
They may hate it, but they don’t ignore it, so their hate is largely irrelevant. Now, the lack of AAU status….that’s a big deal….probably a biigger deal than in VA Tech’s situation, since they are probably in the AAU line….
I will say, as far as GT v. U Conn, that GT’s academic profile (other than just the AAU business..) is a better BIG fit than U Conn’s—U Conn looks to be primarily a big liberal arts school…not too much in the hard sciences and engineering……..
LikeLike
No non-AAU is happening unless they are from South Bend. Michigan & Wisconsin won’t allow it. They’re STILL mad over Nebraska screwing up.
US News is totally irrelevant to the conversation. The only schools they designate as unacceptable are ones that the B1G is perfectly happy to independently label unacceptable for lack of AAU or lack of admission standards.
LikeLike
Totally irrelevant because you say so…..got ya
LikeLike
Peter, we still don’t know about Virginia Tech. Only ND is a for sure shoo-in as a non-AAU, but there’s still a question about Va Tech.
Other non-AAUs aren’t being considered for sure like Texas Tech or NC State.
But Virginia Tech is basically another Nebraska in terms of where it is academically; a little bit outside the AAU criteria but putting the work into increasing research expenditures.
LikeLike
Whoa. Didn’t Michigan facilitate Nebraska losing AAU?
LikeLike
I thought it was Northwestern.
LikeLike
Michigan and Wisconsin voted to kick them out. There may have been other B10 schools. All the Big 12 schools voted to keep them.
LikeLike
No reports said Northwestern voted out UNL. Schwarm, where did you get your info?
LikeLike
Zeek,
Yes, Michigan and Wisconsin shanked Nebraska at the AAU. Nebraska fell below AAU threshold in the first assessment after they joined the B1G, and those two not only were not supportive, they actively turned on them and voted to strip.
It has never been publicly explained (or even officially acknowledged) but one gets the sense that Michigan & Wisconsin felt they were lied to and were…displeased.
Expecting them to just turn around and embrace a school that’s *not* AAU but promising they are on the way is pretty unrealistic. Let alone on US News of all things; that’s the last thing those two want to hear about.
LikeLike
If there was that impression, the UNL president probably supplied it. Berdahl told him what to present to the committee and he just ignored it and did exactly the opposite. You don’t ignore advice and tell an exclusive club that their membership rules are stupid and be surprised when they kick you out.
LikeLike
Richard, you are right. I think there were early rumors about NW voting Nebraska out, but subsequent open records requests indicated that the NW president was supportive of continued membership, while Wisconsin’s and Michigan’s were not.
LikeLike
@bullet – That is essentially my understanding on what happened as well. From speaking to two people who were in attendance, Perlman’s presentation alienated the members and almost certainly directly resulted in some individuals changing their votes.
LikeLike
And it still was a very close vote. I tend to think the B10 schools thought NE would survive the vote, but I don’t blame MI and WI. If they voted true to their beliefs on what the AAU should be, then more power to them as long as they are consistent and vote that way in the future.
I hope the AAU continues on their course of trimming the bottom scools if that’s what they feel they need to do. From NE’s chart, they were #109. The other bottom members were #105 (probably Syracuse, and they quit), 94, 87, 83, 81 and 74-76. The 25th percentile is between #58 and 59. I’d say everyone above 80 should be reviewed, especially so deserving schools can be added since the AAU seems to want to limit its size. There are 7 eligible schools in the top 50 of the list, plus others climbing the ranks.
LikeLike
Does anyone know if this Stanford-UCLA Pac-12 CCG rematch is the first back-to-back rematch in a CCG?
LikeLike
Probably. Of course, that’s not as crazy as the back to back Florida vs Florida St national title game in 1996 season’s Sugar Bowl (TWO YEARS AFTER they did back to back in the Sugar Bowl not for the national title).
LikeLike
I hate rematches. If it was me, I’d eliminate them by rule.
If the two division champions met in the regular season, the head to head winner retains their CCG slot. The loser will be replaced by the highest ranked team in their division that did not already play the champion of the other division.
For the B10 this year, if everyone was eligible it would mean OSU vs NW. With OSU and PSU ineligible, it would mean NE vs PU.
For a 14 team league with 8 games, that leaves 5 options to face the champ.
LikeLike
As talked about above, that’s actually a positive attribute of a Big20: no rematches in the title game (unless B20 teams meet OOC).
LikeLike
Hush you. lol
LikeLike
“That’s no comfort to league commissioners and member schools who hear that ACC school North Carolina (where Delany played basketball) and the Big 12’s Kansas are high on the list of possible targets.
Is this corner barstool chatter?
Doesn’t sound like it. Four BCS conference coaches and administrators I talked to Tuesday said they think the Big Ten is actively hunting for members 15 and 16, and mentioned the Tar Heels and Jayhawks.
When Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski worries aloud about the future of the ACC, you figure there is some fire behind the smoke. (I’ll let you conspiracy theorists decide if Delany is purposely trying to damage the ACC to get back at new member Notre Dame, which has snubbed the Big Ten twice.)
Much of the conference expansion the past five years involved “legacy” football programs with big stadiums and full trophy cases. Case in point, Nebraska.
Now, it’s about TV markets, growing population centers and demographic analytics.
“You have to decide on a strategy on how to position yourself for the next decade or half-century,” Delany said Tuesday. “It’s a long-term play.”
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState
I’ve heard that the VA/VaTech politics that played out in getting VaTech into the ACC is still on. That means, if UVA was offered a spot in the B1G, either VaTech comes or must go to another conference of “equal value”. That complicates things for UVA and so looking at unattached partners may be a better move. UVA would still be there probably if the Conference decides to go past 17 schools.
LikeLike
I was doing a bit of reading on Tech forums; they all say that their president wants to stay with UVa and stay in an academically minded conference.
They say Steger will push hard to go with UVa to the Big Ten if that ends up being the case…
LikeLike
I wonder if any Gee emails referencing the ‘VPI problem’ will pop up.
LikeLike
That would be hilarious.
It seems like they’re going to avoid sending any emails about it at the public schools; now they’ll just go and corner Sullivan at the next AAU meetings (14 strong including Chicago).
LikeLike
Virginia Tech would be gone, gone gone to the SEC if UVA was going to the B1G.
As far as Kansas, they’d need to get out of their GOR, but that GOR was mainly about keeping the Oklahoma & Texas schools in the conference for Kansas & Co’s. benefit. Whether Kansas can shed K-State with K-state now successful and protected by that GOR is another question; B1G will never take K-State.
LikeLike
I think the B10 has to weigh some pluses and minuses if they go to 16. The main one is if they break the ACC, then the SEC will take all the other desirable schools. Is having UVA and VT/GT worth ceding the state of NC to the SEC? Is taking UVA worth letting VT go to the SEC? Are UVA and UNC worth letting the SEC into NC and VA, too?
On top of that come the cultural fit questions as you go farther south, the lack of feeling like a conference and all the other usual expansion issues.
I believe the B12 and SEC schools are unavailable (UT, KU and MO), most of the BE is undesirable (UConn?), and the P12 is too far away. That leaves ND and the ACC.
Likely targets – ND, UVA, UNC
Possible partners – VT, GT
Doubtful partners – Duke, Syracuse, Miami
Highly unlikely – BC, Pitt, NCSU, WF, Clemson, FSU
LikeLike
Eh, I get the idea that Delany and company aren’t trying to overtake the SEC to be the top conference in football. If they put enough distance between them and everyone else so that they are clearly one of the top 2 conferences (along with the SEC) in football, are clearly the top conference in basketball, and are definitely the top collection of major research universities who also emphasize college sports (and one of the top collections of major research universities in the world), and are set up to be all 3 of those for at least the next half-century, I think the Big10/20 presidents would be pretty happy.
LikeLike
I thought it was obvious that the Rutgers/Maryland addition put the B1G on the path that you define. Top 2 in football, though a step behind the SEC competitively. #1 hoops, #1 research.
Similar to creating a top tier and separation for football, this creates a top tier and separation for research. There is no going back now.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Eh, I get the idea that Delany and company aren’t trying to overtake the SEC to be the top conference in football.”
I wasn’t looking at it from that POV. I was thinking more about the TV/financial implications. NC is larger and growing faster than VA (9.7M vs 8.1M, <1.5% vs <1.25%). VT gets more TV viewers than UVA. GT seems to bring minimal TV viewers, but maybe the B10 has different info.
Are VT and UVA worth the SEC getting NC? Is GT worth the SEC getting VT and potentially controlling VA? What about helping the B12 get into FL and SC and maybe GA?
"If they put enough distance between them and everyone else so that they are clearly one of the top 2 conferences (along with the SEC) in football,"
The B12 looks to benefit mightily as well. If they get the southern ACC block (FSU, Clemson, Miami, maybe GT), that's a huge boon for them. They'd be a better FB conference than the B10 and have huge markets.
"are clearly the top conference in basketball,"
That's much less important. As long as you're good, you'll get coverage and tourney wins.
LikeLike
Brian:
Well, that’s why I would take UVa, UNC, Duke, and one of GTech/VTech. Then ND+Miami to go to a Big20 (possibly FSU+Miami). The big question with FSU is culture (though I’ve found the FSU boards to sound closer to B10 boards than SEC boards, unlike UNC’s, who’s fans seem SECish).
As for the B12, I don’t see them as a threat. I think they are inherently unstable and will break up in a decade. I think a Pac/SEC fight over TX is inevitable, and the FL schools, even if they join the B12, will be looking again in a decade.
Maybe the B10 should go to 18 with UVa, UNC, Duke, and GTech, then wait for ND to be OK with being in a conference (won’t happen soon) or FSU to improve research-wise.
LikeLike
Most coaches don’t know anything. Administrators make the decisions. So if a coach mentions Kansas, it doesn’t mean anything.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’d go a bit further. It seems like most ADs are out of the loop too.
Unless you hear a president say something or someone who you can trust speaks for their president (guys like Dodds, Brandon, Smith), it doesn’t mean anything.
LikeLike
Some ADs know. Some are out of the loop. UT and OU ADs are very involved. Most of the SEC ADs seem to be out of the loop. May have to do with the strong commissioner model of the SEC vs. the weak of the Big 12. I remember the B10 ADs complaining about the PSU addition because of the logistics. They weren’t consulted. But even with involved ADs, almost no ADs are decision makers. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Clemson AD retiring were very tied into their decision to do nothing as far as realignment this summer. He was clearly unenthused about staying in the ACC.
LikeLike
Really hard to see UNC leaving for the BIG with Dook or VA in tow, unless FSU and Clemson bolt first……
BIG would really be reaching if it went for Kansas, in every category other than basketball. Problem is, BIG doesn’t have all that many great choices. UNC ‘s the best, a HR knocked down to a triple because it is at heart a southern school. VA’s a double, excellent in academic elitism and market, but second fiddle in football and the public’s imagination…..small, elitist….who REALLY cares about VA athletics? MO’s a double because of compatability, size, interest…Va Tech’s a single due to bad fit…KU and U Conn are singles.
LikeLike
UConn would be an infield fly. They don’t meet ANY criteria.
Duke would be all about Duke’s end. The B1G Chancellors would admit them before Delany got done saying “Doo…”
LikeLike
Dook’s much less attractive to the BIG than VA, and wouldn’t make it without UNC; howevr UNC has to be Delany’s wet dream, and if getting UNC meant taking Dook over VA the Presidents would do it, imo.
Dook to the BIG would be like that irritating smartass 12 year old who insists on hanging with the HS kids and telling them how stupid they are…..Dook would be less attractive than VA market-wise, is maller, private, and is and will always suck in football.
LikeLike
It’s not either/or. I foresee the Big20 adding UNC along with UVa & Duke. Probably GTech. Maybe VTech. Possibly Miami or FSU?
LikeLike
Hey, they won the ACC with Steve Spurrier. Wake has won the ACC. Northwestern has won the Big 10 3 times, probably more in that time period than anyone other than Ohio St. and Michigan. TCU won the Rose Bowl. Stanford is actually good at a national level. It is possible.
LikeLike
bullet, if you go by the 1995 to present era, NW’s three Big Ten titles (two shared) are fourth behind OSU, UM, and Wisky.
LikeLike
Duke to the B1G (only as a #16) would have nothing to do with the football team beyond that they have one.
LikeLike
Richard, do you believe that if you say “B20” enough times it will actually become a credible concept? Because it’s not working.
LikeLike
Andy:
I dunno; I certainly seem to be getting you agitated.
I’m not sure why you’re getting so emotionally invested against the concept if you believe it has no chance of happening.
LikeLike
meant to say “without” Dook or VA in tow….
LikeLike
How is Kansas supposed to get out of the GOR?
LikeLike
What you think the Big 10 wouldn’t gladly fork over the $250-$300 million necessary to add KU?
LikeLike
Maybe after the auction to liquidate the assets in State College.
LikeLike
Rutgers just merged with New Jersey’s state school of medicine; maybe we’re trading that part of Rutgers for Kansas.
LikeLike
In case no one seen this yet. Rumors, rumors, rumors….
http://www.eersauthority.com/expansion-update-acc-on-the-brink/
I guess the ACC is dead. (if this were to have any merit)
LikeLike
This is the “Dude” for those of you who don’t know.
LikeLike
B10 won’t sit at 17. They could wait for ND and extend to Duke if no ND.
I wouldn’t want to lose Miami to the B12 (granted, that GOR will run out eventually).
He is right that the B12 is FSU’s and Clemson’s 4th choice, however (though for practical purposes, they’re Clemson’s 2nd choice).
LikeLike
This is from 4 days ago
LikeLike
And complete nonsense.
If there’s any truth to it, it’s that schools are inquiring to conferences about their options, but nothing serious.
LikeLike
Just a thought: ND won’t be joining the Big20 (or any conference) any earlier than after the 2014 season. They will need a year when they have the same number of losses as a conference winner but get jumped by the conference winner after a CCG for a playoff spot even though they had better numbers before championship weekend.
Then ND’s administration could make the argument to their alums that they need to join a conference in order to compete for national titles.
LikeLike
There are a few problems with this guy’s story:
– if UNC, UVa and GT had submitted applications to the B1G, they wouldn’t accept GT right away and consider whether they wanted UNC. UNC >> GT, as far as the B1G is concerned.
– The idea that the Department of Education will declare PSU ineligible for federal student aid is absurd on its face. Come on.
– Sources close to WVU and Gordon Gee, really? Who the hell would that be?
I am sure that everyone is “exploring their options”, we all know that. However, I’m very skeptical that any of this “inside information” is reliable.
LikeLike
I don’t actually believe this source is likely to exist, but Gordon Gee was president of WVU in the 80’s so it’s not an abject absurdity. Just a probable absurdity.
LikeLike
Penn State actually probably deserves the DOE death penalty and a smaller school that did what they did would get it. You had the administration not only not implementing the Cleary Act but actively concealing and even facilitating sexually violent offenses. How much worse can you possibly get? It’s the feds, they put the sanction there so they can use it.
Penn State won’t get it though because it’s *not* a smaller school. Obliterating a research university flagship and most of the economy of Central Pennsylvania is too much collateral damage.
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t disagree with you there. But we all know that however much they might deserve it, PSU getting the DOE death penalty is a political impossibility. I can’t believe the powers that be in the B1G are losing any sleep over this.
LikeLike
Agree. Most of that blog was pretty deranged.
LikeLike
Too big to fail indeed.
LikeLike
Disagree. I know I’m in the minority in this, but I don’t feel the NCAA had any bussinness what so ever in this. Let the legal/civil system deal with the issues, the actual NCAA issues are small to say the least.
LikeLike
Different death penalty. The NCAA could just kill the football team.
The US Department of Education can kill an entire institution with THEIR death penalty over what PSU did. The penalties for violating the Cleary Act – essentially violent crime reporting & disclosure on college campus – range all the way to loss of eligibility for federal support. That means no research money, no Pell Grants, no subsidized loans.
It’s the end of an institution if it’s ever implemented.
LikeLike
You can punish the perpetrators you know, and not merely crush everyone associated with Penn State.
LikeLike
I feel like I need to take a shower after reading that post.
LikeLike
Why? What’s dirty about it?
LikeLike
I was referring to ‘the Dudes’ latest opus.
LikeLike
There is actually another one he posted the next day…
http://www.eersauthority.com/expansion-update-unc-duke-wont-go-down-without-a-fight/
LikeLike
That guys is WVU’s purple book cat.
LikeLike
No chance that NCSU chooses the B12 over the SEC (thus FSU to the SEC is quite unlikely unless the SEC expands past 16).
Also, he seems unaware that the B10, along among the Big 4, is not locked in to a long-term TV contract.
LikeLike
So a West Virginia guy is writing a lot about a scenario where Pitt and Syracuse end up losers in the expansion game. Definitely not writing out of bitterness though…
LikeLike
If I were SU, BC and Pitt, I would be very worried. If the ACC falls apart, they are likely to be left behind. They don’t fit the B10 mold (or duplicate territory), they don’t fit the SEC territory and the Big 12 would be unlikely to try to move into the NE (SU/BC) and might have better options further south than Pitt. VT, UVA, UNC, NCSU, GT, Clemson and FSU will find good homes even if the conference collapses. Wake, Duke, Miami and the 3 northern schools are problematic.
LikeLike
If the ACC crumbles Wake, BC and ‘Cuse are almost certain to be left in the cold. Pitt, Duke and Miami might be able to find homes in a 16 team Big XII but there’s not guarantee. Duke could also potentially end up in the SEC or Big 10 if UNC made it a condition of joining, but the Blue Devils would be pretty low on both conferences wish lists.
Frank and Richard keep talking about Miami as a Big 10 possibility but I just don’t see that happening.
LikeLike
Thanks. “The Dude with the Mountaineer Tattoo” strikes again.
LikeLike
Re: Duke
The SEC has no use for them – and they have no use for the SEC – but the B1G is a different story. That’s about Duke School of Medicine, not Duke football, though.
It’s like Georgia Tech but magnified. Duke won’t leave the ACC (their ACC in every sense of the word) until its a smoking crater so they could get left out by missing the boat, but not because they wouldn’t have a home if they moved quickly.
LikeLike
I agree that Duke is a horrible cultural fit for the SEC and an even worse economic one. It really is a case of mutual disinterest.
That said, if Duke had no other option and the SEC was hellbent on grabbing UNC then I could see a scenario where the Blue Devils ended up in the SEC.
LikeLike
frug:
I’d think that the SEC adding both UNC+NCSU would be more likely than NC+Duke.
LikeLike
Okay, I actually read those posts, and man does it almost read like he’s just making shit up.
So, let’s say the Big Ten takes Georgia Tech, Virginia, UNC, and Duke, the SEC takes NC State and V-Tech, and the Big 12 takes Florida State and Louisville. That leaves BC, Clemson, Miami, Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, and Notre Dame. Could those teams add two more schools and carry on?
Well, Clemson and Wake Forest are the only two teams that weren’t members of the Big East, and Clemson is one of the two most football-focused members of the classic ACC. BC, Clemson, Pitt, and maybe Syracuse would make the football part of the conference strong enough for Miami not to be completely out of place. In basketball, Syracuse is a basketball prince, Pitt is no slouch either, Notre Dame and Boston College have made tournament appearances in recent memory, and Wake Forest can be better than you think.
All in all, though, I think this might be a primarily football-focused conference, so depending on the order of operations I could see Florida State actually staying put if Duke and UNC leave, since they and Miami might become the teams with the power in the conference. It’s conceivable that the Big Ten takes all four of their teams and inadvertently derails any plans the SEC might be harboring. Depends on whether V-Tech would rather stay in an ACC with Florida State and Miami the power teams, or hop into the SEC along with NC State. I think the latter happens and Louisville joins the new ACC, which really looks like the old Big East football schools, especially since I bet Cincinnati joins them as well for the hell of it.
In an odd way, Duke and UNC leaving might actually save the ACC by moving its power center to Florida State and the former Big East schools. It’d still be substantially worse than the other power conferences in football, but if it still has Florida State, Miami, Clemson, and as many good current Big East schools as possible, it might still be deserving of its Orange Bowl berth. Precisely for that reason, those two schools won’t leave unless they’re certain the conference is on the verge of collapse, but Florida State leaving wouldn’t do that on its own, so they’d only leave if events happen that the scenario requires anyway; I don’t think the calculus is much different if they join the SEC. If Florida State leaves before Duke and UNC, the other schools might still rebuild with Cincinnati, UConn, UCF, and USF, but it’d be hard to call it a power conference still, especially if Miami gets hit with death penalty-like sanctions.
LikeLike
@Richard
I agree (and almost mentioned that) but my point was there was at least a plausible scenario where Duke ends up in the SEC. (Compared to Wake which would be screwed)
LikeLike
I admit to being heavily biased as a Penn State fan, and strongly would oppose shutting down Penn State over The Cleary Act.. But that action (Along with the left-wing anti development actions) would bite the Democrats in the A** so hard it is not funny. Why? Because those two things could actually create another Great Depression in the State of PA, and the Bush/Romney boogieman could not be blamed this time. So it is NOT happening.
The real problem for the ACC is this: They are so vastly inferior Conference to the SEC, Big 10, Big XII, and PAC it is not funny. If I am running things at ACC HQ, and I see FOUR of my Conference Schools get beaten by SEC teams by double digits (THREE of which occurred at home), and I see three Bowl eligible teams with records above 500, there must be reason to be very afraid.
Perhaps the most worried ACC School of all should be Clemson. Think about it: I lost four straight to South Carolina, for the first time since the 1950s, and I may have lost the NUMBER ONE recruit in the Country (Robert Nkemdiche) to Ole Miss! That is right Ole Miss. Not Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Tennessee, Auburn, or even South Carolina, Ole Miss, are you kidding me?. To top things off, I am now in a Conference where Vanderbilt would have the third best record in the Conference. I can only hope and pray I get to the Big XII. Gut feeling they will have their prayers answered.
LikeLike
Nonsense with the anti-left Romney/Bush boogieman crap, you sound like a broken Limbaugh Faux News record. Plenty of good liberals, me included, that want PSU to succeed and get it’s house in order – but that was a damn bad scandal – no tip toeing around it. You must be from the Bama section of Pa – no use for your myopic views in the 21st Century.
LikeLike
Yeah? Wait til you find out what really happened. It’s coming. I wouldn’t assume you know the truth yet …
LikeLike
Carl,
“Yeah? Wait til you find out what really happened. It’s coming. I wouldn’t assume you know the truth yet …”
So it wasn’t a “damn bad scandal” as gfunk said? That’s one point of view, i suppose.
LikeLike
“So it wasn’t a “damn bad scandal” as gfunk said? That’s one point of view, i suppose.”
Brian, that’s honestly what you got out of what I said? (I guess it’s easy to win arguments when you put words into other people’s mouths. 🙂 No, I believe the scandal is much worse than the standard narrative would suggest – but also much different.
I was responding to gfunk’s personal attacks combined with his implicit conclusion.
Did you follow the Pa. state elections? The Dem. AG candidate won (the first elected Dem. Pa. AG ever!) with more votes than Obama because she ran on a platform of investigating Gov. Corbett over his role in the Sandusky Scandal. Forgetting about the OP’s personal political views, I think the possibility of an electoral backlash if the federal punishment for the scandal isn’t appropriate and fair is probably rather high, gfunk’s opinion and personal attacks notwithstanding. It’s already happened and happening at the state level.
The fact that the OP’s personal political opinions don’t sit well with gfunk doesn’t make gfunk’s personal attacks (while pretending moral superiority, no less! 🙂 appropriate or his personal opinion correct. Indeed, I doubt he understands the actual situation very well.
That was my point.
LikeLike
Carl,
“Brian, that’s honestly what you got out of what I said?”
Yes. The only thing of substance he said was about it being a bad scandal. Then you responded in a way like many PSU scandal-denying fans did. Why would I assume you were talking politics? Speaking of which, this is why politics should never be on a non-political blog.
“(I guess it’s easy to win arguments when you put words into other people’s mouths.”
I quoted you and asked a question about what you said to check your meaning. How is that putting words in your mouth?
LikeLike
Brian,
“Why would I assume you were talking politics?”
Exactly. Why would you assume anything?
“Speaking of which, this is why politics should never be on a non-political blog.”
Exactly. For myself, I was referencing politics only to explain the context of events, as people frequently do on this blog. Why gfunk or the OP made political comments, I don’t know. If gfunk didn’t like the OP’s political comments, however, he could simply have said so without making personal attacks.
“I quoted you and asked a question about what you said to check your meaning. How is that putting words in your mouth?”
By pretending to ask a question and then implying my answer to your question yourself. It’s quite telling that you omitted your own “answer” to the “question” this time: “That’s one point of view, i suppose.”
Whose point of view??? I hadn’t answered your “question” yet! – That’s how you put words into my mouth.
LikeLike
@Brian
You were making assumptions. I thought Carl’s comment was very ambiguous. He could very well have been responding to gfunk by implying it was a vastly more far reaching scandal as opposed to denying anything.
Its interesting that as invested as we are in our favorite teams that sports boards (and this one in particular) rarely get as nasty and useless as political boards. Political boards are filled with gfunks from both sides.
LikeLike
bullet,
“You were making assumptions.”
Of course I was. I assumed he was responding to the only substantive statement since the insult wasn’t directed at him and his comment didn’t readily apply to the R/D politics in the preceding posts.
“I thought Carl’s comment was very ambiguous.”
Thus me asking him to verify if I read him correctly.
“He could very well have been responding to gfunk by implying it was a vastly more far reaching scandal as opposed to denying anything.”
I don’t buy that interpretation. He’d be agreeing with gfunk and saying it was worse than he knew, not appearing to disagree (” I wouldn’t assume you know the truth yet …”).
“Its interesting that as invested as we are in our favorite teams that sports boards (and this one in particular) rarely get as nasty and useless as political boards. Political boards are filled with gfunks from both sides.”
Politics and the internet never mix well. Lacking any clues from tone of voice or facial expression, people take everything the worst possible way. It’s why wise blogs ban politics and religion unless that is the primary focus of the blog.
LikeLike
Brian,
“Thus me asking him to verify if I read him correctly.”
While putting words into my mouth. Cute.
“I don’t buy that interpretation. He’d be agreeing with gfunk …”
In other words, you’re still speaking for me, and my actual opinion does not (and has never) mattered to you! 🙂
You were never interested in hearing about my actual opinion because you “knew” what it was already!
Brian, Hint 1: that makes no sense. Hint 2: you’re wrong.
If you think you can win an argument by putting words into other people’s mouths, then by all means, have at it. I personally don’t believe that many people would agree with you about that – but who are we to speak for ourselves and disagree with you? 🙂
* * *
I’m supposing this is a waste of effort, but I’ll try to explain it to you one more time:
Brian, if you’d go back and look at what the OP actually said and what gfunk actually responded, you’d see that it was actually gfunk who didn’t respond substantively to the OP’s only substantive point, namely that shutting Penn State down with the Cleary Act would bite politicians in the “A**”. (Partisan political references removed, precisely because they aren’t substantive.) gfunk didn’t respond substantively to that, instead choosing to make personal attacks. As I’ve said, (1) I happen to agree with the OP’s only substantive point, (2) I believe gfunk probably doesn’t understand the actual scandal and political situation, and (3) I don’t think gfunk’s personal attacks were appropriate.
I responded, “Yeah? Wait til you find out what really happened. It’s coming. I wouldn’t assume you know the truth yet …” because I thought he was being extremely presumptuous and rude, and because I believe the scandal is much worse than advertised. If this turns out to be true, just watch how the politicians fare. As I have said multiple times now, I think the OP has that part right – although I don’t think it has anything to do with partisan politics and I have no idea why he brought that up – I think it’s just as inappropriate as gfunk’s partisan references. As I have also said multiple times, I think gfunk’s personal attacks were extremely inappropriate. And as for you, Brian, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
If you don’t believe me, that’s fine – but then please abandon the ridiculous pretension that you were simply trying to clarify my opinion.
LikeLike
Carl,
“Thus me asking him to verify if I read him correctly.”
While putting words into my mouth. Cute.
There is no useful way to ask if I interpreted you correctly that doesn’t involve me saying how I interpreted what you said. I quoted you and asked if my interpretation was correct, followed by an editorial comment that was applicable if I was correct (an opinion I’ve seen espoused multiple times in various places, by the way).
“I don’t buy that interpretation. He’d be agreeing with gfunk …”
In other words, you’re still speaking for me, and my actual opinion does not (and has never) mattered to you!
No, I’m saying no normal person would respond to gfunk with the language you did if their intent was to show agreement with his point and that he was even understating it. There is no logical connection between what you said and agreeing with him. The tone says you disagree with him.
I responded, “Yeah? Wait til you find out what really happened. It’s coming. I wouldn’t assume you know the truth yet …” because I thought he was being extremely presumptuous and rude, and because I believe the scandal is much worse than advertised.
Some would contend that anything else that comes out couldn’t really make it any worse. Bigger, maybe, but not worse. It certainly wouldn’t invalidate his sentiment that it was a damn bad scandal. That’s why your response makes no sense.
Anyway, I’m done with this.
LikeLike
Brian,
“‘While putting words into my mouth. Cute.’
“There is no useful way to ask if I interpreted you correctly that doesn’t involve me saying how I interpreted what you said. I quoted you and asked if my interpretation was correct, followed by an editorial comment that was applicable if I was correct …”
It’s hard for me to believe you don’t understand this – but maybe you actually don’t: it’s not useful to include editorial comments if you’re really just trying to clarify. That’s pretty basic stuff, Brian.
“… (an opinion I’ve seen espoused multiple times in various places, by the way).”
What opinion? What on earth are you talking about???
“No, I’m saying no normal person would respond to gfunk with the language you did if their intent was to show agreement with his point and that he was even understating it.”
So now your theory includes that I’m not normal??? – Wow, just wow.
Hint 3: I wasn’t trying to show agreement with gfunk.
“There is no logical connection between what you said and agreeing with him.”
Does that surprise you?
Hint 4: You’re still missing the point.
“The tone says you disagree with him.”
Yes, exactly! You finally got it right! I disagree with gfunk VERY STRONGLY, and that’s exactly what I was trying to communicate. I don’t believe he understands the nature of the scandal and surrounding political situation, and, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, I think his behavior (gratuitous personal attacks while pretending moral superiority) was extremely inappropriate. I REALLY don’t like that.
You seem to have trouble grasping that that does not mean that I believe the scandal was minor. To repeat myself again: I believe the scandal is much worse than advertised.
“Some would contend that anything else that comes out couldn’t really make it any worse. Bigger, maybe, but not worse.”
So what??? Some people contend lots of things, Brian. Sometimes their contentions are correct; sometimes they’re not; sometimes they’re just opinions; sometimes they’re nonsense. You’re contending a theory that’s not even falsifiable. (That’s another way of saying that your contention is meaningless.)
My own personal opinion is that payoffs of cars to mothers (for instance) would make the scandal worse. I guess your opinion is different. So what? – We have different opinions. Amazing.
“It certainly wouldn’t invalidate his sentiment that it was a damn bad scandal. That’s why your response makes no sense.”
What are you talking about??? As I told you when I answered your question the first time: I was not disagreeing with gfunk’s comment that it was a “damn bad scandal”. That notion is solely of your own creation, Brian. You’ve been arguing with yourself.
You’ve repeatedly refused to acknowledge that anything but your own words matter. Not. good. form.
“Anyway, I’m done with this.”
I wish you the best of luck with that.
Just remember one thing, Brian: if a theory’s not falsifiable, then it’s meaningless. Your theory is not falsifiable because you believe you get to speak for me. But you are so wrong.
LikeLike
Not sure why the Democrats would be to blame for the Sandusky scandal, or the depression that would result from shutting down Penn State. I would imagine if that happens, the State of Pennsylvania would pump in truckloads of money into the University of Pittsburgh’s academics, to the point of petitioning the Big Ten to admit them as Penn State’s replacement if it looks like the ACC is starting to go to pot. (Of course, if the ACC starts to go to pot, that might be partly because the Big Ten is looking to replace Penn State…)
LikeLike
I can’t believe some of you (more than just Richard apparently) are buying into this whole Big 20 thing as an actual possibility. That’s Big Ten megalomania at it’s silliest. A conference that just took Rutgers, (Rutgers!) is now going to canabalize ALL of the best schools fromt he ACC and double in size? Riiiight. And now you’re analyzing “The Dude” from WVU as if he’s not a total crackpot. This forum is losing it.
LikeLike
Who on this blog has implied they take The Dude seriously?
LikeLike
There are a bunch of people discussing his article above.
Here’s where the Dude is coming from: He’s a WVU fan. WVU’s rival is Pitt. Pitt got into the ACC. WVU wanted to and did not. The Dude is very bitter. All of his rumors are elaborate trolls of Pitt fans with scenarios that are very bad for Pitt and very good for WVU. That is the constant pattern. His latest articles follow this pattern. They come from his imagination.
LikeLike
Just because they are discussing what he rights doesn’t mean they believe what he is saying.
LikeLike
Ah. That explains why he has Louisville going to the B12 instead of Pitt. Though why not Syracuse? Heck, why not all 3!
LikeLike
West Virginia is like a small town. Everybody knows everybody else and people talk. The Dude gets info from people who know things. He also gets info from people who don’t know things. I think he repeats pretty much all of it. Certainly he views it from a WVU perspective. But its not made up (at least not by him-sometimes I wonder if people give him ridiculous stuff just to see if he repeats it). Now there is another WV insider who I do think makes stuff up, not so much to fool people, but just to get conversation going.
LikeLike
“He’s a WVU fan. WVU’s rival is Pitt. Pitt got into the ACC. WVU wanted to and did not. The Dude is very bitter.”
Sounds like a Missouri fan I know when he talks about Nebraska and the Big Ten.
LikeLike
BTW, Andy, you’re right; the B10 might just stop at 18 if they can’t land ND.
LikeLike
haha
LikeLike
He’s no different from Chip Brown or PBC (back when he had Big Ten sources in Chicago).
You take it with a very big grain of salt.
LikeLike
FWIW, Rutgers makes more sense than any of the Mid-Atlantic schools as a 50 year play. There are risks to each, but Rutgers has the fewest risks and most upside.
LikeLike
How to Play Every Team Twice in 6 Years With Just 8 Conference Games.
Now that the B1G has moved to 14 teams for football, there will be pressure to have 9 conference games in order to facilitate cross-division matchups. However, 9 conference games is not necessary. It is quite possible to cover all the cross-division matchups in six years without increasing the number of conference games.
PLAINS DIVISION: two cross-over games
OSU : Mich (fixed) + MSU-or-Wisc
Iowa : MSU (fixed) + Mich-or-Wisc
Minnesota : Wisc (fixed) + Mich-or-MSU
Nebraska : PSU (fixed) + Mary (fixed)
Rutgers : PSU (fixed) + Mary (fixed)
Illinois : NW (fixed) + Ind (fixed)
Purdue : NW (fixed) + Ind (fixed)
LAKES DIVISION: two cross-over games
Michigan : OSU (fixed) + Iowa-or-Minn
MSU : Iowa (fixed) + OSU-or-Minn
Wisconsin : Minn (fixed) + OSU-or-Iowa
PSU : Neb (fixed) + Rut (fixed)
Maryland : Neb (fixed) + Rut (fixed)
Northwestern : Ill (fixed) + Purd (fixed)
Indiana : Ill (fixed) + Purd (fixed)
This arrangement preserves all the big rivalry games, gives both Nebraska and PSU a game on the east coast every year, and puts either OSU or Mich on the coast every year.
In order to play all the cross-over games in six years, we need to pivot two teams from each division:
Years 1 and 2: no pivot (all teams play in home division)
Years 3 and 4: Neb+Rut play in LAKES, PSU+Mary play in PLAINS
Years 5 and 6: Ill+Purd play in LAKES, NW+Ind play in PLAINS
Years 7 and 8: same as years 1 and 2
To summarize: OSU, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, MSU and Wisconsin never move. They play every year in their home divisions. The other teams play four years in their home divisions and spend two years (home and away) playing in the opposite division. This enables every team to play every other team at least twice (home and away) over a six year period.
LikeLike
I am a fan of pods; however, I think the two-team pivot is more likely to be implemented. Using pods to build divisions means that every two years you tear the divisions apart and create new ones. In contrast, the two-team pivot preserves the basic conference structure from year to year.
LikeLike
Yes, at 14, we seem likely to stay with the fixed division concept.
However, once you hit 16, it seems like you want to go pods. No numerical arrangement at 16 or above really works without pods and rotating divisions.
It’s too difficult to get all of the schools on the schedule consistently enough to make people happy.
LikeLike
All the more reason not to be the first to 16. With 14 it can work with 2 divisions adequately but not very well if you have cross-division fixed rivalries (6 division-1 fixed-1 rotating takes 12 years to play everyone/9 games is ok). 14 can work with pods. 16 works badly with 2 divisions. Let someone else see if pods work. They didn’t the only time previously they were tried.
LikeLike
In the WAC they abandoned pods because they said it confused fans. How many people can name the teams in the ACC divisions and match them with the title? I have no clue who is coastal and who is whatever the other division is. I have some memory things so I can figure out who is in which division in a minute or so, just not the name of the division. I remember it as the Bowden division (FSU/Clemson) and the snooty division (UNC/Duke/UVA). I have no clue and don’t care which is a legend and which is a leader, but the B10 is more or less NW/SE, so its easy to remember. WI is the one exception. And I follow college football closely. For the normal fan….
LikeLike
I think though that they could make it easy enough for Big Ten pods.
East: Penn State/Maryland +2
South: Ohio State/Rutgers/Illinois/Purdue
North: Michigan/Michigan State/Northwestern/Indiana
West: Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa/Minnesota
Something along those lines.
But you’re right that it will get complicated based on pods rotating all over the place.
You’ll have NorthSouth and EastWest divisions one year…
LikeLike
zeek,
You and bullet are both right. The biggest problem by far with pods is fan confusion. Divisions already have that problem for the B10 and ACC. The key is to stick to geography when making pods and naming divisions. That said, I’d tweak your pods a little.
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
That’s a no-brainer.
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
Not as obvious, but MSU really wanted NW and 3 of the 4 fit the name north.
The others depend on which 2 schools are added. Take these groups as a base, with PU and IN floating to fill things out:
S – OSU
E – PSU, RU
If UVA and VT join:
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
S – OSU, VT, PU, IN
E – PSU, RU, MD, UVA
Locked rivals:
OSU/MI, PSU/NE, WI/MSU, IA/IL, MN/IN, PU/MD, RU/NW, VT/UVA
If UVA and GT join:
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
S – OSU, PU, IN, GT
E – PSU, RU, MD, UVA
Locked rivals:
OSU/MI, PSU/NE, WI/MSU, MN/IN, PU/GT, IA/MD, RU/NW, IL/UVA
If UVA and UNC join:
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
S – OSU, MD, UVA, UNC
E – PSU, RU, PU, IN
Locked rivals:
OSU/MI, PSU/NE, WI/MSU, MN/IN, PU/UNC, IA/MD, RU/NW, IL/UVA
LikeLike
Brian:
I really like your VT & VA pods. I think that is very workable. PSU probably gets the easiest draw, but someone has to and what you’ve proposed makes sense. I also think if 16 is the goal, this is the most likely scenario.
I’m not sure I see how locked rivals works in a pod situation though. How many games are we talking here? It seems the locks would have to rotate off as well.
I don’t think UNC is going anywhere w/o Duke and if the master plan was VA, Duke, UNC and MD, then Rutgers wouldn’t have been invited. I really cannot see 18 or 20 teams. Rounding things out – GT is just too out there & I’d say, <1% chance we end up with ND or TX and their respective dancing partners (maybe the move to 14 shook them a bit but I doubt it).
LikeLike
jj,
Thanks. And yes, someone always will have the easiest pod. They’ll get paired with a tougher pod, though, so it balances out.
As for locked rivals, assume a 3+4+1+1 schedule. That’s 3 pod games, 4 paired pod games, 1 locked rival and 1 rotating game. You’ll play 4 teams every year and the other 11 over 1/3 of the time. When your locked rival is in your paired pod, you can play 2 rotating games or have a secondary locked rival. So, for example, OSU would always play MI but would lock PSU when OSU and MI are in the same division. Either way works.
LikeLike
StevenD,
“I am a fan of pods; however, I think the two-team pivot is more likely to be implemented. Using pods to build divisions means that every two years you tear the divisions apart and create new ones. In contrast, the two-team pivot preserves the basic conference structure from year to year.”
I hate to break it to you, but you are using pods. In this case, you used 2 pods of 3 (the anchors) and 4 pods of 2.
LikeLike
Call them pods if you wish, but the fact that every team stays in its home division most of the time changes the complexion.
By the way, if you look carefully, you will see that it’s not four pods of two. It’s actually two “pods” of four: PSU, Nebraska, Rugers and Maryland play each other six years out of six. As do Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue and Indiana.
LikeLike
They are pods, you just aren’t using them in the conventional manner. And yes, it’s 4 pods of 2 because you break them up to swap 2 teams each time. Locking games doesn’t change which teams are in which division.
LikeLike
If they were to go to 4 pods of 4 each, why couldn’t they do a conference playoff? The top team from each pod play to determine the conference champion? I’m sure if the SEC, PAC, Big Xii and the B1G go to the NCAA, they could get that granted. That would also add to the 4 team national championship playoff that’s coming.
LikeLike
That would require an NCAA rule change.
LikeLike
So did playing a conference championship game.
LikeLike
No, that was a rule that was already in place but was only being used by some other sports; the SEC figured out that it could be applied to football.
LikeLike
Yes, but it was already in place before the SEC discovered it and used it.
LikeLike
No, Slive discovered the existing rule and was tha first to take advantage. NCAA has not allowed variation (PAC and B1G have both asked about allowing for ability to not play everyone in one half).
LikeLike
Yeah, CCG’s for football weren’t the result of a rule change, they came about because the SEC’s former commissioner stumbled across a loophole one day while reading the NCCA rulebook.
LikeLike
@ccrider55
It was actually one of Slive’s predecessors (Harvey Schiller) that discovered it and Schiller’s successor Roy Kramer that implemented it.
But you are right about the rule.
LikeLike
Roy Kramer started the SEC championship game, not Mike Slive. Slive came to the SEC in 2002 from the Sun Belt.
LikeLike
jamesinsocal,
“If they were to go to 4 pods of 4 each, why couldn’t they do a conference playoff? The top team from each pod play to determine the conference champion? I’m sure if the SEC, PAC, Big Xii and the B1G go to the NCAA, they could get that granted. That would also add to the 4 team national championship playoff that’s coming.”
It’s against NCAA rules right now unless you use the last 2 games for playoffs. Dynamic scheduling is a logistical nightmare, so that won’t happen. So you’d need to get all the little guys to approve rule changes that would only help the power conferences earn even more money and create more separation from the rest. That’s not going to happen.
Besides that, a 4 game playoff in a 16 team league means a ton of rematches. Each game has a 53.3% chance of being a rematch, and that hurts TV ratings. It also makes regular season games less important, hurting everyone.
LikeLike
FWIW, I think dynamic scheduling could work for one week of games.
First, instead of looking at it as a nightmare, consider the quasi-bowl aspect that could arise. After 8 weeks of games, the conference could decide which teams play in game 9. Two of those games would be to determine who goes to the conference championship game. The other 6 would determine… well.. nothing.
The key would be to begin planning for that week in advance. Much like who goes to a conference game can be decided during rivalry week, there would be conditional aspects. For example… if USC beats UCLA, it goes to the Pac-12 conference game. But if UCLA wins, Arizona goes. We are fine with those contingencies now.
To solve some of the logistics, you could have two neutral sites host the games. Say, four in a weekend. The lowest ranked teams play on Friday night. The next lowest on Saturday at noon. The second highest on Saturday at 4pm. The premier game on Saturday at 8pm. Figure Indianapolis and St. Louis. Both are Domes. You think that would not draw some people? Kind of like March madness in December.
Picture four or five major conferences doing the same thing. That would be a pretty cool weekend of football.
LikeLike
There is no need to go to neutral sites for this. If all the games are cross-divisional matchups (1v2 2v1 3v3 4v4 5v5 6v6 7v7), then one division could be home one year and visitors the next year. This would enable the home teams to put the game on their schedule (even though they don’t know exactly which team they will be playing).
By the way, I think the 7v7 match would be much more exciting if the loser were sent to the nearest mid-major for a year (and the champion of that mid-major given a year with the big boys).
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“FWIW, I think dynamic scheduling could work for one week of games.”
For fans watching on TV, sure. For the schools and fans going to games, not so much.
“First, instead of looking at it as a nightmare, consider the quasi-bowl aspect that could arise. After 8 weeks of games, the conference could decide which teams play in game 9. Two of those games would be to determine who goes to the conference championship game. The other 6 would determine… well.. nothing.”
Why ignore the problems, though? The 2 semifinals may be like the CCG in terms of having a week to put it together for excited teams, but what about the other games? You can preset which division plays host, but the other side doesn’t know where they are going so they can’t sell tickets in advance. If you have two cellar dwellers playing and you can’t sell the tickets until the last week, how well will those sell?
“Picture four or five major conferences doing the same thing. That would be a pretty cool weekend of football.”
No, it wouldn’t. Nobody is going to travel to see a #7 vs #7 game.
LikeLike
Does the ACC implode and suffer massive defections (FSU, Clemson, VT, etc.) or will it survive past next summer?
LikeLike
I’d say it’s 50/50.
LikeLike
You know what I find ironic? The Big XII keeps talking about how much they hated the CCG and how getting rid of it is going to make it easier for them to reach the NCG, yet for the second year in a row the failure to play one likely cost them a chance at the national title.
A 12-1 Okie St. would have beat out an 11-1 Alabama team for the #2 ranking last year (frankly the 11-1 should have but that’s another story), and if the Big XII had a CCG this season K-State would have non-zero chance of earning their way back into the national championship game.
LikeLike
No way KSU passes UGA/Alabama winner. #1 they aren’t a king or prince. #2 they aren’t from a conference that has won 6 mythical titles in a row. #3 they lost by 28 to an unranked team. #4 they lost later than Alabama or UGA. #5 They weren’t ranked as high in the preseason poll and pollsters want to reinforce their previous opinion. Computer polls wouldn’t be nearly enough.
LikeLike
It would be unlikely, but if UGA and ‘Bama was an ugly game that no one played well and K-State were to slaughter Oklahoma in Dallas they could make a move.
It wouldn’t be likely, but its plausible and that alone would make playing the game worth it.
LikeLike
I would say that the SEC schools would need a meteor to take them out before ant other conference would get the nod to jump them….(Joking)
LikeLike
Or ineligible players. But the NCAA moves slow. They delayed the Cam Newton thing long enough that the game was played before they managed to avoid finding any violations. Of course, now, they are finding recruiting violations at Auburn.
LikeLike
Bullet:
NCAA moved very quickly to reinstate Cam after the school (or conference?) ruled him out.
LikeLike
To all the attorney types or otherwise informed, a few questions:
1) Is UMCP’s exit fee argument that as an act of active protest of the imposed burden of a $50M exit fee, they immediately sought to exit? The premise there would be that a conference can’t dictate such a thing without the affected party having the option to withdraw from the conference?
2) Or will Loh et al argue against the validity of the exit fee at all? I heard him say at the introduction conference that as a lawyer, he was aware of the invalidity of the exit fee proposition.
3) Under either circumstance, is he posturing for a settlement?
It certainly seems that if someone went about getting the notion of an exit fee invalidated, that would send shock waves across the landscape, although it seems to me illogical that such wouldn’t be valid if the entities proactively agreed to it.
LikeLike
In reverse order (because why not)
The answer to 3 is yes. No one has been willing to go to court to enforce an exit penalty and this won’t either.
The going rate on exit fees is about 50%, and that is what MD will ultimately pay
2. I’m slightly confused by the wording of your question to be honest. If you are asking if MD will argue that exit fees in general are invalid, they could but they know they would lose. Exit fees are designed to compensate the remaining members for costs they incur because of a departure.
1. In the off chance this would go to court I would expect UMD would simply argue everything they could to get out of them. i.e. They voted against them because they believed fees that high were unreasonable and thus shouldn’t be bound by them, that having the higher fees go into effect immediately is unreasonable, they left as soon as the new fees were imposed and much more. But like I said, this will be settled well before it ever reaches a courtroom.
LikeLike
Thanks. Loh made a very confident, if not smug, assertion that as a lawyer of 30 years he was sure that exit fees in general were illegal. I assumed he was posturing but was interested in the legal basis for his claim.
LikeLike
I think his comment was that “punitive” exit fees were illegal. Exit fees are supposed to be compensation for losses, not penalties. People define the fees because it is so hard to identify what the loss is (and juries can be all over the lot). So he was saying the $50 million was not enforceable, not that any exit fee was unenforceable. And they would make both arguments. From a common sense standpoint, not as a lawyer, they should win hands down on #1 and probably on #2 as well (from the punitive standpoint). You simply can’t force new terms on a contract with someone without them having a chance to reject the entire contract.
And that is why the $50 million fee was risky. Anyone who was thinking about moving would be forced to act quickly.
LikeLike
With respect to your response to #2, if damages are the basis of the claims, yet they were minimized by say, announcing a new member within 10 days, wouldn’t that strengthen MD’s case?
LikeLike
Maybe, but the Big XII already had TCU lined up as a replacement for A&M shortly after they provided notice of their intent to withdraw and they still ended up paying about half what they owed.
Plus, if the ACC was willing to bash a future member they could argue that UConn and Louisville are both downgrades from Maryland even if they were easy to add.
LikeLike
@frug and @bullet, what I’m getting at and what really interests me here is whether anyone (i.e. Loh in the face of public backlash because the school was broke and cutting other sports teams) would find it of value to actually take this to court instead of spending $25M the school could otherwise use. On the other hand, the Under Armour guy has over $60M liquid!
LikeLike
Both sides have reason to settle. Maryland would certainly take it to court if the ACC insisted on $50 million. But it would be expensive. And the ACC would spend a lot of legal fees with no guarantee they do any better than a settlement. On top of that, it could disembowel their exit fee if they lost.
Maryland’s position is probably take $20 million or we even challenge that. ACC says $50 million and you can go free and clear. Both sides will decide to settle when discovery begins. That’s when the cost starts running up and you have to disclose things you might not wish to disclose. That’s when WVU and the BE settled, according to the WVU people for WVU’s 1st offer (which was still pretty high).
LikeLike
Unless a “cornerstone” king tries to leave a conference, we’re not going to see one of these things litigated fully.
There’s too much at stake for all sides, the school involved, the conference being abandoned, and the destination conference…
LikeLike
John Feinstein was on a local station in Columbus last week and he thought if the ACC lets Maryland leave without paying the full $50 million, it opens the door for others to leave as well.
LikeLike
The Big XII said the same thing and look at how that played out…
LikeLike
No B1G Jeff.
No one (not the Big Ten, not the ACC, not Maryland) wants this litigated in court.
For the same reason the Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac-12 don’t want grants of rights challenged.
Nobody actually wants a court determination that all of this is smoke and mirrors; that all of these ways of “keeping” schools actually does nothing legally binding to keep schools.
Thus, we will get a settlement. It’s in everyone’s interest to not actually find out whether any of this is fully legally enforceable or not (whether it’s a $50M finding for the ACC or a $0 finding for Maryland). Nobody really wants the answer to that question.
LikeLike
I thought that as well, which is why I was surprised to even hear Loh bring it up and plant that seed. It’s not incomprehensible that at some point a broke school with a chance to make $40M a year by 2017 isn’t going to want to pay a $50M exit fee and might challenge it. With antitrust considerations somewhere out there, I doubt that the conferences would be too obvious about colluding on making sure incoming schools pay off some portion of their exit fees/GOR instead of going to court. I wonder if B1G might have discussed any of this as part of negotiations.
LikeLike
prediction: Maryland pays $20 to $25M
LikeLike
Loh should be saying all of that stuff. It’s all posturing. His job is to bring that settlement as low as he can, and no doubt the ACC will make him sign non-disclosure waivers or try to seal or something (although I don’t know if that’s legally possible).
Loh has to plant that kind of seed just to make the ACC take him seriously and give him a settlement that he would take. Just like the ACC has to say that they believe it’s fully binding on Maryland to pay $50 million.
LikeLike
Its not. WVU documents all came out FOI request.
LikeLike
@Greg, I’d be shocked if they paid more than $20M. The problem is the ACC won’t view that as a ‘lesson learned’ to the UVAs and FSUs of the world.
The problem for the ACC is what’s the over under for an effective deterrent for the rest of the conference while still getting UMD to agree to it? It’s hard to see a number that represents a win/win. UMD’s gonna win this one. The ACC is toast, the Big Toast, or the new Big East or something like that.
LikeLike
My initial thought was $17.5M, which is halfway between the old and new 50% figures.
LikeLike
@B1G Jeff
The problem is that there is no amount that will serve as a deterrent. If the past couple of years have taught us anything its that no one ever stays in a conference because of an exit fee.
Remember, after Nebraska and Colorado the Big XII instituted “historic” penalties that they said would hold the remaining members together, only to watch A&M and Mizzou leave less than a year later.
The fact is, the amount of money is college sports is so high that even if Maryland had to pay the whole $50 million, they would still leave, and that would be true for FSU or anyone else (if they wanted to go).
LikeLike
I would defer to the legal minds around here about the possibility of this happening, but IF exit fees were invalidated it would likely have little effect on the “big” 4 conferences since the BIG, Pac and Big12 have GOR and SEC has no exit fee.
LikeLike
More smoke about UNC & UVA to the B1G. No clue on the validity.
http://247sports.com/Board/59457/Realignment-scoop-14340415
LikeLike
It’s interesting that it’s something official from 247, even if it’s just their rumor bot.
LikeLike
Informed sources tell us that North Carolina and Virginia could be headed to the Big Ten and that NC State and Virginia Tech could leave for the SEC…
These are the worst kinds of reports. They could moving, which also means they could not be moving. So either they will change conferences or they won’t. Real helpful.
LikeLike
If ‘informed sources’ did speak, it likely was a trial ballon to prepare the masses or gauge response.
LikeLike
Assume they did hear from informed sources. It could be that UNC and UVA contacted the Big 10 for information and VT and NCSU contacted the SEC for information but that doesn’t mean either intends to leave.
LikeLike
I think it is definitely true that they will either move or not move. And we will know in the next 7 months!
LikeLike
Its my understanding, that Texas and Florida could join the Big 10, Notre Dame might join the SEC, the ACC wouldn’t rule out adding UCLA, and the Big XII may invite Rice.
LikeLike
Well the Pac 12 has trouble figuring out to to expand with. So its possible they meet Loki when he goes to Hawaii with the Rice Owls and discuss it with him. Maybe they have an airport meeting in Denver as he flies out.
LikeLike
247 gets the vast majority of its rumors from the various team sites they host. Presumably one of the reporters from the ACC team sites has heard this. Of course, that in no way suggests that the reporter is hearing it from a good source or whether it is conjecture passed off as fact.
LikeLike
BCS news under the radar. Kent St. in the Orange bowl?????
Some people looking at things were speculating they had a serious chance, as well as Boise and NIU. I dismissed it. Even though #15-#21 ahead of them lost, the fact that all of them lost meant that not all would fall a long ways.
Boise is still only #20 and NIU #21, so they’ve got no shot. For either to get to #16, Oregon St. would have to lose to Nicholls St. as well as UCLA and Texas losing badly next week. Even then its no guarantee they move up enough. Michigan is ahead of them and is done for the season. And Kent would have to lose to NIU in the MAC championship (and for Boise that means they would have to stay ahead of NIU too as well as staying ahead of Okie St. who has another game).
But Kent is #17 and #16 UCLA could lose to Stanford again.
Oklahoma would be the team shut out if Kent makes it. The rule is #14 (no chance) or #16 and ahead of a conference champ. The Kent/NIU winner will almost certainly be ahead of the BE champ who isn’t in the top 25. With upsets, they would be ahead of the Big 10 and ACC champs.
I bet the Big 5 can’t wait to dump the BCS system if a team that loses 47-14 to Kentucky can make a BCS game by beating 1 overrated Big East team.
But I think NIU wins easily. They’ve got 5 common opponents and NIU won bigger with 4. Buffalo 42 vs 16, Ball 12 vs 2, EMU 42 vs 27, Akron 30 vs 11 while Army was 1 vs 14. And NIU’s one loss was 1 point to Iowa.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s the biggest news of this whole BCS; I was surprised to see Kent State knocking on the door right there.
LikeLike
You know, if NIU wins big its not out of the question they could move to 16. It would require Boise, Texas and UCLA all to lose, and it would help if Wiscy beat Nebraska, but it could happen. Admittedly this wishful thinking (I live pretty close to NIU) but hey, there’s a chance.
LikeLike
The gap between #16 UCLA and #17 Kent State is huge (0.3304 to 0.2512). I don’t see them closing the gap even with a UCLA loss to Stanford.
LikeLike
Where is Stanford, anyway? Are they higher than UCLA? If so, I would expect them to win at home and so wouldn’t drop UCLA in the polls much if at all.
LikeLike
#8
LikeLike
“A prominent official from an ACC school told me Louisville and UConn both have something to offer but stressed academics will matter to presidents. This favors UConn, widely considered a top-75 national university.”
From that Fowler report.
LikeLike
I think that the Big 12, pretending to be happy at 10, is carefully watching the moves taking place to see which 2-4 schools it can get. I believe it wants the SEC and Big Ten to pounds on the ACC because a further weakening of the ACC makes it easier for them to get ACC schools themselves.
For example, if the Big Ten were to get UVA/VT and the SEC got NCSU and UNC (for argument’s sake; which conference gets which particular schools is immaterial for the Big 12), the Big 12 could have its pick among Georgia Tech, Clemson, FSU, and Miami. Duke, Wake, Pitt, ‘Cuse, UConn, BC, Louisville, and those not picked up by the B12 would make up the bulk of the remaining ACC.
If the Big 12 added Louisville and BYU now, it would have less room for other more attractive current ACC members.
One thing’s for sure: the ACC is EXTREMELY vulnerable. The Bug Ten and SEC are both going to be highly motivated to add new markets and content for their TV networks, and now that the ACC is proving itself relatively easy to pick apart, we know where they’re going to go.
LikeLike
Do you have a sense from the locals (or the schools) where they may prefer to go in the VA/NC area?
LikeLike
Most want the ACC to stay together. Some want NC State in the SEC, but the prevailing opinion is that the ACC would be very, very tough to leave. Nobody likes what is happening.
LikeLike
Thanks.
LikeLike
I’m no authority on the schools’ opinions.
Some things to keep in mind:
UNC chancellor Holden Thorp is resigning, effective at the end of the school year. It’s in response to the litany if football, basketball, and Afro American Studies Dept. scandals. His influence on realignment matters should be limited. UNC also has a new AD who started in July, I believe.
NC State’s chancellor wants NCSU to be AAU. Of course, every research university not in the AAU wants in, so take it for what it’s worth. I believe the NCSU chancellor was previously Purdue’s provost.
I’m no authority on the desires for SEC vs. Big Ten, other than hearing a handful (not majority) of NCSU fans vocalize interest in the SEC. I’ve heard nothing about the Big Ten. Vast majority want the ACC to stay together, and, by the way, for the league to stop sucking in football.
LikeLike
Agreed Michael, that’s the thing; the Big 12 isn’t after the markets in Virginia and North Carolina; they just want the national schools like Clemson and FSU and maybe a travelling partner or two like Georgia Tech…
They can be content to let the Big Ten and SEC fight over the Mid-Atlantic markets, and then go in and pick up the pieces.
LikeLike
And the pieces would likely include the best market and the best football program in the league, FSU. Irony.
LikeLike
Frank’s most likely right about all of this. Regardless of Maryland leaving, it does feel like Maryland is sort of like Nebraska bolting, with North Carolina playing the role of Texas.
It’s still hard to see why North Carolina would feel the need to up and bolt away from all of the schools in Tobacco Road.
LikeLike
North Carolina won’t. But if the conference leaves it, they go.
Some combination of FSU/VT/UVA/Clemson would force their hand. So the question is how many of those go? None? One? Two? Two is probably enough to break everything up.
LikeLike
But then it all depends on UNC holding UVa to it, sorta like Texas holding OU to it.
The ball’s in UVa’s court more than anyone else.
But UVa won’t feel like leaving unless someone else leaves first.
This whole thing is like a cat chasing its tail.
LikeLike
@bullet,
That’s very well stated UNC will go when it’s clear the ACC’s days as a power broker conference are over. The writing isn’t on the wall yet, but if and when it is, schools are bolting.
Wake Forest, fellow Baptist university knows how you feel…
LikeLike
I think UVA leaving has more of an impact on the others. Duke and UNC would probably say “good riddance” to Florida State leaving. But if that leads to the Big Ten calling Virginia, UNC probably gets on the phone to Delany as well.
LikeLike
I think UVA to the B1G will be a deciding factor for UNC and within 2-4 years, the B1G’s eastern block will satisfy ND, which will join with the partner of its choice (Pitt/BC/Miami/Navy).
As you may have surmised, I believe the ‘T’ in BTN will stand for twenty by the time the dust settles, and at least two of the schools will not fit the Big Ten mold. I’m guessing the final two will come from a pool of (GT/Kansas/Duke or Miami). I think UNC will press hard for Duke and ND might press for Miami (for Florida recruiting purposes). I think the B1G would like GT or Kansas (if they could pry its media rights away from the B12), but I don’t think GT is as high a priority as some others here do.
Rank speculation is the catalyst for this entire blog, and I expect most will disagree with me.
-SKOAL!
LikeLike
Not sure I ever said it, but welcome aboard to Rutgers and its fans. Hope your upward trajectory continues. Please deliver NY. Thanks.
LikeLike
I don’t mean to promote what I don’t believe, but certain things have entered my realm of perceived possibility.
-We’ve heard Delany discuss that the B1G/PAC proposed collaboration was both a means to avoid expansion and to capture markets across the entire west coast. I surmised a long time ago that it would functionally create a 24+ team megaconference that would allow the BTN in western markets and the PAC Network to penetrate the midwest/north.
-We know ESPN (complete with the Ocho) is worth $40B and has never sought to stop growing. It seems to me that BTN is a successful network and is only scratching the surface of its potential; as such it should have an insatiable quest for new markets and expansion of all its potential products and revenue streams. We know the NFL commands $9B with a lot less actual teams than the NCAA carries currently or even in a 70 team top tier configuration.
-We know this is a 100 year game. Who believes the universities plan on the NCAA being around in the long term, or at least controlling the purse strings on behalf of the universities? If not, the what’s the vehicle to transition away from this old paradigm?
-The B1G’s eastern expansion captures markets across the mid-Atlantic and provides beachheads for southern and/or northwestern expansion, should such a thing ever become desirable. Its existing relationship with the PAC allows it to reach back west in some revised version of what Scott previously was unable to deliver.
In the same the B1G was functionally willing to engage in a western alliance/consortium, why isn’t it in the realm of possibility that this growth spurt is simply a capture of markets for either a B1G midwest/east or even a national consortium? It is implausible that we could be simply be growing to 16, 18 or 20 as a conference. We lose too much. The scheduling difficulties, the loss of identity and the ability to have teams that ‘aren’t a natural fit’ eventually leave point to something other than a regular conference.
Once upon a time, wasn’t the end game 4×16? It’s true we’re headed to 16 with or without ND, UNC, Texas etc. Yet, most of the regulars around here keep saying that even at 16, we’d add if we could get ND, Texas, NC, etc. That just doesn’t make sense, unless…
I’d love to hear those of you armed with data, political knowledge and/or legal expertise pick this apart or consider this within the realm of plausibility of the TPTB. It does seem to be a unifying concept that could explain many of the inconsistencies underlying our recent actions (and perceived next actions). Or else I’m just overthinking this.
LikeLike
The instant the Big Ten starts making noise about leaving the NCAA and becoming a pseudo-national conference, the SEC starts doing the same thing and calling Big 12 and ACC schools like crazy. The SEC might begrudgingly allow the Big Ten to take southern schools that wouldn’t fit their conference anyway, but if they think the Big Ten is trying to become a pseudo-professional-style league, they are going to do everything in their power to protect their turf. They might even swallow their pride and invite Texas and Oklahoma just to prevent the Big Ten from getting them.
LikeLike
I’m looking at dual considerations here.
On the field, I don’t think the B1G ‘leaves’ the NCAA without ultimately making some deal with the SEC, Texas and ND, lest its product would be illegitimate as a national champion,
My thoughts really are more centered on expansion of the BTN. It not implausible that the BTN at some point could buy or align with the PAC 10 Network and other regional entities or use expansion to have enough content to create BTN2, etc. in the same way ESPN has grown. I’m really just focusing on what the end game is that justifies this additional growth, because a 17-20 team conference does just seem ludicrous on the face of it. You don’t add the entire northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Georgia, etc. and then don’t have enough space on your channel for all that product. Over the next 100 years, baseball, basketball and other Olympic sports may find itself infinitely more valuable (see soccer’s past history and where it’s going with an increasing Latin population), and we’d be well positioned to drive that growth just based on volume of schools.
The amount of money generated from a few bucks/month/cable household with advertising attached could eventually dwarf the NFL’s contract. I’m sure that aside from the competitiveness standpoint, everyone would be on board if a 20 x 4 which functioned as a 10 x 8 (with the return of some regional historic alliances) with the end result that everyone involved is printing money because the BTN. If for no other reason, large state universities will increasingly have to find new revenue streams as state budgets and ability to support sports declines. Some variation of this theme could be that path.
LikeLike
We definitely may need a BTN2 sooner rather than later, although I’d guess they would just put all that extra content online or something…
LikeLike
BTN probably already has enough content for BTN2.
LikeLike
So, “pseudo-professional-style” is more apt than I thought.
If that happens, though, you better believe there will be MASSIVE pressure to start paying players.
LikeLike
You seem to be hinting at Larry Scott’s ultimate vision is a world in which as the at most top 72 teams college sports unify (at least for media/contract purposes) and then break away from the NCAA (or at least split it again), which he believes put them on equal footing with the NFL for the title of most powerful entity in North American sports.
Personally, I think that this is likely the end result. The single defining trend of the last 35 years in college sports has been consolidation of power by the major conferences, which started with cutting D-I in half. Since then through accident or design, virtually every significant event/decision has served to increase the power of the top conferences at the expense of the NCAA, smaller conferences, TV networks, independents and even the conferences’ own member institutions. (This is why I have been so firm in my believe that ND will be in a football conference within a decade).
The difficulty is figuring out how to make it work. The economic and historical differences between the conferences is such that an alliance is more likely than a single 64 team league. The Big 10-PAC alliance would likely have been the first step, and while it collapses I suspect we may see some model of it in the future.
I know this is less an answer than stream of consciousness, but I feel like it address the general theme you were getting at.
LikeLike
One more thing to consider for you and Jeff; I agree with both of your posts.
The Maryland and Rutgers adds were a paradigm shift for the Big Ten as Delany mentioned. The Big Ten is now in an asset acquiring phase.
If that means breaking barriers to acquire assets (going past 16), I think they will consider it for the right schools.
LikeLike
I was looking at some research statistics for 2010, which I think is the newest year available, and I found some interesting (to me anyway) things. I’ll post the overall rank, followed by the B1G rank and the yearly research budgets. I’ve removed schools like Stanford, Cal, Washington, Johns Hopkins and MIT, which aren’t candidates, and focused more specifically on schools germane to the discussion. And I’ve combined the numbers from Rutgers’ main university and the medical school, which has been listed separately, but have now merged. I’ve lowered everyone’s rank beneath Rutgers by 1 spot to compensate.
#2, #1 Michigan $1.192 billion
#3, #2 Wisconsin $1.029 billion
#5 Duke $983,289,000
#11 Pitt $822,491,000
#12, #3 Minnesota $808,144,000
#14, #4 Penn State $778,549,000
#14 UNC $755,284,000
#16, #5 Ohio State $755,194,000
#18 Colorado $747,998,000
#21 #6 Rutgers $689,986,000
#23 Florida $681,548,000
#27 Georgia Tech $615,833,000
#28, #7 Northwestern $603,732,000
#31 Texas $589,502,000
#34, #8 Purdue $572,866,000
#36, #9 Illinois $515,133,000
#38,#10 Indiana $475,192,000
#41,#11 Maryland $451,415,000
#43,#12 Iowa $444,034,000
#45,#13 Michigan State $431,373,000
#51 Virginia Tech $398,169,000
#65,#14 Nebraska $340,093,000
#75 Miami $280,671,000
#76 Virginia $276,789,000
#83 Missouri $238,500,000
#85 Florida State $237,684,000
A few take away points: First, when you look at this list, you can’t help but notice the common research theme in the Big Ten schools. It seems quite likely that the next additions will fit in similarly.
Clearly, from a research perspective, both Rutgers and Maryland were solid additions, particularly Rutgers. Their addition brings the total research number being conducted under the B1G umbrella to $9.1 Billion. And that number is nearly two years old now.
I look at the list, and I can’t help feel for Pitt. Were it not for geography, they’d be an amazing research fit. To a lesser degree, the same is true for Colorado. I’m guessing it was a gentelman’s agreement with the Pac-12 (which had fewer expansion options) for the B1G not to pursue them.
Next, I can’t help but notice how Duke has really catapulted towards the top in just a few years. I can’t speak to their market pull, but they’d have to a favorite for the academic side of the B1G.
As for the most pracitical future additions, from a research perspective, UNC would clearly be a great research fit. Georgia Tech would be solid, too.
Florida and Texas would be great additions in every regard, (particularly market and recruiting grounds), but I realize their not practical targets.
Interestingly, Viriginia Tech does better numbers than Virginia, though the former would only be ahead of Nebraska, and the latter is actually noticeably lower than Nebraska.
FSU would be quite a ways down, and seems a stretch.
LikeLike
Santos,
“Interestingly, Virginia Tech does better numbers than Virginia, though the former would only be ahead of Nebraska, and the latter is actually noticeably lower than Nebraska.”
This is one of the reasons why I think the B10 would consider VT. They aren’t AAU (yet), but they’re a rising school with a clear research focus. ARWU ranks UVA 54-67 (same as IA) and VT 68-85 (same as NE). USNWR puts UVA at 24 and VT at 72 (above IN and NE).
LikeLike
This definitely changes my view of both Pitt and VT. I’m assuming this data doesn’t include the research largess of Rutgers’ acquisition of its states’ medical and dental schools.
LikeLike
The question is how much of VT’s is Ag research, which matters, but not nearly as much to TPTB.
LikeLike
I would bet a lot given that Brian’s posted the AAU presentation numbers from Nebraska’s presentation and they had Virginia Tech at around 91 with Nebraska in the early 100s.
It would seem like that’s a dock of around $200-250 million from each school (although I’m not sure that’s the right amount to remove).
LikeLike
zeek,
The NE numbers are from 2005-7, so things will have changed some. But here’s VT’s rankings across the board:
Overall #91
Phase I Indicators (raw/normalized)
Federal Expenditures – 73/95
National Academy members – 56/61
Awards – unlisted (so are schools as high as #43 overall)
Citations – 94/104
Average of Phase I normalized indicators – 87
Phase II Indicators (raw/normalized)
USDA – 7/8
Doctorates – 41/60
Post Docs – 77/95
So yes, they do a lot of USDA research.
LikeLike
It does, he pointed out in his notes at the beginning that he added Rutgers UDMNJ numbers.
LikeLike
Well, Colorado wanted to be with the Cali schools, as they get and send a lot of people there. If they had wanted to be in a Midwestern league, they would have stayed in the B12.
LikeLike
The other thing that people are missing is that it really seemed as if the Big Ten didn’t want to go too far to the West.
There were some good schools out there like Missouri or Colorado, but the Big Ten just took Nebraska and then started looking east.
The goal was always to get an angle on future population growth/demographics and the only way to do that in the West was Texas.
Once the Texas angle was off the table, the Big Ten had to save spots for schools in the East.
LikeLike
I really think Frank’s old approach with academics is still the correct one. A school either qualifies or it doesn’t. There’s not really an in between and there’s not a lot of extra push for being great rather than acceptable.
LikeLike
The question is whether the minimum standard is the 13 AAU members or Nebraska.
I’d assume it’s the 13 AAU members now, although I really think that an exception can be made for Virginia Tech like it was for Notre Dame.
But I doubt the Big Ten COP/C are going to allow exceptions; they already went there once.
LikeLike
I think it really matters to UM, Wisconsin, and Northwestern…..schools like Rutgers and Md really look good to us, but I think they’d like to see the likes of UNC, VA, or GT. And no more Nebraskas (ie…no KU).
LikeLike
Ole Illinois is further down the list than I anticipated.
LikeLike
It’s because the system’s medical school is part of UIC.
LikeLike
Which is very weird. There a two main campuses, one in Chicago and the other in Champaign/Urbana (which I attended). If you start in Chicago, you stay there. If you start in C/U, you either stay there or go to one of the other two campuses in Peoria or Rockford. After all of that, when you graduate (regardless of where you went), it’s identified at UIC. Never figured that one out…
LikeLike
It makes more sense to have the medical school in Chicago because there are more potential patients and people to help.
A lot of states prefer having their medical schools in their largest city.
LikeLike
You misunderstood. U of Illinois has 4 medical schools in the system, all of which conduct research and have clinical activity attached to them.
LikeLike
I get at what you’re saying. My guess is just logistics. The Chicago school is the largest of the medical schools, so they probably just administer everything thing through it.
LikeLike
Texas also doesn’t have a medical school, but the city of Austin just passed a tax to help start one. So they will have one soon. Mostly the medical schools in Texas are independent institutions within the University of Texas system. The ones in Dallas (UT-Southwestern Medical), Houston (UT-Houston Medical) and the UT MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston are way up in the research listings.
Not sure how much the drive to add medical schools (A&M has been trying to get a medical school and just bought a 3rd rate law school in Ft. Worth, UTSA wants to merge with UT-San Antonio Medical school) is to get higher ranked in research and how much is a legitimate effort to create research synergies with the rapidly growing biomedical field.
LikeLike
Why were medical schools ever separate to begin with?
LikeLike
Just the way Texas set it up. They had a vote and Austin won the university and Galveston won the medical school. Not sure of the history, but I believe the Dallas, Houston and San Antonio medical schools were created before UTSA and UT Arlington. I know Dallas was there before UT Dallas and they are in different parts of Dallas.
LikeLike
Typical of Dallas. UT Dallas is in Richardson and barely in Dallas County. The Dallas Cowboys played in Irving but have now moved out of Dallas County to Arlington. Dallas Baptist I believe used to be in Irving, but is now in Plano, in Collin County. The medical school IS in Dallas, but it is called UT Southwestern. Next they will probably move city hall to Irving. There’s a big vacant tract of land where the old Cowboys stadium got imploded.
LikeLike
I meant in general.
LikeLike
This is why I think Miami isn’t out of the question. In academic prifile, they are very similar to UVa: pretty elite undergrad coupled with less research money due to being a smaller school.
Also why I’ve always been lukewarm about Mizzou; without the AAU designation (which is kind of a historical artifice), they would never have been in the discussion.
LikeLike
“profile”
LikeLike
Keep in mind that the AAU does their numbers based on federally funded research and UVA is well ahead of V-Tech in that area ($218.499 million vs $148.411 million)
LikeLike
Santos-
In addition to looking at the raw numbers regarding research budgets, I would suggest looking at what the fields these schools research and the origins of those research dollars as well.
For instance, North Carolina came in ninth among public and private universities for federal dollars in 2010 at $546M or 71% of the total budget. See http://uncnews.unc.edu/content/view/5508/74/
As you peel the onion, you see that most of UNC’s federal dollars (70%) came from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — see http://research.unc.edu/about/facts-rankings/research-funding/index.htm and that much of their research efforts centered around its five health sciences schools.
Georgia Tech, OTOH, has a smaller research budget than UNC, but it’s funding is from different federal sources (76% Department of Defense) and is centered more on science and technology whereas UNC is more medical and biotechnology. See http://www.gtri.gatech.edu/files/media/GTRI_2011_AnnualReport_FNL_reordered.pdf
When the B1G COP/C is looking at candidate schools to become the 16th and 17th universities to join the conference from an academic standpoint (this includes the University of Chicago), we may have to ask ourselves if they’re looking for complimentary programs that will enhance existing research capabilities or are looking at ones that expand into areas that the conference feels it nees to have more assets available. They may also look at where the funding is coming from, the types of contracts these schools have, what their contacts are in private industry, etc.
LikeLike
I looked at these results, and I had to scratch my head! I know that Rutgers formally affiliated with its School of Medicine at or near the time of the move, and so you’ve added the University’s funding to that of its medical school entity. In fact, a fair number of Universities which are “land grant” have two campuses: one undergrad/grad and one professional. They were historically treated as one entity.
The University of Maryland began as the Baltimore College of Medicine in 1807 and formally merged with the Maryland School of Agricultural (1856) to form one University (which is why the logo has several dates, the earliest being 1807 and the second, the time of the merger into one entity, 1920). In fact, when I graduated in the 1960’s, the members of the professional schools were present to receive their degrees at the same commencement as we were one University.
Because the State of Maryland wished to improve its collegiate system, the then Governor created the University System of Maryland (1980s) to create a more unified system of administration (believing that the historical role of the UMCP and Baltimore campuses would continue on as THE University of Maryland). Instead, the legislature decided to make all campuses separate but equal). So, the tradition of about 60 odd years was put to an end. Recently, there was a move to once again join the two campuses as one, single entity, but the result ended instead as a “special partnership” not unlike the Consortium arrangement within the Big Ten. One argument advanced was that those Universities with an undergraduate and professional campus was more recently no longer the norm (although it had existed at Maryland for about 100 years) and that institutions that had attempted recently that “trick” simply were trying to pump up their total grant support.
If one adds the grant support of College Park, the 13th member of the Big Ten, to its professional campus, the total amount of grant funding would be over $1 billion. See:
Combined funding
Professional School campus
LikeLike
For all the talk about the B1G expanding south to the northeast/mid-Atlantic (something that I’m strongly in support of) and possibly the deep south with Georgia Tech, let’s not forget that in the future the three big football states will be California, Texas, and Florida. If we also agree that there will eventually be 4 major conferences, only the B1G is without a presence in one of those states. I think this is an important issue that the league should be thinking about.
Looking at the numbers Santos posted above, Florida State lags, but is virtually tied with Missouri. As far as we know, Missouri was under consideration for B1G membership three years ago. FSU is close to B1G darling UVA in research (not much else), and relatively near Miami. If FSU was AAU, would it be on Delaney’s radar? You have to think associating with the B1G would hasten FSU’s goal of achieving that status, compared to staying in the ACC or moving to the Big 12. Penn State was lacking in the various research metrics before joining the Big Ten, but shot up the rankings afterward. Granted, I don’t think PSU was as low as FSU is now.
If the MO of conference expansion is thinking 20, 30, 50 years down the line, then I don’t think there is a better candidate than FSU. The B1G is secure financially. FSU secures the B1G’s football future, like no other school aside from Texas would. Unlike Texas, it seems that the ‘Noles are desperate to get out of the ACC and would jump immediately if offered.
Fortunately for the B1G, the SEC won’t happen (a mistake in my opinion), and the fit with the Big 12 is odd since I assume FSU would be put in a division with Clemson (solid but doesn’t draw much national attention), West Virginia (same), Iowa State (afterthought), Kansas (afterthought), and Kansas State (afterthought before Snyder, afterthought after him). Texas and Oklahoma is nice, but that’s going to come alongside Baylor (aside from one year an afterthought), TCU (an afterthought followed by a few good years), Oklahoma State (better now with Pickens, but still not a national draw), Texas Tech (improving, but not a national draw). That’s a marginal increase in prestige at best (if any honestly) compared to the current ACC setup, and it doesn’t come with much of a revenue bump, although I suppose a Seminole network ala Texas could work.
On the other hand, a 16 team B1G with Florida State and Georgia Tech in one pod would give the league a solid foothold in Florida, and offer FSU the national prestige it currently lacks. So, out of curiosity, how could Delaney spin Florida State to the B1G presidents?
LikeLike
“FSU is Nebraska before gaining AAU membership”.
The B10’s wet dream (besides Texas & ND) is UF+UGa, but that’s not going to be considered down south unless the SEC gets hit with multiple death penalties.
Barring that, and unless ND decides to join (extremely unlikely any time soon), I’m definitely in favor of FSU+Miami+GTech+UVa+UNC+Duke to form a Big20.
LikeLike
Tom,
“If FSU was AAU, would it be on Delaney’s radar?”
They’d already be in the B10 if they were AAU. An AAU member that’s a football power in a giant sun belt state full of B10 alumni that also happens to be the #1 recruiting state is the holy grail.
LikeLike
FSU fans I come across like the B1G over ACC any day, but they are torn over the Big 12. They seem to like BIG football better, but they are exceptionally turned off by B1G Baseball – I can’t blame them. FSU is on the cusp of greatness in baseball – 21 CWS but no titles. Also, they like the idea of recruiting Tx in the Big12 because the SEC now has aTm – a parity argument. FSU fans know the money would be better in the B1G.
LikeLike
I wonder if the Big Ten is thinking of quantity over quality. There will be a California conference, a Texas conference, and a Florida conference, and the remaining conference will compete by sticking its nose in as many football-happy but lower-population (or high-population but less football-happy) states as it can. That conference is the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Because trends never change and centers of population and industry are stagnant.
LikeLike
Santos – You might want to recheck some of those numbers. You have IU listed at >$475M when in actuality IU Bloomington spent $177,520,000 in FY 2010. I’m guessing that your number refers to the entire Indiana University system which isn’t germane to this discussion. Only the Bloomington branch campus numbers are relevant.
FWIW I quoted the CMUP report above to show how the various schools ranked under the control metrics used as that can be more useful than just the raw expenditure numbers.
The FY11 expenditure numbers are also available on the NSF website.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Question for the B10 fans here:
Given that you are stuck with 14, how many of you would prefer 16 assuming 15 and 16 are two of: UVA/UNC/GT?
LikeLike
Unlike many here, I would like GT. Living in the deep south, it would be a great road trip to Atlanta every several years. Regional pods would be good, too. Don’t know why but I like the concept of pods better than 2 large divisions.
LikeLike
Pods were often cited as a big contributor to the original WAC16 blowing up. Be careful what you wish for.
LikeLike
I hate to say cliches like “things are different now”, but things really are different now.
When you look at professional leagues and the like, that’s really where this is going. As much as we talk of tradition and all of that, the money is going to be the glue that keeps these conferences together, much more than anything else.
If the money isn’t there, then regional differences can lead to break downs (i.e. WAC-16), but if the money is there, I think it will be different.
LikeLike
It’s not so much “pods” as it was the way they were constructed (the middle 8 never were in same division, which caused resentment) as well as the disparity of program quality (the programs who formed MWC were by and large MUCH bigger and better than those left behind) and the lack of TV money or national respect. I don’t expect that any of those issues would apply to a 16-team B1G.
That doesn’t mean it’d necessarily work out, but I think that it’d be a MUCH safer and stabler arrangement than the WAC ever was.
LikeLike
I would prefer to wait for UNC if you’re not willing to take Virginia Tech (or if they aren’t available) to pair with UVa.
I agree with schwarm though that I’d much sooner get to pods of 4 in a 16 team league than wait too long on the 7 team divisions.
I also think that the Big Ten decision makers know this and want to get to 16 as reasonably fast as they can. I don’t think they want to draw this out into a 15 year process to get to 16 teams although it may end up being like that…
LikeLike
Seriously, UNC is such prima donna in the football sense. Put them in the SEC so they can rot in basketball, field hockey, women’s soccer perpetuity. We don’t need a Tx type in the B1G. Their tshirt fans, too many of them, are arrogant trash.
LikeLike
I’d prefer UVA/VT, but UVA/UNC would work too. GT doesn’t do anything for me.
LikeLike
bullet, we’re beyond the turning point now. We’re not really a conference, more of an affiliation. If the next two are out of UVA/UNC/GT, may as well add them tomorrow. OSU and PSU are already on course to visit Kinnick once per decade.
LikeLike
Well, if you move to 16 with only 4 teams locked in annually (3 in division + 1 outside division locked), you’d get to see teams as often as under the 12 team format.
The downside is, you play a lot fewer teams every year of course…
LikeLike
zeek, you can shuffle the scheduling, but the fact is you play everyone less often.
LikeLike
I think that’s why they want to go to 16 from 14; it evens out the extremes of seeing so many teams annually and so many teams on a distant rotation into seeing most teams on a shorter rotation but few teams annually.
LikeLike
Pods are doable with 14. One possible setup: West-UNL,IA,MN,WI; East PSU,MD,RU,NW; North UM,MSU,IL; South OSU,IU,PU. OSU/UM, MSU/PU, IL/IU get matched every year in the 3 team divisions. Everyone gets 3 teams every year and 10 teams every other year with an 8 game schedule. 2 out of 4 years you have Northwest and Southeast. 2 out of 4 you have Northeast and Southwest. 2 cross division games each year.
Now I haven’t figured out anything that makes sense in the SEC. The best I can do on an 8 game schedule would be West LSU, UM, A&M, AR; Central UK, VU, Ole Miss, MSU (weak division and splits TN from UK and VU); East UGA, UF, USCe; South AL, AU, TN with UGA/AU, AL/UF, TN/USCe the every year matchups. With the SEC the problem is that AL/AU, AL/TN, AU/UGA, UGA/UF are essential and USCe/UGA is very important and its hard to make all of that happen with an 8 game schedule.
LikeLike
I still prefer 14 if done right (a set-up with no locked crossovers).
LikeLike
bullet,
“Question for the B10 fans here:
Given that you are stuck with 14, how many of you would prefer 16 assuming 15 and 16 are two of: UVA/UNC/GT?”
I would only prefer 16 if that was the only way to get a 9th game and use pods for scheduling. I don’t want set 8 team divisions, and I don’t want 8 games.
LikeLike
@Frank – if the apocalyptic scenarios for the ACC play out, the National Basketball Conference could get a huge boost in the form of your most hated college sports team, the Duke Blue Devils.
LikeLike
Assuming that traditional rivalries are completely overwhelmed by the need for television revenue and the B1G (combo of UVA & UNC/VT) and SEC (combo of NCSU & UNC/VT) get their markets…then how can the ACC recreate itself to maintain its seat with the Power 5?
One solution for the remaining ACC schools is to leverage Notre Dame’s need for reliable football scheduling while maintaining its perception of independence:
1) Invite Navy (access to the Wash/Balt market and a friend to ND)
2) Invite Connecticut (greater access to the NY market and a solid athletic program)
3) Schedule games via 3 team pods (locked-in rival)
Bowden Division: FSU (MIA) / Clemson (GT) / WFU (Navy)
Academic Division: Miami (FSU) / GT (Clemson) / Duke (Syracuse)
Mohican Division: Pitt (ND) / Syracuse (Duke) / CT (BC)
Golden Helmet Division: ND (Pitt) / BC (CT) / Navy (WF)
4) Notre Dame would only play 6 regular season ACC games (Navy, BC & Pitt annually; others rotate 2x per 6 years)
5) ND would then be eligible for the CCG and a shot at the Orange Bowl
To keep FSU from jumping to the B12, Notre Dame could offer an annual game for the balance of he ACC-ESPN contract. Notre Dame still has scheduling flexibility (5 free games in 4 out of 6 years; and 6 free games in 2 out of 6 years) to play their PAC / B1G / B12 / BYU rivals.
Given that the entire ACC is at risk, ESPN would probably be accomodating. With the exception of VT, losing the old guard ACC teams (MD, UVA, UNC & NCSU) is not a huge financial hit. The ACC contract is still a plus to ESPN…and worthy of not allowing the contract to dissolve. ESPN could probably even throw-a-bone to FSU and give them back their Tier 3 rights.
Basically the ACC survives in a fashion similar to the B12 in 2011. Notre Dame is playing the role of Texas; FSU is comparable to OK. The schools who can get out, leave (similar to NB, CO, MO and aTm).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/60340/big-12s-depth-will-go-unnoticed-again
From ESPN’s Big 12 blogger:
“Argue the “best” all you want. The deepest is not up for debate. The SEC has six teams in the top 12 of the polls? Congratulations. The rest of the SEC’s record against those six teams: 0-30. Not a single win by the bottom eight teams in the SEC against the top six.”
We’ve spoken a lot on this blog (granted that there’s more Big Ten fans here than anyone else) about how few upsets there are in the SEC, but this is a stark reminder of that fact.
In 30 games, the rest of the conference put up a giant egg against the top teams. That’s why there’s 6 BCS Top 10 teams in the SEC.
It’s like the top teams have become almost immune to upsets; 6 teams with only 1 or 2 losses all of those losses being to the other 5 teams in the top 6…
LikeLike
Very good points. I agree that top to bottom the Big 12 is the best this year.
LikeLike
Somehow a conference of haves and have-nots seems appropriate for the Deep South.
LikeLike
Michigan AD thinks 20 is ridiculous (my interpretation of his MUCH more mild comments), but sounds positive about 16 and tolerant of 18.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20121125/SUB01/311259970/big-ten-expansion-a-money-game#
Good read on, at least, his thinking.
LikeLike
Of course 20 is ridiculous, but so is a 16 team conference. We crossed the ‘ridiculous’ rubicon with the Rutgers add. If they have 18 and ND wants to join with a partner, 20 will suddenly seem tolerable. The B1G/BTN is no longer a conference, it’s a sports empire with aspirations of being ESPN. If that’s the future, then it’s best to be pro-active. I still think one of the Florida teams will go B1G. You can’t merely cede the eyeball-topia of Florida (which is filled with Midwest/East coast natives) because of borderline acceptability. I would prefer FSU, but if it does go to 20 in the next few years I’ll bet at least Miami comes. Only with a Florida school would GT make sense.
LikeLike
My choices (admittedly very unlikely) to round out twenty would be
FSU/MIAMI/UNC/UVA/VT/ND
LikeLike
I’d even be willing to substitute GT for VT if it would get the deal done!
LikeLike
Ahem, remember you’re supposed to be all ornery about expansion as a traditional Michigan fan. We can’t have that kind of excitement around here.
LikeLike
The Ghost of Fielding Yost has finally left the building.
LikeLike
Eh. I don’t think 20 is “much past 16”.
However, scheduling past 20 _does_ become much more difficult. That means that you have to be really certain about schools 19 & 20 as you pretty much aren’t expanding after that (unless the NCAA allows an increase in regular-season games). So I think that the Big10 won’t become the Big20 unless ND decides to join. It may sit at 18 if it gets UNC (along with Duke & UVa; I’d personally prefer VTech as well to lock up the mid-Atlantic but the powers-that-be likely prefer GTech).
LikeLike
Any conference larger than 12 is simply a commercial transaction masquerading as a “tradition.” B20 is the most ridiculous idea I can imagine. If the Big 10 went to B20 it would truly represent the “jump the shark moment” in the history of the conference. Nothing would matter any longer. Who would care about a conference “affiliation” in a B20? It would mean nothing — similar to competing in the BE18 in Basketball. Competing in the B18 meant nothing when university affiliation was assessed because — no one can feel that they are part of a “conference” at 18 — or 20.
LikeLike
I’d go further and say that’s true of any conference larger than 10, or whatever number means that you don’t play all members each year. We’re far past the point where conferences aren’t commercial transactions.
LikeLike
It honestly sounds like they’ve basically got targets on #15 and #16 and that a couple of people in the know (Delany, Big Ten COP/C, maybe a few ADs like Brandon and Smith) have it written down on the back of napkins or something like that.
It definitely sounds like he’s prepared for 16 at the very least.
LikeLike
Reading this my major question is what the hell is Rutgers doing sponsoring 27 sports?
That is just way way too many for have not.
LikeLike
Why was Rutgers sponsoring 27 sports? To make themselves look like a Big Ten program and hope for a Big Ten invite. It worked.
LikeLike
Actually, 27 is very high even by Big Ten standards. Amongst the current Big Ten schools only three, (UM, tOSU and PSU) sponsor more than 25, and the median is 23.5.
The most recent addition (Nebraska) only sponsors 21 and they didn’t have the budget problems Rutgers did.
LikeLike
Actually Nebraska did cut several sports a couple years before they joined the Big 10. Don’t remember what.
LikeLike
In fairness, greg and frug, a lot of those were legacy sports.
Rutgers has been in a lot of those sports for a long time, but only recently did they start to ramp up football spending heavily.
As they ramped up football spending heavily and went into debt over the past 10 years, they had to start adding up fees on the students to try to pay for the football upgrades. That’s why they started to cut sports.
Rutgers probably could have easily continued to support those 27 sports if they hadn’t ramped up spending on football, but it had to be done to try to woo a major conference, and it worked out for them.
LikeLike
bullet,
I didn’t think he even sounded tolerant of 18. I took it as 16 is his limit.
LikeLike
Maybe we should stop talking about Kentucky’s football support.
http://blogs.courier-journal.com/ukbeat/2012/11/26/ugly-numbers-surface-uk-stops-keeping-records/
Through six home games, the average number of tickets scanned was 32,915. That’s an average difference of 17,266 per game from the announced attendance, which includes tickets sold and stadium workers. Hoping to provide you, the reader, with final accurate numbers for the season, I requested the same data for the Samford game. This was the university’s response:
“Pursuant to your Open Records Request the University’s Athletics Department has advised they did not obtain any records of tickets scanned from the Samford game. Therefore, the University has no documents responsive to this portion of your request.”
LikeLike
You lose to Louisville and Western Kentucky, it doesn’t do much for your support the rest of the season. But who knows, they could have a 33 point win over an Orange Bowl team (Kent St.). But then MTSU could have a 21 point win over the ACC champ (GT).
LikeLike
Wow, less than 20,000 in actual attendance for Vanderbilt.
LikeLike
nice work greg. that’s pitiful.
LikeLike
I think 18 happens as Delaney covets UNC. If 15 and 16 are UVA and GT respectively, he can wait on the SEC and B12 plundering the conference forcing UNC without a lifeboat and no choice but to come at 17. I can’t see UNC ever wanting to go to the SEC due to academics. Could that finally force ND’s hand at 18?
LikeLike
I actually think it would be possible that ND would join at that point. It would not be the Big Ten that has been rejected many times over the years by ND…but I still do not see it. So long as they have a place for their olympic sports, and can make a full schedule of division 1A teams…I do not think ND will join any conference for football.
LikeLike
And of course have access to the title game. I have never believed they would actually get shut out of this part, though. More likely the way to “force” ND is to limit their scheduling options, which is still difficult to do.
LikeLike
I was under the impression that part actually wasn’t that hard to do. Didn’t ND quasi-join the ACC in part because getting opponents in the back half of the season was becoming increasingly difficult? If the BigTen and SEC continue to swell at the expense of the ACC, wouldn’t this trend continue?
LikeLike
You are correct. The schedule is getting more difficult. But we also assume that member schools will begin to freeze ND out, or that all conferences will ban out of conference games later in the season as the Big Ten has done.
I do not believe that schools like Texas and Oklahoma will refuse to schedule Notre Dame. I just do not think that the PAC, B12 and ACC will have the support to outright ban out of conference games later in the season when ND comes knocking.
If they did refuse to schedule ND later in the season that would be a game changer. While ND’s schedule is difficult to make, it is not yet impossible. I think impossible is unlikely to come.
LikeLike
Actually, the B10 doesn’t prohibit late-season OOC games any more (just look at Northwestern, Wisconsin, and Illinois’s recent schedules), but the Pac does (except for the 2 traditional games against ND).
LikeLike
@Richard – Yeah, I don’t there has ever been an outright rule in the Big Ten about late-season OOC games. It might be discouraged, but it’s definitely not hard and fast (particularly if it means being able to play Notre Dame like Northwestern will).
LikeLike
Fair enough Richard. But I think you hit it right on the head with the whole PAC ban “except for ND.”
I think more schools and conferences would find similar “except for ND” type situations. I hate it, but it is the way it is.
LikeLike
Even with all the schools that make exceptions keep in mind that ND’s AD said that Notre Dame had to make the ACC move because he literally couldn’t put together an acceptable schedule otherwise.
And it will only be tougher if the Big 10 and SEC move to 9 game conference schedules.
LikeLike
Frug,
I agree that it will get tougher, and that is what Swarbrick said. I just think a lot of people on here underestimate how long and how hard ND will fight to stay independent. A “tougher” time making a schedule is not an impossible one. And until it is literally not possible to make a decent schedule, ND will remain independent (of course there are other factors such as access to a national title etc.).
LikeLike
I definately could see UNC going to the SEC, but only if VA and/or NC State tagged along….obviously, BIG seems like the most logical place, but fans/alums can put a lot of pressure on the admin.
LikeLike
I’ve always said that whoever adds 2 of UNC’s 3 traditional rivals (UVa, NCSU, and Duke) gets the Heels.
LikeLike
I would like to see 8 16 team conferences for battling for 16 playoff spots where the first round would be hosted by the 8 conference winners if all are with in the top 25. then the winners go to play 4 of 5 bowl games. Then the winners go and play in the Rose Bowl or Sugar Bowl and then 1 of those 5 bowl games are rotating to host the national championship game. this way you can keep the bowl system together too and would be fun for the fans of the smaller conferences to host an AQ conference team example Boise St hosting Oregon if they are in the top 25. The FCS should have the same set up. I would demote some of the smaller market bowls to the FCS and create some more large market bowls. then the two of those combine to for basketball plus basketball only conferences. all division one conferences must have 16 teams no more no less.
LikeLike
Did anyone see that news conference football with Jim Mora after UCLA lost to Stanford? Some local columnist basically accused him of tanking the game so that they would get a rematch with Stanford rather than have to play Oregon in the Pac-12 Championship game.
This is another reason I don’t like cross-divisional games in the last week (shouldn’t even be in the last two weeks, in my opinion).
Big Ten needs to determine what is more important: Michigan-OSU in separate divisions, or Michigan-OSU playing the final week of the regular season.
LikeLike
If the B1G can land another football power then they should have Michigan-OSU in the same division. All this over thinking just to stage a CCG is stupid.
LikeLike
The problem is, everyone (or at least all the pre-PSU schools) want to be in a division with either OSU and UM.
LikeLike
Then move “the game” to the end of October.
Put Michigan-Nebraska on the Friday after Thanksgiving followed by OSU-Penn State the next day.
You’ll maximize the meaningfulness of all three of those games in most years by doing that.
Cross-divisional games are much more likely to be meaningless for at least one of the teams in the last week. In October, everyone (sans Illinois) is still playing for something.
If Michigan-Nebraska would have been on the last weekend this year it would have been the defacto championship game for the Legends Division. Same for OSU-Penn State if they hadn’t been on sanctions.
(assuming the other results held)
LikeLike
No, no, no, no, no. I can’t express how much I don’t want The Game to move from the last game of the regular season. Maybe I’ll eventually change that as the CCG gets a foothold, but I doubt it.
LikeLike
I prefer The Game end the season also, but with OSU-Michigan in same division.
Put Penn State and Nebraska in the other one and have them play on the Friday after Thanksgiving.
Would Iowa, Minnesota, etc really complain if they weren’t guaranteed either Michigan and Ohio State in any given year but they always played both Penn State and Nebraska?
LikeLike
I agree. That’s a horrible idea. A better idea would be moving to a Big20 with OSU and Michigan in the same pod.
LikeLike
PSU doesn’t mean anything to the western schools (besides maybe Iowa and Nebraska), but I think UNL can take the place of Michigan or OSU without a problem.
LikeLike
That will always be the final game of the season. That is the one tradition Michigan will never sacrifice.
LikeLike
The day they move the game is the day I start rooting for the Big Ten to fail. I haven’t cared for these other moves and they make less a Big Ten supporter, but I’m still a supporter. Move the game and I know I’ll personally be hoping for the end of the conference as it will have lost everything that makes me care about it.
LikeLike
Arch Stanton,
“Then move “the game” to the end of October.”
No. That’s a kneejerk reaction that would devalue The Game tremendously. Some traditions are important, and the timing of rivalry games is one of them.
“Put Michigan-Nebraska on the Friday after Thanksgiving followed by OSU-Penn State the next day.
You’ll maximize the meaningfulness of all three of those games in most years by doing that.”
No, you won’t. You’ll take most of the meaning out of The Game and have upset fans wishing for a true rivalry game the last weekend. That would just annoy the NE and PSU fans, and they deserve better than that.
“Cross-divisional games are much more likely to be meaningless for at least one of the teams in the last week. In October, everyone (sans Illinois) is still playing for something.”
The Game is never meaningless for either team. Nobody would rest players in it no matter what. A coach could easily get fired for doing that.
“If Michigan-Nebraska would have been on the last weekend this year it would have been the defacto championship game for the Legends Division. Same for OSU-Penn State if they hadn’t been on sanctions.”
Those games had the same weight when they were played, and The Game was still extremely meaningful despite neither team needing to win it for CCG purposes.
LikeLike
-“Put Michigan-Nebraska on the Friday after Thanksgiving followed by OSU-Penn State the next day.”
You shut your damn dirty mouth!
LikeLike
That was true, but I think UNL has turned out to be an acceptable substitute for the western schools. Thus I think that Minny, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, and maybe Illinois would be fine with only playing UNL yearly (though Minny would hate to lose the Little Brown Jug game annually, that hasn’t been an annual game anyway, being a distant 3rd on Michigan’s list while the Gophers have 2 other real trophy games).
LikeLike
Nebraska
Penn State
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Maryland
Northwestern
Michigan
Ohio State
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Rutgers
Illinois
How about these divisions with the protected crossovers in order? I think Wisconsin would be thrilled to play Nebraska, PSU, Iowa, Minnesota and Northwestern every year plus get a budding rivalry with MSU as their crossover.
Minnesota losing Michigan every year, but they’ll live.
Penn State gains Maryland and still plays Ohio State every year. They aren’t as close to as many as their other division mates as currently, but PSU to Indiana or Illinois isn’t exactly an easy road trip to begin with.
Looks good from a competitive standpoint too.
Just don’t call it Legends and Leaders.
LikeLike
I’d protect the Little Brown Jug game if possible (it’s not as if PSU in the next few years will be magnitudes tougher than Minny), so
PSU-OSU
Maryland-Rutgers (or Rutgers-Maryland; OH is considerably closer to DC than NYC)
Minnesota-Michigan
Nebraska-MSU
Wisconsin-Purdue
Iowa-Indiana
Northwestern-Illinois (or Illinois-Northwestern if MSU complains enough)
LikeLike
Arch Stanton,
“Nebraska
Penn State
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Maryland
Northwestern
Michigan
Ohio State
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Rutgers
Illinois
How about these divisions with the protected crossovers in order?”
They suck. OSU and MI should be separate, first of all. But beyond that, MD and RU will both be with PSU. So trade RU for NW, which appeases MSU while keeping a state rivalry in division. Then you have the classic ends versus the middle setup and the western and eastern teams complain about travel.
Ends – NE, WI, IA, MN, PSU, RU, MD
Middle – MI, MSU, IL, IN, OSU, NW, PU
LikeLike
My personal preference would be the KISS model of just east/west divisions with Indiana-Purdue as the only protected crossover. That’s really the only way to preserve all of the conference’s rivalries while allowing each school to play everyone in the other division on a regular basis (particularly if the Big Ten adopts a 9-game conference schedule).
Now, I know that’s unlikely because it definitely is important for each school to play one of either Michigan or Ohio State every year. So, I’d guess that the divisions will end up with what was first rumored: Rutgers and Maryland get put into the Leaders division while Illinois moves to the Legends. If there’s one guarantee in all of this, it’s that all of Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland will be in the same division. That’s the entire premise of this East Coast expansion – those 3 schools need to be playing each other every year.
LikeLike
Frank – how about a Southeast/Northwest set up?
SE – Rutgers, Maryland, Penn St, Ohio St, Indiana, Purdue & Illinois
NW – Michigan, Mich St, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa & Nebraska.
I guess Illinois could go in the Northwest division, and Northwestern could go in the Southeast division.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“My personal preference would be the KISS model of just east/west divisions with Indiana-Purdue as the only protected crossover. That’s really the only way to preserve all of the conference’s rivalries while allowing each school to play everyone in the other division on a regular basis (particularly if the Big Ten adopts a 9-game conference schedule).”
East – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, MD, RU, IN/PU
West – NE, WI, IA, NW, PU/IN, IL, MN
That’s your plan? Is IN or PU in the east? It doesn’t really matter because the lack of balance is glaring. NE and OSU balance each other out, but MI, PSU and MSU >> WI, IA and NW in terms of brand and long term success. On top of that, several long time B10 members would no longer play OSU or MI annually.
KISS puts 3 kings in the east, including the 2 most popular and iconic B10 teams. The east would also have the majority of major metro areas in the footprint, around 2/3 of the population and all the top recruiting grounds. In addition, the B10 loses the chance to have an OSU/MI CCG which is the most valuable possible matchup. How is that good for the B10 or the teams in the west?
How can you be so adamant about people looking at expansion like a president but then look at divisions like a fan?
“Now, I know that’s unlikely because it definitely is important for each school to play one of either Michigan or Ohio State every year. So, I’d guess that the divisions will end up with what was first rumored: Rutgers and Maryland get put into the Leaders division while Illinois moves to the Legends. If there’s one guarantee in all of this, it’s that all of Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland will be in the same division. That’s the entire premise of this East Coast expansion – those 3 schools need to be playing each other every year.”
At least you came back to your senses.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Frank – how about a Southeast/Northwest set up?
SE – Rutgers, Maryland, Penn St, Ohio St, Indiana, Purdue & Illinois
NW – Michigan, Mich St, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa & Nebraska.”
That’s a reasonable setup except for the balance problem of having all the second tier programs (WI, MSU, IA) in the NW.
“I guess Illinois could go in the Northwest division, and Northwestern could go in the Southeast division.”
No, for 3 reasons. First, you screw up the geography. Second, you just can’t put Northwestern in the Southeast Division when there is a Northwest Division. Third, MSU really wants to play NW and OSU/IL and Pu/IL are trophy games.
LikeLike
“On top of that, several long time B10 members would no longer play OSU or MI annually.”
Is it possible to structure it so that all West teams play one of the two each year, with maybe one exception (probably usually Nebraska)? Of course as the conference expands further, that’ll get harder and harder…
“In addition, the B10 loses the chance to have an OSU/MI CCG which is the most valuable possible matchup.”
It’s probably nowhere near as valuable as you might think – does the Big Ten really want a situation like what’s happening in the Pac-12 with two teams playing each other consecutive weeks? Or does it want to be more like the old Big 12, where the Red River Rivalry was all the more meaningful because it often decided who won the Big 12 South? An Ohio State-Michigan title game would devalue the regular rivalry game enough that an alternative matchup might be appealing.
Frank, what do you think of this list of protected cross-division matchups:
Indiana/Purdue
Minnesota/Michigan
Ohio State/Illinois
Nebraska/Penn State
Michigan State/Wisconsin
Rutgers/Northwestern
Maryland/Iowa
And this list of pairs of teams in each division that each team’s schedule is built around, with the odd teams out stealing one of each pair from one of each of the other division’s pairs:
Michigan/Ohio State
Maryland/Rutgers
Michigan State/Penn State
Illinois/Northwestern
Minnesota/Wisconsin
Iowa/Indiana, Purdue, or Nebraska
Obviously this would normally mean that teams could never play their pair’s protected rival, so maybe it makes more sense for the lists to match up, with Wisconsin/Ohio State, Michigan State/Iowa, and Maryland/Illinois. Or perhaps change the pairs so that Minnesota/Illinois and Wisconsin/Northwestern are pairs, then pair Michigan State up with Indiana or Purdue, though that could keep Eastern teams out of the West’s largest market.
So, Ohio State’s schedule could be (in random order):
Indiana or Purdue
Maryland
Rutgers
Penn State
Michigan State
Michigan
Illinois
Northwestern
Iowa
While Michigan’s could be:
Indiana
Purdue
Maryland
Rutgers
Penn State
Michigan State
Ohio State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Finally, Illinois’ could be:
Indiana or Purdue
Northwestern
Minnesota
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Ohio State
Maryland
Michigan State
Obviously this looks a lot like the pod system, but what do you think?
LikeLike
“does the Big Ten really want a situation like what’s happening in the Pac-12 with two teams playing each other consecutive weeks?”
I bet that Fox wishes that was happening.
LikeLike
greg:
I doubt it. Especially a scenario where both OSU & Michigan have the conference title berth already wrapped up before the game is played. Then The Game becomes a farce.
LikeLike
Was The Game a farce this year? Michigan wasn’t going to the BTT game and OSU was going home.
OSU and Michigan clinching their divisions before The Game is a very unlikely scenario.
LikeLike
Greg:
No, because neither school had a greater goal to play for besides the Game.
However, introduce a situation where there is a much bigger goal, and it would be determined by a game between the same 2 teams, then the first game becomes a farce.
LikeLike
Maybe a farce to you, who only cares about the Big20. Fans will care.
LikeLike
morganwick,
“s it possible to structure it so that all West teams play one of the two each year, with maybe one exception (probably usually Nebraska)? Of course as the conference expands further, that’ll get harder and harder…”
With 7 team divisions and a 9 game schedule, there would be 6 crossover games for OSU and MI. So yes, they could play 6 of the 7 in a year. But that assumes they never overlap their schedules. They could play all 6 except NE and let NE play PSU every year but they’d presumably complain about schedule difficulty. Also, NE would want to play OSU or MI, too.
With the current 8 games, they could only play 4 of the 7. With 16 teams, it would be 4 of 8 with a 9 game schedule.
“It’s probably nowhere near as valuable as you might think”
Except for the TV experts saying most of the money in a TV deal is for the big games, and OSU/MI is by far the biggest match-up the B10 has. Remember that OSU and MI project as the two most nationally popular teams in the B10 by a fair margin, and they are also more B10 icons than the nearest competitors (PSU and NE).
” – does the Big Ten really want a situation like what’s happening in the Pac-12 with two teams playing each other consecutive weeks?”
I think the B10 HQ would be happy, yes. TV would play up the grudge match aspect in addition to the rivalry and the history of them playing for B10 titles. It’d be different coming off a blow out or when another team seemed like it should have won a division.
“Or does it want to be more like the old Big 12, where the Red River Rivalry was all the more meaningful because it often decided who won the Big 12 South?”
Like in 2008? Any match-up of top programs in a division has that weight to it.
“An Ohio State-Michigan title game would devalue the regular rivalry game enough that an alternative matchup might be appealing.”
No.
“Frank, what do you think of this list of protected cross-division matchups:”
Obviously I’m not Frank but I’ll comment anyway.
“Indiana/Purdue
Minnesota/Michigan
Ohio State/Illinois
Nebraska/Penn State
Michigan State/Wisconsin
Rutgers/Northwestern
Maryland/Iowa”
No. Just no. The wailing and gnashing of teeth from other fan bases as OSU and MI got easy rivalries preserved while the other top teams had to play peers would be unbearable. I assume you mixed up the divisions in terms of which team you wrote first, but it makes it a little unclear what your divisions are (KISS?).
The next part about pairs was unclear to me, but essentially you seem to be working with small pods within divisions.
LikeLike
Greg:
You may care, but that’s not pertinent.
Would the players care? Motivating 20 year-olds to put max effort in to a game that means little (not even bragging rights, as the school who wins the rematch will own the bragging riights) is going to be difficult. That’s why it would be a farce.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Would the players care?”
Yes. You clearly know nothing about football players or what this rivalry means. Players are unbelievably competitive and aren’t going to back away from a challenge. These guys spend all year aiming towards this game and they play through all sorts of pain to be a part of it. A player that didn’t give 100% in The Game would be shunned by his teammates and former players as well as by the fans. The coach wouldn’t play him the next week, either. These guys know that their legacies depend on how they do in The Game.
“Motivating 20 year-olds to put max effort in to a game that means little (not even bragging rights, as the school who wins the rematch will own the bragging riights) is going to be difficult.”
Maybe for an early season cupcake. Not for the best rivalry in all of CFB.
LikeLike
Problem is they already have the answer. Ohio State and Michigan fans, the largest fans in the conference screem that the timing of the game is more important and the backlash was so big, they went with them. Several other schools really want one of the two schools every year and so they seperated them.
The end result is stupid, but it was the easiest thing to do. Hopefully they put them together this time.
LikeLike
Eric wrote: “Several other schools really want one of the two schools every year”
Then put those schools in the same division with OSU-Mich or give them fixed crossovers with OSU or Michigan.
I believe the addition of Maryland and Rutgers makes it possible to construct a division of seven teams that are content not to play OSU-Mich every year.
Let’s start with the new teams: Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. They have no history of regular games with OSU-Mich, so they won’t mind being in the opposite division. *** That’s 3 teams ***
PSU has always wanted more eastern teams in the B1G. They will be thrilled to play Rutgers and Maryland every year, so they shouldn’t mind OSU-Mich being in the other division. *** That’s 4 teams ***
Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin have a long history of playing each other. That history was sacrificed when Wisconsin was moved to the Leaders Division and the Iowa-Wisconsin game was lost. If Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin were put in the same division with their neighbor Nebraska, I think they would be content to be in the opposite division from OSU-Mich. *** That’s 7 teams ***
There it is: a division of 7 teams that will not be complaining about missing games with OSU-Mich. And, even if one or two of those teams did complain, they could be given a fixed crossover with OSU or Michigan.
This is what the divisions will look like (in order of relative strength):
Neb PSU Wis Iowa Minn Rut Mary
OSU Mich NW MSU Purd Ill Ind
Those divisions are very well balanced. They also preserve the traditional rivalries and encourage the development of new rivalries in the east and in the west.
LikeLike
“There it is: a division of 7 teams that will not be complaining about missing games with OSU-Mich. ”
You are 100% wrong about that.
LikeLike
Please be specific. Which of those 7 schools is going to complain?
LikeLike
IA, MN and WI, and PSU if OSU or MI isn’t their locked rival. NE would also expect to play OSU or MI annually.
LikeLike
Minny definitely would want the Little Brown Jug game annually with Michigan.
PSU & OSU definitely want to play each other yearly.
Iowa already gets a king as a year-end rival (as well as 2 other major trophy games against rivals + PSU annually again) so I don’t think they have a cause to complain.
UNL gets PSU, Iowa, & Wisconsin; and has no tradition with either OSU or Michigan, so I think that’s good enough for them.
That leaves Wisconsin. Eh, they get Iowa & Minny yearly and still 2 kings (which is better than they have now).
LikeLike
all of them.
LikeLike
All of them are going to complain? All of them? Really?
I thought we were having a serious discussion. Nebraska will not be complaining. PSU will not be complaining. Both of them will be expecting to meet OSU or Michigan in the CCG. Moreover, Nebraska will get Wisconsin every year which is more important to the Huskers than either OSU or Michigan. And PSU will have two new neighbors to play. So no, Nebraska and PSU will not be complaining.
Then there’s Rutgers and Maryland. As newbies they have no right to complain. They will go where they are told and STFU.
That leaves Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa. I don’t think Wisconsin will be complaining. They get Nebraska every year, they get the Iowa game restored, and they get to play three teams in the east. If I recall correctly, Wisconsin said they liked being in the Leaders division because it enhanced their recruiting in the east. Their new division will be even better.
Iowa might complain a bit, but they get the Wisconsin game restored and they have a significant rivalry game with Nebraska (whom they detested long before the Huskers joined the B1G).
That leaves Minnesota. If they insist on a Michigan or OSU game, then give them a fixed crossover. No problem.
LikeLike
And Minnesota would be specifically complaining about losing the Little Brown Jug, so there’s your fixed crossover right there…
LikeLike
“All of them are going to complain? All of them? Really?”
Yes, all seven schools are going to complain about hosting the two marquee programs only once per 12 years. This was publicly stated as one of the reasons they were put in separate divisions.
LikeLike
Arch Stanton,
“This is another reason I don’t like cross-divisional games in the last week (shouldn’t even be in the last two weeks, in my opinion).”
Ideally, you try to limit them.
“Big Ten needs to determine what is more important: Michigan-OSU in separate divisions, or Michigan-OSU playing the final week of the regular season.”
To OSU and MI fans, the timing is sacrosanct. You might literally see riots if they moved it. B10 HQ would certainly be flooded with complaints and fans would refuse to buy tickets or watch games in protest. Many would encourage their school to leave the B10 over it. It would cost each school several million dollars a year in donations, too. To the other 8 long time members, splitting the two was important. Both got what they wanted, and it’s worked just fine so far.
It’s a crazy idea, but how about we wait until a rematch actually happens before worrying about it too much. The B10 has more quality programs in each division than the P12, so it’s less likely to have a rematch.
Back of the envelope calculation:
How likely is MI to win the west in any given season? 30%? 35%?
How likely is OSU to win the east? 40%? 35%
0.30 * 0.40 = 0.12, or once every 8.5 years
0.35 * 0.40 = 0.14, or once every 7 years
This just doesn’t seem like a big problem to me. Once or twice a decade two king programs will have a rematch the following week. It’s not ideal, but it’s not frequent either.
LikeLike
http://www.eersauthority.com/expansion-update-fact-or-fiction/
The Dude is at it again. Though unlike before, everything his says makes sense except for the Big 10 honestly preferring G-Tech to UNC.
LikeLike
Makes sense if you take as a given that UNC does not want to join the Big Ten at all.
LikeLike
Hey Andy, what bowl did that powerhouse in Columbia end up making?
LikeLike
Why thanks for asking.
Mizzou played 5 top ten teams this year. Had the #2 ranked SOS in the country.
6 offensive linemen went down with injuries throught the year. It got worse and worse as the year went on to the point where we were playing true freshmen and couldn’t protect the QB at all by the end of the season.
On a related note, our honorable mention all-Big 12 QB (who had 3600 yds passing and 900 yds rushing last year) missed games for three seperate injuries over the year. An injured shoulder, an injured knee, and a concussion. Missed over 7 games total. His backup was a freshman who wasn’t particularly good.
The offense went from being highly ranked for several years in a row to near the bottom of the country this year, largely b/c our passing offense collapsed to nothing without pass protection or a healthy QB.
And yet we still had chances to win with less than a minute left against Vanderbilt, Syracuse, and at Florida. Winn those and we finish 8-4 and likely go to the Gator Bowl. If we had a healthy QB and some pass blocking then we likely win all three of those games.
Injuries happen. Missouri didn’t have the depth to lose 6 of our top 10 offensive linemen and still be good. Few teams do.
We also didn’t have any extra high quality QBs waiting around to take over in case of an ainjury. That really turned out to be a problem.
So it’s a mixed bag. On the one hand I could say that Missouri clearly and the team in place to win 8 games against a ridiculously tough schedule in the SEC.
On the other hand it’s clear that Mizzou needs to improve recruiting and improve depth because injuries happen.
But there are lots of cases of teams having terrible seasons largely due to injuries. It happened to Oklahoma not too long ago, for example.
Being in the SEC should help Missouri’s recruiting going forward. It will be a process to stockpile the talent we need to make it to the end of seasons in that league.
Honestly we need to recruit sturdier linemen who don’t get injured so much. That needs to be a top priority. We could get away with having smaller linemen in the Big 12, but it just doesn’t work in the SEC. Apparently their knees go out.
LikeLike
There are a lot of “ifs” in that reply; but you dodged the question. The answer is, they aren’t going to a bowl game. Missouri has all the disadvantages of Tennessee without the tradition OR the support. They will continue to be a 5 to 8 win team in the SEC. Nothing more, nothing less.
LikeLike
They also won a game against a bad Tennessee team in the 4th overtime. So, it’s easier to say that they could have had one more loss rather than 3 more victories.
I’ll give you the tough schedule, but when you blow a game to Syracuse to lose bowl eligibility there really is nothing more that needs to be said.
LikeLike
Order Restored, completley your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
Arch, the Tennessee game was one of only 4 where we actually had a healthy James Franklin at QB. We scored over 50 pts in that game. When he was out we averaged around 15 ppg.
LikeLike
Also, Arch, Syracuse is 7-5 with 3 or 4 very close losses, including a last second loss to Northwestern. They also have one of the top passing offenses in the country. We had that game pretty much in hand with a 17 pt lead and then James Franklin goes down with a concussion and the game falls apart and we lose on a last minute TD by Syracuse.
Again, it would have gone better if we had more depth, but injuries were clearly the story of the season for Missouri.
LikeLike
I don’t want to get into a back and forth on Missouri all day, but this:
“Arch, the Tennessee game was one of only 4 where we actually had a healthy James Franklin at QB. We scored over 50 pts in that game. When he was out we averaged around 15 ppg.”
Okay, 23 of those points were scored in the 4 overtime periods. A healthy James Franklin-led Missouri Tiger team scored 28 points against Tennessee’s defense in the regular 60 minutes of play.
LikeLike
Those overtime points didn’t score themselves. Those were passing TDs.
LikeLike
frug-
Why does the Big Ten want another university with its research orientated towards medical and biotechnology in North Carolina? Michigan, for one, has a massive hospital and biomedical complex in place already. Would Georgia Tech be a better fit than UNC as part of the Big Ten when you look at the academic/research side?
I think we can pretty much bury any thought that getting Notre Dame into the conference was a prerequisite for the Big Ten getting to sixteen programs. That’s especially true seeing that the B1G was telling Maryland that the expected payout per program in FY 2017 was approximately $43M in total conference distributions.
So what is the COP/C’s priority now? Or perhaps the better question is this–what were the COP/C’s priorities been since Delany publicly announced the conference was going to expand back in December 2009? What exactly did they task Delany to do three years ago?
LikeLike
They tasked him to bring him the Eastern Seaboard. I really do think it’s that simple.
They told him to go and plant a flag on the East Coast (or several flags). Rutgers’ folks have said that he’s been in contact with them on and off over the past 3 years (since late 2009).
He’s basically been working on a partner for Rutgers; the #13 that would justify Rutgers as #14. I think it’s that simple. Missouri didn’t work because it wasn’t the East Coast angle. It had to be Notre Dame-Rutgers or Maryland-Rutgers.
When Notre Dame went to the ACC and signaled that it would never come, the Maryland talks started heating up and here’s where we are.
I still think he has a mandate to bring more ACC schools in the Mid-Atlantic. I’m not sure which schools he has a mandate for other than that it probably includes UVa and UNC, and may either include Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech as well (but the AAU questionmark is a cloud over Va Tech).
LikeLike
I agree 100% with everything in this comment. Rutgers was always going to be #14 (or #16) after a suitable partner was found. With ND out, UM was the obvious #13.
I also get the sense that the B1G will eventually go to 16 with 2 out of the UVA/UNC/GT bunch, but would only go to 18 if it meant ND as a full member (the obvious #18 in such a situation would be the remaining school from the UVA/UNC/GT group). I just don’t see the conference going through all the difficulties and challenges of scheduling and mollifying 18 schools without adding the preeminent brand in college football. And since I personally think ND will stay independent as long as it possibly can, the B1G will go to 16 and stop.
I do not see how the B1G ever goes past 18, as the fraternal bonds between the schools–some of them partners and rivals for over 110 years–will slowly, but surely, fray with the regular passage of time. College football was built on tradition, regional rivalries, and the translation of frontier hatred to the controlled violence of football. Michigan and Ohio refight the wars of the 1830’s every November, just with less bloodshed (and no chance of Michigan retaking Toledo). Expansion might not dilute this premier rivalry, but the “lesser” ones, ones that still have meaning to alumni and state residents, will surely suffer. Over time, should the Little Brown Jug be forgotten, there will be no real connection between Minnesota and Michigan. This decay will kill other rivalries, and might dampen the urge the schools might otherwise have to stay together.
(As for the CIC, look at the likely additions to the B1G past 14–any 8 or 9 of those could split off and form their own CIC. 10 schools could split from a 20-team conference and remain academic snobs.)
LikeLike
@cutter
Well the Big 10 probably does even more engineering research than it does biomedical so I’m not sure there’s a difference.
LikeLike
Contingent CUSA bowl line-up announced.
http://www.conferenceusa.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/112612aaj.html
If Tulsa wins, Rice to the Armed Services Bowl in Fort Worth to play Air Force (my preference because I can get there).
If UCF wins, Rice to New Orleans Bowl to play Louisiana Lafayette.
LikeLike
If I were a Rice fan, I would root for UCF.
As much as it pains them, OU really needs UT to win this weekend. If UT and OU win, OU wins the Big 12. If UT wins and OU loses, UT passes Kent St. and OU likely goes to New Orleans for the Sugar Bowl. If UT loses and Kent and Stanford win, OU probably goes to the Cotton.
LikeLike
Brian, someone had referenced earlier that you had provided some info on Nebraska’s presentation to the AAU and/or B1G that had caused some issues. Can you please point me in the right direction or report? I have looked everywhere.
Also what was the whole story on what the President and/or Chancellor of UNL’s presentation that caused issues?
LikeLike
As far as I can remember, I believe that UNL’s chancellor pointed out that UNMC is under the University of Nebraska system but that they were recently given more autonomy in their leadership so their research no longer counted for UNL AAU criteria. If UNMC was counted (many schools do have a medical school in their numbers) then UNL would be ahead of about 1/3 of the AAU schools in certain metrics that are important to AAU.
Also, there was some complaint that Nebraska had about their agricultural faculty/programs not getting the credit they deserve from the AAU.
Not really sure about any of the real specifics, but I can probably find more information if you want.
I have heard that the story that if UNL’s chancellor had not raised these issues, UNL would be in the AAU today and if he had just smiled and nodded during the proceeding then all would be good. This I don’t buy for a second. The decisions were made at that point. AAU doesn’t want anyone to call them out and I think certain parties tried to make Harvey Perlman the fall guy after the fact.
The reality is that the AAU wanted to admit a few more universities and also wanted to keep their exclusivity. So, they needed to get rid of a few of the lower performing schools to get in a few others. Maybe Perlman’s speech hurt a potential for Nebraska to be re-accepted one day, but I have a feeling that would be decades into the future anyway and all the current players will be replaced by then.
LikeLike
There were some detailed articles posted on this board by some Nebraska people which linked some FOI requests.
Robert Berdahl wrote a letter to Pearlman suggesting what should and shouldn’t be in his presentation. I read that letter and the presentation that was linked in the article. The article didn’t say anything about Pearlman’s presentation hurting them. That was my conclusion. When he did his presentation, he ignored Berdahl’s recommendations and did the exact opposite. He made the argument about the medical school. He argued that agricultural research should be counted. That could have easily swayed the 1 or 2 votes the other way that he didn’t care about the priorities of the AAU. He didn’t emphasize enough how Nebraska was improving in the areas the AAU cared about. He basically argued, “Your standards are stupid. We should stay in.”
LikeLike
http://newsroom.unl.edu/releases/downloadables/pdf/UNLAAU.pdf#correspondence-between-unl-aau
If you want to sift through documents, here is a bunch correspondence between UNL and the AAU that was obtained through FOIA.
LikeLike
http://journalstar.com/news/local/education/emails-wisconsin-and-michigan-opposed-nebraska-s-aau-membership/article_19188dda-afe7-57c8-aa2c-c1939ec5acb4.html
LikeLike
LikeLike
danimation707,
Click to access UNLAAU.pdf
That’s the relevant file. It includes what the AAU sent to NE and NE’s response.
LikeLike
As to the issues, it mostly came down to a few things:
1. The AAU doesn’t count USDA research money in their main category of total federal research money because the funding isn’t competitive in the same way as NIH, NSF, etc are. This hurts all ag schools.
2. The Ag faculty still count among the total used to normalize the research money (so a small school can do just as well per capita as a big school). This is a double whammy for ag schools as all those faculty are essentially considered dead weight by the AAU.
3. The AAU rules for when a med school counts as part of the university means it doesn’t count for NE. That’s always a big blow, and NE has no control over how the state government set things up.
4. The AAU suggested how NE should respond, and NE ignored them.
5. Not all B10 schools voted in NE’s favor, and the vote was close. I haven’t heard yet how MD or RU voted. WI voted no, and so did MI IIRC. The whole B12 contingent voted yes.
The file I linked starts with AAU’s letter to NE and the chart I’ve been quoting is just a few pages in. There is a ton of stuff deeper in the file.
LikeLike
It affects Missouri too. Missouri is an ag school, lots of USDA money not counted. Also, MU has a large med center in Kansas City that isn’t counted. Missouri can use the same excuses as Nebraska and yet Missouri is still in the AAU without any sign of danger of being kicked out.
LikeLike
Nobody cares. Mediocre academics and mediocre athletics; this is why Missouri got invited as a tag-along school with Texas A&M rather than being pursued/invited on their own by any major conference. It is what it is; you can try all you want to paint a turd gold (and you try really hard) but in the end, its still a turd.
LikeLike
Don’t be so sure. There were a half dozen schools ahead of SU and Nebraska that could potentially be targeted. There were a number of non-members ahead of them. They weren’t identified, but Missouri fit the profile of some of them and could have been one.
LikeLike
OrderRestored, you’re not even saying anything. Just empty trash talk.
bullet, basically the same thing. So Missouri should be kicked out of the AAU even though they haven’t been targeted to be kicked out at all and are a member in good standing? okay. whatever.
LikeLike
Empty trash talk huh? What part of what I said isn’t true? Would Missouri have gotten into the SEC without Texas A&M? Surely not even you are that disillusioned. Missouri does have mediocre athletics and academics (check the rankings), so that is also true. I told you before the season started that Missouri would struggle to make a bowl; but I was crazy back then too and not to be taken seriously, right? Missouri can’t compete regularly in the SEC; your football coach knows it, which is why he was so against the move. Pinkel will have another lack luster season next year and because of fans like you who will continue painting turds gold; he’ll be fired. Then you will be Kentucky level because Missouri isn’t a Top 40 job. Especially in the SEC.
LikeLike
I’m just saying don’t make yourself look stupid if it happens. When you look at the chart and what was said about them thinning the ranks, it looks like a half dozen more schools are at risk. Its kind of the gap method of grading. There were UNL, SU and a half dozen other schools below the gap. Its not like any of these are “bad” schools. But don’t diss Nebraska as you might be in the same boat in a couple years.
LikeLike
If you look at Brian’s link around page 10, UNL was #109. Syracuse was probably #105. #81, 83, 87 and 94 look like outliers as well. Ahead of #81 are non-AAU members Alaska-Fairbanks, VCU, Vermont, Hawaii and UConn. From 55-76 are 11 non-members and 11 members. Ranked higher than # 55 there are only 10 non-members and those are mostly specialized schools (UC-San Francisco, Rockefeller U.), schools with big medical schools (UAB), or schools like Dartmouth and Boston U.
LikeLike
OrderRestored: Mizzou’s athletics are considerably better than Rutgers, Maryland, Colorado, and Utah. Their academics are better than Nebraska and Utah.
There were plenty of candidates for spot #14 in the SEC. Missouri was the top choice and they got the spot. Missouri likely would have gotten spot #14 in the Big Ten instead of Rutgers if we were still available.
bullet: the only person looking stupid is you for acting like Missouri is somehow on it’s way out of the AAU. There are plenty of AAU schools who are more likely of getting kicked out than Missouri. Is Missouri up at the top with Cal Berkley, Michigan, etc? No. But nobody’s talking about kicking Missouri out right now.
As for Brian’s link that you’re talking about, I think you just proved that there’s more to the AAU membership than that particular metric.
LikeLike
Also, order restored, wow you are clueless. Our coach was not against the move. He was one of the biggest proponents behind the scenes. He was there pushing for it and meeting with the governor etc to try to make it happen.
Missouri’s not a top 40 job, eh? Not with 67k fans per game and SEC money, eh? Not with being the 14th winningest BCS program in over the last 6 years including this crappy year, eh?
You’re so full of crap.
LikeLike
Oh yeah, I forgot; you have super secret sources inside Missouri Athletics that tell you all these things. Listen to his interviews upon entering the SEC; the man was clearly reciting the company line; and no, even with SEC money Missouri is nothing more than Kentucky. You’ll see. Keep painting those turds gold though; just know that no one here is buying your crap. Missouri is just Missouri; a side show, nothing more and nothing less.
LikeLike
My sources aren’t super secret. Yes, I talk to people who say Pinkel was pushing for the change behind the scenes. But it was also the standard story in the local media, the story he told in all interviews, etc.
In fact, you’re the first person I’ve seen who said he was against it, and I can only conclude you made it up.
And you’re just some Notre Dame fan who doesn’t even like Missouri. Why would you know more about it than a guy like me who follows it very, very closely.
Nope, you’re trolling me and you’re full of crap. End of story.
LikeLike
Missouri is just Missouri, 14th in wins in the last 6 years, 8 bowls in 10 years, top 20 attendance this year in football, $200M football stadium/facilities project in progress, SEC money coming in, averaging over 27 wins per season in basketball over the last 4 years and ranked in the top 15 now, etc. Yep, Missouri is just Missouri.
LikeLike
Andy,
“Mizzou’s athletics are considerably better than Rutgers, Maryland, Colorado, and Utah.”
What metrics are you using? FB success, both revenue sports’ success, Director’s Cup standings, or something else? I’m not saying I agree or disagree, but that’s a pretty nebulous claim.
“Their academics are better than Nebraska and Utah.”
Again, by what measure? Utah is #49 on the AAU list, well above the 25th percentile of members.
“Missouri likely would have gotten spot #14 in the Big Ten instead of Rutgers if we were still available.”
You have no basis for that claim. The B10 went east and MO would obviously play no part in that. At most you can say MO would have been a candidate to be #13 or 14.
“There are plenty of AAU schools who are more likely of getting kicked out than Missouri.”
Name them. Who are these “plenty of AAU schools” MO is above?
54 of the 60 AAU members outrank MO in the ARWU which uses very similar criteria. MO ranks #86-109 in the US, which is a rank it shares with 4 other AAU members and is above only 1 AAU member.
“As for Brian’s link that you’re talking about, I think you just proved that there’s more to the AAU membership than that particular metric.”
No, he showed that some schools qualified back when they got admitted but over time their ranking changed.
LikeLike
Andy, I am unable to find any discussion about Missouri getting a waiver into a bowl game due to the lack of qualified .500 teams.
There is an article up on ESPN about G-Tech and how they may fit in. The criteria is outlined below and I do not see how Missouri would fit into any one of those categories. Perhaps one of your folks high up in Missouri can shed some light on this for us?
Under the NCAA’s new bowl selection process, established this past summer, if there aren’t 70 bowl teams available, the remaining spots would be filled in the following order:
– First pool: those that finish 6-6 but are not usually bowl-eligible because the team has a win against an FCS team that does not meet the necessary financial aid requirements.
– Second pool: Those that have a 6-6 record but beat two FCS teams to be bowl-eligible.
– Third pool: Those that finished with a 6-7 record, with their seventh loss being a league championship game, to be eligible.
– Fourth pool: Allow a team that played 13 games but finished with a 6-7 record to be eligible.
Also there are rumors going around that Pinkel will be out at Missouri. Any of your connections able to weigh in on that?
I wish you would give me some props for calling this by the way. 🙂
LikeLike
I posted the article when I originally talked about it. It was on cbssports.com. At the time there were only 63 bowl eligible teams. There are now 71. There were several upsets that were not expected to happen so now it’s not an issue. If it were Missouri likely would have gone to a bowl because their APR was higher than most other 5-7 teams.
As for Pinkel, not sure where you heard it but it’s false. There may be a few changes in his staff but you don’t fire a guy who’s averaged 8.1 wins per year over 10 years and has had 7 straight winning seasons because he went 5-7 against the #2 SOS in the country and had his QB out most of the season and had a ton of injuries otherwise.
If he has another bad season next year he’s probably in trouble but otherwise he’s fine.
Zero indicatin he’ll be fired at this point.
LikeLike
Douglas Doughty @DoughtySports
Looking back at 2003, could Virginia and Virginia Tech be in different conferences again without a major firestorm?
————————————————————————-
Bring ’em both Delany. You got the presidents to get Nebraska in, this would be twice the sell job…
LikeLike
Virginia Tech is a lot stronger academically than Nebraska.
LikeLike
Where it counts for Big Ten expansion (research expenditures under AAU guidelines), they’re marginally stronger than Nebraska, which is the issue.
LikeLike
Yes and even there they’re stronger than Nebraska. If the B1G can take Nebraska then they can take the Hokies.
LikeLike
The problem is they seem to be a bit snakebit on that; they might be going for all top 50 AAU’s (ones that aren’t close to the cutoff) at this point.
LikeLike
FWIW (nothing), I agree with you.
I don’t understand why it’d have been a one-time exception; Virginia Tech meets the Nebraska admission standard even if it wouldn’t meet the Maryland/Rutgers/Penn State standard as far as research expenditures go…
If UVa and Va Tech have to go in a pair, might as well go for them both. Less culture issues anyways with those schools than with North Carolina schools…
LikeLike
My best guess, which admittedly is worthless, is that if the ACC breaks up we’ll see the B1G take UVA and VT, the SEC take UNC and NCSU, and the Big 12 take FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, Louisville, and Pitt.
Duke, Wake, Boston College, and Syracuse will join UConn, Cincinatti, USF and a couple more, merge with a chunk of the Big East basketball schools, and create a basketball-centric league with a weak football component about on par with CUSA or the MWC. BYU, Boise, SDSU, Houston, and SMU will end up in the MWC.
I think that’s the most sensible way to do it anyway.
20 school conferences and Georgia Tech in the Big Ten etc don’t make much sense at all.
LikeLike
For about the 50th time – Nebraska *WAS* AAU when they applied and were admitted in June, 2010. They lost it later, with a review coming in the fall of 2010 and the vote to kick in April, 2011.
The “lost it later” is a major issue. The Nebraska Chancellor himself said that they probably would not be a B1G school without the AAU brand. There’s strong evidence that Wisconsin & Michigan were actively angry about Nebraska going below AAU standards. They then refused to lobby for Nebraska, may have actually lobbied against them, and voted against them.
No one in the B1G is going to go up against the Wisconsin-Michigan duo on academic issues (even if the other members don’t agree with them, which most probably do). This is every bit as big a deal as the Big Texas Conference or the Tobacco Mafia in the ACC.
LikeLike
VA Tech would be a fine selection imo. They are ranked in the 70s and are ramping up their research efforts.
Nebraska is rankes in a tie at 101 vs. Missouri in another tie at 97. UNL’s research is over $100 million in excess of Missouri’s and will continue to take off with the CIC & the innovation campus that UNL is building.
No brainer on selecting UNL over Missouri. I am struggling to see how Missouri stays in the AAU on their current trajectory.
UNL will need to work hard to get up into the 80s or better and build up their research dollars however I could see them getting back in the future again.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/07/11/kings-barons-knights-peasants-mailbag/index.html?mobile=n
The UNL pick also added a King vs for example a Baron in Va Tech or lower a Knight in Missouri.
LikeLike
As I’ve said on here at least a dozen times over the years, Steward Mandel openly hates Mizzou. No joke. He’s devoted several articles specifically to bash Mizzou. No surprise he does it again here.
LikeLike
As for the AAU, Missouri hasn’t even so much as been warned by the AAU that their membership is in any jeopardy. Nebraska has already been kicked out. That should tell you all you need to know about what a “no-brainer” comparison there is between the two schools’ academics.
LikeLike
Peter, I realize that.
And I also realize that the world is a different place from when Michigan State was admitted as a rising but non-AAU school.
It is what it is.
I guess it might be better to just sit and wait for Virginia Tech to see if they can get AAU in 20 years and then consider expanding…
LikeLike
background to UNL losing membership
http://chronicle.com/article/Ouster-Opens-a-Painful-Debate/127364/
LikeLike
I think you are looking at it a bit backwards; AAU membership is a simple qualify criteria, a necessary condition. Any academic argument beyond that are likely to be tiebreakers.
Whether V-Tech is stronger than Nebraska isn’t an issue. The presidents aren’t going to allow in any non-AAU schools besides ND.
LikeLike
After the Rutgers/Maryland addition, I don’t see how you can think that academics beyond AAU means nothing. Academics appeared to be a huge component to their addition.
LikeLike
From what I’ve heard, VT is kind of the opposite of Nebraska. Nebraska was grandfathered in and on it’s way out. VT is rising and is one of the top candidates to get in.
LikeLike
Andy who are your sources on UNL vs Va Tech? Wow you are connected.
LikeLike
Everyone that’s left out there for expansion who is AAU has excellent academics otherwise. The only real interesting question there is flavor; someone posted up-thread how UNC is enormous in bioscience research (a B1G strength among strengths), while Georgia Tech has massive Department of Defense grants and is traditionally a preeminent engineering school.
LikeLike
I work at a major university (not Mizzou) and I talk to people a lot. People say things. I’m not saying anything specific here, just generalities, and it’s what I’ve heard. I haven’t actually looked into how true it is, but considering who I herad it from I tend to believe it.
LikeLike
I honestly and objectively do not see a material difference between UNL and Missouri. Sounds like if UNL didn’t give the University of Nebraska Medical Center more autonomy that they would still be in the AAU.
UNL & Missouri are ranked righr next to each other in the current US News rankings. UNL exceeds Missouri’s research dollars by $100 million. Those are impartal stats though. I know you won’t do anything but tow the company line though so I will let it be.
LikeLike
I think the academic push for Rutgers/Maryland are being overblown. This was a football move to get the Big Ten more relevant on the east coast (countering recent ACC moves) and the Big Ten Network on basic cable in those states at decent rates. The schools were considered because of being AAU and that can’t be discounted, but the primary reason they are here is not academics in the slightest.
LikeLike
dan, the AAU disagrees with your assessment.
LikeLike
Andy,
Only because Missouri has the medical school on campus. Looking at total research dollars the UNL + UNMC* are in all likelihood a ways ahead of Missouri. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/profiles/data/ess_ranking.cfm $3.36 Billion vs. $2.28 billion.
*UNK and UNO are included in the Nebraska numbers there, but neither accounts for near the amount of research that UNL and UNMC would in that total.
LikeLike
Weird excel formatting that should $336 vs $228 million. Another source total 2004 research spending UNL (just UNL this time 192.8 Million*. Missouri-Columbia $217.5 million.
University of Nebraska Medical Center $98.7 million.
LikeLike
The University of Missouri has a medical center in Kansas City that we don’t get to count either. That’s just the way it works.
LikeLike
Andy, there is a UM medical campus in Columbia that Mizzou gets to count.
LikeLike
True, the University of Missouri system has two major medical centers. One in Columbia and one in KC.
LikeLike
Nostradomis, no need to ask Andy to be objective about Missouri vs. UNL academically. Even though UNL significantly exceeds Missouri in research and is rates four spots below #97 Missouri in the current US News ranking Missouri is still head and shoulders above UNL bc of the AAU. No other metrics support his case.
He is just here to pull the company line and tell us how bad our expansion picks are vs. Missouri.
LikeLike
What I also find funny is that Andy’s school Missouri voted for UNL to stay in the AAU yet UNL is no good. Interesting that Missouri disagrees with Andy’s opinion.
LikeLike
If the B1G goes to 16, I have a strong sense it will be one of the following pairs: Va & GaTech or Va & Syracuse. FSU and ND are long shots. FSU would approve a B1G invite, though they might use it to leverage an SEC bid, which won’t happen – Ganesville won’t allow it. Perhaps the SEC would see an FSU move to the B1G as recruiting coup, thus invite them in – but unlikely. SEC is so strong in football they could pass. FSU would think hard on the baseball angle, just isn’t the same in the B1G. For various overstated reasons, no need to discuss ND. Syracuse, well they are an attractive partner for Va, though one may think Md is enough for Va. Syracuse is a fine school, no longer capable of consistent football greatness, but it would be a good culture fit for the B1G. Syracuse does lack in graduate school performance – research. They’d be a lower tier B1G school in the graduate school sense.
My gut and semi-rationale says the first pairing above will go down as this expansion continues. Regardless, Va is almost a lock for the B1G if the ACC crumbles. Va fans prefer the ACC, as do I, but a consensus is starting to build for a B1G move if necessary. There is a loud, but minority faction who prefer the SEC. Those folks are old school south – Va is simply headed for cultural pluralism much like Fla – southern culture will exist, as it should, but the presence will diminish and further acculturate into mainstream America.
Ga Tech may not border the BIG, but it’s within a manageable 1/2 day road trip to Bloomington, Columbus, West Lafayette, Urbana Champaign and Evanston. In fact all those places are either closer or near the same distance to College Park, MD (fellow current ACC member).
If Va goes B1G, they would be Ga Tech’s closest rival, roughly an 8 hour drive, Bloomington, Indiana is nearly the same distance.
GaTech meets all the academic criteria, offers a potentially sound, perhaps great TV market (<– must stress potential, Ga is still a Bulldog state) & a solid B1G alum base in Atlanta. But if there is room for Mich St and Michigan in the BIG, the same goes for Ga Tech and Georgia. An in-state SEC/BIG rivalry would be great for athletics – though Georgia would dominate until the right coach came along – see Stanford – USC (though in the same conference) Furthermore, Atl is actually one of those southern cities that has experienced the overstated demographic shift. A lot of Midwestern transplants in Atl, esp Black Americans. My only concern is that Ga's economy, esp Atlanta has hit a wall. The demographic shifts down south are actually strongest in the southwest, long term – Tx, with a T. Florida and NC are growing faster than average but retirees and Latinos seem to be the fastest growing groups. Regardless, NC has high unemployment right now, their political climate is in a betwixt and between state.
Speaking of NC, I think all arguments for a NC school are not worth critical analysis. UNC is truly the pride and joy of NC, a state that's still more old school southern than the eastern, academic elitists in Chapel Hilland the Research Triangle claim. No doubt, UNC is a fine school and the Research Triangle is wonderful, but once outside of this area & urban Charlotte, the general culture is southern conservatism & military rooted. The coastline and Asheville may be semi-havens for the non-southern conservatism, but that's not too many people. UNC also has a Longhorn complex, though far more based in basketball tradition. The only move that would put UNC into regular top 25 football status, though rarely a top 10 team – is a move to the SEC. But they'd still rarely sniff an SEC East Championship. Georgia, Florida, and even a down cylcle Tenn have far better football tradition. One would think that Va Tech would be joining UNC to the SEC as well – even more parity. And no doubt about it, non-alum Tarheel fans want SEC over B1G by a wide margin. They prefer to beat B1G teams in the big games – bowls, NC's – any sport.
LikeLike
I would like to see the B16 Ten have pods of:
North (South)
Noter Dame (Purdue)
Michigan (Ohio State)
Michigan State (Indiana)
North Western (Illinois)
East (West)
Penn State (Nebraska)
Minnesota (Maryland)
Iowa (Virginia)
Wisconsin (Rutgers)
The SEC Pods
North (South)
Kentucky (Mississippi State)
Vanderbilt (Auburn)
Tennessee (Alabama)
Virginia Tech (Ole Miss)
East (West)
Florida (LSU)
Arkansas (Georgia)
Missouri (South Carolina)
Texas A&M (NC State)
The Big XVI
North (South)
West Virginia (TCU)
Louisville (Texas Tech)
Cincinnati (Texas)
Iowa State (Baylor)
East (West)
Florida State (Oklahoma)
Clemson (Oklahoma State)
Georgia Tech (Kansas State)
North Carolina (Kansas)
The PAC 16
North (South)
Washington (UNLV)
Washington State (New Mexico)
Arizona State (Oregon State)-Switch
Arizona (Oregon)-Switch
East (West)
Utah (USC)
Colorado (UCLA)
Air Force (Stanford)
BYU (CAL)
The Next 4 I do not really know enough about to try to predict. I Like the North and South or East and West never becoming a division because this adds the possibility of fans seeing more conference opponents more often. This format would be a 3-4-1-1. Three same pod teams, four teams from one of the two rotating pod. one cross pod rival and one rotating cross pod rival.
LikeLike
The BIG(16) in 2014
Northwest Pod: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois
East Pod: Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Southeast Pod: Indiana, Ohio State, Georgia Tech, Purdue
Atlantic East Pod: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia
Bank on it : ).
LikeLike
gfunk,
If those 2 schools joined, you have WI and IL switched. There is no way they IL in that western pod instead of WI, and no reason to separate IL from NW.
LikeLike
That would require crossovers (I’m hoping for a set-up without requiring them to maximize other games), but there are definitely worse ways to set-up pods. At 8 games, that would mean you play all the teams in your division and your locked crossover (if in the other division) and no one else. That would mean the other pods teams are played 2 out of 6 years (well, you’d end up with 1 other teams you’d get twice in that 6 years too). With 9 conference games though, you’d play the 10 teams you aren’t locked in with (in your pod or locked team) 2/5 the time (math: 5 open spots divided by 11 teams), although it couldn’t be arranged so it was 2 years on and 2 years off.
LikeLike
I figured folks would argue for crossovers – go right ahead – I’m all ears. I just think Iowa, Wisky, Minny and Neb is too crowded with solid programs (minus Minny). Wisky has been one of the strongest BIG programs since PSU membership. Think about it, they’re roughly 10 points from being 5x Rose Bowl champions since 1993. Iowa has one of the better bowl records in the B1G – esp against the SEC.
LikeLike
Eric,
Locked games will never go away. First, there are too many rivalries the B10 wants to protect. Second, the B10 wants certain king/king games every year. There is no arrangement that will make them drop locked games.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“I figured folks would argue for crossovers – go right ahead – I’m all ears. I just think Iowa, Wisky, Minny and Neb is too crowded with solid programs (minus Minny).”
MI, MSU, WI and NW is better? You made an even harder pod and messed up rivalries at the same time.
LikeLike
In response to Gfunk…..
I don’t think Syracuse has a chance. Located in a cold, isolated,declining area, it will decline in sports influence vis’-a-vis’ Rutgers and even U Conn. It is small, private, non-AAU, and has few research $s and a small football stadium.
Reviewing the VA and G Tech boards, I am surprised by the receptiveness of VA and GT fans to the BIG…..but disturbed about the reason why….or at least one big reason why—they know they can’t compete in football in the SEC on a regular basis…..Each has lost something like last 9/10 or 10/11 to their main SEC rival…..I would think it would give the BIG pause that this latest expansion would include MD, VA, and GT, all of whom struggle to be competitive in football, but are very good in the Olympic sports. Is the BIG ready to concede foottball top-dog status to the SEC permanently? Maybe. Personally, I have confidence in Rutgers in that regard, but they’re no NEB or PSU, obviously.
With regard to Ga Tech….why isn’t MO the better choice? MO has 6M+ residents….is much bigger(something like 33000 to 21000), and most importantly, no major D1 competition in the state. What good are those extra 4M people when 80% of those interested in college football will be watching GA, not GA Tech? Not to mention that the CLOSEST BIG school would be 8 hours away….yikes. I really see GT as the President’s idea, not Delany’s. Obviously its a great school, esp. in the hard science and engineering areas……I really think that’s the attraction.
I agree that NC will be a very hard sell for the BIG. I would had that Va Tech will also be a very hard sell. Both schools are more “:southern” in their outlook and the fans haven’t given up on their ability to compete in football—they want nothing to do with the BIG..And, BTW, UNC’s President is called “Bubba”.
LikeLike
One other thing…..you say GT could be competitve with the right coach. Who could be a better coach for GT than Paul Johnson? That guy made fricking NAVY competitive. And Navy, like GT, has honest to god student-athletes.No, GT is an absolute lost cause in terms of the long-term match-up with GA.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“With regard to Ga Tech….why isn’t MO the better choice?”
Because MO is in the SEC while GT is in the ACC and is relatively cash strapped? That’s why the GT AD just left for Clemson.
Because GT is in GA, which is a bigger state and growing faster than MO as well as being a much better recruiting state?
LikeLike
I found this interesting. The 2012 Entertainment, Media & Advertising Market Research Handbook, which is online as a PDF for those interested, gives rankings for the biggest media markets in the U.S. New York is listed #1 (no surprise). Washington D.C. is listed as the #9 media market while being the 25th biggest city. (Baltimore is listed separately as the #26 media market). This means, potentially, the B1G just added the #1 & #9 media markets in the country.
And the #8 media market? Atlanta, which in raw city size is #40.
I have agreed with most people here why it would be tough for the B1G to break into the Atlanta market with GaTech, but if you are a FOX executive giving advice as to where to expand, this explains it as well as anything else. Bigger the market(s), more money from advertisers. 60% of the BTN revenue is ads.
LikeLike
Well, I’m guessing your data points are using different methods of measurement. Washington DC might be the 25th biggest city but it is the 7th largest metropolitan area, likewise Atlanta might be the 40th largest city (just using your numbers) but it is the 9th largest metro area.
LikeLike
Media markets are different than metro areas. Houston is the 5th biggest metro area, but lower in TV markets (around 10th) because the areas surrounding the Houston metro are lightly populated (Gulf of Mexico, swamps, national forest or just farmland in the west) while Philly, DC and Atlanta have more densely populated areas outside the metro.
LikeLike
Ok, I’m not really sure what constitutes a media market and why density would matter. In must factor in things other than television.
Either way, MSA is a closer predictor of media market than city size that you were referencing.
LikeLike
TPTB in B10 made a big deal about the states all touching each other along with AAU membership. So i think it is easiest and most logical for them to make (with those qualifications) are Virginia and UNC.
That gets them to 16 and that seems about where the B10 wants to be. The big problem is who would B10 pair with Georgia Tech? Hard to see Florida coming aboard too much history with the SEC. Assuming not Notre Dame….then the best option might be Duke.
LikeLike
Am I a fool here? Why should the B1G go with UNC over Ga Tech? Too much baggage and special treatment required with UNC. Ga is simply a better prep football state than NC, year in and year out – usually top 5 – but sometimes better per capita than Tx and Ca. I’d rather road trip to Atl than the Research Triangle, any day. Too many ACC colleges in the Triangle, plus Wake and ECU are less than 2 hours away. It’s GTech, not UNC that deserves “sleeping giant” football status. I like Tech’s annual with Georgia as well- it would be a great end of the year SEC barometer for the BIG.
Tech is also quite competitive with UNC, academically, and only getting stronger. It’s a dam nice school with a rising endowment, one that is right in the mid-to-lower half of the present B1G – better than incoming Md and Rutgers.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Am I a fool here?”
Fool is a bit harsh. Maybe naive?
“Why should the B1G go with UNC over Ga Tech?”
Pros of UNC:
Contiguous state with VA
State flagship school that would get the BTN on expanded basic everywhere in the state
Rival of UVA
Cons of GT:
Isolated geographically
Second school in the state and doesn’t even control it’s own market
Wouldn’t get BTN on expanded basic in GA or even Atlanta most likely
No real rival in the B10
Will be dominated in their rivalry by UGA, giving the SEC built in bragging rights
“I’d rather road trip to Atl than the Research Triangle, any day.”
I wouldn’t. The RT is nice to visit.
“Too many ACC colleges in the Triangle, plus Wake and ECU are less than 2 hours away.”
Being surrounded by SEC schools is better?
“It’s GTech, not UNC that deserves “sleeping giant” football status.”
Based on what? GT is a distant little brother to UGA, and the rest of the SEC (plus top ACC and B10 schools) steals all sorts of recruits well before GT can get them. UNC is the big brother and wouldn’t be in the middle of SEC country trying to recruit against AL.
“I like Tech’s annual with Georgia as well- it would be a great end of the year SEC barometer for the BIG.”
GT has won a little over 1/4 of the time against UGA in the past 50 years, and that’s unlikely to change.
LikeLike
Sleeping giants awake with the right coach and culture – in 1990 Ga Tech won it’s 4NC – whipping Nebraska in the process. Ga Tech is in the wrong football conference. BIG muscle would at the very least make them more competitive than the ACC ever will.
Have you ever been to the Research Triangle? Have you ever lived in NC? I have dude – three years. NC is one hoops loving state & there is arguably no other area, except maybe Boston & LA, with so many big colleges close together – big state schools and a few private ones mind you. Wake Forest and ECU aren’t that far away as well. But at least Boston and LA have pro sports teams.
I don’t even want to talk about the fans down there – they have a much deeper dislike for the B1G than Md has shown. I’m not into forced expansion – no more Md’s. A lot of disappointed fans & alum in College Park – not the case with PSU initially, and certainly not Neb and Rutgers.
If the B1G picked Va and UNC, the Tar Heels would be surrounded by the SEC as well, Va tech goes SEC if Va goes B1G & NC St goes SEC as well. Who is to the south of NC, SC, the east, Ga & Tenn, the North, Va Tech.
BIG schools recruit Georgia with success? Who? You’ve got to be kidding here.
Just throwing ideas out, but I could pick apart your counterarguments. It’s quite obvious you don’t know UNC or the state of NC like I do – Ga as well. If I’m wrong here, correct me.
Ga Tech has a more prestigious history than UNC in football – a better bowl record and more NC’s, distant or not, though 1990 wasn’t that long ago. Plus Ga Tech has a BCS appearance, not UNC. Do some research on Ga Tech football? They have an impressive history. Sure they’re in a slide, but they’ll come out of it. A B1G membership gets them out of the Ga shadow sooner than remaining in the ACC.
History isn’t static, a team’s fate isn’t sewn by the present. But it’s more likely Ga Tech becomes relevant in football again than UNC ever will. Just as Ga Tech basketball won’t catch UNC hoops in my lifetime.
LikeLike
I’m going to have to disagree with regarding the dislike of the Big Ten around here, and I have lived in NC for longer than three years. Really the attitude towards the Big Ten is “out of sight, out of mind.”It’s thought if as a league for a separate part of the country, not necessarily positively or negatively. The attitudes towards the SEC are much more extreme. SEC schools have more than their fair share of fans and alumni in this state, especially in the Triangle and in Greater Charlotte. People either hate the SEC or admire the heck out of it.
As far as UNC being surrounded by other colleges, I say, “So what?” UNC is clearly the most popular school within the state, and it is by far the most popular NC school in the nation at large. NC State is a solid yet decided #2 within the state, but they’re fairly invisible outside ACC states. ECU and Wake are irrelevant outside of NC, and Duke only matters in a sport that matters less and less relative to football.
Now I understand the desire for Atlanta over the smaller markets of the Triangle and Charlotte (where, by the way, UNC is also the most popular school), but UNC is indeed the flagship school in this state in a way GT never will be. Just ask any UNC fan: they will be more than happy yo tell you how they’re the flagship. Makes them feel better about themselves.
LikeLike
*lived here longer than three years in total. (I used to go by “Michael in Indy” on FTT’s site.) I’ve lived in NC 7.5 of the past 12.5 years, with the other five years in the Big Ten state of Indiana.
LikeLike
Mike–I agree with you on the point that UNCers don’t hate the BIG(except the slow plodding style of play), but are rather indifferent…..but the larger point is that they would feel “forced” into the BIG….more so than even MD, as they have other options.
As to fuck’s argument that GT will turn it’s football fortunes around—disagree…their acaedmic standards are way too high. All those GA recruits—not GT recruits–too dumb. Schools like Stanford, NW, GT have to recruit nationally—taking away the local GA recruiting advantage.
LikeLike
Props, I suppose. I was a Marine at Lejeune, lived and commuted from Wilmington my last year in NC, my roommates/lifelong buddies took me to their native communities in High Point, Greensboro & Rocky Mount often enough. I saw more than a dozen games at the Dean Dome, one of the Dead’s last shows, Cat’s Cradle college rock, a few games at Cameron (amazing!), too many ECU football games, & even an occasional hoops game at The Joel. I also toured the hs hoops circuit (Rocky Mount, Prep & Mount Air, etc.) which was phenomenal, quite comparable to the Hoosier state.
I experienced the betwixt & between areas of NC where SEC football love was quite prevalent, rather contradictory actually – root Tarheel hoops while giving loyalties for any given SEC football school – weird. Outside the heavily eastern influenced Research Triangle – “Confederate Yankees” & “halfbacks” – Cary jokes aside – the B1G love wasn’t much to hinge on.
LikeLike
Mushroom trip, thanks for calling me “fuck” – anyways : ).
LikeLike
Georgia Tech has the same issue as Rice & SMU, just on a smaller scale. They were a power–before WWII. They were pretty good up to the 60s. They left the SEC at a time when the general purpose state schools were growing rapidly (draft deferrments certainly helped) and the pros were moving into southern markets and becoming relevant in the north. So they got outgrown and lost the casual fans to the Falcons/Braves/Hawks. Like all urban universities except for Washington and Michigan, they struggle with attendance when they aren’t really good.
They also have limited majors with their focus on engineering. Its harder to “hide” athletes in easier majors. They have the lowest graduation rate of any ACC school (would be middle of pack in SEC). Paul Johnson uses the wishbone partly because he know he can’t recruit the athletes to run a more normal offense and consistently win. They’ve won 3 of the last 8 division titles. That’s about as good as they can do. They caught lightning in a bottle and won in 1990. Then they went 0-10-1 a couple years later. They aren’t a sleeping giant.
As for recruiting, they can’t really expect to do much better. Auburn recruits Georgia very heavily. They are only half an hour across the border. Alabama, Florida, South Carolina and Clemson do quite a bit in Georgia as well.
LikeLike
This is a good post about the potential trap of Georgia Tech. It is decidedly not a “sleeping giant” in the vein of a Rutgers or even a Maryland.
It is most likely another Pittsburgh. A great academic/research add in a market dominated by alums of other conferences and without a great recruiting base.
LikeLike
Good point about GTech’s academics & hiding athletes.
A GTech alum works where I work and he says all GTech students have to pass a year of calculus to graduate (and the profs have no problems failing an athlete, no matter how big a name he may be).
I figure that trims down the potential recruiting pool by about 90% or so. . . unless you’re targetting guys who are so good that they figure they’ll be jumping to the NFL in 3 years anyway and aren’t planning on graduating.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Sleeping giants awake with the right coach and culture – in 1990 Ga Tech won it’s 4NC – whipping Nebraska in the process.”
1988 3-8
1989 7-4
1990 11-0-1
1991 8-5
1992 5-6
They had one anomalous year and were a weak split national champ. NE was AP #19 before the bowl.
“Ga Tech is in the wrong football conference. BIG muscle would at the very least make them more competitive than the ACC ever will.”
That’s not saying much and is a far cry from your previous claims.
“Have you ever been to the Research Triangle?”
Yes, many times.
“Have you ever lived in NC?”
No, but my brother did so I was there a lot.
“BIG schools recruit Georgia with success? Who? You’ve got to be kidding here.”
The B10 gets about 6 kids per year from GA now. OSU has gotten some great players from there. PU and IL average more than 1 per year from GA. It’s not FL or TX, but it’s up there with NJ and CA as the 3rd best out of footprint state for some B10 schools. GA recruiting is picking up lately, too.
“Just throwing ideas out, but I could pick apart your counterarguments. It’s quite obvious you don’t know UNC or the state of NC like I do – Ga as well. If I’m wrong here, correct me.”
Yeah, I don’t know GA at all. I’ve only lived here since the 90s and went to school at GT. You’re clearly the expert.
“Ga Tech has a more prestigious history than UNC in football – a better bowl record and more NC’s, distant or not, though 1990 wasn’t that long ago.”
The current players weren’t alive when that happened. As for their histories, I couldn’t care less. GT used to be good and fell off after Dodd. They’re like MN, a former power that has been passed by their neighbors.
“Plus Ga Tech has a BCS appearance, not UNC.”
Clearly getting your butt kicked by IA in a bowl is a reason to be added to the B10. Under Mack Brown UNC almost went toe to toe with some of Bobby Bowden’s best teams. GT won the ACC when FSU bottomed out and nobody else really stepped up.
LikeLike
Brian–All great points….I’ll add a couple of others……first, the power in D1 football has been on a long-term trend away from elite academic schools…..and toward football factories. All those great Georgia recruits funk talks about–about 1/10 could get into GT. Now, if the point is that GT’s admission would “open” GA to the other BIG schools for recruiting purposes…..not nearly as much as the admission of UNC would open up NC…..
One other thing I’d disagree with on funk–GT would be a top 1/3 BIG school academically, not in the middle or bottom 1/3. It’s the perfect academic school for the BIG, which I think is it’s #1 attraction to the big.
LikeLike
That’s really an SEC thing more than anything else (the domination of football factory “dumb” schools). Outside of Oregon, which is decent but not a “name” academically and has only recently adopted the whole football culture, the PAC is Stanford, USC and UCLA. Two top-tier academics, one elite. The B1G of course is Michigan, Ohio State and in the last 15 years, Wisconsin. Even in the Big 12, it’s really just the Oklahoma schools that are perceived as knucklehead factories. Nebraska actively tried to clean up its act and of course Texas has no use for SEC culture.
The SEC is more or less unique in “we don’t give a #&!! about academics, we’re a football conference and we’ll win however we have to.”
LikeLike
The Washington Post had an interview in today’s paper with the University of Maryland’s President Wallace D. Loh. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-md-president-big-ten-move-deliberate/2012/11/26/a26ef4a0-380b-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html?wp_login_redirect=0
In the article, Loh states that he had his first meeting with B1G officials in Chicago in early October. This would have been roughly one month after the ACC announced Notre Dame was joining the conference (12 September) with an agreement for ND to play five ACC football teams annually.
In the article, Loh states that he was “stunned” by the historically Midwestern league’s projected revenues and plans to expand beyond its current 12 schools during the presentation he received during that meeting.
The second meeting between the B1G and Maryland officials was on 8 November in Washington, DC. The article states that they didn’t reach agreement then and that both sides started to worry as internet rumors started appearing about the discussions they were having. Final agreement between the parties took place on the morning of 17 November.
LikeLike
Maryland is an excellent institutional fit for the BIG….also, market-wise, it makes sense. But it is pretty amazing how the powers that be forced this down the throats of their alums/fans/students in secrecy and w/o discussion. I was struck that the President of the U, at his PC, said he spoke to a total of 2(!) students about the BIG….Goes to show that Us and college admins. are the most hypocritical people around when they opine about “openness”……
LikeLike
I found that article to be quite interesting. From a Penn State fan point of view, I understand why the move to the B10 by Maryland (And Rutgers) needed to be made, and why most people basically hate the move. The reality is the dollars and the growth opportunities are too great (Look at where PSU is when it comes to Research $ and Academic Standing compared to when we were an Eastern Independent?). Of course, I am also very aware of the Spannier/Paterno/Sandusky Scandal (And the real reasons why it happened (From the Spannier & Paterno NOT Sandusky points of view): It was the pursuit of money (See The Millenium Science Building being a prime example), and ego (Paterno’s going for various records)) So, I am anything but a Paterno Kool Aid drinker. In fact, I was very tough on PSU, and did not watch after the scandal broke. and did not return until O’Brien came in and changed things. Penn State needed to grow, and the B10 gave us a chance to do just that. We are Champions in Wrestling & Vollyball, and adding a new hockey facility, and once the stench of Spannier/Paterno/ Sandusky/Sanctions are over, and the New B10 TV contract is finished, we will grow even more.That said, I also miss us playing Pitt, Syracuse & West Virginia, so I understand where the UMD fans are coming from (The Panthers on the schedule every year should be a must). Finally, fans forget that Loh has to look at what is best for the UNIVERSITY of Maryland (Not just sports) long-term, and he believes that it is best accomplished in the B10. I never would have take this point of view years ago when Penn State moved, but I think he is right.
LikeLike
David—No reason PSU CAN’T play Pitt every year…or Syracuse or WV for that matter. Pretty sad that a power like PSU wanted to play so many automatic Ws every year……..instead of playing 1 or 2 of their traditional rivals…….now, I will say that the situation has changed with all of those sanctions and you guys might as well play MAC OOC games the next 4-5 years…….
LikeLike
Mushroomgod: It is obvious you are a Nitt Hater, but that said, we can and should play a traditional rival each year, and it should be Pitt NOT Temple. That said, this issue has nothing to do with sanctions. This goes back to Paterno, who wanted an extra home game in the series, and Temple would agree to that Pitt would not. O’Brien (Assuming he stays), and Pitt both acknowledge that the game should be played. The way to make sure Nitt and Panther fans are satisfied (Pitt needs Penn State every bit as much as we need them since they lost West Virginia), is to make sure it is a 10 Year Agreement: Five at State College Five at Heinz Field.
LikeLike
David…lol at your “Nitt Hater” comment….I’ve been the biggest non-PSU fan defender of PSU on here against the corrupt NCAA sanctions, and one of the biggest proponents of the idea that PSU needed an eastern partner.. I’ve also acknowledged that PSU has been screwed many times by BIG 10 officials (although not as often as Indiana). So you couldn’t be more wrong there.
LikeLike
Every B1G team has been screwed by B1G officials many times in the past. B1G officials are horrendous. Anyone who believes their team is uniquely focused on just isn’t paying attention to other teams.
LikeLike
I believe there’s a pecking order…….Michigan first, OSU second, PSU down the line somewhere at 6 or 7, because they were the newbee……indiana trailing the pack. Indiana gets screwed even v. Purdue, as anyone watching the IU-Purdue game this past Sat. would attest to–re: the back to back reviews of the IU and Purdue fumbles.
LikeLike
Every fan believes their team gets screwed by the refs. Even Michigan and OSU fans. The only constant I’ve ever seen is that the home crowd can affect things, but I don’t for one second believe in the idea that B1G refs have a uniform preference for one B1G team over another. Maybe, *maybe*, on the individual level… but definitely not as a group. We’ve all got stories on how the B1G refs screwed our schools. It happens.
LikeLike
I would love to see this happen! Hail to Pitt!
LikeLike
@mushroomgod
My apologies for my fellow Nitts tone. You HAVE been there for us, while others(need I say whom)sent their legions to conspire and contrive against us! 🙂 If my memory serves me, you were also the most ardent advocator of adding Maryland and Rutgers from the beginning. I am extremely happy for both of those additions.
@David Brown
You, I would guess are from western Pa. I am from the eastern side, and care not whether we play Pitt ever again. .
LikeLike
The timing on the next contract ended up working out well for Penn State coming out of sanctions, should be negotiated around early/mid-2016 for the 2017 start.
As long as the right coach is in place (O’Brien seems to be a great coach but I’m not sure he can resist the NFL temptation for 5-6 years), Penn State should be back and humming by 2019-2020.
LikeLike
David Brown,
” and why most people basically hate the move.”
I don’t think that’s true at all. I think a fringe element on the internet complained a lot. I think many of the older fans/alumni understood the financial and academic side right away. It doesn’t mean they like it, but they accept it as the right thing to do. The internet is generally anti-everything and speaks much louder than the majority of fans with more central feelings.
LikeLike
If there’s enough for a new full post, I might have new one up tonight. In the meantime, a couple of items:
As I posted on Twitter last night, I’ve heard from a couple of different places that an ACC 3-team expansion is certainly on the table as a viable option. The assumption was that this would be the additions of UConn, Louisville and Cincinnati (as previously discussed).
However, here’s an interesting Tweet that just came up from the ACC Sports website (independent of the conference):
So, we might be swapping out Cincinnati for Navy. Taking a step back, it might make some sense. Navy gets the ACC back into the state of Maryland again and would presumably come in as a football-only member, which means that they would balance out the numbers with Notre Dame’s non-football membership. Navy also certainly has the academics (and maybe they’ll bring along lacrosse, too). The counter-argument, though, is that this won’t warm the hearts of the on-the-field football people. This should be interesting.
LikeLike
If they do take Navy, that means they own 6 of ND’s schedule…, that’s just 2 more games until you have ND on a full ACC schedule.
LikeLike
@zeek – That’s one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that ND will maintain the 5-game ACC schedule with Navy permanently locked in as a part of it, thereby giving the Irish more scheduling flexibility (as that frees up 1 non-ACC game that would have been dedicated to Navy). You might see ND-Michigan back on the schedule again.
LikeLike
Frank, but that severely favors ND.
All of a sudden ND would have 1 of 5 locked in against Navy, but only 4 other games to be split among 15 teams?
That means teams go from being promised ND every 3 years to every 4 years…
You go from promising 1 home trip every 6 years to 1 home trip every 8 years.
I highly doubt that the rest of the conference gets on board that plan.
LikeLike
Frank:
Why would Michigan be willing to put Notre Dame on the schedule again? The last time the two schools played one another earlier this year, ND AD Jack Swarbrick was handing a letter to UM AD David Brandon prior to the game to formally inform him that the series was ending. Swarbrick made sure to do it then to make sure last September’s game was included as part of the required three-year notice.
If that’s how Notre Dame wants to handle things vis-a-vis Michigan (no previous phone calls to give them a head’s up, etc.), then what incentive does UM have to play ND going forward? There’s no extra money involved to do it. You could make the argument based on ratings, but the ratings for the season opener with Alabama was up there as well. Get the right opponent, play it under the lights in prime time and you get people’s attention.
We’ll see what happens, but I can’t see Michigan scheduling Notre Dame in football when there are other options out there. The two schools have played on an almost regular basis since 1978 and for part of that time, UM had four total non-conference games. Now with the B1G going to 14 and perhaps 16 teams, it’s very likely that Michigan will have three non-conference games on the schedule, which means one home-and-home OOC series (to ensure seven home games minimum). Maybe Notre Dame is one of the teams in the mix for that home-and-home series in some future scenario, but I don’t necessarily see it an annual meeting between the two unless ND joins the B1G.
LikeLike
Bingo. I never thought that the UM-ND was going to last much longer anyways (though it ended quicker than I thought) but I think ND probably burned that bridge. Michigan doesn’t need Notre Dame.
LikeLike
If they do take Navy, RIP ACC, 1953-2013. FSU and Clemson will take the 1st ticket out. Virginia Tech will quickly follow. Tobacco road will then be forced to leave. I think Swofford has Clemson tied down barring others leaving. This would change that.
LikeLike
You could just rename it the Notre Dame conference and be done with it.
LikeLike
Navy, yikes. Though I do like 16 teams for the ACC in which the old guard and the new additions are in separate divisions:
North Carolina, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest, Virginia, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech
Miami, Pittsburgh, Boston College, V-Tech, UConn, Navy, Louisville, Syracuse
Play 7 games against your division with one protected cross over rivel (FSU-Miami, Virginia-Virginia Tech are the obvious ones, the others don’t really matter)
In Basketball – have four pods. Home-and-home against your pod and one game each against the other 12 teams = 18 total conference basketball games.
Pods:
North Carolina Schools
Miami, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech
Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Notre Dame
Pittsburgh, Syracuse, UConn, Boston College
They probably wouldn’t do it, but it would be awesome if only the four pods winners advanced to the ACC tournament for a double elimination brawl.
LikeLike
If I am Florida State & Clemson I would flat out be sick to my stomach if Navy & Connecticut are added to the Conference. Those two on my schedule (Not to mention such football “Powers” as Duke, Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse & Virginia). I would bet “Anchors Aweigh” will never get played in Doak Campbell and even the FSU band would be playing “Texas Fight” (The UT Fight Song) on their way to the Big XII with Clemson. Beyond that, if I was UNC I would be looking for the Conference exit ramp as well because I would realize that “Tobacco Road” is no longer the Capital of The ACC, that is now located in South Bend, Indiana.
LikeLike
Yes, but if Swofford is smart he’ll pitch it to FSU and Clemson as purging the old Big East schools to a separate division. Give FSU a protected crossover of Miami. If FSU is happy and stays, then Clemson isn’t going anywhere.
Virginia and the North Carolina schools should be happier to have an old guard ACC division as well. It might be enough to keept them around.
Main potential lose at that point would be Virginia Tech, but if the ACC is stable and Virginia is staying put then I don’t see the Hokies going anywhere.
It’s possible that Louisville would jump to the Big XII at some point but I don’t think the important schools in the old guard ACC division would care if Louisville had to be replaced by Cincinnati as some point. They won’t be playing them much anyway.
LikeLike
Has the ACC had a coherent strategy when it comes to expansion? The first time they expanded, they clearly did – to get better in football, while solidifying the east coast. However, that simply did not turn out as expected. But it made a lot of sense at the time. However, there most recent expansion seems to be simply trying to maintain its status as one of the top 4 conferences. I’m not sure it is working out as intended either. Maryland was smart to leave, and I hope UVA makes the same decision. Who knows how things will work out in the long run, but I’d rather take my chances in the B10.
If VA, VT (assuming B10 or SEC) and MD are gone, how is the ACC viable as a major conference?
If FSU leaves for the B12 along with a Clemson or NC State, how is the ACC viable as a majory conference?
Frank – I’m not sure the ACC can really save itself in the long run. It may seem inevitable from the start. 25 years ago they were a regional basketball conference with some top tier institutions.
LikeLike
Honestly, I don’t think the ACC has had a rational plan for expansion since they added FSU.
They’ve just been taking the Big East’s schools but there’s never been an overarching plan as there was with the Big Ten, SEC, and Pac-12.
LikeLike
I have viewed the ACC expansions in the past decade as a way of keeping them ahead of the Big East as the dominate conference of the eastern seaboard.
In 2003, Miami was on the heels of a very dominate few years in football. Boston College and Syracuse will both better than they currently are as well. That they ended up with V-Tech instead of Syracuse was dumb luck on their part, from a football viewpoint anyway.
That expansion clearly set the football pecking order as: ACC > Big East (on paper for sure, closer on the field as the ACC as not lived up to expectations).
Last year, I think they poached Syracuse and Pittsburgh as the Big East was clearly becoming the better basketball conference. It also had the secondary effect of destabilizing the football side of the Big East to the point that they got desperate and adding a bunch of schools to try to maintain their AQ status in football. This really diluted their basketball product and has resulting in much turmoil within the ranks.
So, while I don’t think they thought it out quite that way, I think in both cases they saw the Big East stretching into their traditional turf and starting to surpass them on the field/court. They made the rational choice of picking off a few Big East schools to weaken their rival conference and gain a larger footprint for themselves. I don’t think they’ve integrated the newcomers very well though.
LikeLike
“I have viewed the ACC expansions in the past decade as a way of keeping them ahead of the Big East as the dominate conference of the eastern seaboard.”
If that’s the case, the ACC decided to keep ahead of the Big East by skinning and wearing it as a suit Buffalo Bill-style.
LikeLike
@Frank
Navy doesn’t “get” Maryland in the way you might think! While Navy is located in Annapolis, it is a “national team.” Each Middie is appointed by a Senator so they represent the entire USA. In terms of fan following, Navy has problems filling its own stadium and a weak radio/TV presence in MD/DC. It isn’t the same as having a huge number of former B1G alums in Baltimore, DC and NoVA able to watch a B1G game against UMCP in either College Park, FEDEX or M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore.
As for the so-called anger about MD into the B1G, why is the Terp Board waiting to play Northwestern more strongly than Duke? I think Loh made the right move, and Swofford is grasping at straws….
LikeLike
In Loh’s article it said it happened quickly and quietly. It accelerated when it started hitting the internet.
UVA to Big 10 has really been hitting the internet the last few days and I see much more of that than any other rumour (other than the ACC replacements). I always felt like UVA would be one of the last ones off the ship, but maybe Big 10 money projections have them interested. Instead of FSU or VT leading an exodus, could it be UVA?
LikeLike
It could be if you look at the financials.
I sound like a broken record by now, but UVa’s athletics department is costly (2nd in ACC behind FSU). Yes, it’s profitable for now, but how long until the costs of all those secondary sports overwhelms their revenue generating abilities?
LikeLike
UVa’s athletic department is only profitable because they charge more student fees than any AQ school besides USF. Without those subsudies they would be in the same trouble as Maryland.
LikeLike
LikeLike
After adding basically all of the Big East and adding ND as an all sports but football member, the ACC now decides it might start adding football only members?
Instead of naming it the ND conference might as well name it “Hopefully it works out better for us” conference.
LikeLike
It sounds like the ACC is a couple Catholic basketball schools away from just being the Big East + Tobacco Road.
LikeLike
Navy would really suck……..don’t know if it makes sense, but I read that Navy might be a “football only” school.
LikeLike
Atlantic Coast Confidential: Navy to the ACC? . And Army for good measure….
LikeLike
I think its fair to say that you can make many arguments for any pairing of schools when (and if) the B10 goes to 16. The only common consensus seems to be UVA. Whether it is VT, UNC, or GT probably doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. All three offer some good (but non-overlapping) positives, but they all have some negatives as well. My guess is the one that will come along will be the one that is easiest. Meaning, the last thing the B10 wants to do is get in a legislation fight with VA or a public fallout with the State of Carolina. The upside to being the biggest, most attractive conference (othre than SEC from a football persepctive) is that it is usually pretty easy to marshall support from the constituencies related to the invited school. The downside is you don’t want to risk the embarrasment of inviting someone and have those plans squashed by the legislature or the public (usually one in the same because the legislature takes its cues from the public).
GT would likely be the easiest from an individual school perspective. But if UVA is your target 15, who would be the easiest 16th. Arguments can be made for any of the other three, though I would suspect it would be VT, GT and NC in that order. I’m not sure there is any single criteria that would cause the B10 to reject a school – e.g., AAU status. You just throw all the pros and cons together and make your best choice.
Personally, as a UVA alum, I’d rather be seperated from VT. They have only been together for a short history anyway. I really just want UVA to end up in the B10 because I am a B10 fan and don’t want to be part of dying conference or end up in the SEC.
LikeLike
The AAU discussion though may be a determining factor.
No one’s really sure how hard schools like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Northwestern (although Northwestern is the most relaxed of those 3, I would guess; it’s really the first two that are pushing this angle) are pushing for AAU’s only.
One other thing though, UVa may be much more hesitant to bail on the North Carolina group. They may require UNC to be along for the ride. We just don’t know.
UVa’s identity seems much more tied to UNC than Maryland’s ever was tied to Tobacco Road. That’s just my take as an outsider, you can correct me if I’m wrong.
I have a hard time seeing UVa bolt without UNC although I guess it is possible.
Sullivan is still the most interesting angle to me; she’s like Loh in that respect.
LikeLike
That’s the unknown. On the one hand, UVA is tied to UNC in school likeness and history and as founding members of the ACC. On the other, UVA is tied to VT in terms of state and legisltature seeming to want them to be together (or at least both to be taken care of from a conference perspective).
With respect to Sullivan, she is an interesting angle. She survived a dismissmal that was brought upon because of her lack of vision. She was able to rally the public. Could moving to the B10 be the kind of visionary move certain people want. Or could it be her final undoing.
My guess is UVA makes this sale by going with UNC or taking VT with them. The timing may not be right yet.
I think the reason that MD and the B10 is being so forthright in terms of monetary amount that MD may reap is clearly aimed at UVA.
LikeLike
Yep, the targeted leaks were clearly aimed at UVa.
UVa has the 2nd most expensive athletics operation behind FSU in the ACC. They run an incredibly high quality and costly Olympics-sporting operation.
The fact that Maryland gave detailed info on payouts to SI and despite that, Delany followed up with a full interview with them (something you would never see if the leak was disapproved of to say the least) just shows that.
LikeLike
@zeek
Your prediction about the disclosure of the financials by Delany appears to to be spot on, Zeek. It has the targeted school thinking.
;-o)
LikeLike
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought she survived a coup attempt by a small group of rich boosters who’s vision for the future of UVa was so extreme that near unanimous support for her forced the reversal. It wasn’t lacking vision. It was not sharing the vision of the instigators.
LikeLike
I’d love to know what the two “visions” were in this case.
LikeLike
Regardless, it was a lack of forward vision that certain boosters and trustee members shared. UVA won’t be the last school that has these kind of battles between outsiders who are on the board and insiders who have been in academy all their lives. Vision to be able to grab more dollars from the B10 than currently receiving in ACC and to partner with other top schools may be the type of thing that certain board members want to see. I really have no idea. Its just another factor at play.
What is clear is that colleges need revenue. In the end, the B10 offers substantially more revenue. Hard to turn that down in the present regardless of other factors at play. Its why if the B10 is willing to invite UVA, they will likely join them. It may simply take a little more time to allow this to fruit to ripen. Leaking the financial informatoin is the quickest and easiest way to get there.
Of course if the SEC or B12 pick off some schools, this could accelerate the time line. Either way, I would say it is a foregone conclusion that if the B10 wants UVA, UVA will accept.
LikeLike
LikeLike
@ccrider: Fascinating, but anyone who has any experience with government-appointed boards knows their actions don’t sound all that out of the norm unfortunately.
LikeLike
“Hunter Rawlings, the chief executive of the Association of American Universities, calls Sullivan’s forced resignation the “most egregious” case of boardroom intrigue he has ever witnessed.”
LikeLike
My concern here would be that while Sullivan seemingly has the side of the academics, and maybe the students with regards to academic issues, does she have the support of the alumni or the boardmembers that sheeped back to her side for something as drastic as UVA to the B1G?
I mean, it’s one thing to say “let’s shake things up” when you’re on a board because you know most of the backlash would go to the president. Would they support a president that says, “Alright, well, my change is to move us from a conference we helped found 60 years ago.”
LikeLike
@manifestodeluxe
You have a good point; at least we’re going to find out soon enough…
LikeLike
Virginia needs to do what is best for it’s future. Ultimately, Va state politics have nothing to do with NC. The consensus among Va fans, the closer than some may think, would be B1G over the SEC, if they had to choose. The alum are more BIG, the tshirt football fans like the challenge of the SEC, the latter types would soon learn that the B1G has yet to truly optimize its football power due to periodic sanctions & Nebraska’s early tenure.
Wow! Football outside, Va would fit in great with not only the B1G’s academic profile, but their athletic dept actually values the NACDA Cup & would be on par with PSU, tOSU & Michigan, who consistently crack the top 10. Va has cracked the top 10 a few times since this NACDA was implemented. One thing I love about the B1G is how often they place numerous teams in the top 25 of the final NACDA rankings.
Va would have great rivalries in the B1G – esp Women’s Lax, Men’s & Women’s Soccer, Women’s Rowing & Hoops, overall. Men’s Lax would finally have enough teams to create a conference: Md, Mi, tOSU, PSU, Rutgers & Va – pretty potent.
LikeLike
I felt like this was an interesting exercise. (maybe it’s not) Using only the potential expansion candidates for the B1G, SEC, & B12, if you were to put a TV package together starting from scratch, which schools would provide the most value.
I found this study, http://www.ibj.com/the-score/2011/10/12/college-football-financial-listing-reveals-winners-losers/PARAMS/post/30084, which i believe has been linked to and discussed here before. It is obviously flawed but it gives a decent starting point.
I included the valuations that were available. Private schools were not evaluated in the study.
All things considered, this is my list:
Value(in MM) School
$848 Texas
Notre Dame
$343 Oklahoma
$134 Virginia Tech
$25 Florida State
$65 North Carolina
$235 Arkansas
$85 Georgia Tech
$152 Kentucky
$141 West Virginia
$131 Clemson
$15 Maryland
$102 North Carolina State
$99 Missouri
Miami
Duke
$0 Rutgers
$28 Virginia
BYU
$30 Louisville
Syracuse
$64 Boise State
$15 Kansas
$0 UConn
$15 Cincinnati
$44 Pittsburgh
$39 South Florida
$54 Central Florida
Boston College
Navy
Wake Forest
LikeLike
Tulane is heading to the Big East for all-sports. Several outlets, including ESPN, CBS and local New Orleans reports, are confirming this.
LikeLike
It’s a good move, if you’re the Big East, you should just go and plant flags in markets like they did with Houston and SMU. Try to be a football version of what they are in basketball.
LikeLike
Congrats to my law school Alma Mater!
I guess.
LikeLike
The ACC lacks foresight. Every move since it added Miami has been problematic.
It tried to add BC and Syracuse. Neither of which was a great long-term football add. At least they had the luck of Virginia’s politicos stepping in and forcing them to take Virginia Tech and improve their football (they had to have this forced upon them…). BC was never a good add.
Next, they again try to add Syracuse, only this time with Pitt. I’m still not sure how either of these secures the football side of things. Pitt has some value as a name, but again Syracuse is problematic. Why not at least take a chance on a 50 year add like Rutgers?
The ACC has been trying to play the future like the Big 12 but without the game-changing piece of Texas. That’s never been a great strategy in a game like this.
The Big Ten and SEC have transparently been going after national names and local markets.
The Pac-12 was the same with their land grab attempt that fell through but was at least a well-aimed objective. Besides, they’re safe from poaching, no one’s going to go a thousand miles west to try and grab Arizona/Arizona State.
LikeLike
The ACC has been playing the Big East’s playbook instead of a playbook like the Big Ten/SEC/Pac-12.
That’s really my main problem with the ACC.
LikeLike
When you don’t have a quarterback, you run the ball. Simple as that.
LikeLike
The ACC’s established base is very small – two states. Before MD left, you could say it was 3. And while those are growing states, they are relatively small ones. The B10’s established base may be losing population, but it is still a huge base. Further, they are big school with huge alumni that are moving to the east and to the south, thus extending the B10 brand. The ACC’s base basically stays in the same area – spreading to NY, DC and ATL. The latter two are already in their geographic area, and their alumni base is simply too small to affect the NY market. BC, while a decent school, unfortunately sits in Boston which does not support college football that much.
The B10 and SEC have made strategic additions that have extended the brand. The ACC additions never really did that. It didn’t help that as they brought in Miami, that FSU fell a little, followed by Miami’s fall. Things might have been different if Miami and FSU had been to the ACC as what LSU and Alabama have been to the SEC over the last decade.
Notice that while the B10 hasn’t won a title in a decade and Michigan has stumbled and PSU and OSU are now on probabtion, the B10 is still the top overall conference (arguably anyway – and if you just go by money, they are).
The B10, SEC and P10 were simply playing with a bigger base and have been able to overcome down periods. The ACC couldn’t, and now they could possibly be on the verge of explosion. The B12 had the fortune of a UT, coupled with an Oklahoma.
When the dust settles, I think it will look rather obvious that the ACC was not going to make it as a major conference. They made their bold move by adding Miami and VT. Unfortunately, they were not able to capitalize with national titles. Even then, it may not have mattered. They were second fiddle except for Md, VA, and NC. Those states were growing, but they were also growing with B10 and SEC alums. I just don’t see the ACC surviving as a major conference.
LikeLike
Knowing all of what you’re saying, then wouldn’t adding Rutgers have been imperative to them a couple years ago? Just to add another population base to NC/Va/Md?
LikeLike
Perhaps. But schools mean different things to different conferences. The B10 can make non-football moves, but the ACC may not be able to. Perception sometimes trumps reality. I’m not as big on the Rutgers move to the B10 as you are, though I can see the upside. Sometimes that upside never materializes. We shall see.
LikeLike
The “Big 10 region” is not losing population. Only Michigan lost population. Baby boomers retiring in Arizona and Florida won’t turn Indiana into a vast empty wasteland. By the way, every single state that has a SEC school had a lower rate of growth than Alaska. I guess the Pac 12 should add Alaska-Anchorage.
LikeLike
The main reason why the population argument is a bit outdated is because these student bodies are becoming more and more national. Yeah, we still need t-shirt fans, but as you point out the states aren’t yet declining outside of slight declines in Michigan.
Michigan for example should be over 35% out-of-state undergrads and they plan to increase that. Michigan State is doing the same. Northwestern’s student body has always been national as a private school.
We’re seeing more and more, that these schools are going to “replenish” their student supplies from the East Coast areas (obviously Chicago will always be a huge student pool for Big Ten schools as well).
LikeLike
By around 2030, Pennsylvania, Ohio and maybe Iowa will also be losing population. Ohio has already lost 25% of its high school seniors since 1980 due to the aging of population both in the US, but more specifically in the midwest.
And of course, the relative portion of the US population is declining. The US Census projection to 2030 before the 2010 Census had 6 Big 10 states in the bottom 12 of growth. All 9 were below the national average of 29% and only Minnesota (#20-28%) was in the top half of states for growth. BTW Maryland was #16-33% and New Jersey #24-16%. All 6 Pac 12 states were in the top 14.
LikeLike
You need to look at the Census figures more closely dude. I can’t have this debate anymore. Perception can be reality, but this is overstated perception. Also, any particular state’s economies can turn around. Lastly, US population growth will inevitably decline across the board, minus waves of transmigration here and there. Latinos, of course, add to the national fabric – but it’s not like this demographic is the next so-called generation of football players. Bottom line, B1G schools are national and global universities – they should make this pitch more often – esp after securing the top in-state talent. Furthermore, the B1G footprint needs to push more spring football, which could be an equalizer, long term.
LikeLike
@Frank
Tulane as #12 was a shock to me. In retrospect no, some people say Tulane was seriously considered for the Big 12. 1:00 today is the story.
Owls get hurt by realignment again. How about Rice and UH to the Pac 12?
LikeLike
I think it’s a continuation of their original strategy. The Big East has made it clear that they want markets.
They want to plant flags in markets; Tulane is a natural extension of the Memphis/SMU/Houston/SDSU/etc. additions.
LikeLike
If there was one program I thought was as bad as we were, it was Tulane. D3 here we come…
LikeLike
Location, location, location; it’s a game-changer here.
LikeLike
Houston’s five times the size of New Orleans and less a UT area than N.O. is an LSU stronghold. But no one wants Rice.
LikeLike
Hope the Pac 12 feels some inexplicable compulsion to expand. Houston has to be #1 on their list of non-Big 12 teams. Either you get to tag along or fill their spot in the Big East.
LikeLike
Er, loki, but U-Houston gets that angle first is the problem…
LikeLike
Even if we go 80/20 UH/Rice we’re still up there with Tulane.
LikeLike
loki – in New Orleans, Tulane football currently ranks behind the Saints, LSU, St. Augustine’s HS, John Curtis HS, Archbishop Rummel HS, and Jesuit HS, and the AFL’s Voodoo.
That being said, Tulane is a great cultural fit for the Big East. There are probably more Tulane students from Long Island than there are students from Louisiana.
Also, former Saints assistant Curtis Johnson is the new HC. He won’t get any LSU recruits, but he’ll beat out LA Tech and Southern Miss for a lot of recruits. On occasion, Johnson will steal a recruit or two from Miss State and Ole Miss.
The new stadium comes on-line in 2014, which is the first year in the Big East, which looks a lot like the CUSA that Tulane helped establish.
LikeLike
I think their of non-Big 12 teams is:
1) No one
2) Maybe we’ll think about BYU
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/21160906/big-east-adding-tulane-but-working-toward-bigger-fish—-byu
You catch this Frank?
LikeLike
@zeek – The headline is a bit misleading – that really should say “BYU rejected latest Big East offer”. If BYU was hesitating in joining a Big East with Rutgers/Louisville/UConn, then I can’t imagine what incentive they have to join a league without them.
LikeLike
Fair point. It seems as if the BYU angle is sort of like the Big Ten’s ND angle.
Once it was clear that BYU was off the table, they move to plan B and go for Tulane/ECU-football sort of like the Big Ten going after Rutgers/Maryland.
LikeLike
ECU to the Big East (2014) football-only?
Expansion palooza overdrive here.
LikeLike
East Carolina will join Big East as football-only in 2014
LikeLike
That is why I thought it was crazy for CUSA to follow ECU’s suggestions of ODU and Charlotte. The rest of you got stuck with far away teams that add little value and kill the perception of the conference in the short run until they get up to speed.
LikeLike
If the next shoe that drops is UTEP and Tulsa to the MWC, I see no reason to go on.
LikeLike
2011-5 teams moved (BYU, Boise, CU, UU, UNL)
2012-10 teams moved (Fresno, NV, Hawaii, TCU, Missouri, A&M,WVU, Temple, TX St., UTSA)
2013-15 teams move (La Tech, TX St., UTSA, Utah St., San Jose St., UH, Memphis, UCF, SMU, Boise, SDSU, North Texas, FIU, Pitt, Syracuse)
2014 and later-already up to 8 (Navy, Tulane, ECU, Rutgers, Maryland, ODU, Charlotte, Georgia State). Do we get to 20?
UTSA, Texas St. and Boise have already moved twice. TCU kind of moved twice without ever getting to BE.
LikeLike
McMurphyESPN Brett McMurphy
In 2014, nine of the Big East’s members will have been former Conference USA members
The old gang is almost back together again.
LikeLike
These other moves are all kind of small potatoes. No?
LikeLike
They matter inasmuch as movement begets movement; even little tremors keep the tectonic plates hot.
It’s a constant circle as there are fewer and fewer available seats at each of the leagues as schools continue to move up the ladder (even though this might come off as running in place with respect to C-USA -> Big East).
LikeLike
I am shocked that Tulane was chosen over UTEP, Tulsa or Louisiana Tech. I am happy for East Carolina though (Although the Big (L)East may be the stepping stone to the ACC for the Pirates).
LikeLike
They’re in a TV market.
If you look at the game that the Big East is playing, they’re planting flags in markets.
Tulane is in New Orleans, so that’s what they’re after…
LikeLike
@zeek – Nobody in New Orleans cares about Tulane. Rice probably has a bigger following in Houston. Furthermore, the New Orleans MSA is smaller than Memphis, Louisville, Oklahoma City, Richmond, and Hartford.
LikeLike
@Mike B.
You’re correct; I’m just stating the Big East’s plans. They are just going around picking up schools based on location for the most part.
They finally picked up ECU like they did Boise State (for football purposes), but all the other additions have been because of the locations of the schools.
LikeLike
8 of the 12 charter members of CUSA will be in the Big East (+ UCF). 1 is A10 (St. Louis), 1 was A10 and returning (Charlotte). Only S. Miss and UAB have been there the whole time.
BE basketball is now 9 former CUSA, 6 old BE schools plus Temple.
BE football is now 8 former CUSA, 1 new BE fb team (UConn), 1 former BE team (Temple) + Boise, SDSU and Navy.
ACC is now 8 ACC and 6 BE (including ND).
LikeLike
The more things change…
LikeLike
Brett McMurphyVerified
@McMurphyESPN
Tulane president in March interview: “If you look at the Big East now, the Big East is no more than the old Conference USA”
—————————————-
I’ll just let Tulane’s prez speak for me.
LikeLike
Well got er right back to where he started from.
And CUSA was the clear #7 conference in 1996. So he’s in the clear #6 conference, at least as long as they hold onto Boise.
LikeLike
And if the ACC falls apart, the ACC, instead of Big East 2.0 becomes Big East 3.0 (circa 2005) and the Big East instead of being CUSA 1996 becomes CUSA 2005 while the CUSA becomes the Sun Belt 2010 (fitting considering CUSA was almost a merger of old MVC 1960s/early 70s and the best of the original Sun Belt (UAB,USF,UNCC). Its really pretty amusing.
LikeLike
Musical chairs where everyone from one neighborhood moves to another just as everyone from that neighborhood already moved out…
LikeLike
Per thesabre.com, which looks to me to be the best VA forum(?), VA’s president says VA is NOT in discussions with the BIG….
Those fans want out of Dodge quick….they want nothing to do with UoL…..and are really looking at the BIG.
The contrast between the attitudes of the VA and UNC posters on their forums is sriking…….UNC posters VERY MUCH DO NOT want the BIG……so although it seemed unlikely, I think VA and UNC do ultimately get seperated.
If SEC DOES add UNC, would they stop with also adding VA Tech, or would they want NC State as well??
LikeLike
Based on nothing other than my opinion, I would have trouble accepting a scenario where UNC leaves for a better conference and NCST is left in the “collapsing” conference. I would imagine both schools would have to be taken care of if either was to leave the ACC. I ddoubt either is going to leave though.
LikeLike
UVa may not be in discussions right now, but as we saw with Maryland that can change in a heartbeat.
I think it’s up to Clemson or FSU or the Big 12 right now to make the first move.
LikeLike
Clemson won’t make that move. At least not first. And I really don’t believe FSU does either. The problem is the Big 12 is streets behind the SEC and Big 10. The benefits are minimal unless/until the ACC starts to crumble.
LikeLike
None of us know what the SEC expects to make. They are behind the Big 12 at the moment as well as Pac 12 and Big 10. Those 3 are all close and SEC probably will be as well until (or unless) they get their network up and running and that will take a while to generate cash.
LikeLike
Eggs
LikeLike
If the PAC can “gamble” on wholly owned, and make money in year one (probably not huge money, but profitable), I’d bet on the SECN being more than just profitable very quickly.
LikeLike
Bullet, you’re seriously deluding yourself on this particular topic, and you have been for over a year now.
LikeLike
Show me the money.
Until then its just idle speculation.
Should they be able to do close to what the Big 10 does? Sure. But its taken the Big 10 5 years to get to $7.2 million.
And the SEC fans have proven themselves delusional on the Tier I. CBS said no way they were going to pay a lot more. ESPN will pay something, but they aren’t going to rip up the contract.
LikeLike
Reading through that site, I really don’t think that UVa fans should be as worried as they are.
It’s unfathomable to me that a school like that would get left out when the music stops; it’s just impossible to see a scenario where they don’t end up in either the Big Ten or SEC if the ACC implodes.
They have a landing spot for sure if/when they move.
LikeLike
To the fans, the worst case scenerio would be to stay in the ACC, with the new addition(s), unless ND gets in 100%……..and they don’t trust the President/Board, who obviously have been feuding, to make the correct decision.
LikeLike
That’s a good point too; the Sullivan/Dragas feud is a potential wrench if this comes up.
Sullivan might be portrayed as Loh is in some quarters of the Maryland coverage (as a Big Ten trojan horse).
LikeLike
Agree, someone is going to take Virginia; but they are likely to be separated from their in-state and local rivals.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod
Roger, TheSabre.com is the best site for UVA discussion, IMHO. The Rivals site is not as good.
LikeLike
As I’ve said above, I think what makes the most sense is UNC and NCSU to the SEC and UVA and VPI to the B1G.
LikeLike
Proabably will get lost in this morning’s expansion talk, but interesting tweet about the RU/Louisville game from the RU ath dept:
Jason Baum @JasonBaumRU
New York Post sending three writers to cover Thursday’s #RFootball game – 1st time the Post has triple staffed a college football game
Bearing some B1G fruit in NYC already?
LikeLike
Interesting to see that. We’ll have to see what the coverage looks like when they’re hosting schools like Ohio State or Michigan or Nebraska.
No doubt Delany will have their crossovers be Michigan and Nebraska (assuming same division setup) for that first two years…
LikeLike
I doubt it. The game is for the Big East title. It’s probably the first time Rutgers has been relevant in football for quite some time with something tangible on the line. It’s only natural for more media to be involved. It’s true of any sport. When there’s something on the line, the media presence increases significantly.
However, do you really believe that Rutgers will play another meaningful football game in the near future? In the Big 10? When they go back to getting stomped, the media will stop caring.
LikeLike
They can definitely compete with the middle & bottom of the B1G as it is IMO. Can’t see why that would change once they get a bump in already decent recruiting & coaching salaries, so I would lean to yes, they will at least play for lower level bowls from the word jump. Full disclosure: OSU & RU alum.
BTW, it was just announced that the Empire State Building will be lit in red for the game in honor of the game (was also done in 2006).
LikeLike
How about their first game in the Big Ten? When a highly ranked Michigan or Nebraska is on the schedule?
Or when a top 5 Ohio State comes to town?
Are you serious?
If Delany is smart (which I think he is), he’ll have Michigan @ Rutgers open up the Big Ten season in 2014 assuming a 14 team conference.
The next weekend he’ll have Rutgers fly out to Nebraska. And a few weeks later he’ll have Rutgers host Ohio State and then travel to Penn State.
That’s 4 huge games, of which two will be at home. The NYC media will be in a tizzy for that kind of schedule.
LikeLike
Mark Stoops, brother of Bob and current DC at Florida State, is the new HC at Kentucky. No link. Just heard it on the radio.
LikeLike
Saw that rumour yesterday.
LikeLike
Underwhelming hire, but I can see UK starting to recruit Ohio more heavily considering that is Stoops’ home state.
LikeLike
We knew this was going to happen: http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/acc-files-lawsuit-against-maryland-monday
LikeLike
McMurphyESPN Brett McMurphy
ACC has filed lawsuit against Maryland to ensure Terps pay full $50M exit fee
———————————————————
Bets on a settlement?
LikeLike
Less than 50¢ on the dollar for sure. As you observed earlier, it is in no one’s best interest to see this tried either in the press or in court. Is there a rule/clause that prevent the B1G from providing up front money to defray this cost?
LikeLike
I’m not sure the Big Ten would give money before, although we did “make Nebraska whole” when they forefeited that one year of TV money; I recall the Big Ten stepping in and giving them that… (could be hazy on the details though).
As far as Maryland goes, we’re giving them interest-free loans to help them fix their athletics department; not sure whether those would also go to paying off the settlement here.
LikeLike
Maryland won’t risk having to pay the whole thing, and I doubt the ACC will risk getting nothing. Either can happen when you let a case like this get to court, so I’d say a settlement is extremely likely.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think it’ll be split around $25 million. Maybe slightly less, but that’s already more than anyone’s else has ever paid to leave a conference. Doubt it goes above $25 million.
LikeLike
What was the prior exit fee, $20 million? Since Maryland didn’t agree to the new fee and weren’t granted adequate time to seek a new home isn’t that something along the lines of entrapment? I am not a lawyer but I can’t see how the sticking $50 million on Maryland would fly. I see the fee somewhere around $15 million. Since Maryland has given over 18 months notice they essentially are earning a portion of their exit fee over that time.
LikeLike
True, I’m probably overestimating; it has to be a maximum of $25 million although you’re closer to where it might end up.
LikeLike
100% they’ll settle, fwiw Maryland is going a loan from the B10 for the exit fee; it’ll likely be taken out from conference distributions.
LikeLike
I doubt anyone here is going to bet against there being a settlement of some sort. A betting pool on the SIZE of the settlement might get some traction, though.
LikeLike
My guess is Maryland immediately files a motion to have this removed to Federal court. Obviously this is going to settle out of court, but zero chance this is getting heard in a North Carolina state court in the event that it ever comes to that.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/21162720/documents-appear-to-show-improper-ncaa-involvement-in-usc-case
When do we acknowledge that the NCAA is broken? Is it the UNC thing or the USC thing? Or maybe the Auburn thing?
LikeLike
And Georgia Tech getting a major violation (same as UNC and Miami) and forfeiting a conference championship because one player got $300 worth of free clothes from an agent and Georgia Tech’s in house attorney ticked off the NCAA investigators. No GT person lied. GT didn’t know about it. The NCAA didn’t even know about it. They were investigating something else that they decided was not an issue when they stumbled across the free clothes for another player.
I don’t know what the clothes were, but that could be one pair of shoes.
LikeLike
Same thing happened with Missouri and Ricky Clemons. He got free flip flops and a free cheese sandwich. Look through the report, that’s all Missouri was charged with. No tournament ban, but 3 years probation I think.
LikeLike
bullet,
You left out the part where the free clothes could potentially be tied to a runner for an agent. And there was some lying, too. And by their definitions at the time, it was a major violation.
LikeLike
I don’t recall anyone lying but the player. I mentioned the agent.
LikeLike
Slap on the wrists for blatant cheating, recruiting violations, etc. Penalties except for PSU imo don’t fall in line with the sins. It seems programs like Bama, USC, Oklahoma, OSU, etc. get off way too easily.
LikeLike
I’m probably opening a can of worms here, but I’m not sure how OSU (assuming that’s Ohio State) got off “way too easily”.
LikeLike
As bullet says above, the Georgia Tech (and Ohio State) penalties are a joke. How UNC walks around “not under NCAA jurisdiction” for one of the worst academic scandals to ever hit college sports is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Tressel failed to report potential violations, and then lied about it. There were also several players who got a few hundred dollars worth of items from a booster for showing up at a charity event to raise money for cancer research. Those were for what the NCAA punished OSU.
Aside from the players who were suspended, the reports of additional ones were unfounded and those players were cleared by the NCAA. The reports of preferential deals for players on cars? Also found to be unfounded by the NCAA.
The punishments (both voluntary and NCAA-enforced) ended up being the head coach getting fired, a number of players suspended for all or parts of the 2011 season, vacated wins for the 2010 season, three years of scholarship reductions (3 per year), no bowl game for the 2012 season, and several years of probation.
All punishments were fair and deserved.
LikeLike
I think we’re in agreement here? I don’t see that as getting off way too easily.
OSU also returned their portion of the 2011 Sugar Bowl payout, fwiw.
LikeLike
This USC thing is very typical. NCAA gets personal and very arbitrary. They’re finally getting called on it.
Tennessee got extra penalties because Willie Mack Garza who was coaching at USC then apparently lied about the Tennessee case. So Tennessee gets penalized for the actions of a USC coach. It absolutely makes zero sense.
That they ignore the UNC thing just destroys their credibility. Maybe they couldn’t find anything else on Cam Newton & Auburn (despite the numerous former Auburn players giving published interviews about cheating and payments-let alone all the stories about the major Auburn booster involved in FDIC bank fraud issues), but I strongly suspect they didn’t want to find anything and didn’t devote much in resources. Now that Auburn had a 3-9 season they have decided its the time to go after them again.
LikeLike
They’re like the Keystone Cops at this point.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a clearer call for the death penalty than the UNC (rolling) scandal. Here we have the most widespread academic fraud that I think anyone’s ever seen at this level. And they act like it’s not something that they should be dealing with; the whole thing is just sad.
LikeLike
I see no reason why the NCAA should have the authority to give out the death penalty. I guess be careful of what authority you give to people, but the NCAA has a serious case of mission creep.
If a school or conference wants to give a death penalty, that’s fine. But the NCAA simply shouldn’t have the authority.
I’ve long thought the PSU scandal would be the high water mark for the NCAA. They used a serious scandal to extend their power because they had the moral high ground. But they will likely not have the moral high ground in the next case, and they will abuse their position. This will ultimately get certain programs to realize they are unnecessary.
If the conferences were smart, they would start sanctioning and policing their own schools ahead of the NCAA, so that in 10 years they can legitimately claim that the NCAA is not necessary. Then go for the basketball tourney money.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8683443/north-carolina-athletic-director-email-responds-realignment-rumors
UNC officially off the table?
LikeLike
Off the table until other dominoes move.
UNC is another Texas; they’ll move last.
LikeLike
A lot of “believe”, “want to”, “looking forward to”, etc. Honestly, on a second read, talk about a soft denial.
LikeLike
Its basically saying, we won’t leave as long as the ACC is a viable major conference. So if Virginia Tech, FSU and Clemson leave, we’re outa here! Nothing more than a lot of posters here have said. UNC will not be the 1st out the door.
What it does say that is new is that UNC and its fans are clearly concerned.
LikeLike
Pretty much how I read it the second time. Basically saying that viable is interpretive, and that they want to stick around but, you know, if it’s no longer viable for UNC…
I wonder if their definition of “no longer viable” is UMD is staring at a huge cash upgrade they can’t compete with.
LikeLike
Zeek would be correct, if more dominoes fall (imo any 3 of VT, Clemson, FSU, Miami, Virginia) NC suddenly finally realizes the B10, SEC and Big XII are going to eventually eat up all the assets in the ACC.
LikeLike
Yep, and if the chairs start filling, UNC will make sure that they get a spot of their choice.
LikeLike
They think they are another Texas, but they lack the backing of the 2nd largest state, the enrollment the size of Ohio State, or the ability to generate money that Texas has.
So while they will likely always have a home like Texas would, they will not have the same leverage a Texas would.
I wonder how open KY would be to UNC in the SEC. They have reigned supreme in the SEC for basekball for years. I suspect many fans would welcome another basketball powerhouse, while others would hate it.
LikeLike
UNC is not UT, and never will be. The economic disparity between those two Schools is > Kentucky & Alabama, and the popularity disparity is > Cubs/White Sox. UNC probably believes the ESPN propaganda putting Duke/UNC over Ohio State/Michigan or Yankees/Red Sox.
LikeLike
The ACC’s big problem is that it has a lot of pieces that would be attractive to other conferences, but lacks a core strong enough to hold everyone together.
LikeLike
All of that is why the ACC is so much less stable than the Big 12 right now.
The Big 12 is being held together by UT and its ability to hold OU close to it (since OU needs to be with UT).
The ACC’s bonds are considerably weaker because UNC doesn’t exert a “Texas-like” pull on UVa and because the football powers have nothing to do with UNC (FSU, Miami, Clemson, Va Tech).
LikeLike
You’re right about UT not being UNC, but Oklahoma does not need Texas. They won like 6 national titles without being in the same conference and kids in north Texas aren’t going to forget that there is an elite football team in Norman just because OU and UT are in different conferences.
(Plus, they could always continue the RRR. It is literally too valuable for both schools)
LikeLike
UVA also denies being in “discussions” with Big 10. But this denial is even softer than UNC. http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2012/11/27/3697580/virginia-big-ten-realignment-rumors-conference.
All you can really draw from the President telling the board that they are not in discussions is that nothing is imminent. Doesn’t necessarily mean nothing will happen. AD’s denial doesn’t mean very much. Based on Maryland’s timeline, if something happens, it wouldn’t be before New Year’s.
LikeLike
The B1G doesn’t have to move first. Their preferred targets would either never join the SEC or Big 12, or would do so only as the last option:
Georgia Tech: Will not be admitted to SEC. Would choose B1G over Big 12 for institutional reasons (CIC, etc.) and more money if movement is happening.
UVA: Would never join either SEC or Big 12.
UNC: Will not leave early for anyone. Actively dislikes SEC culture and would not subordinate self to Texas/associate with various Tier 3 academic schools in Big 12.
Duke: If ACC implodes, only of interest to the B1G. Has zero synergy with anyone else.
LikeLike
If UNC fans had their way, UNC would go to the SEC and the SEC will have good money to offer. But UNC has a pile of other considerations ranging from institutional pride to the number of sports they sponsor to the serious scandal issues they’ve had around athletics the past few years.
The B1G doesn’t need to hop out there and try to beat the SEC to the punch for UNC. UNC will only move if the ACC implodes and would be in no hurry.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be so sure UVA and UNC choose Big 10 over SEC.
If I had to guess, it would be UVA B10 and UNC SEC, but it could go either way.
Of course, we’re assuming they leave in the 1st place and I’m not so sure that happens.
LikeLike
UVA isn’t really a Southern school (anymore) and certainly isn’t a win-at-all-costs, damn the academics and other sports, football school. They just don’t fit in the SEC and they know it (Vanderbilt doesn’t either, but they got in on the founding).
I’m also not all that convinced that the SEC would even want them. They’re a doormat in the SEC East in football and the SEC does not care about any of the other sports and does not have an academic consortium.
LikeLike
What is the Big Ten’s timeline here though?
I suspect the conference wants to have most everything possible in place when the negotiations start for the next major television contract. The current ABC/ESPN deal concludes in 2016 and the B1G’s fiscal year starts on 1 July (ex. FY 2017 starts on 1 July 2016).
Maryland and Rutgers accepted the B1G’s invitation this month and should be part of the conference on 1 July 2014. That’s essentially a 20-month lead time from the agreement to the contract until formal admission to the conference.
I suppose there could be a two-year window before the conference puts out its next set of invitations, but this isn’t a static situation either. The programs that the B1G has identified may not be available at a later date. The Washington Post article with the Maryland president’s interview stated that they briefed him on their expansion plans and financial outlook. While we don’t know the specifics in that briefing package, I have to imagine it included the target schools.
I think we all remember that the B1G had planned a 12- to 18-month study period starting in December 2009 before moving on with expansion. Well, seven months later, we were watching the news conference in Lincoln as Nebraska became the B1G’s 12th team and everyone was talking about the possible demise of the Big XII. Since then, we’ve seen all sorts of schools, big and small, shifting around to what they perceive to be to their own advantage.
The lesson here is that the B1G may not be able to dictate the timeline. It’s not hard to imagine that the invitations to Maryland and Rutgers were set in motion in large part by Notre Dame accepting partial membership to the ACC. The UMD president said his first meeting with the conference was in “early October”–that would be perhaps 3 to 4 weeks after the ND announcement went out on 12 September.
The other question is this–what is the reason for waiting? The B1G certainly seems to have a plan in place for what they intend to do and I think the consensus here is that Delany’s original mandate is still in place. There may be some tactical reason for delay, but as we’ve also seen, if the opportunity exists, the B1G quickly. Who knows? By getting the presidents at UNC and UVA to acknowledge the possibility of realignment now, they (and their Boards of Trustees,Regents, major stakeholders, etc.) aren’t going to feel blindsided if it an offer is pending in the near future.
LikeLike
@cutter
That’s a good analysis of the situation.
My take is that the Big Ten will move in the next 24 months or if there’s no opening at UVa/UNC (or whichever 2 are targeted), then it won’t move.
I do think the goal is to have 16 schools in place by the time the early-2016 negotiations come around for the 2017 TV contract.
Ideally, you would get those schools integrated by mid-2015, so that the TV networks will get a good look at the 16-team setup for 1 season before the 2016 negotiations…, so perhaps you would want the Big Ten to move in the next 12-15 months so that it plays out like that.
LikeLike
B10 timeline will be dictated by the Big XII’s and SEC’s desire to go after other ACC programs like Clemson, FSU, VT, Miami, etc…
B1G #15 & #16 imo will be after Big XII #11/#12 or SEC #15/#16.
LikeLike
Lot of people think FSU is playing wait and see and therefore, Big 12 needs SEC/Big 10 to loosen up the ACC. So if FSU, Big 10 and Big 12 are waiting, that leaves it up to the SEC to pry off Virginia Tech.
LikeLike
This means nothing. Mizzou and A&M both publicly pledged to stick with the Big XII and were gone inside a year.
WVU, Syracuse and Pitt all voted in favor a 27 month waiting period (WVU twice) and violated it.
Unless there is a GOR nothing is ever off the table. (Especially since this wasn’t exactly a firm commitment)
LikeLike
And this is how it is done when you have public entities that are slow to make abrupt movements because they have many large constituencies that must be satisfied.
First, get a founding member of the conference to leave. Check.
Second, leak out how much money that leaving member will now make in the B10 even after paying an exit fee. Check.
Third, issue boilerplate non-denial denials. This gets the public to really start the discusssion. Now, that the college is on record, every administrator, coach, and legislature will be asked about it. Check
Finally, make sure the other major state school is taken care of. In process.
All UVA needs to do is settle the VT issue and they are as good as gone.
LikeLike
I also don’t think it’s a mistake that the AD’s are making the statements. The AD’s don’t make these decisions or negotiate. I can only imagine their e-mail in-boxes.
I’m sure the brief quote from the Virginia president is accurate. How could the B1G be in discussions with them – they are completing an historic move with two new conference teams?
The better question I would have for a college president in the position of any ACC school: why aren’t we in discussions with lots of people to protect our future and ensure we end up in the best possible scenario in the ACC or elsewhere?
LikeLike
Ultimately, I see this realignment severely weakening the NCAA. Good riddance as far as I’m concerned. I’d rather have the conferences set their own rules and let them compete on which rules make sense. The NCAA is not needed, at least not for football. And eventually, the big conferences will want the basketball money for themselves. But that is a political fight for later.
LikeLike
How is that any different from the NCAA except for being smaller? The NCAA is the schools that make it up. It’s not some independent agency. A subset of the exact same group would run the sports in the major conferences.
LikeLike
Frank
David Teel @DavidTeelatDP
Sorry to rain on Navy-to-ACC parade, but that ain’t happening.
Also says most likely to be just 1 school added with his hunch being Louisville over UConn.
LikeLike
I have to imagine the debate is that the more recent football additions want Louisville but Tobacco Road hates them.
LikeLike
Yeah, I see it breaking down around similar lines to previous additions. UConn fits the academics, whereas Louisville is basically another WVU on that front.
Are they going to buckle on that?
LikeLike
Nice of Arkansas to help Les Miles get a raise from LSU:
http://tracking.si.com/2012/11/27/report-arkansas-offers-lsu-coach-les-miles-five-year-27-5-million-deal/
LikeLike
Hah, that’s hilarious. He wouldn’t leave for Michigan; he’s not leaving for anywhere…
LikeLike
When Michigan came calling a few years back, Les didn’t ask for more money from LSU. That being said, the Mad Hatter hasn’t had a raise since 2008, so he’s due.
LikeLike
Nice move by Arkansas, make your competition pay more to keep it’s coach so they have less money to pay their players.
LikeLike
Frank, can Delany split the deal on East Coast offices?
Why not open CIC East Coast offices in College Park/D.C. (where the research funding is) on or near Maryland’s campus? I’d think that makes a lot of sense given that the current HQ is at Illinois.
Open Big Ten/BTN offices in NYC.
LikeLike
Oooh… I like the first part, but I think the second part is a bridge too far. B1G offices in NYC instead of Chicago? That’s wrong in sooo many ways.
LikeLike
Er, I meant the East Coast branch offices. The new Big Ten offices in Chicago should be completed soon.
LikeLike
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120716/business/707169849/
LikeLike
Lol. Much better.
LikeLike
“16 team conference with 4 divisions would require an NCAA rule change to be able to hold semifinals.”
In this scenario, is it better to hold semifinals and impart an additional loss on two of the B1G’s potential BCS teams, or should be the highest two ranked teams just meet for the B1G’s Championship Game?
There’s something to be said (a la Florida just tried to pull it off) for sitting there with one loss and having your conference be guaranteed two one-loss teams. That’s been the SEC’s play (and to a lesser extent the Big XII’s play in not having a championship game).
LikeLike
I think we’ll see dynamic 8 team divisions made up of 2 pods each. I don’t see a push to add an extra game on top of everything else.
We’re already going to be up to 15 games for all but ND/Big 12 teams in the title hunt soon…
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy ✔ @McMurphyESPN
Virginia AD Craig Littlepage on rumors: “No Virginia officials have received invitations to nor sought membership in other conferences”
——————————————————–
So no one’s gotten to the final step. Doesn’t mean the most basic of inquiries or something that would be seen as minor as touching base hasn’t happened yet…
LikeLike
I think there’s a term for the UVA athletic director:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuspiciouslySpecificDenial
LikeLike
They came out a little stronger later:
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/27/amid-conference-expansion-virginia-firmly-stands-behind-acc/
LikeLike
Actually its one of the strongest statements that any of these people have come out with. There’s still wiggle room, but not as much as most of these.
LikeLike
Definite wiggle room:
“Neither representatives of the athletics department, nor President Teresa Sullivan, has received invitations to…”
The B1G won’t invite you until they have assurances you won’t turn them down. They’ve learned that lesson.
“…nor sought membership in other conferences”
I’m sure the B1G were the ones to initiate contact, just as they did with Maryland.
LikeLike