If It’s Tuesday, It’s Conference Realignment Day: Big East Invites Tulane and East Carolina, Rejection by BYU and ACC In the Navy

Posted: November 27, 2012 in Big East, Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, Sports
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

After a pause in the conference realignment action over the Thanksgiving weekend, there was a flurry of activity from all fronts on Tuesday.  Let’s get to it:

(1) Big East Invites Tulane for All-Sports and East Carolina for Football-only – With the defection of Rutgers to the Big Ten and the anticipated loss of at least one other member to the ACC (UConn, Louisville and/or Cincinnati), the Big East went forward with the addition of Tulane as an all-sports school and East Carolina as a football-only member.  While Big East commissioner Mike Aresco is essentially just trying to preemptively cushion against further anticipated blows to the conference, these are additions along the lines of what the league could reasonably expect.  Tulane hasn’t performed very well on the football field (or basketball court, for that matter) for quite a long time, but people should already know by now that on-the-field performance is only tangentially related to whether a school is an attractive expansion target.  What Tulane has going for it is that it fits the Big East institutional profile (to the extent that it has one) for all-sports schools: an urban school in a large market and great athletic recruiting area.  At the same time, Tulane is an excellent academic institution (AAU member and #51 in the U.S. News undergraduate rankings) with a new on-campus football stadium being built.  I’m honestly not very surprised by this move at all by the Big East, even if a lot of fans are wondering whether the school will ever be competitive in football or basketball.

Meanwhile, East Carolina realizes its long-time dream of moving up to the Big East, albeit as only a football member.  The main attraction of ECU is that it has one of the strongest fan bases and attendance records of any school outside of the power conferences.  What has kept them back is essentially the opposite of Tulane’s biggest attribute, which is that ECU is located in the small and largely rural market of Greenville, North Carolina.  (While ECU boosters have long argued that their home TV market really ought to include Raleigh and other parts of Eastern North Carolina, that has always been a tough sell to conference commissioners, particularly with such a heavy presence of ACC schools in the state.)  The Big East is actually making a rare pure football move here, albeit treating ECU the same way that it’s treating western members (assuming that they’re still coming) Boise State and San Diego State where the league literally only wants them for football.

A common question that I’ve been seeing is about why the Big East would have Tulane as the all-sports member as opposed to East Carolina.  Well, look at which schools actually get to vote for Big East expansion as of now.  Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt and Notre Dame are outgoing members, so they aren’t participating in the process.  Memphis, UCF, Houston, SMU, Boise State and San Diego State aren’t officially members yet, which means that they don’t have a vote.  Louisville, UConn and Cincinnati might be abstaining since they’re likely speaking with the ACC.  That leaves the 7 Big East Catholic members, Temple and USF as schools that are voting for sure.  Even if Louisville, UConn and Cincinnati are still voting, that leaves a 7-5 majority in favor of the Catholic members.  This means that any new all-sports member has to at least do something for them, meaning adding a new TV market and/or prime recruiting territory.  Tulane does this (just as Houston, SMU, UCF and Memphis did previously) in a way that ECU doesn’t.  As a result, all Big East sports teams are getting ready for some trips to New Orleans in the future.

This obviously won’t stop any football school from bolting the Big East, but the addition of Tulane seems to reduce the likelihood of the Big East Catholic schools breaking off and forming their own basketball-centric league.  Tulane is exactly the type of football school that the Big East Catholic members would approve of, so extending an all-sports invite to them indicates that they want to stick around.

(2) BYU Rejects Big East Invite (and Air Force isn’t an Option, Either) – In what shouldn’t be a surprise, Jeremy Fowler of CBSSports.com is reporting that BYU rejected an invitation from the Big East.  Even before the Rutgers defection, I had been saying for quite awhile that BYU wouldn’t give up its independent TV deal with ESPN for Big East membership, and that has been sealed with the latest exodus from the Big East.  What might be a little more troubling for the Big East is that Fowler is reporting that Air Force is likely off the table for the conference, as well, which leaves fewer name brand options for a larger western expansion.  Fresno State is probably the best pure football-only option for the Big East in the west at this point, but the conference has seemed to look at FSU in the same manner that it had looked at ECU for years as a school without a large enough market.  The problem with the western options that have the most attractive markets, such as UNLV and New Mexico, is that they have horrific football programs (which might be OK if they were to bring along their solid basketball programs, but tough to justify as football-only members).  We’ll see if the addition of ECU as a football-only school is in lieu of additional western football-only members… or maybe it’s to compensate for the potential loss of the school that had promised to join in the future that we’re about to focus upon…

(3) ACC Rumors: Maybe Navy and Maybe Not – Last night, I had Tweeted that I had heard enough from different people that a 3-school expansion by the ACC was plausible (although it doesn’t mean that will happen). The assumption was that those 3 schools would be Louisville, UConn and Cincinnati (as discussed in my last post).  However, David Glenn of ACC Sports (an independent website not affiliated with the conference itself) indicated that instead of Cincinnati (which is engaged in its own lobbying effort), the ACC was looking at Navy as a potential target.  In response, David Teel (another plugged-in ACC reporter from the Daily Press) vigorously disputed the Navy-to-the-ACC rumor.  Obviously, there’s some disagreement in ACC country about this issue.

Putting aside whether the ACC would actually add Navy or not, I think there’s at least enough substantive reasoning behind why it would work for the ACC that it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.  Navy obviously fits in with the ACC’s academic standards while providing a foothold back in the state of Maryland (which is a hole for the ACC now with Maryland having defected to the Big Ten).  In terms of national TV value, the Navy brand is still quite strong – to the extent that TV money (or lack thereof relative to other power conferences) is the overriding concern to current ACC members (and I honestly think that’s the main issue as opposed to the strength of the football league on-the-field), Navy is arguably more valuable to the TV networks than Louisville or UConn regardless of how the Midshipmen have performed football-wise lately.  With Notre Dame as a non-football member in the ACC, Navy could be added as a football-only member to get the membership ranks for both football and basketball back to even numbers.  Finally, speaking of Notre Dame, the Irish have an iron-clad rivalry with Navy, so the ACC might be able to convince the Domers to have that game in addition to the 5-game partial conference schedule that they’ll be playing starting in 2014, which would give the ACC a total of 6 Notre Dame games per year (3 of which would be guaranteed to be part of the ACC TV package).  Of course, I would fully expect Notre Dame to go the opposite way and insist that the Navy game be part of the 5-game ACC schedule as a permanent rivalry*, which would free up an additional non-ACC slot on the Irish schedule again.  The Michigan-Notre Dame game might be coming back sooner rather than later if Navy joins the ACC.

(* For those that don’t know, Navy is every bit as much of a lock on the Notre Dame schedule as USC as gratitude for the Naval Academy using the South Bend campus as an officer training site during World War II, which saved the school from financial collapse.  From that point forward, Notre Dame promised to play Navy annually as long as Navy wanted to schedule the game and, to the Domers’ credit, they have kept that promise for the last 7 decades.  As much as Notre Dame may look out for its self-interest 99% of the time, the way that they have made the Navy series into an iron-clad non-negotiable game is commendable.)

We’ll see if the ACC would actually go through with inviting Navy, but it certainly threw a wrinkle into what many people were assuming the conference’s expansion would look like.  As always, we’ll keep on a lookout for further updates.

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

(Image from InfoPlease)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Penn State Danny says:

    Conference realignment is my favorite show. I hope that it never ends!

    Still hope ACC invites Louisbille UConn and Cincy and signs a GOR. but, who the hell knows anymore?

    Like

  2. duffman says:

    Tulane in the Big East gives them an AAU school

    Loki, I think Rice has a shot now!

    Like

  3. wmtiger says:

    There will always will be conference realignment but it’s not very interesting when it’s at the MWC, Big East, C-USA level…

    Like

  4. bullet says:

    Bowls
    General belief down south is that A&M gets the Capital One Bowl in Orlando. They’ve never been there (at least as SEC team) and they have Manziel.
    Outback is probably South Carolina.
    Cotton is LSU if UGA wins, Alabama otherwise (I hope UT doesn’t get Alabama, although that is a common projection-that’s the one SEC team UT wouldn’t matchup well against)
    If UGA loses they go to Chick Fil A and face Clemson. Otherwise LSU goes there.
    Florida seems to have the Sugar locked up.
    Gator could be any of Ole Miss, MSU or Vanderbilt.

    Like

  5. greg says:

    Hawkeyes.

    Like

  6. Louisville reportedly 1 vote short of getting into the ACC. Unclear about UConn:

    Like

    • Biological Imperiative says:

      The Big 12 (KSU,ISU,KU,Baylor,WVU,TCU)should act now to get as much of the ACC as possible. Assuming we will go to the 4×16 Superconference. They want to have as many as they can now while they are strong with the LHN and the GOR, because the PAC will need to get to 16 too eventually and the Big 12 will lose UT,OU,OSU and Tech. If they wait until the LHN fails and or the GOR to run out they may not be in as good as position as they are now. The PAC can wait and the ACC can wait (really they don’t have much choice) but the little members of the BIG 12 should do everything they can to kill the ACC. IMHO

      Like

      • Jericho says:

        Still not sure anyone in the ACC wants to go Big 12. FSU fans might, but actually decision makers? It’s not the slam dunk the SEC or Big 10 is. It’s poor fit geographically, the academics are weaker, and you still have the stink of a conference that chased off 4 solid schools. If/until the ACC collapses, there does not seem to be an urgency to move.

        Like

  7. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!

    Roll Green Wave! Big East (CUSA 2.0) in the Big Easy.

    Like

  8. metatron says:

    I find it funny that people laud Notre Dame for playing Navy in what is essentially their MACrifice game.

    Like

  9. Biological Imperiative says:

    also what are the 22 profitable athletic departments in FBS college football today according to 60 minutes report?

    Like

  10. metatron says:

    Frank, at what point does ESPN step in to save the ACC?

    They’ve done it before with Texas, and they far more to lose if the ACC disintegrates or loses valuable properties.

    Like

    • acaffrey says:

      That’s my point.

      Everyone likes to think of Delaney and Slive working together, or at least not being at odds, but that is misleading. The SEC succeeds in football to the detriment of the Big 10. The Big 10 succeeds in $$$ to the detriment of the SEC. There is competition. If nothing else, they both are sitting at 14 and want UNC, right?

      More importantly, Fox’s interest in the B1G is a game changer. As properties move from ESPN-dominated situations to Fox-dominated situations, this harms ESPN. If ESPN does not want to lose 6 to 8 properties to the Big XII and B1G (even if ESPN has a smaller interest in those two conferences), then it has to keep the ACC afloat. Otherwise, all ESPN has left is the SEC. That’s nice, but only so much inventory.

      The spotlight is on ESPN here. Whatever happens to the ACC is on them. They know the ACC would be worth more on the open market. All they need to do is pay that value.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Re: SEC-B10 competition

        Not really. The SEC being the top football conference means the B10 can’t be, but given the disparity in recruiting grounds, that’s not a realistic ambition anyway. Realistically, being top 2 in football, the best conference in basketball, and one of the top research consortium in the world is what is acheivable, and in basketball and research, only a handful of SEC schools care to try to be tops in those fields.

        So sure, they may compete, but I don’t think either league spite themselves just to hurt the other. I think splitting almost all the schools east of the Rockies who matter between them suits both leagues just fine.

        Like

    • frug says:

      That had crossed my mind, but if ESPN really wanted to save the ACC they could have just given them a better deal when they renogiated their TV package a few months back.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        ESPN already has more inventory than they can use. That’s why they shared the Pac 12 deal with Fox. They don’t seem terribly concerned about Fox. They are concerned about a 3rd competitor.

        And what if that ACC inventory is more valuable when combined with the Big 10/SEC/Big 12? And maybe they want the best of the rest of the Big East (which the ACC would poach).

        It just gets awfully risky for them legally to do things. One poster who claimed to be an ACC insider claimed that ESPN assured the ACC they wouldn’t value FSU differently to any other conference than they did to the ACC (of course they might be worth 40% of the total ACC contract).

        Like

        • metatron says:

          The bottom line is that if they’re underpaying the ACC now, they’ll be overpaying them if any of the marquee schools defect. Paying money for unused product is a waste.

          Like

      • acaffrey says:

        At that point, nobody had departed for greener pastures (pun intended). Now that Maryland has taken its debt-laden program off to the B1G, there is a much greater likelihood of other conferences smelling blood and swooping in. In fact, the discussion on this board has been less about whether a school would leave the ACC, but when and where and whether there would be any ACC left at all. This is now very real for ESPN. Heck, maybe that was Fox’s play all along–get ESPN to finally pay market value for the ACC & cut into their profits. The B1G gets a boost and ESPN is forced to pay up or lose properties.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Fox doesn’t gain anything from ESPN making less profit.

          In any case, ESPN doesn’t want consolidation to happen, but the university presidents have to make decisions with an eye to decades from now, and a conference with only 2 states now that it truly owns (and no football king willing to sign a GOR) is going to remain vulnerable.

          Like

          • acaffrey says:

            Really? If ESPN has more profit, they have more ability to compete for future rights. More profit means more ability to recruit talent. More ability to take chances on programming. These are competitors. You think Coke and Pepsi don’t get juiced at the idea of gaining 1% market share away from the other? They don’t just worry about Mr. Pibb–they worry about each other too.

            I get that Slive and Delaney are not about to challenge each other to a duel. They may even send each other holiday cards. But both want to have what is perceived to be the best conference and they both want UNC someday. That alone justifies the competitiveness.

            ESPN similarly wants to be the King of sports… not the co-King. They may prefer Fox being a strong #2 to having two or three rivals, but they still want to be #1. And Fox jeopardizes that.
            Unless Fox likes being #2, it wants to be #1..meaning that it needs to overtake ESPN somehow.

            It’s funny how concepts start out in here and then get blown out of proportion.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            You do realize that what ESPN pays the ACC (or will pay the ACC) is a rounding error to them, right?

            Like

  11. duffman says:

    Slive is a UVA alum
    Delany is a UNC alum

    I have a feeling both will wind up in the same conference if the ACC lawsuit fails and Florida State (later member) and Clemson (ACC Charter member) bolt for the B12. That said I think the odds are 60 – 40 for the B1G to the SEC. While I think the academic pull is strong it would mean allowing the strong possibility of VT and NCST being #1 in the state in recruiting if they wind up in the SEC because UNC and UVA said no. While few in the B1G can understand the feeling of a lesser pair advancing (Sparty followed Michigan and did not exclude them) as most of the B1G schools are single state schools.

    Folks at UNC and UVA in their 50’s – 70’s will remember when Clemson was the dominant school in SC. Along came the SEC in the early 90’s and 20 years later Clemson is sitting on the roadside watching South Carolina speed by. Folks at UNC may say they hate Duke but when push comes to shove they really want to beat NC State when it comes to sports in general. Most Tar Heel fans will deny this in public but I have heard it many times at dinner tables in NC. Georgia Tech once ruled Georgia when they were in the SEC and now they are a faint shadow of their former SEC self. Even Texas has been testy after just 1 season of TAMU in the SEC and the exposure it brought to College Station.

    For all the talk on here about 18 or 20 teams in the B1G I just am not getting that vibe. Partly because it forces the SEC to go to 18 or 20 just to keep pace, but mainly because I think such a land grab will put a strain on the PAC who is stuck at 12 with limited options beyond that. If the PAC begins to feel the B1G is taking too much of the populace my gut tells me they will not be as cordial going forward.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Not really, the Big Ten is helping strengthen its tie to the Pac-12 by strengthening itself.

      The Pac-12’s endgame is still Texas + 3. As long as the Big Ten goes in the opposite direction and brings the Mid-Atlantic into the Rose Bowl relationship, that’s a plus for the Pac-12.

      Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        Don’t tease me like that, zeek.

        (/lurking)

        Like

        • duffman says:

          zeek,

          While I tend to think Texas to the PAC is still out there the issue remains who the other 3 would be. Correct or not the B1G will be seen as the raider – meaning schools in the B12 and ACC not comprised of the few who can escape will be none too happy. An Iowa State or Wake Forest standing alone may not be a threat but if say 6 – 8 schools from each of the Big East, Big 12, and ACC banded together it could cause issues for the B1G. I am not saying this will come to pass as fact but at least putting out the possibility of such a revolt by the remaining collective. Tax reform and rebalance of conferences by government mandate are out there if the majority no longer feel the playing field is level.

          The general point is to not allow the government to step in and redistribute schools as they deem fit. Standard Oil and other firms have been broken by government intervention and now that the corporations are moving in the local fans are already not in a good mood at being priced out of games. Since the B1G schools probably compromise most of the sports programs in the black they will be portrayed as the bad guys. The smart move would be to remain ahead of this possibility so it never can be used against the B1G. While I was a proponent of both Maryland and Rutgers to the B1G it feels like the timing is wrong right now and now 3 conferences can lay blame at the feet of the B1G. Only the B12 will have a beef with PAC and the SEC acted after both of them and will be viewed as least responsible.

          My oft repeated mantra on here has been to view your moves based on the other guy and the perceptions created. Maybe it is too sensitive but it seemed if the B1G was making the moves it just did when they should have let the B12 be the aggressor for say Louisville (Big East) and Florida State (ACC) first and then swooped in after the initial assault.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Duff:

            Seriously, I don’t think anyone cares as much as you do about who moves first. First off, those schools wanted to leave their conferences, and this being America, people are usually fine with people/entities going where they want to go and are wanted.

            Second, the anti-trust argument is ridiculous. Tell me how many major competitors to Standard Oil there were. Then tell me how many major competitors there would be even if my vision of the Big20 & SEC and/or Pac expanding to 20 comes about.

            The government would have a much greater case breaking up the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. before doing anything to the college leagues.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Richard,

            The professional teams in the NFL are not non profit entities funded primarily by taxpayers. Back in 2010 on this very blog the point was raised on what would happen if the IRS took away the tax write off for the biggest athletic programs in the country. If only say 20 out of 120 FBS D I schools are in the black it is not out of the question to see the ones being left behind gathering as a group to lobby for their side or change the way the game is played.

            If you read the reports coming out of MD they did not leave the ACC from desire to join the B1G but rather from bleak economic positions. Your observation of a PAC 20 just reinforces my point as the B1G and SEC can go to 20 or even 24 but no other conference could do the same (including the PAC) because of the small nature of the collective universe. If 64 is a “magic” number then it is a constant and the other numbers change to reflect the same total :

            64 teams in the 8 team model means roughly
            8 B1G teams
            8 SEC teams
            8 Big 8 teams
            8 ACC teams
            8 SWC teams
            8 Big E teams
            8 PAC teams
            8 IND teams

            64 teams in the 12 team model means roughly
            12 B1G teams
            12 SEC teams
            12 PAC teams
            12 ACC teams
            12 B12 teams
            4 “floater” teams

            64 teams in the 16 team model means roughly
            16 B1G teams
            16 SEC teams
            16 PAC teams
            8 B12 teams + 8 ACC teams

            64 teams in the 20 team model means roughly
            20 B1G teams
            20 SEC teams
            24 PAC + B12 + ACC teams

            In all that transition only the B1G and SEC are truly masters of their domains while every other school will have fear / uncertainty. When you have such uncertain times is when rash things happen so it is safe to consider the “have nots” will look to the B1G and SEC while demanding a redistribution of wealth.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Oh, the have-nots will get some wealth redistributed, but I don’t think they will get much power.

            As for the IRS threatening to take away non-profit status: Can you tell me by what transmission mechanism that might happen? As it is, the non-profit status are ensured by law, and Congresspeople would have to pass laws to overturn those. Who would be willing to do that? As it is now, college sports are very popular with the general public. Do you see a rep from OH doing something that threatens Buckeye football? How about a rep from Texas voting to take money away from Longhorn and Aggie football (because that is how their opponents will spin it)?

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Richard,

            If I remember at one time “donations” were 100% deductible and they got moved to 80% and this was still keeping the non profit law in place. What would happen if the IRS left the non profit status in place but dropped the write off from 80% to 20% as some average folks are already upset with the recent rise of “donations” to keep tickets they have had for decades. I read someplace where the 10,000 dollar donors were getting squeezed while the 500 and under donors were just dropping out entirely and not being replaced by newly minted alumni. I am seeing more empty seats in the upper decks on TV and that is usually were your eventual big donors first start out as young alumni. If those folks are not “donating” and opting out to watch it on TV we may already be at “peak oil” so to speak in consumer demand.

            Like

    • Richard says:

      Plus, the Pac has already been plenty noncordial after breaking off their alliance with the B10. How would noncordiality between the B10 and Pac hurt the B10?

      Like

    • Brian says:

      duffman,

      “If the PAC begins to feel the B1G is taking too much of the populace my gut tells me they will not be as cordial going forward.”

      What are they going to do, not play in the Rose Bowl? Steal OSU? They already rejected the B10/P12 scheduling alliance. The only thing the B10 and P12 have is the Rose Bowl and both benefit tremendously from it (the P12 more than the B10 for that matter). Where does their being cordial fit in?

      Like

    • SH says:

      You know who is not releasing statements right now saying they are committed to a conference? Any team in the B10, SEC and P12. The statement isn’t what is said in the statement, it is that a statement was needed to be made. Its purpose is either aimed at other members of the ACC who may bolt (e.g., FSU/Clemson) or is aimed at certain constituencies to get the conversation started. Neither is good for the ACC as a stable conference. Texas made similar claims, but Texas had enough gravitational pull to hold a conference together. UVA does not. I would say this is the beginning of the end.

      Like

    • Hodgepodge says:

      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.

      Like

  12. bamatab says:

    RTR!

    Like

  13. Denogginizer says:

    Go B1G Red

    Like

  14. jj says:

    Let me know when someone says they are a “proud member” of something.

    I think Navy is a decent play for the ACC.

    Like

  15. zeek says:

    Do I have this right?
    11 voting schools in the ACC (excluding Maryland and Pitt/Syracuse).

    9 had to vote for Louisville (to pass the 3/4 threshold with 11 schools voting)

    8 votes for Louisville:
    BC (doesn’t want UConn)
    Clemson (obvious, wants football strength)
    FSU (obvious, wants football strength)
    Georgia Tech (at risk of being left out if Mid-Atlantic schools leave)
    Miami (obvious, doesn’t want anyone leaving)
    NC State (obvious, doesn’t want anyone leaving)
    Virginia Tech (obvious, wants football strength)
    Wake Forest (obvious, doesn’t want anyone leaving)

    3 votes against
    Duke
    North Carolina
    Virginia

    I assume those are how the schools voted. I don’t see why any of those 3 would change their minds…

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Would UConn even have the votes?

      Even if those 3 switch their votes for UConn, why wouldn’t BC, Clemson, FSU, Virginia Tech say wait a minute…

      Like

      • Crpodhaj says:

        Say they voted and couldn’t get UConn in either. Behind the scenes, this could get really ugly.

        I seem to remember it was a lot of behind the scenes stuff that annoyed Nebraska enough to look at the B1G. Swofford is going to get tested.

        Like

        • Peter says:

          Raising something that gets shot down is already really ugly. Realignment questions aren’t usually broached until there is consensus; it’s too embarrassing otherwise.

          Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      “Miami (obvious, doesn’t want anyone leaving)”

      Those words really struck me since they’re so true. Isn’t it crazy how the belle of realignment circa 2003 now seems so irrelevant to the process and could be one of the ACC schools in serious trouble if the conference disintegrated? (I don’t think it’s disintegrating, but still…)

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Its very much what have you done for me lately? TCU is valuable now!

        Like

        • Hopkins Horn says:

          And a couple more seasons like we’ve had, bullet, and we might be fighting Louisville for that ACC membership.

          Like

        • SH says:

          TCU has the same vulnerabilities as a Miami in the long run. Its basically the same overall point I made in the last thread with respect to the ACC as a whole. Small school that doesn’t dominate its own city let alone its own state. Schools like that have value so long as they are doing well. A large state school brings value even when the school is not on top.

          Like we mentioned, the ACC grabbed Miami for football purposes only. Unfortunately, Miami is in a down cycle. Unless it is a top tier football team, it doesn’t really bring much value.

          Like

          • Mark says:

            Agree – this is why I still don’t understand why the Big 12 spent a spot on TCU – no new market, no fan base and a bad coaching hire away from fighting with Kansas for 10th place

            Like

          • zeek says:

            TCU gives them several things.

            1) A school in Dallas with a strong AD that’s on the rise, new facilities, football success recently, etc.; good for everyone else to visit.

            2) A 4th school in Texas; guarantees every school 2 visits to the state of Texas annually

            3) The weight of having 4 Big 12 schools in Texas to 1 in the SEC as opposed to 3 to 1.

            All of those were important considerations that shot TCU to the top of the list.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I wouldn’t have. I think UL would have been a better long run choice. But there were two reasons:
            1) Non Texas schools wanted another game in Texas to replace A&M for recruiting reasons. If you look at how recruiting has changed since those schools joined the Big 12, its very dramatic. Only CU didn’t dramatically increase their Texas presence.
            2) Big 12 needed national TV draws. TCU had been good recently with one of the best records in the country over the previous 10 years. TCU might not be a TV draw in 5 years, but they are right now.

            Like

          • frug says:

            The Big XII also didn’t want to deal with the Big East’s 27 month waiting period.

            If they had known then that Mizzou would jump ship in a few months and they would have to fight the waiting period anyways they may have gone another direction.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            SH – while TCU will never have the upside that Miami had in the 80s and 90s, the ‘frogs won’t have Miami’s downside either. TCU’s student body is primarily from Texas and a majority of their alums still live in Texas. TCU also plays in a brand new on-campus stadium and has great facilities. Most of Miami’s alums live out of state, Miami plays in whatever they call Dolphins Stadium now, and from what I understand has terrible facilities.

            Like

        • zeek says:

          Go and look at Rutgers around that time too. They were enduring 50 point blowouts at the hands of Virginia Tech and Miami annually and winning 1-2 games per season…

          One decade later and the world is upside down.

          Like

          • SH says:

            It is funny when you think about it. Some Kings aren’t like the other kings. Paper kings only. If Nebraska is down as a program, it will still be the most popular program in 2-3 states with a history that will bring interest from multiple generations. Miami’s history is from a generation that has moved on to other schools. Its alum are interested when the team is good. Its just a fair weather fan base that really doesn’t offer anything else.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            SH,

            It is why I never liked the kings and princes comparison. I still believe it is a minor handful of “brands” (say 10 schools in the entire 120 CFB FBS population) that in the end really are the only ones that matter. For a school to move up to “brand” status it only means another brand has fallen enough to be replaced. It is why MCBB seems to have even fewer “brands” than football. You are quite correct in your observation of the durability of Nebraska over Miami in football and I have been in the same boat with Kansas and Duke in basketball. Indiana basketball had their dark period by fans hung on while a UCLA or Duke withers quicker when they are not winning.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Yeah SH, it goes back to what you said above.

            The schools that you “know” will have value in 50 years are the ones that are guaranteed to have sizeable student bases and/or a captive state audience (even if demographics start to negatively impact that state).

            The rest of the schools are a lot more iffy in this process.

            Like

      • Peter says:

        Miami is extra vulnerable at the moment because (1) their current downturn has shown that their fan support just isn’t there in the “thin” part of the “thick and thin” (2) the Shapiro scandal reminds everyone that this school cheats whenever they’re in the “thick” part, and (3) the Shapiro scandal’s Notice of Allegations is probably going to be death penalty worthy.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          The ironic thing is, if they end up in a weaker league again, they may end up contending for national championships again (after an undefeated season or 2).

          Like

    • rhodree says:

      I really don’t see much concern over getting Louisville over UConn on FSU boards. There was over WV for some reason, I guess because they actually are a minor football power. Louisville has slightly more money and recent fb success. That’s it, nothing to get worked up about.

      But it occurs to me that the way Swofford operates, it would make sense to take the Big 12’s next expansion target off the table. He might figure that would make it harder for FSU to leave the ACC alone and wait for others to follow. It takes options off the table from the conference that is most likely to swallow you. He has made horrible decisions, like the TV deal, but they might be considered smart from his point of view (his son made out). He’s quite crafty when its in his interest.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      UVa fans are reporting on their message board that Duke voted for Louisville but Wake Forest voted against.

      Kind of interested by that; maybe they’ll all apply a lot of pressure to Wake Forest to change their mind.

      I mean, if there’s one school at the top of the list with no other options…

      Like

      • Mark says:

        Perhaps Wake wants to be the King maker? If Va and UNC are “no”, Wake can hold out for something in exchange for the vote?

        Like

        • Peter says:

          Wake Forest is a tiny, elite private school that cares nothing for football. I can totally believe they don’t like Louisville.

          Like

          • Mike says:

            Right now, Wake is down by 24 at home to Nebraska. Apparently they don’t care about basketball either.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            They’ve got more BCS appearances in the ACC than Miami-or BC, UVa, UNC, NCSU, Duke and as many as MD, GT, Clemson and in the ACC 12 as many as FSU. Only VT has more in the last 8 years.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            bullet, if you’d have said that about any other conference, there’d be fire alarms going off…

            Like

  16. Mike says:

    Come on, Iowa….

    Next year’s Nebraska-Iowa game is currently scheduled for Nov. 30 — a Saturday.

    And if Iowa has its way, the game will stay there.

    Oh, the Iowa fans, from the vibe I got Friday, will show up no matter when the Heroes Game is played. But the Iowa coaches and administration would prefer to not play the Friday after Thanksgiving.

    I talked to a couple of Iowa media members who said coach Kirk Ferentz is a routine guy who doesn’t like a shortened week. One of them said the administration is in favor of a Saturday game, too.

    (Nebraska and Iowa had initially agreed to play the day after Thanksgiving for only 2011 and 2012).

    What’s Nebraska’s take on playing on Friday?

    “We kind of like it,” said Jeff Jamrog, Nebraska’s director of operations.

    Understandably so, too.

    It’s a nationally televised game on ABC, and in most years, it’s the only game during its time slot. Good for recruiting.

    http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/football/2012/iowa/the-scene-day-after-thanksgiving-game-no-certainty/article_ba2891b5-3347-5e8c-bb01-435252328f6f.html

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I really think Iowa should stick to that Friday; a great national spot if one of them is in the division hunt; great for viewership.

      I can understand their qualms, but at the same time, that’s a marquee slot…

      Like

      • Kevin says:

        A lot of the students head out for the long weekend. Probably easier getting many of them back on a Saturday. But certainly the National broadcast is a big benefit and gives an extra day if the school makes it to the CCG.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Yeah, I can understand that.

          It’s just nice to have for years like this where you’re down but still get a marquee slot at the end of the year.

          Like

        • Mike says:

          I don’t blame the Iowa students for not showing up. Poor season and that wind was right into their faces.

          Like

          • greg says:

            The students didn’t even buy the tickets. They were offered season ticket packages with the Nebraska game or without, and a lot bought them without. I would have thought they’d buy it if only to scalp it.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            I would have thought they’d buy it if only to scalp it.

            Iowa students should be smarter than that.

            Like

    • greg says:

      Ferentz is a wet blanket about everything.

      The stadium is across the street from the hospital, and the administration has made a couple statements that they don’t like having a game on a weekday impacting the hospital operations. I find it hard to believe that the day after Thanksgiving resembles a normal weekday.

      Like

      • Mike says:

        Selfishly, this is one of my favorite traditions and I would hate to see it go on hiatus. I hope that if Iowa doesn’t want to do this, another opponent will step up into their place. It shouldn’t be *that* hard to find a team who wants to play in a nationally televised game.

        Like

      • zeek says:

        It’s just nice to have a guaranteed marquee game like that every year, especially if you’re in the midst of a down year, where your TV schedule looks like the following:

        2 games on ESPN (Michigan, Michigan State), 2 on ESPN2 (Minnesota, Northwestern), 1 on ESPNU (Northern Iowa) and then 6 on BTN.

        Like

        • greg says:

          Preaching to the choir.

          Oh, a football king wants to play us at the end of every season on national television, with nearly zero other games on at the same time? We can’t have that. Lets go back to Saturday 11am ESPN2 when there are 20 other games on at the same time.

          Like

          • danimation707 says:

            If Iowa doesn’t want to play on the day after thanksgiving then they should be moved in Nebraska’s schedule so UNL can maintain this important tradition. They had this game with CU in the big12.

            Maybe Iowa is concerned long term with competing with UNL. Why play a marquee game if you think you will lose the majority of them.

            Like

        • StevenD says:

          Yes, for the 15 years while Nebraska was in the Big XII, it played Colorado every Thanksgiving Friday. Before that, it played Oklahoma every Thanksgiving Friday. So there is a long, established history of Nebraska playing the game on that day.

          The game was switched from Oklahoma to Colorado in 1996 because the entry of Texas (and its buddies) into the conference split Nebraska and Oklahoma into different divisions (where they only played 2 years out of 4). Nebraska was very unhappy about this. Very. It is highly likely that Nebraska would still be in the Big XII today if the annual Thanksgiving game with Oklahoma had been maintained.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Big 12 while it was 12 did the Texas/A&M and Nebraska/CU doubleheader on Friday. Normally Texas/A&M got the 11 AM central time slot.

            Like

          • Arch Stanton says:

            Agreed, I don’t think Osborne could have unilaterally ended an annual rivalry with Oklahoma, especially if it had continued to be played on Black Friday. To the vast majority of Nebraskans, the OU rivalry ended when the Big 12 started.
            FWIW, Nebraska wanted to continue to play the game, even looking into doing so as a non-conference game if necessary. Oklahoma accepted it being a 2 out of every 4 years series.
            Of course, these decisions were being made around 1995 when Oklahoma was in a lull and Nebraska was winning national championships.
            Colorado was actually pretty good at the time so it made sense to move into the Black Friday spot.
            If Iowa wants to move the game to Saturday, I really think Nebraska needs to find another school to fit that slot. Problem is, there aren’t a lot of good candidates.
            Michigan will always be playing OSU. Michigan State doesn’t have much of a connection to Nebraska and the rivalry would seem really forced. Northwestern – no. Minnesota would be okay if they weren’t so mediocre.
            I’m hoping that Wisconsin or Penn State ends up in the same division as Nebraska and can be the season ending game on Black Friday. Either of those could develop into a great rivalry.

            Like

          • jj says:

            MSU would likely take that in a heartbeat. It’s a prize and Iowa should realize it.

            Like

          • jj says:

            Don’t forget, Michigan has the lions every thanksgiving. MSU would love to play along with that as in state marketing, i would think. Add that other game the next day and it’s a football explosion up here.

            Like

      • Craig Z says:

        Lots of turkey-related injuries.

        Like

  17. Dave in VA says:

    Just occurred to me tonight: for the 2013 ACC/Big Ten Challenge, does Maryland get scheduled to play itself? 🙂

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Obviously they still represent the ACC at that point, but my guess is that while Pitt and Syracuse would have otherwise been out the first year, they find a way to add them now and Maryland will be one of the two ACC teams out of the contest.

      Like

  18. Biological Imperiative says:

    BYU is going to have a problem, they will end up having to play Utah State, New Mexico State and Idaho at the end of the season because they won’t join a conference.

    Like

    • Mark says:

      It may get tougher for BYU if C-USA takes Sun Belt schools and the Sun Belt then adds NM State and/or Idaho. November will be tough to fill out.

      Like

  19. zeek says:

    The fact that UVa and UNC are holding the line on Louisville is another nugget of information on their future conference affiliation as well.

    I didn’t think they’d take a strong enough stand to possibly deny Louisville entry against the wishes of Clemson/FSU, but given that they know they have alternatives waiting, they can afford to take the “academically high-minded road.”

    Like

    • Crpodhaj says:

      For the short term, they need a 14th school; I cannot imagine they want to stay at 13. Can you re-vote on Louisville and then say, “Well, at first I said no, but then I changed my mind”? Or now do you start looking at other schools and seeing which ones have the votes? To have this result and let the details be known makes whatever they do twice as hard; as you suggest, Zeek, it will appear UVA and UNC are pushing their academic agenda on the rest. (Texas-like, with an academic twist, of sorts?).

      Like

  20. kylepitt says:

    Navy’s 10 most faced opponents.

    Army 112 games
    Notre Dame 85 games
    Penn 47 games
    Air Force 44 games
    William & Mary 42 games
    Duke 39 games
    Virginia 39 games
    Pittsburgh 38 games
    Penn State 37 games
    Princeton 36 games

    The Ivies and W&M are pretty much legacies. Pitt and half of ND will be joining Duke and UVA next year.

    I don’t have a point, just for context.

    Like

  21. danimation707 says:

    Missouri not on the list! Andy you have some esplainin’ to do. Or at least hit us with some lopsided propaganda.

    Also can you breakdown the SEC 20 pods of the future too? 😉

    Like

  22. zeek says:

    4-2 Big Ten/ACC challenge after tonight: Yeah, I’m invoking the mercy rule on UNC and Northwestern.

    Big Ten wins
    Indiana over North Carolina
    Michigan over NC State (they put up a good challenge; best game of the night)
    Minnesota over FSU
    Nebraska over Wake Forest (didn’t see this one coming, Nebraska getting some hoop swagger this year?)

    ACC wins
    Maryland over Northwestern (boo)
    Virginia Tech over Iowa

    Like

    • zeek says:

      They were 1 vote short today; maybe tomorrow someone will have changed their mind?

      Like

      • Crpodhaj says:

        Telling line in there about adding Louisville or no one. That is a form of pressure on a couple of schools to switch their votes. If one does switch, I think they will all vote unanimously to welcome in the new member publicly.

        Like

        • B1GRED says:

          I just can’t see ACC taking a public vote if Louisville isn’t known to be in. Way too embarrassing for Cards to get a public stiff arm and potentially lasting damage to conference if it’s a split “no” vote. So, I’m convinced… ACC will be back to 14 with Louisville.

          Like

    • Other reporters out there such as David Teel confirming that it’s likely Louisville to the ACC. We’ll likely know for sure early tomorrow morning.

      Like

      • B1GRED says:

        Will be interesting to see how the ACC handles the $50 million Maryland exit fee in court if they are seeking it at the same time they are poaching another conference themselves. Says to me that it isn’t going to court. They’re going to settle for far less.

        Like

        • Jericho says:

          There’s something to be said for a bird in the hand, but its interesting to see that Louisville will accept an ACC bid when the Big 12 is out there. I’d reason they prefer the ACC for much of the same reasons FSU or Clemson would also.

          Like

          • Crpodhaj says:

            You go where you are wanted and advance when you can. ACC was ready and calling (and a better fit IMHO); Big XII was not.

            Like

    • joe4psu says:

      If the B12 let’s UL go to the ACC what does that say about their future plans? UL may or may not be a target of theirs directly but if they let the ACC sign UL that strengthens the conference and makes it less likely that the B12 will get any other ACC schools. Is the B12 serious about staying at 10 no matter what happens around them?

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Necessary evil as far as the high brow schools in the ACC are concerned…..as I recall UL is 130 something in the US News ratinds……I know the VA fans aren’t thrilled about it……..

      Like

  23. zeek says:

    For the Husker fans, not sure if this was ever pointed out; it had been speculated during the original planning:

    http://www.omaha.com/article/20120817/HUSKERS/708179897/1001

    “Also, piping has been installed under the floor to allow for the making of ice if there ever is a hockey tenant.”

    For the Huskers’ new basketball arena. So they could potentially be the 7th Big Ten hockey team down the line…

    Not inconceivable given just how big the TV contracts are going to get after 2017…

    Like

    • metatron says:

      If the NHL continues like this, the appetite for college hockey can only grow.

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      You know who has a hockey team? U Conn……just sayin’

      Like

    • Arch Stanton says:

      Maybe the new Nebraska AD will want to make his mark by starting up Men’s/Women’s Hockey teams (he is a Wisconsin guy after all).

      The arena will be there and their is appetite for hockey in Lincoln. They have a Junior League team, the Lincoln Stars, that regularly sells out a 5000 seat arena near the UNL campus. If that many people will attend what is basically a high school all star league, then I would think a Husker Hockey team playing against UN-Omaha and all the Big Ten schools could average 8000 or 9000.

      Odds gotta be still against it though. Maybe 30% at best in the next 10 years?

      Like

    • danimation707 says:

      That is interesting. I would guess once UNL is fully bought into the BTN as well as more money coming in from the new ESPN deal in the next couple of years that UNL then look at adding hockey.

      Like

  24. ZSchroeder says:

    U of Nebraska – Omaha has D1 Hockey and it is doing well. They just killed their football program to move the rest of their sports up to D1. I have always thought UNL would not start Hockey in deference to the U up the road, but I could see it. It may actually make the sport more popular in the state with some in state competition. I would like to see the basketball program make some money before they move onto other sports, the Husker basketball team is looking decent this year thus far under their new coach, and they move into the new arena next Fall.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Those are some good points, and it’d be way down the road (probably not for another decade or longer I’d guess).

      There probably would be some good synergy in a home-home rivalry between the two programs; maybe even 4 games a year or something like that if UNL started hockey.

      Like

  25. OrderRestored83 says:

    add

    Like

  26. zeek says:

    Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN
    BREAKING: ACC votes to add Louisville sources tell @ESPN. Cards will be 6th team to leave Big East for ACC

    Huge paradigm shift for the ACC. Can’t understate how much things have changed since they rejected WVU on “academic grounds”…

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Rejecting WVU, adding ND partially, Maryland bolting, and now Louisville joining. The world has changed.

      Like

      • acaffrey says:

        If it makes Florida State happy, the move is a no brainer.

        If you read the ESPN article, it is so pro-ACC it is hard to believe. I think it supports my position that ESPN is protective of its ACC investment. I mean, wow. It’s almost shameful. A p.r. piece.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I didn’t read it as so pro-ACC. They just included some of the talking points the ACC gave them about Louisville.

          The thing that struck me is that Louisville will have the biggest athletic budget in the ACC.

          One other thing in the article-the Notre Dame addition was worth about $1 million (saying ACC + ND would be $18 million). Now they say UL won’t affect the ACC media rights deal. So does that mean ACC + ND -MD+ UL =$18 million. Or does it mean the old $17.1 million. Probably the first, but the way it was worded doesn’t preclude the latter.

          The lessons in all this:
          Spend money and
          Don’t sue someone who might invite you later. Connecticut and their AG (I believe he is now governor) took the lead on the ACC/BC lawsuit.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Er, I read it the first way.

            The media deal changed after ND to go to $18 million per team, but the Maryland/Louisville switch didn’t alter that.

            Like

      • Crpodhaj says:

        Yeah, it has changed for the ACC, academically, geographicly, and culturally. In a funny way, they caused this (or at least heavily participated). If they don’t make the surprise grab of Pitt and Syracuse and stay at 12, Notre Dame is still probably in the Big East, the B1G probably doesn’t make their play for Maryland, and both conferences stay at 12. Even if the B1G would have taken Maryland, their options would have been Pitt or Syracuse to stay at 12; instead they found themselves grasping for a fourteenth. Perhaps they have over-reached and now are paying for it.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          That’s a fair interpretation.

          All of these movements are just another domino in a long, long string of consolidation.

          Like

        • acaffrey says:

          There are a lot of what ifs.

          I still say that the Big XII GOR is not insurmountable. Everything is reduced to a dollar value ultimately. If these are 100-year decisions, why would a 13-year GOR prevent someone from underwriting that period? Contracts can be broken, as long as you pay the appropriate damages, etc. If someone really wants Texas, it is worth the short-term loss to get the long-term gain, right? The B1G is not dispatching Penn State, even though Penn State is somewhat tarnished for the rest of the decade.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            GOR are hard to consider because the conference has to be willing to sell them back.

            And the market value increases; as an example the Big Ten’s GOR has around 15 years remaining on it. If the Big Ten schools earn an average of $40 million for their TV rights over that period of time, it’s worth around $600 million over that.

            That’s on top of the fact that the conference has to be willing to sell the rights back. At some point, even a 100 year decision can’t overcome a strong enough barrier to exit. GOR are that barrier.

            Even if the Big 12’s GOR is only worth say $250-300 million over its period of time, that’s almost an unfathomable amount to overcome on top of that willingness to sell part of the story.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            You don’t invest in breaking a GOR over a team like Iowa State or Purdue. But a true “brand” makes it worthwhile. If the Pac-12 REALLY wants the Texas brand, the money will be there to make it happen.

            North: Washington, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Colorado, Utah, Stanford, Cal
            South: USC, UCLA, Arizona, ASU, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, OSU

            Or zipper it:

            P: Washington Oregon Colorado Cal Arizona Texas Texas Tech UCLA
            A: WSU, OSU, Utah, Stanford, ASU, Oklahoma, OSU, USC

            If it is wanted, someone will invest. The Big XII can then backfill with Houston, SMU, Boise State, and San Diego State.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            What happens when the Big 12 asks for $1 billion for Texas’ rights?

            Like

          • zeek says:

            GOR is a contract to give your TV rights to the conference. That’s generally a much more legally safe strategy than exit fees.

            Like

          • Stopping By says:

            @acaffrey If the PAC 16 ever comes to fruition, it would never be a N/S split. North schools would never go for both the state of Texas and the bottom half of CA in the same division. It would almost have to be either a zipper (which would be confusing to fans but what most schools could be on board with) or an E/W split.

            Like

    • joe4psu says:

      I just posted the question in another thread, what does this say about the B12? With UL going to the ACC it appears to strengthen the conference and makes it less likely that the B12 can poach any other schools. I wonder if they even contacted UL to counter offer. Is the B12 serious about staying at 10 schools no matter what the other conferences do?

      Like

      • acaffrey says:

        Who knows anymore? We are beyond the point of things being surprising.

        Really, I think the Big XII is smart to sit at 10. The northern schools get their two games in Texas. They get round-robins in hoops. 12 would disturb both of those. The move to 4-team playoffs will help avoid the hurt of not having a CCG.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        Deloss Dodds, who has been the most vocal for 10, has said he would support what the conference wanted. He also said he would be for expansion, with “the right teams.” Louisville + Cincinnati are not the “right teams.” UL and Rutgers were not. I believe Rutgers has a lot more value to the Big 10 than to anyone else, but limited value to the Big 12.

        FSU + anyone else (including UL) or Notre Dame + anyone else are the “right teams.”

        This could mean that either, 1) the Big 12 couldn’t get any ACC teams to go along with Louisville; or 2) they’ve got more than 1 ACC team coming. There was every indication they were willing to admit Louisville if there was an acceptable #12. #12 was the problem.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Agreed, it comes down to whether/how you can monetize teams.

          The value of Maryland and Rutgers to the Big Ten is substantially greater than any other conference if it can monetize them properly. That’s especially true of Rutgers if the whole Fox/Yes thing ends up helping monetize them.

          Like

          • Jericho says:

            I’ve always wondered if it would be worthwhile for the Big 12 to go after a New Mexico, Nevada, or even a Colorado State or UNLV. That would be in addition to BYU as a possible addition. The idea would be to grab flagship state universities, or at least somewhat major universities. The Southwest is growing and you infuse one of these schools with Big 12 money, all of sudden it could build a good program.

            Look at what SEC money has done for South Carolina. Look at what Baylor has become in the Big 12. It will take time, and none of these schools have great followings as is. But if networks are the goal, wouldn’t it be great to have New Mexico or Nevada covered? Both are bigger states than West Virginia or the departed Nebraska. Nevada is close to Kansas. And it definitely helps the footprint extend beyond Texas and a bunch of small states.

            At what point would this be a viable option?

            Like

          • zeek says:

            That’s a good question. I think a population cutoff of around 5 million though is the make or break point for that kind of venture.

            In other words, I think you need a state that’s on the historical arc of Colorado or Arizona in terms of population but it needs to be able to be seen that you can hit that trajectory in a reasonable amount of time.

            It’s too long-term for the Big 12 to think of building anyone like New Mexico or Nevada right now if they’re concerned about Texas possibly bolting for the Pac-12 in 13 years.

            Those two states are basically similar to Nebraska and Iowa in terms of population right now. They’re still a bit too far away to try to build up as the next Colorado-like population center.

            In another 20 or 30 years though that may become an apparent possibility. So if the Big 12 can survive another cycle or two, it might have opportunities there.

            Like

      • Crpodhaj says:

        Patience in this game usually pays off. I think the Big XII was right not to grab Louisville to “keep up with the Jones’s”. Maryland left for the B1G; Louisville may still be there for the Big XII when this is all said and done. Getting the right teams is the most important.

        The ACC didn’t outflank anyone in my opinion. They did what they feel they had to do at this point. Right now, they sit with 8 traditional ACC teams and 6 former Big East teams. If that gets to 8 & 8, or 7 & 7, or even 6 & 8, look out below. If tobacco road is no longer in control, why should they stay as equals (or less) in the ACC when they can have that somewhere else.

        Like

        • acaffrey says:

          Brer rabbit. Tobacco Road just added Louisville… a basketball home run, with the support of the football schools. This was not TCU, a football school with absolutely no basketball. This was not Boise State either. The football schools are placated, while the basketball schools get another big draw.

          If Virginia’s academics are so precarious that being in an athletic conference with Louisville is disconcerting, then I guess they should leave. If anything, we’ll see Louisville’s academics slowly rise up the rankings based on their association–without Virginia’s suffering at all.
          Given that the rankings are entirely subjective anyway, who cares?

          Like

      • zeek says:

        What it comes down to is that WVU was the better pick and the Big 12 moved on them earlier.

        As bullet said, the Big 12 is waiting for a home run kind of expansion to 12.

        They probably want FSU and/or Clemson and/or Georgia Tech. Maybe 2 of those 3.

        Like

      • danimation707 says:

        I do not see how the big 12 can get to 16 (if needed) without adding project schools like CSU or the ACC completely falling apart.

        I thought CSU & Louisville made some sense and would only get them to 12. Could the big 12 lose some targers to the pac who has few options for expansion? Maybe waiting around to long will not be a good move. Who knows anymore.

        Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      This sentence in the ESPN article stood out:

      “However, sources told ESPN the league only wanted Louisville because there is a sense among league presidents that the ACC can add more schools at a later date if the ACC lost any other schools.”

      That doesn’t exactly scream confidence, does it?

      Like

      • zeek says:

        That’s definitely one of the parts that stood out there.

        Also, this has to kill any notion of the ACC being able to field an ACC Network down the road.

        There just isn’t that much value in their TV markets along with the bunched up nature of the North Carolina and Virginia schools.

        Like

    • danimation707 says:

      No doubt considering WVU is #165 vs. Louisville #160 in the US News rankings.

      Like

  27. Carl says:

    Nittany Lions

    Like

  28. David Brown says:

    The Louisville move is about trying to keep Florida State & Clemson in the fold by taking the better Football, and probably Basketball Program (No Calhoun at UConn), nothing more, nothing less (Market size and Academics included), and I think they stay (At least for now). Since that we now know who is leaving the Big (L)East for the ACC, the question now becomes to quote a famous album title “Who’s Next?” (The Who), on the Conference Reallignment Merry Go Round. There are several possibilities: 1: Miami gets the Death Penalty and UConn , South Florida, or Cincinnati go to the ACC to replace them. 2: UTEP goes to the Big East or Mountain West Conference. 3: Tulsa heads to the Mountain West. 4: BYU heads to the Big XII with some kind of running mate (Boise might be a nice fit). 5: Marshall to the Big East (Not really discusssed, but makes sense). 6: New Mexico St to Conference USA (They need teams).

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Well if the Big 10 can’t get Notre Dame or Texas or Virginia, how about Rice? Big market, great academics, would be the best baseball team in the conference and will never get on probation.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        I think the Louisville addition makes it more likely that the Big Ten can grab UVa.

        The academic argument is starting to go out the window on the ACC with the FSU/Clemson axis taking control.

        The Big Ten’s move on Rutgers/Maryland could be argued as “think like a president”…

        This ACC move was clearly “think like FSU’s AD”…

        Like

        • Crpodhaj says:

          Agree 100%. All that needs to happen is one more traditional team to leave the ACC. At that point the traditional ACC vs. former BigEast members will be 7 & 7 (if they add, for instance, UCONN). The balance of power will shift and others will be looking for a way out.

          Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Agree that VA can’t be thrilled about the deep south schools flexing their muscles…..

          Problem for the BIG is no solid #16 school without UNC, and UNC doesn’t seem interested….

          Really seems to me that of VA, V Tech, UNC, and NC State….only VA really is excited about the possibility of the BIG 10….

          I really think U Conn is more of a possibility than some on here think…..if the BIG really is commited to going to 16 in time for TV negotiations….more by process of elimination than anything.

          U Conn does have some things going for it….only sinificant public school in the state, proximity to Yale and the other Ivy L schools, proximity to NYC and Boston, men’s and women’s basketball, hockey, good academic rep., fan base would be compliant. Non AAU and no football history(prospects?) are the downers…..

          As compared to MO, smaller, more selective in admissions, non-AAU, better basketball, worse football, has hockey, smaller state, but large surrounding markets, no controversy in switching conference.

          Big question is how commited is the BIG 10 to expansion in the next year or two……….

          Like

          • Peter says:

            The B1G would take Georgia Tech to complement a bolting UVA. They’ve been transparent about how Georgia Tech is beautiful as far as they are concerned, and Georgia Tech would move immediately if offered. Too much money, too much benefit on the academic side.

            Like

          • cutter says:

            The Big Ten is playing with house money right now. Five years ago, the conference was distributing around $10.7M per team (FY 2007). The FY 2013 figure is $25.8M and the Maryland’s president is talking about how that number could be at $43M in FY 2017. So in a period spanning the last ten years, the programs in the B1G are looking at a four-fold increase in conference distributions or roughly $32M.

            That’s not to say that the conference isn’t going to be selective in who it takes as its 15th and 16th members, but when you compare the projected revenues for the B1G schools to the ones in the ACC, it’s not hard to see the attraction for a program like UNC or UVA to seriously look at the Big Ten.

            If those financial projections hold (and Maryland apparently scrubbed the numbers before agreeing to the deal), the B1G might well be in a position where they’re not picking schools because of their markets, but for other critieria, i.e., their academic/research fit. I long felt that the conference would not be able to do this without Notre Dame being in the mix if they did opt to go to 16 schools, but the conference leadership might well feel differently.

            We’ll see how this plays out. If Maryland is able to negotiate down its exit fee now that Louisville has joined the ACC (making it hard for the conference to claim any sort of real damages), then it opens up even more possibilities. Who knows? In a few years time, that Indiana-North Carolina basketball game last night will be between two teams in the same conference.

            Like

        • cutter says:

          Pete Thamel wrote the following in his article (see link below) :

          “There had been a small amount of resistance heading into the ACC’s 7 a.m. call on Wednesday because of the school’s low academic profile.”

          It was interesting to note in the article that the reason why the ACC moved so quickly is because they knew that the Big XII had interest in Louisville as well.

          The ACC also was contacted by Connecticut, South Florida, Cincinnati and Navy as possible candidates for addition. But because none of those schools was on anybody else’s radar, there was no rush to add them now.

          The money quote is at the end of the article:

          “Conferences aren’t going to look like they did before,” said the person with knowledge of Louisville’s move. “Anyone who is thinking, we’re just fine and there’s no need for anything to happen is some combination of naïve and ill-informed or not waking up to where the business is going.”

          Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/28/louisville-acc/index.html#ixzz2DWrRZe2U

          So there you go. The five major conferences in collegiate sports now include (or will soon include) three 14-team organizations, one 12-team organization and one 10-team organization for a total of 64 teams. That is, of course, until someone else decides to pull up stakes for greener pastures.

          Like

    • Arch Stanton says:

      I guess we see who Conference USA pulls out of the Sun Belt to replace Tulane and East Carolina.
      Western Kentucky? Arkansas State? UL-Something to keep a Louisiana school?

      Like

  29. zeek says:

    Hopkins Horn makes a very good point above.

    The ACC is now transparently in the same position of the Big East. Adding schools just to stay at 14 to be able to handle future exits. Have to get enough live bodies above 12 to be able to stay above 12 in order to project “strength in numbers.”

    Like

  30. mushroomgod says:

    Question for you guys……..If you were Delany/ the BIG Presidents and HAD to get to 16 teams, with VA and 1 other school, and V Tech, UNC and NC State were off the table, as were FSU and Miami (sorry Richard), as were OK and TX(sorry whoever)…..and only these 4 teams were options: MO, Kansas, U Conn, Ga Tech….how world you rank them?

    I’d go Mo, KU and U Conn(tied), Ga Tech

    I think Delany would say U Conn, Ga. Tech, KU, MO

    I think the Presidents would say Ga. Tech, with KU, MO, U Conn all tied.

    Like

    • Crpodhaj says:

      GaTech and no one else.

      Like

    • Peter says:

      Georgia Tech. There is no list behind them, because you don’t need it. They’re worth the most by far and will accept without question.

      Like

    • cutter says:

      Georgia Tech is the only one in that group the university presidents would consider in concert with Virginia. Delany takes his marching orders from them, so while you think he might prefer UConn over the other three choices you outlined, it probably doesn’t matter much in the end.

      The B1G already vetted Missouri and said no, so I don’t even think they’re a viable option at this point. Is Kansas even an AAU program?

      Like

      • danimation707 says:

        Yes KU is an AAU school.

        Like

        • danimation707 says:

          KU is also ranked #106 on the US News rankings behind Nebraska. It appears that the future moves of the B1G will be for better academic institutions than that.

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Possibly….but VA would give you a lot of “academic cover” for adding a MO or KU.

            Also, the presidents of the original 10 schools might feel more comfortable adding 1 eastern and 1 western school.

            Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      I can’t imagine why you’re so bullish on Uconn, with presumably two slots left they bring absolutely nothing.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        MO’s the only one I really like, but I think U Conn would be somewaht attractive to JD because:

        1. There’s some synergy there with Rutgers, MD, PSU. I think JD’s comments on “contiguous states” is more than his usual bs. Were Ga Tech to be added it would be isolated. I think JD has a feel for the importance of compatability that some on this forum lack.

        2. I’m sure JD views the AAU as an archane and arbitrary organization, which of course it is. I’m also sure the Presidents would disagree there.

        You are adding the New England market, and JD is all about markets.

        4. The basketball strength helps after adding PSU and NEB and Rutgers

        5. The BT hocket league is ramping up…only has 6 teams. U Conn would bring a 7th team

        6. The biggest issue for JD, and one I have no anser for, is football. U Conn will never be a football power. I would say, however, that neither will VA, Ga Tech, Mo, or KU.

        Like

        • Peter says:

          Delany works for the Presidents though, not the other way around. What they think about AAU is very, very relevant.

          If you’d do a Big Ten Expansion Index II, Uconn would score really, really low:

          Academics: 0
          TV Value: 10
          Football Brand Value: 10
          Basketball Brand Value: 10
          Historic Rivalries/Cultural Fit: 2
          Mutual Interest: 5

          Total: 32, giving them the benefit of the doubt on maintaining their basketball value going forward.

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            So your view is that they care a lot about AAU status, but care NOTHING about overall academic rep?

            U Conn is #63 on US News. I know you say they care nothing about those ratings, but they do reflect general academic rep.

            BTW, arguing that US News ratings are inaccurate is entirely a different proposition than saying they have no relevance. If they are irrelevant, why would schools cook their #s to be rated higher?

            Like

          • Peter says:

            The only non-AAU school that had a standing waiver on “good enough” on academics was Notre Dame. Mostly for being Notre Dame, partly for being a self-avowed different kind of school with unquestioned academic quality.

            UConn is a different story. They’re an AAU-type school, just not good enough across the board. I don’t think AAU was ever “preferred but not required” as Frank had in the original expansion index, but it’s all but certain to be necessary after the Nebraska fiasco.

            Like

          • wmtiger says:

            With the CIC, the concern is more about research dollars and less about academic rankings. B10 universities share billions in research money, AAU status helps you a lot in getting research grants. Anyone without an understanding of the CIC should look into it, the one sentence explanation is its B10 universities (+ the University of Chicago) share resources and team-up to receive federal research money as a group (say University of Michigan and University of Wisconsin) as opposed to another research university.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            UConn is 86-109 in ARWU which uses similar criteria to the AAU. That’s the same tier as KU and MO.

            Like

    • Crpodhaj says:

      At least, I should say, out of the options you present. Why?

      UCONN isn’t AAU.

      KU and MO aren’t ranked as high as GaTech academically. Not close.

      GaTech is in the 8th largest media market. The B1G already has a presence in St. Louis and KC with IL, Iowa, and Nebraska. You don’t pass on the 8th largest media market which also has the best academics.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        My biggest issue with G Tech is that I see it as a weak addition in both football and basketball. Really wouldn’t look forward to repeated televised beatdowns by GA. At least U Conn has the good sense not to schedule GA.

        I know GT has a very good FB history, but I think it will continue to slide. Johnson was able to right the ship for awhile, but I think he also demonstrated what the GT ceiling is in modern college football. I think the potential downside exceeds the potential upside.

        At least with KU and U Conn you get basketball….and MO’s football and basketball both will be better than GT’s going forward…

        2nd biggest issue with GT is it’s isolation from other conf. schools.

        Like

        • Crpodhaj says:

          I don’t disagree with you that, from a sports perspective, GaTech has weakness.

          But if you look at the last 4 additions by the B1G, 3 were for BIG media markets. The lone football move was Nebraska (it just barely qualified and barely got in). The other 3 were: PennSt with the #4 media market (Philadelphia); Maryland with the #9 media market (Washington DC); Rutgers with the #1 media market (New York City). All four, at the time of their admission, were AAU.

          Virginia seals up DC from the other side. GaTech is in the #8 media market. Both are high ranking AAU schools.

          For the presidents of the B1G, those are the two main qualifications: big-time media market and high ranking AAU. There are only two: UVA and GaTech. UNC is close to those two.

          It isn’t sports sexy, but there is a reason the B1G is as wealthy as it is.

          Like

          • frug says:

            FWIW, Penn St. does not fully deliver the Philly media market. The BTN does not charge the full in-state rate for Philly.

            Like

          • Crpodhaj says:

            This is another advantage to Rutgers / Maryland: they now do cover all of Philadelphia, including the “New Jersy” part.

            Like

          • joe4psu says:

            @frug,

            “FWIW, Penn St. does not fully deliver the Philly media market. The BTN does not charge the full in-state rate for Philly.”

            Are you sure that’s true? This is a response from UncleLar on the PSU Scout board on that same subject:

            http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=10745717

            ” that’s not what the main negotiating point in Philly was. The disagreement was over whether the network would be carried on an expanded basic tier or in a digital basic tier. The BTN eventually agreed that Philly customers would get the channel in the digital basic tier (what happened is that the digital penetration in Philly became so great that there was no longer much difference between the expanded basic tier and the digital tier so they were arguing over a small percentage of customers). Philly does pay an instate rate.”

            Like

    • Eric says:

      Georgia Tech is the definite last on my list, but would probably be first for Delany and the presidents.

      Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      UConn and then KU. As we’ve learned, almost every move causes another move – or more.

      Taking GA Tech further destabilizes the ACC and may cause FSU, VA Tech, UNC & NC State to be on the table for the SEC, or send FSU & Clemson to the B12.

      Taking Mizzou probably means FSU to the SEC, in spite of whatever “gentlemen’s agreement” that may or may not exist. FSU in the SEC certainly will increase the value of CBS’ package and provide more quality inventory for the ESPN family, as well as project SEC. FSU is the SEC’s equivalent Nebraska to the B1G.

      Taking UConn gives the B1G schools on both sides of the NYC market and gives entry into Boston. Giving a hand up to one of Mark Emmert’s former schools would probably be viewed favorably by him, as well.

      Taking KU means the B12 makes another push for BYU, with Cincy as a backup.

      As for the ACC filling in for UVa, they ought to make a full frontal assault on fortress Notre Dame as a football member. If that likely fails, take Navy as a football-only member.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        I don’t see a problem with strengthening the SEC (I presume you don’t either, Alan) if it means putting more distance between the B10 and the leagues below them in football & having an even tighter lock on #1 in basketball and research/academics.

        Like

    • Mike B. says:

      @mushroomgod: The presidents already said no to Missouri. Missouri will never ever never ever be in the Big Ten. I have a co-worker who got his undergrad at Mizzou, PhD at Iowa, and taught at Wisconsin-Stevens Point. He said that academically, Mizzou was a lot closer to Stevens Point than it was to Iowa.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        really depends on what he was studying. Missouri has some mediocre programs, and some that are ranked in the top 10 in the country.

        The Big Ten presidents did not say no to Missouri. They said yes to Nebraska. There’s a world of difference between those two actions.

        Missouri scores higher than Nebraska on pretty much every academic metric there is.

        No, the Big Ten will never get Missouri, but that’s only because they waited too long and Missouri moved on.

        Like

        • OrderRestored83 says:

          Hahahaha, Wow. You are good entertainment. I’m a domer and not even a fan of the Big Ten; but even I am willing to admit that the Big Ten is above Missouri. Missouri was never a serious candidate…….yes they threw themselves at the Big Ten like a cheap prom date, but regardless of what your super secret sources tell you; the Big Ten just never was that into you.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            You are a flamer who never has any substance behind his taunts.

            Like

          • OrderRestored83 says:

            So the Gov. of Missouri publically stating that he’d rather associate with schools like Northwestern and Michigan than Texas Tech and Oklahoma St while his only state school was still in a conference with Texas Tech and Oklahoma St isn’t considered cheap prom date material? I may not have time to google all the facts; I have a big boy job and don’t have time. Perception is reality though, and Missouri is second rate. You are kidding yourself and are in for a lot of disappointment in life if you can’t handle that simple of an epiphany.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            more pointless empty trolling.

            The governor answered a reporter’s comment once off the cuff 3 years ago. So what? It was his personal opinion, he said it once. Not a single public comment from any Missouri official about the Big Ten has happened before or since.

            Your perception seems to be severely anti-Missouri for no apparent reason. Why does your opinion on this subject matter at all?

            Like

    • bullet says:

      I don’t believe in electronic footprints and taking teams insignificant in their own market. If its your last addition, have it make sense, not out on an island.
      1) UConn–strengthens you in New York and the northeast.
      2) Missouri–adds another relatively slow growing state in the midwest. Not ideal, but ok. 2 big metro areas.
      3) Kansas–great basketball but doesn’t add a lot otherwise-a small slow growing midwest state.
      4) Georgia Tech

      Like

    • metatron says:

      I’m already a big proponent of Missouri and/or Kansas, but for what it’s worth, I’d call Father Jenkins and see if we can do it. $50mm annually can help a lot of needy families.

      Oh who am I kidding? It’ll all go to renovating Touchdown Jesus.

      Like

    • frug says:

      Seeing as buying out KU’s GOR would cost the $250-$300 million (assuming the Big XII was even willing to sell them) I’d say they would be tied for last for both Delany and the presidents.

      I think the order for the powers would be G-Tech, Mizzou and UConn and KU tied for last (AAU membership is a dealbreaker.)

      Like

      • metatron says:

        Kansas’s rights aren’t worth that much. No way.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Actually they are. They receive $20 million a year in distributions which means that is market rate for their rights. And since the Big XII has no reason to sell those rights for market rate + profit that is what it would cost to obtain them.

          (FWIW, Kansas is the Big XII third most valuable property so they are not going to give those rights away)

          Like

    • Richard says:

      VTech, FSU, Miami and the NC schools being off the table while still considering Mizzou or KU (with their GOR) makes absolutely zero sense.

      I prefer to deal with real-world scenarios rather than fantasy ones.

      Like

      • frug says:

        I don’t really agree with the premise of the question either, but to be fair a lot of people see the Big 20 as fantasy…

        Like

        • Richard says:

          I think it’s more realistic than ‘shroom’s scenario.

          Any scenario where UConn is considered a target of B10 expansion has got to be considered fantasy.

          Have people looked at how much revenue (both athletics and research) that school pulls in? He also fails to consider ‘Cuse (because he loves UConn and hates ‘Cuse for some reason). So if UConn is so much more desirable than SU, why did the ACC target SU and ignore UConn over 2 rounds of expansion?

          Like

    • Brian says:

      mushroomgod,

      “Question for you guys……..If you were Delany/ the BIG Presidents and HAD to get to 16 teams, with VA and 1 other school, and V Tech, UNC and NC State were off the table, as were FSU and Miami (sorry Richard), as were OK and TX(sorry whoever)…..and only these 4 teams were options: MO, Kansas, U Conn, Ga Tech….how would you rank them?”

      Ignoring all the things wrong with this scenario:

      1. GT
      2.
      3. MO
      4. KU
      5. UConn

      Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      YMMV potentially useful data points…
      Composite Academic Rankings:
      15 Georgia Tech
      41 UConn
      42 Missouri
      48 Kansas

      07-12 Aggregate Director’s Cup:
      42 Missouri
      52 Georgia Tech
      53 UConn
      61 Kansas

      2011 Meth Lab incidents:
      Missouri 2,067
      Kansas 182
      Georgia 130
      Connecticut 0

      All that being said my preferences…

      Georga Tech
      Missouri
      Kansas
      UConn

      Like

  31. GreatLakeState says:

    Sadly I’m thinking UVA/GT. I don’t know why they’re writing off the fourth largest state in Florida.

    Like

    • Peter says:

      Miami doesn’t deliver the state, does not support its programs, and may not being playing D-I football, Florida State may or may not deliver the state, and neither is AAU.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Florida State does not deliver the whole state on basic…

        Like

        • Peter says:

          That’s what I figured.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            I live here. The most you get from FSU and Miami is Tallahassee (extremely small population in panhandle) along with Miami-Ft. Lauderdale.

            The rest of the state from West Palm in the East and Tampa in the West all the way up to Jacksonville belongs to UF as well as USF (2nd in Tampa behind UF) and UCF (2nd in Orlando behind UF).

            FSU and Miami are sorta like Notre Dame; they’re not really state-wide draws at all; just very local and then national draws…

            Like

          • wmtiger says:

            As someone who lived in central & the panhandle of Florida in the late 90’s, early 00’s; FSU is every bit as big as Florida in those two areas.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Right, if by “here”, you mean FL, the state is very big, and I believe FSU gets strong support in the western part of the state (panhandle, but also Tampa on up).

            Like

          • zeek says:

            @wmtiger

            USF and UCF’s growth has changed a lot in central Florida. Those two schools actually have sizeable and growing fanbases considering how big they are.

            Locally, I’d put them each second in their respective cities Tampa/Orlando to only UF. It might sound wrong, but they’re giant commuter schools with big local followings in their cities. The growth of those two schools has changed a lot of what’s been going on with students that can’t go to UF or FSU over the past 10 years.

            UF’s also become a lot more dominant over the past decade in other parts of the state.

            Just going off what I’ve seen from living between Orlando and South Florida, it’s different now than it was in the 90s/early 00s.

            Like

  32. ohiomarc says:

    Ga Tech and Mizzou, I guess. Though if we’re going to bring in a geographic outlier like GT, I’d like to bring them in with a partner. Ga Tech and FSU would be my preference at this point.

    Like

  33. mushroomgod says:

    Odd media comment of the day……………Matt Hayes of SNs says SEC has been ‘pursuing’
    UNC and Duke for three years…….Odd is true but might explain VA/ GT to Big 10 talk.

    Like

    • Peter says:

      I have a hard time believing that. Duke has no synergy with the SEC, particularly if you are getting UNC. The only way that makes sense is if UNC was tied to Duke – but they’re legally tied to NC State. As in they share a board. UNC dumping NC State to rot in a rump ACC would be an egregious breech of fiduciary duty. It won’t happen.

      I could believe that UNC is the SEC version of the B1G or PAC with Texas, but it’s at least as intractable.

      Like

  34. mushroomgod says:

    I guess UL is #163 on US News, not #130 something…….that’s a big “yikes” for VA.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      That’s why this is a paradigm shift. They turned their nose at WVU just one year ago (WVU being in the exact same US News range as Louisville that 160-170 range).

      Everything has changed.

      Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      I doubt any professor is turning down an offer at UVa because Louisville is in the ACC. I doubt any hotshot student is turning down UVa because Louisville is in the ACC. UVa didn’t become a dummy school today, just because Louisville was invited to join the ACC. UVa is and will always be Jefferson’s school and a public Ivy. Louisville kids showing up on campus a few times a year isn’t changing that.

      Louisville isn’t going to drag UVa down, the ACC will lift Louisville up. I’ll bet that Louisville will receive a record number of applications this Spring.

      Like

  35. loki_the_bubba says:

    Reports that Middle Tennessee State is coming to CUSA this morning.

    https://twitter.com/Harry_MiniumVP

    Like

  36. zeek says:

    Can someone explain to me what markets are going to be delivered by this theoretical ACC Network that some of the ACC journalists are pushing?

    All of the cable households/markets in North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina; sure.

    Outside of that, it’s really murky. Most of the ACC schools are rather small, especially outside of North Carolina and Virginia (Maryland was the 2nd largest school behind FSU and the next 3 largest are Va Tech/NCSU/UNC).

    Florida State + Miami delivers at most Tallahassee and Miami.-Ft. Lauderdale Doubtful that it delivers Tampa to Jacksonville which is solidly UF (and even UCF/USF – two giant commuter schools) territory.

    Louisville, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse may deliver their home markets, but none of those has that many households.

    Boston College? Georgia Tech? Neither delivers any footprint.

    All this talk about the ACC’s mammoth footprint is terrific until you boil it down to what part of the footprint is monetizable. That’s when the numbers don’t jive with reality. It could certainly be a profitable venture off the basis of the Carolinas and Virginia and parts of Florida, but it doesn’t sound like a gangbusters business.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Another question, are these schools really willing to sign a GOR to make this happen?

      Like

      • Jericho says:

        You don’t need a GOR to have a network. The ACC already has granted rights to ESPN/Raycom. You just utilize those rights. ESPN would obviously be at least part owner of any network.

        I also don’t think markets are as bad as you think Football tends to drive the Tier 1 stuff. But Tieer 1 stuff ends up on ESPN or the networks. Tier 2 and 3 stuff is what fills network inventory. That’s going to be basketball (and other sports) heavy. Having some national brands like Duke, UNC, and Notre Dame will help sell that.You don’t think the ACC could get some money out of New York for that?

        Like

        • zeek says:

          You need subscribers though for that to work.

          You’ll get the critical masses of subscribers in the heart of the footprint in the Carolinas and Virginia and possibly D.C.

          Elsewhere, there just isn’t enough alumni and fans. The schools don’t have large enough fanbases to deliver major metros like NYC and Atlanta.

          Basketball is a great source of content, but football still drives the network’s bus.

          I mean you’re going to end up putting a half of your conference football games every week on that network, and those will be the highest rated broadcasts on the network…

          It would end up making money, but the numbers will mostly be driven by 4 states: NC, Va, SC, and the panhandle/Miami-FLL of Florida.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            The biggest issue in my mind is that you won’t have any ND football games on that network.

            Having Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska on the network for football has helped it a lot; ND won’t be giving that boost.

            Like

        • I personally think an ACC network could work in pretty much every area of its footprint except for maybe the regions covered by Syracuse and BC (where the network effects among ACC schools isn’t very strong). It could coexist with a potential SEC network in the same way that the YES Network and SNY coexist in the NYC market. YES (with its Yankees games) is worth much more than SNY, but Mets games are still important enough to the NYC market that it gets basic cable distribution. In the South, SEC = Yankees (weird to say) while ACC = Mets.

          That all might be water under the bridge with Swofford’s comment. though.

          Like

  37. frug says:

    Can’t find a link, but I just saw on SportsCenter that supposedly the ACC schools have come to an agreement that if in is approached by another conference, approaches another conference or is engaging in talk with another conference they must report it to the rest of the ACC.

    Like

  38. frug says:

    Alright, to update my prediction from previous threads;

    The Louisville addition makes me think that there is probably a 25% chance the ACC sees further defections within the next year. My guess was higher when it looked like UConn had the inside track, but the UL move means that Tobacco Road and UVA are starting to make concessions to the football schools.

    Like

  39. zeek says:

    Folks, we have got to stop looking at the Midwest and Northeast for further additions to the Big Ten.

    Outside of Notre Dame, Delany and the presidents/ADs that have spoken have made it very clear that the Big Ten is going towards demographics/population grounds.

    Kansas and Missouri don’t fit that. UConn doesn’t fit that.

    None of those 3 fit what the Big Ten is moving towards. Georgia Tech at least fits that criteria even if it doesn’t deliver any markets…

    Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Actually I recall Delany explaining that this talking of demographics had been misconstrued—to the effect that he was looking at enrollment/alums as much as new territories…….thus Rutger and MD each with large enrollments. Thus, I think MO (enrollment:34,000), still with AAU status, is still interesting…….I keep thinking the original 10 may have a pushback to adding new regions…..

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Viewed in this light, both G Tech and VA have smaller enrollments….they would be the 14th and 15th smallest schools in the BIG….compatibility, contiguous geography are still important no matter how many times you say they aren’t.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          True but so is going to where the alumni and new students are.

          Missouri, Kansas, UConn all take you farther away from new students and not closer.

          UVa, Georgia Tech, UNC, Duke, they all take you closer to the new students and alumni.

          Like

      • Bo Darville says:

        The University of Phoenix has an enrollment of 300,000.

        Like

  40. Bob Marley says:

    I contend that UNC (and UVa) is the most likely target for the B1G. UNC is in turmoil at the moment. Searches are underway for a President and a Provost. The academic scandal, uncovered by the Butch Davis firing has caused the entire UNC community to question its commitment to B1G-class football. UNC will go Division II before joining the SEC. My guess is that the UNC leadership vacuum for the next year will stop radical change.

    UNC is just as likely to consider the Ivy League model, along with UVa, Duke, Wake and Georgia Tech. TV money, while much smaller, would merely augment the athletic programs. The schools could schedule games to suit their academic missions rather than TV. Duke, UNC and UVa fund top 20 Directors Cup programs without B1G football and BTN revenue.

    Like

  41. Psuhockey says:

    Duke hasn’t been getting a lot of play around here as a BIG candidate. I think Duke as a pair with UNC would be of much higher value then with UVA. Duke is a top ten research school in the country. They are a national basketball brand and a lot of their enrollment, though small comparatively to other BIG schools, comes from the New York/New Jersey area. They would help with television in NYC as they often stage a game in that area every year now.

    Like

    • Peter says:

      UVA has big value because it completes the D.C./NOVA metro area begun by getting Maryland. That’s the catch.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      If we do end up with Duke, it’s likely to be in an 18 team format.

      That’s why I brought up 18 team formats in the previous thread. Now that the Big Ten is at 14, 18 isn’t inconceivable…

      16 still seems like the most obvious situation. But if the Big Ten has to settle on UVa/Georgia Tech for a couple of years, and then it can get UNC/Duke, then you can make an 18 team scenario work.

      Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      I tend to agree with this. To get UNC I think Duke is not a bad consolation prize.
      I can see a UNC/Duke/Uva/GT/ND (& friend) road to 20.

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        …though I personally would prefer UNC/DUKE/UVA/FSU/ND/GT (yes, I know FSU isn’t AAU-yet)

        Like

        • GreatLakeState says:

          People who don’t think we need a couple more football powers need to consider the reason for expansion in the first place. If this was really about academics, we wouldn’t have expansion. FSU is the best football power that appears gettable, and is respectable if not stellar academically. I realize this won’t likely happen but Delany isn’t blind to the benefits of star power.

          Like

          • danimation707 says:

            Florida State is a football power however I am not seeing how they fit academically. They are non-AAU and #97 on the US News rankings which is a virtual tie with UNL.

            I am not sure if the snobbery in leadership positions at Michigan or Wisconsin could see past that to the benefits.

            Like

        • Richard says:

          I originally had ND in my Big20, but upon reconsideration, I just don’t see ND giving up independence that easily. So then I had FSU+Miami, but I believe the SEC will take FSU first (unless the B10 launches a lightening strike). So sitting at 18 waiting for ND (maybe FSU) is most likely if UNC comes along. If not, sitting at 14 is possible (even probable). Adding UConn/Mizzou/KU just to get to 16 makes no sense.

          Like

  42. zeek says:

    Andy Katz ✔ @ESPNAndyKatz
    Just asked UNC chancellor Thorp why Lou over Cincy and UConn and he candidly said it was about sports programs (not academics).

    Like

  43. Mike says:

    If BIG were to add Virginia, NC, Duke and GT to go to 18, here is how I would propose the divisions:

    West: Neb, Iowa, MN, WISC, IL, NW
    East: PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, NC, Duke
    Midwest: MICH, MSU, Purdue
    Mideast (or South)t: OSU, GT, Indiana

    10 game schedule. Divisions consist of Midwest-West and Mideast-East pods for 2 years, then Midwest-East and Mideast-West pods for 2 years.

    Teams in the West and East play the 5 other teams in their pod each year, the 3 teams in either the Midwest or Mideast that are in their division, plus 2 of the 6 from the other 6-team pod.

    Teams in the Midwest and East play the 2 other teams in their pod, the 6 teams in either the West or Midwest that are in their division, 1 annual crossover (MICH-OSU, MSU-GT, Purdue-IN) plus 1 of the other two from the other 3-team pod.

    Advantages: geographic continuity, preservation of rivalries, competitive balance, most teams play at least 2 out of 4 years except the East-West teams.

    Disadvantage: 10 game schedule is probably necessary for 18 teams. NEB-PSU only once every 3 years.

    Thoughts?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I think they’d want to protect Nebraska-Penn State just as they’d protect Michigan-Ohio State.

      That’s a guaranteed national broadcast every year with great viewership. You can’t remove that.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Mike,

      “West: Neb, Iowa, MN, WISC, IL, NW
      East: PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, NC, Duke
      Midwest: MICH, MSU, Purdue
      Mideast (or South)t: OSU, GT, Indiana

      10 game schedule. Divisions consist of Midwest-West and Mideast-East pods for 2 years, then Midwest-East and Mideast-West pods for 2 years.”

      They aren’t going to 10 games, and the lack of balance is a problem (West > East).

      Like

  44. zeek says:

    A part of why Maryland left was that its rivalries were basically cast aside in basketball for a rivalry with Pitt.

    Come on down Virginia:

    The Drive ‏@thedrivenc
    Swofford said he “anticipates” crossover division rival for Louisville in football to be Virginia.

    Subject: ACC announces Louisville is our new crossover partner
    Posted by: rmcwahoo on Wed Nov 28 2012 2:03:30 PM
    Message:
    That’s just miserable. Now I actually want us to leave the ACC.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      David Teel ‏@DavidTeelatDP
      Swoff also says Louisville likely to replace Maryland as Virginia’s crossover football rival. I sense unhappiness already among #UVa fans.

      David Teel ‏@DavidTeelatDP
      Swoff says he’s not sure #ACC can do much better in terms of TV distribution.

      ————————————

      Finally rationality sets in from the earlier “let’s make an ACC Network” post.

      Like

      • wmtiger says:

        Virginia can’t be happy with that and from the above, obviously they aren’t. I think the B10 sees Virginia as a potential B1G #16 and wants to find B1G #15 first, someone like NC, ND, etc.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          That might be a good way of looking at it.

          By that measure then UVa/Georgia Tech would be insufficient.

          Like

          • gas1958 says:

            Does this mean you guys think VaTech is just too unpalatable to the B1G presidents? Put another way, if that were not an impediment and the two VA schools were invited as a package, wouldn’t they accept pretty quickly?

            Like

          • zeek says:

            The Nebraska AAU loss seems to have the presidents snakebit about going for a non-AAU.

            Like

      • Jericho says:

        Who does Virginia want as a rival? Here are your choices:

        Boston College, Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Louisville, and Syracuse.

        Of course, most of them are spoken for. NC State has UNC, Wake has Duke, FSU has Miami, Clemson has GT. Your choices are BC, Syracuse and Louisville. Kentucky at least boarders Virginia (although you could swap VT with UVA and have VT play Louisville and Virginia play BC)

        Like

    • maguro says:

      And what basketball rivalries does Maryland have now? Rutgers? PSU? Please.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        If you’re going to have to make new basketball rivalries, might as well make them elsewhere…

        Like

      • Richard says:

        No different from having Pitt as a designated “rival”, which is why they left for greener pastures.

        Like

        • maguro says:

          It’s absurd to think that having an extra basketball game against Pitt – a better basketball program than UMD over the past decade – is “why they left for greener pastures”. That’s nothing but spin and self-justification.

          They left for the money and everyone knows it. NTTAWWT.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            The point is, it’s not your father’s ACC, it’s not your father’s Big Ten, and it’s not your father’s Big East.

            Everything is different…; a half of the ACC is now Big East schools as compared to 10 years ago.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            I guess Virginia should not have voted for Miami, Va Tech, Boston College, Pitt, and Syracuse then. Same with Maryland. I get that Maryland did not vote for the exit fee change, but to pretend that the conference membership changed against their will is simply absurd.

            Like

  45. zeek says:

    RT @ericcrawford: Jurich said UofL’s biggest advocates were Florida State, Clemson and Syracuse.

    Like

  46. Gfunk says:

    Why are we talking about conference expansion that exceeds 16? Not going to happen, money can only go so far. Absurd to think beyond 16! If if happens, I’ll personally post a video of myself eating crow, two crows, shit I’ll strip in the process. This is what I call fantasy Risk expansion – overboard galore. It also means the B1G looks weak because they’re searching too hard for football power while scoring media markets. How about the B1G coaches start sending out memos to each other and agree to improve the product on the field, while they’re at it, work with local high schools and make preps spring football the norm, not specialized elite leagues. Inevitably, people stop watching if the product sucks or becomes too diluted. And God forbid if a la carte cable manifests, which is very unlikely short term. As a BIG fan, I can’t deny my preference for watching SEC football, Pac12 next, then only the marquee B1G games. BIG football powers need to start playing as advertised – the dust is becoming hardened on those past trophies.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Someone suggested a game of realignment based on Risk. I’d suggest it be called Frank’s Follies.

      Like

    • Psuhockey says:

      Big Ten football has been crap for the last few years because of crappy coaches, nothing more. The SEC was junk in the 90’s where Steve Spurrier use to dominate all the other competition and than get his but kicked in a bowl game. Sounds like Tressel and the Big Ten of the last decade. Carr and Paterno stayed to long at Michigan and PSU and brought down the programs a bit with little effort in recruiting. Same can be said of Joe Tiller and Barry Alverez. New coaches with fresh ideas and more effort will do wonders for BIGs teams.

      Recruiting is the life blood of football. The Sec with the poster children of oversigning in Alabama and LSU have an advantage right now over the BIG. That will change with the addition of 4 year scholarships. The BIG will also be able to pay out more to student athletes if they so choose, as currently SEC pays the most per student athlete. Plus the SEC will lose some of its luster when the playoffs start. SEC teams besides Alabama and LSU play pathetic out of conference games. So they are often ranked based on playing themselves. How great is Florida who’s biggest win was against South Carolina, who’s good because they beat Georgia, who is great because they beat Florida. See. It’s like star ranking in recruiting where recruits get higher stars when they are recruited by big schools like Alabama. Then Alabama gets a great recruiting class when they land all the recruits they made famous with their interest. Playoffs with wash away some of this crap.

      Lastly the thing missing from BIG football the last decade has been star power. There has been no Lavaar Arrington or Champ Bailly or Eddie George, or Drew Brees in too long of time. These guys brought casual attention to BIG ten teams and made them seem better. That hype is being given to SEC players now, like Tebow, Richardson, and Julio Jones. That too will change with now being in the major news markets of the east coast. The BIG wont have to go thru the king-makers of espn, to bring notoriety to its players. They will have the Washington post, New York Times, and other major media outlets. If the BIG gets attention grabbers as it’s last two, they will be well positioned in he future to go head to head against the SECs dominance.

      Like

      • manifestodeluxe says:

        “The SEC was junk in the 90′s where Steve Spurrier use to dominate all the other competition and than get his but kicked in a bowl game. Sounds like Tressel and the Big Ten of the last decade.”

        Tressel was 6-4 in bowl games, 5-3 in BCS games, and 1-2 in NCGs. He got killed in two NCGs, but that hardly makes him John Cooper.

        Like

        • Psuhockey says:

          Just making a point. Not hating.

          Like

          • manifestodeluxe says:

            It’s a valid point imo. Other B1G schools need to make a real commitment to football if they want to change the perception. Some just seem content to collect the paycheck instead of investing it back into the program that generates said paycheck in the first place.

            Like

      • zeek says:

        cutter’s point about FS1 ties in to tihs.

        It will be interesting to see how much FS1 and NBCSN can change the narrative over time.

        Like

      • Mark says:

        I think the SEC just cares more about football, period, than the Big Ten. That’s why the coaches in the SEC are better, they spend the money while teams like Purdue, Indiana, NW, Illinois, Mn, etc are cheap and you get what you pay for. Also – nobody in the CFB power structure cares about the Washington Post, NY Times, etc – ESPN will remain the CFB information broker for well into the near future at a minimum.

        Like

        • Bo Darville says:

          What the heck are the Minnesotas and Purdues of the Big 10 spending all of this Big Ten Network money on? It sure isn’t football. I don’t understand that thinking. Do they believe Alabama is losing money on Nick Saban??

          Like

          • manifestodeluxe says:

            I would assume funding more and more non-revenue sports, but I’m not a fan of those teams so I wouldn’t know. That said, if you’re Purdue and you brought home $27mil last year in just media/conference payout, I have to think you can do better than Danny Hope.

            I do know that the BigTen has been really reticent to get into the practice of paying big bucks for coaching staffs, even at the top programs. But, people, that’s a big part of how you win. South Carolina wasn’t exactly killing it before Lou Holtz and Steve Spurrier.

            Like

          • BoilerTex says:

            Purdue actually gives a portion of the BTN revenue back to the school. The AD is completely self sufficient and actually funds the academic side (much to the chagrined of many alumni). Further, we have invested heavily in Olympic sports (WVB, Mbase, WS, WG) and also had up Painter’s pay significantly to keep him from running to Mizzou. I am hopeful our new coaching hire ups the ante on our investment in football but I am not expectant.

            Like

          • @BoilerTex:

            There was a rumor on the radio tonight that Purdue was talking with Mark Mangino. That could be a great hire for Purdue.

            Like

          • If that means we get Baby Mangino in Purdue gear, I’m all for it:

            http://m.deadspin.com/5077174/your-halloween-costume-was-not-this-good

            Like

          • I’m not a Purdue fan (obviously), but that could be a damn good hire. He took Kansas and made them relevant and good.

            Like

          • BoilerTex says:

            Interesting, well he does meet the mustache requirement. I was actually hoping for Dorean from NIU but it appears he’s not a candidate.

            Like

          • He’ll need to work on that stache a little to match the Tiller/Hope combo. Maybe he can contact Andy Reid for tips… that’d be awesome.

            Like

          • BoilerTex says:

            According to the Twittersphere it sounds like Butch Jones. Not bad.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        Psuhockey,

        “Lastly the thing missing from BIG football the last decade has been star power. There has been no Lavaar Arrington or Champ Bailly or Eddie George, or Drew Brees in too long of time. These guys brought casual attention to BIG ten teams and made them seem better. That hype is being given to SEC players now, like Tebow, Richardson, and Julio Jones. That too will change with now being in the major news markets of the east coast.”

        Braxton Miller and Shoelace disagree.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      Gfunk,

      “Why are we talking about conference expansion that exceeds 16? Not going to happen, money can only go so far.”

      I tend to agree, not so much because of money but because of scheduling issues. 18 is hard to get teams to play frequently enough to feel like a conference, and so is 20. Frankly, 14 and 16 also have that problem, but increased size makes it worse.

      Assuming 9 games, 1 locked rival and pods unless marked otherwise:
      14 – 7 * 100% + 6 * 33% (no pods)
      14 – 5/3 * 100% + 8/6 * 50% + 0/4 * 75% (no locked rival)
      16 – 4 * 100% + 11 * 45%
      18 – 3/4 * 100% + 10/8 * 50% + 4/5 * 25/20% (no locked rival)
      20 – 5 * 100% + 14 * 29%

      For comparison, here’s 8 games with 1 locked rival and no pods:
      10 – 1 * 100% + 8 * 88%
      11 – 1 * 100 % + 9 * 78% (the B10 actually locked 2 and played the other 8 75%)
      12 – 6 * 100% + 5 * 40%

      14 with a locked rival and pods is more complicated since the numbers depend on where your locked rival is. 18 with a locked rival stinks because you never play some of the teams or you ruin a ton of rivalries to make groups of 3 and play almost everyone infrequently.

      “How about the B1G coaches start sending out memos to each other and agree to improve the product on the field, while they’re at it, work with local high schools and make preps spring football the norm, not specialized elite leagues.”

      The HS’s have repeatedly voted down spring football in OH. The concern is for hurting the spring sports like baseball by taking away the FB players. This is despite plans to allow a limited number of hours that are scheduled to minimize any conflicts (starts late in spring, etc).

      As for improving the product, don’t kid yourself. These guys are doing their best. As new blood comes in and brings new ideas they’ll improve, but they’ll never be allowed to oversign or buy players as much as some SEC schools. Most of the B10 schools have stricter admissions requirements, too.

      “As a BIG fan, I can’t deny my preference for watching SEC football, Pac12 next, then only the marquee B1G games.”

      That doesn’t mean others agree with you. I watch every B10 game I can and then some B12 or P12 action. ACC and BE is a tier below. I rarely watch the SEC because I’m so sick of the fawning and the hype that it is too aggravating to be enjoyable. I doubt either of us is typical of B10 fans and their viewing habits.

      Like

  47. cutter says:

    Here’s a couple of interesting articles about Fox’s plans to start a Fox Sports 1 Channel and about their 49% stake in the New York City-based YES (Yankees Entertainment and Sports) Network.

    http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/11/26/Media/FoxSports1.aspx

    http://business.time.com/2012/11/26/murdoch-says-yes-to-the-yankees-why-the-deal-could-help-news-corp-take-on-espn/#ixzz2DY0zOAXJ

    The major uptake from the articles is that Fox is positioning itself to take on ABC/ESPN in the sports broadcasting arena.

    Fox currently has a 51% stake in the Big Ten Network with the conference owning the other 49%.

    How does the launching of this new channel (let’s call it FS1), the minority stake in YES and Fox’s current ownership deal with the BTN “work” with one another? Is this the route the B1G is looking to use to re-position itself the northeastern/mid-Atlantic cable market in? In what ways will this effect conference realignment? With the Big Ten’s current contract with ABC/ESPN ending in 2016, should we expect to see FS1 as part of the bidding war for the rights to television B1G football, basketball, etc?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Good stuff; hopefully Fox succeeds. I may have FNC and FBC but we definitely need a competitor to ESPN.

      And hopefully this will lead to more competition for our 2017 contract. If FS1 is doing really well in terms of drawing away sports coverage, it might be worth looking at jumping there or at least forcing ESPN to pay big…

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Oh I should add that I saw somewhere that YES’ affiliate deals will be up in a few years. That’s when bundling BTN with YES should gain traction (since it will happen after Rutgers and Maryland are in the conference).

        Like

    • Hodgepodge says:

      Absolutely we should expect “FS1” to be part of the bidding for the B1G contract. I’d imagine NBCSN would be interested as well considering they are desperate for live programming. Hell, beIn Sports might even decide to dive in, although they are more Euro-centric right now.

      My guess is that the B1G will end up splitting the broadcast rights between two of the channels, much like what the PAC-12 and Big XII do with ESPN and Fox and what the SEC does with ESPN and CBS.

      Like

  48. zeek says:

    David Teel ‏@DavidTeelatDP
    Swoff: “This is still strongest collection of institutions academically of any conference in country probably short of the Ivy League. ”

    ———————————————————————

    That’s an incredibly defensive comment.

    Like

  49. B1G Jeff says:

    It would be really cool if all of this was just some big misdirect and a really big fish was on the hook. The B1G does its best work in the background, not in full public display.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I doubt it, seems as if UNC wants to make this work; they have a lot of baggage in the sense of all those North Carolina based schools hanging on, so they have an incentive to see this through.

      Like

    • frug says:

      I don’t know. The Nebraska addition was pretty public.

      Like

      • B1G Jeff says:

        @frug: Yes, but PDQ, as was Maryland.

        My thoughts center around the notion that additional calls have been made to ND, Texas and other academic/athletic combo brands/home runs (don’t want to call them Kings anymore – UT sucks on the gridiron these days; there’s just too much ebb and flow). It seemed that the conversation with UMCP started with a quick “I don’t think so” but migrated to “Let’s focus on the opportunity instead of the obstacles.”

        $45-50M/year with the right partner should be able to get a lot of conversations started.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Remember, they tried doing PSU quietly and it was a disaster. After the word leaked about the secret negotiations there was an insurrection by the coaches and athletic directors that delayed Penn St.’s admission for a year and a lot of Penn St fans resent the Big 10 to this day because of what happened (even though it was someone on the PSU side that leaked the story to the press)

          Like

  50. zeek says:

    ACC Sports ‏@ACCSports
    MT @KevinNathanNBC: Sources tell me 4 ACC schools gave UConn support: Wake Forest, Duke, North Carolina and Virginia. @nbcconnecticut.

    Like

    • Peter says:

      Ouch. UConn is somehow in the position that Louisville should be in (trapped in C-USA Mk. II at the mercy of the basketball-only schools). Good on you, Louisville. Terrible job, UConn.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      Sounds like UConn alienated BC, Pitt and SU and VT, FSU, GT, Miami, NCSU and Clemson wanted a better fb school. The 4 ACC or die liked UConn.

      Like

  51. mushroomgod says:

    Looking at the sabre VA forum…….a rumor of VA and U Conn to the BIG, fwiw……

    Doing some more research……a couple more huge drawbacks to U Conn……didn’t realize the football stadium was so small (40000)….that won’t work. Also, endowment would be considerably smaller than for RU and MD, which in turn will be the smallest 2 of the new 14 school BIG (that surprised me).

    Couple of facts about VA that make it more attractive to me….football stadiumseats 61500, which is bigger than I would have expected. Also, baketball arena is 14,600 and only 4 years old…..I had seen somewhere before that the overall sports facilities were very good, but didn’t know the #s. Also, VA’s endowment would be less than UM or NW, but more than twice the size of any other BIG school.

    Like

    • Jericho says:

      Sounds like a crap rumor. And not sure either side would make that move (well Uconn would in a second, but not UVa).

      Like

    • SH says:

      UVA is a small school, by public school standards, but it has a lot of money, wealthy alums and alums who feel a strong connection to the school, it puts money into its facilities, and it is competitve in most sports. Even was competitve in football and basketball until recently. Academically, it is top notch. It has a compelling history, a beautiful campus for conference retreats. It basically offers everything, except it is not a football king, nor does it have the brand of a UNC or Duke.

      I almost feel like UVA is destined to end up in the B10, once MD went. It’s now just a matter of letting the situation ripen.

      A school that prides itself on an honor code and tradition is not going to simply bail on the conference it founded until the timing is right.

      But like the people who say, I didn’t leave the Democrat/Republican party, it left me.

      UVA will be able to say, we aren’t leaving the ACC, this isn’t the ACC we founded.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        You bring up one really good point that I can’t emphasize enough;

        The most similar school athletically (in terms of emphasis) to UVa, UNC, and Duke; is Maryland.

        The same way those schools prize lacrosse, soccer, etc.; Maryland does as well. The Big Ten has 5 men’s lacrosse and 6 women’s lacrosse (which means 1 men’s program away from an AQ size conference), and more schools that are comprehensive athletic programs.

        Only really Florida and Vandy are similar to those schools in that respect. The Big Ten has like 5-6 schools like that…

        It’s just another thing to think about…

        Like

        • Nemo says:

          Maybe one factor in things being quiet is the $50 million “exit fee”. I know that Loh hated that term, but it would seem Swofford would fight like heck to keep that number that high to scare further defections. From what I’ve been reading here and elsewhere, and what is coming down the pike with new members to the ACC, it smells like “fear” personified.

          Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      UCON and GT don’t wrestle while UVa, VT, and UNC do. Blackball the first two.

      Like

    • brindelin says:

      That rumor was from thedude on WVA boards, I’d say disregard it.

      Like

  52. SH says:

    Zeek – as I stated before, the schools who aren’t talking about their conferences and realignment – those in the B10, SEC and P12. There are a lot of comments coming out of two of the founding members of the ACC. Perhaps they are being made simply to quiet the storm, but it isn’t working.

    The ACC as it once existed is no more. It is simply a merger of the Big East into the ACC with some football independents added. Again, as we discussed, there has been no coherent expansion strategy. The ACC’s base is now 3 states, with one state basically an SEC state now.

    The ACC has a lot of brands, good brands. But they can’t monetize them effectively, because they lack a solid base. Or those brands are basketball brands which is clearly inferior to football.

    The core ACC schools may all be better off splitting apart and going into seperate conferences.

    Finally, I see no reason to think that the B10 will not get to 18 or 20. Its not a forgone conclusion obviously, but if you can justify 16, you can certainly justify 18 or 20. Time will tell.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      The reason why I hesitate to say definitively that the Big Ten will stop at 16 is that I do think the Big Ten COP/C want to add Duke and Georgia Tech even if they don’t bring markets that UVa and UNC bring.

      If they can, they’d push past 16 for those two…

      Like

      • SH says:

        Plus they would always add UT or ND if available. My guess is that 15 years ago, people would have strongly asserted, no way the B10 or SEC ever gets to 16 teams. Now we are on the verge of it. There is just no reason to believe they will stop at 16. It may not be likely that they go over, but all the arguments being made for 16 will be made for 18 or 20. And they will basically boil down to grabbing new markets.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Plus, money, academics, etc. will be a much more unifying factor for big conferences nowadays than they ever were before.

          Everyone says that conferences will be “too big” but then who will split off?

          Who’s going to want to split off of a group that academically potent…

          The CIC is the single greatest unifying factor in the Big Ten. I think it along with the sheer scale of money will ensure stability…

          Like

          • SH says:

            I agree with state funding likely going to shrink, the big universities need to find alternative revenue streams. The sports programs are it. The money will make it last for a while. But who knows what will happen in the future. The danger for the B10 is that the cultural differences eventually cause the conference’s demise. Its a risk worth taking, and makes sense. Just a future unknown.

            Like

          • joe4psu says:

            I could see conference divisions acting as separate conferences for scheduling if they reach 18 or 20 schools. The CCG would be the only interaction unless schools want to schedule cross divsion games as OOC games.

            Like

  53. gas1958 says:

    Really, I don’t see why the Big 12 doesn’t offer FSU/Clemson an invite. They get a 12-team conference with a natural division: 4 TX schools + OK/OSU; KU, KSU, ISU, WVU, FSU, and Clemson. This is slightly imbalanced with two kings in one division and one in the other. But, as we’ve seen this year, these teams in this conference play a pretty entertaining brand of ball, and many of the teams are dangerous “on any given Saturday.” The ACC adding L’ville isn;t going to prevent this from happening and this would strengthen the B12 substantially. Seem like a no brainer to me.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Texas, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State are probably really deadset against it. Texas doesn’t want a CCG.

      Kansas/KSU/ISU want their two annual trips to Texas. I’m not sure where WVU comes down on this; they might prefer Clemson and FSU to help them with recruiting the East.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      But would FSU accept? FSU fans are lukewarm about joining a conference that is inherently unstable when they still think they have a chance at ending up in the B10 or SEC long-term.

      Like

  54. gas1958 says:

    *seems*

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Good find, especially this:

      ‘“We’d be absolutely foolish to not watch Maryland,” one FSU official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Sporting News. “If or when they get out of (the $50 million buyout), everything changes. It’s almost like free agency.’

      It’s like the prisoner’s dilemma, if there’s only a couple seats left (possibly as few as 2 each in Big Ten, Big 12, SEC), then there might be a race…

      Like

      • SH says:

        Its only like free agency if other conferences want you. FSU probably knows it can find a home, and one that would be equal to or better than its current home. Wake/BC/Miami – not so much.

        But if the ACC/Big East could hang on as a 5th conference, one step below the big boys, that may be what those schools need.

        Like

    • Richard says:

      Only quibble is that FSU+Clemson to the B12 won’t end expansion once and for all. In a decade, the B12 GOR will run out and the Pac/SEC Battle of Texas will commence. After that’s settled and you have 3 mega-conferences (or 2 mega-conferences of 20 each + the Pac), expansion will finally end.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Texas has just said no to the SEC and Pac XX.

        Texas doesn’t leave the Big 12 unless the Pac leaves the B12 behind in revenue in a dozen years or there is a new superconference formed with teams from various leagues and Notre Dame.

        Like

    • Andy says:

      What’s intresting to me is the news that the SEC has been pursuing UNC and Duke for 3 years. Sounds like the SEC’s master plan is A&M + Mizzou + UNC + Duke.

      Like

  55. B1G Jeff says:

    For those of you (I’m not among them) convinced 18 or 20 is in the works, theoretically would you rather have UT/TTU/Ok/OSU or UNC/UVA/VTT/GT?

    Like

    • B1G Jeff says:

      Under either scenario wouldn’t FSU/ND be your #19 and #20?

      Like

      • acaffrey says:

        But Florida State does not deliver the entire state of Florida.

        Like

        • B1G Jeff says:

          But it delivers a lot of recruits and TVs. Like Texas and California, you don’t need to deliver the entire state for it to still be more financially successful than the entirety of some other states. I don’t necessary like the move (and can think of at least 3 others I’d prefer), but I also don’t like the end game where we’re not in TX, FL or CA.

          Like

    • zeek says:

      I honestly think that only UVa/UNC/Duke/Georgia Tech are on the table…

      Theoretically, the Texas quad is the far more valuable quad. Only like the California quad comes close to that kind of valuation.

      Like

      • B1G Jeff says:

        Ironic. I bring that up because back in the day, weren’t TTU or TAMU plus OSU a condition for UT/OK to come this way? We refused then (or mutually walked away, who knows) and now are looking for lesser finds.

        I think the potential candidates (read markets) include UVA/VTT/UNC/GT/FSU and a big maybe on Duke. The issue with Duke is if they come, how could ND not be considered a candidate. How could they resist aligning with Duke, Northwestern (potentially GT) and the DMV corridor? The B1G they’ve shunned all these years would be a completely different animal, and they could use that to save face if needed.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I don’t think Texas has ever been serious about changing conferences outside of a very quick flirtation with the Pac-12.

          I really don’t think they were serious with the Big Ten and were negotiating with the Pac-12 behind everyone’s backs.

          Once Texas A&M indicated it wanted to go East, that plan started to falter and Ken Starr got in front of every camera he could to declare it a disaster for the state of Texas…

          Like

          • B1G Jeff says:

            I can’t disagree; we know the story pretty well by now. I just enjoy the portion of this blog where we uncover various stones to see what’s under them. As others have mentioned, so many things that we once knew ‘could never happen’ are now our new reality. It’s interesting to think through how we get from here to there before it actually happens.

            The entire UVA/GT/VT/UNC thing certainly is the most likely thing on the table. Still doesn’t make it the most desirable. At each turn, I believe TPTB restart (read “monitor the landscape”) the process anew to see who the techtonic plates have dislodged.

            Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          That was a P16 condition. B1G never offered (or would) a deal like that. There was the TT problem spoken of regarding UT alone.

          Like

      • cutter says:

        Which of those groupings work best in the mid-Atlantic and the northeast for the B1G? How many students at those institutions come from those regions? If we look beyond football to men’s basketball as well for those areas, which one might be more attractive?

        If the B1G is looking at the demographics and wants to have to plant its flag from let’s say western Connecticut thru the southern Atlanta suburbs, which grouping of schools makes sense?

        If you replace one of those teams in that quad with Notre Dame, then what do you get?

        Like

    • brindelin says:

      I can’t imagine the powers than be in B10 land taking the first group over the second, despite how much they covet UT. Would the B10 even take Oklahoma if they wanted to come alone?

      Like

      • B1G Jeff says:

        I’d hope not. At some point we have to exhale. This isnt’ just a land and cash grab. The ability to function as a collegial, cohesive conference and the maintenance of our academic prowess has to win the day. We’re so far ahead in the game that we don’t have to dilute the brand. I’m hoping the sentiment isn’t we’re so far ahead in the game that we can just make an sports move (as the ACC said about Louisville) and compromise who we are.

        Like

  56. zeek says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8687452/les-miles-remain-football-coach-lsu-tigers-receive-extension-raise

    Biggest non-surprise of the year?

    “Les Miles, who reportedly received a lucrative offer to coach at Arkansas, decided to stay at LSU on Wednesday and will receive a contract extension and raise.”

    The guy didn’t leave for Michigan when they came calling twice; he’s going to retire at LSU.

    Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Just listened to the Les Miles presser. He’s staying at LSU. Contract extended another 2 years, so the Mad Hatter’s contract is now 7 years. No money issues were discussed.

      Like

  57. brindelin says:

    If UNC and UVA end up in the SEC(disregard that VT and NCSU need homes) does we regret even starting the demise of the ACC by taking Maryland? If the goal is to stay even with the SEC we’ve added PSU, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers and they’ve added SC, Arkansas, A&M, and Missouri.

    I call that a win for the B10 maybe not a huge win but a win, if they end up with UNC out of the deal (probably the most attractive school that’s up for grabs) it’s starting to look like a bad deal from our perspective.

    What realistic targets would “move the needle” by whatever metric makes you happy for #15 and #16?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I have a difficult time seeing UVa ending up in the SEC.

      Maybe UNC does after all of this, but UVa would probably have to fire Sullivan (again) in order to pull that off.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        I have no doubt that Big Ten membership has been discussed between her and certain Big Ten presidents (Michigan for sure, maybe others) before…

        Like

      • SH says:

        I fail to see any huge positives for UVA in the SEC over the B10. Our other sports would be weakened. We would never be able to compete in football unless we lowered our academic standards. If a conference switch is in order, let’s grab the money, in addition to all the other positives of the B10.

        Like

      • brindelin says:

        I know fanbases don’t drive the bus, but based on the comments on their forums they seem to prefer the SEC by a huge margin. Especially if the SEC goes back 16 they could end up with several solid academic schools, maybe enough to ignore the Misses and Bamas.

        Virginia is changing, but academics, their culture seems to be more aligned with the SEC.

        Like

    • SH says:

      I just can’t see UVA/UNC ending up in the SEC. It isn’t simply the academics. Zeek raised the point above. UVA/UNC are strong in soccer/lacrosse/other sports. The SEC doesn’t offer those. Sure they could and they might, but UVA and UNC from an athletic perspective fit in with more B10 schools than ACC. They also fit in academically. The only area where they fit in with the SEC is geographic location. But they will always feel superior to the other SEC schools (other than Vandy), while the public will always regard them as inferior. Just seems like a bad combination to me. With the B10, it would be more a feeling of equals. Plus, there is strength in numbers, as UVA/UNV/MD and PSU (along with Rutgers) would form a strong eastern bloc.

      Anythings possible of course, I just don’t see UVA/UNC ending up in the SEC.

      But if they do, does that mean Duke and VT are available? Not sure they necessarily move the needle, but they could be a 15/16.

      In the end, I think the most likely scenario is that UVA/UNC go together to B10 or UVA/VT.

      UNC is in a much more tenuous situation, more southern, mores schools attached to it, has basically run the conference, etc.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      You may disregard VTech, but you can’t disregard NCSU. They share the same Board with UNC. UNC has to find a home for NCSU before going anywhere.

      Like

      • SH says:

        That’s why UNC is in a much more difficult situation than UVA. UVA must find a home for VT – either they come along or go to SEC. UNC has to find a home for NCState. Duke may be a big enough brand to take care of itself, but many in that state will want them to remain attached. WF must be like Baylor, though without the same political influence that Baylor has been able to assert in Texas. Just much harder for UNC to make a move than UVA.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Not difficult. If UVA and UNC head to the SEC, FSU is going to the Big 12, no question. There would be room for NCSU in Big 12.

          Like

        • cutter says:

          Why does UVA have to find a home for Virginia Tech? The actions the Virginia Senate took were ten years ago and involved getting VaTech into the ACC in lieu of Syracuse. Everybody thought the Big East was on its death bed then and that there was a real possibility the basketball only schools were going to split. We know that didn’t happen (although it looks like a real possibility in the current day).

          Is that still relevant today? Virginia Tech is now in a 14-team conference that even the ACC states can be expanded as necessary if UVA and a second ACC program were to leave. Are the commonwealth’s representatives going to take the demand that Virginia Tech go with them just because it happened a decade ago? Does the prospect of the SEC possibly taking VaTech mitigate any response from them? When all the deck chairs are finally rearranged, don’t you think the Hokies will have be one of the programs that are part of any four or five super conference set up?

          Like

  58. kappadoce says:

    What are your thoughts on how the Big Ten will handle football conference scheduling, assuming we stay at 14 teams? I really hope a nine or even ten game conference schedule is implemented. I a am a fan of playing more Big Ten games and less out of conference punching bags

    Like

    • SH says:

      I am for anything that leads to less cupcake games. I like inter-conference games and I like games against other power conference schools – even if not the top ones. For example, UVA and PSU scheduled one another. Even though neither are contenders at this moment, I think it is better to have those kind of games than against the MAC. As the TV dollars go up and playoffs become more and more likely, I suspect we will get those kind of games, because the gate dollars will go down relatively. It will be more profitbale for schoools to schedule those games than cupcakes for the home gate receipt and easy victory.

      Like

    • Mark says:

      No way on a 10 game schedule, that means 2 MAC games or 1 MAC game + 1 FCS game. I think the Big 10 stays at 8 unless the SEC goes to 9 games. No reason to add more loses when going undefeated or having 1 loss is the key to the playoff.

      Like

      • cutter says:

        I agree on ten games not being possible for the reasons you mentioned.

        I don’t know if I’d make the same argument about the playoffs though because the two programs added–Maryland and Rutgers–aren’t in the same league as Texas A&M and Missouri (although Mizzou had a bad year this season with a bunch of injuries).

        It all depends on how teams want to schedule their three non-conference opponents. Would a Rutgers or Maryland replace a Division 1-AA or minor Division 1-A team? Or do they take the place of a mid-major non-conference program?

        Michigan had Alabama, Notre Dame, Air Force and Massachusetts on its non-conference schedule. If you replace the AFA with UMD or RU, it’s sort of an even swap. If it’s UMASS that’s being taken off the schedule, then it’s gotten tougher. Remove Alabama or ND and replace them with one of those teams and the schedule gets easier.

        Even if a program does have three non-conference games, there’s still no reason why they won’t schedule cupcakes if their goal is to get into a bowl game and they’re not likely to get into a playoff. Minnesota, for example, recently lightened up their non-conference schedule. Going to nine conference games might actually provide a program like UMinn incentive enough to keep that non-conference schedule light.

        Like

  59. SH says:

    Question for people who know a lot more abou this than I do. Assuming UVA ends up in the B10, possibly with UNC (and maybe with Duke in an 18/20 team conference), would there be any benefit for the B10 to affiliate with Johns Hopkins in the same way that UChicago is affiliated with the B10?

    I don’t know what JH’s research dollars are, but I presume they are large. Also, you would have quite the Lacrosse conference.

    This is getting way ahead of ourselves, but if the B10 is not only an athletic conference but also a consortium of the top research schools in the country, and it is up to 18/20 schools, wouldn’t that make for a good affiliation?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Lol. I was going on about this possibility for month and months on end a couple of years ago.

      Adding JHU for the CIC and men’s lacrosse had been one of my talking points for adding Maryland/Rutgers two years ago.

      I’m not sure JHU would go for it; I mean, they already have like $2 billion annually in research funding (or whatever the number is).

      Like

    • B1G Jeff says:

      Couldn’t agree more and have also been advocating this for years, if for no other reason than the research dollars (and more importantly the university’s ability to keep certain amounts as indirect costs) dwarf the amounts we’re discussing on all other considerations combined.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        JHU is like the Notre Dame of lacrosse though.

        And let’s be honest, they’re sort of treading water in women’s lacrosse (1/2 of the equation). They pulled out of the ALC because the ALC had too many powerful Big Ten/SEC athletic departments that were becoming far too strong due to $.

        Northwestern built a great women’s stadium and is building top of the line lockers/offices in that new mega-facility on the beach for football.

        Florida put down $15 million on its stadium and offices.

        It’s just not likely that JHU wants to go up against that. Although maybe they’d get enough money out of the deal to make it work…

        But I’m not even sure, is there even that much money in lacrosse?

        Like

        • B1G Jeff says:

          When did JHU pull out of the ALC? They just won the division, although NU won the national championship (as you know!).

          Like

          • B1G Jeff says:

            Sorry, that’s so wrong. Florida won the division. I literally was just talking to Kelly Amonte about that at Homecoming.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Speaking of Kelly, she’ll finally get a great angle on Maryland recruiting which she’s never had before.

            She’s focused so much on Mass. and Long Island especially (and a bit of Texas and some other states).

            But now with Rutgers and Maryland, that’ll give her an even better angle on those areas, since Maryland went and basically said they wouldn’t schedule us.

            I can’t wait for a Big Ten women’s lacrosse conference in 2014. Hoping they announce that one soon…

            Like

          • B1G Jeff says:

            The Johns Hopkins University lacross program has a total of 47 male athletes and 26 female athletes. The men’s and women’s Lacrosse teams combined have 2 head coaches, 6 assistant coaches, and total revenues of $2.4M, total expenses of $2.3M and profits of $115,281.

            Who knew?

            Like

    • metatron says:

      The Big Ten doesn’t believe in partial memberships. Like at all.

      Chicago’s only included in the CIC because they’re a legacy (and one of the premier institutions in the world).

      Like

    • frug says:

      Hopkin’s has the largest research budget of any school in the country (and probably the world) by an absurd margin.

      Their research budget in ’09 was about $1.85 billion, which was almost $850 million more than #2 Michigan.

      As for bringing them in for lacrosse… well the Big 10 doesn’t sponsor lacrosse so I’m not sure that would do much good.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Big Ten will be sponsoring lacrosse soon enough; 6 women’s teams and 5 men’s teams (including Michigan’s coming online along with Maryland Rutgers). That’s an AQ conference for women’s and just 1 more needed for men’s to have an AQ conference.

        Like

  60. zeek says:

    @bullet

    I like to think of conference expansion as cashing in chips on relative power due to demographics, current student/alumni/fan bases, etc.

    There’s no reason for Texas to cash in yet while it’s state is still growing like a supernova.

    Maybe in 30 years Texas will consider cashing in its chips, but there’s really no point in doing so now. The Pac-12 doesn’t offer anything that it wouldn’t be able to offer in 30 years, and by then Texas’ population base will be big enough that Texas may be able to set its own entry conditions.

    Conversely, the Big Ten has to cash in its chips now. There’s really no way for the Big Ten to wait considering that demographics trends have finally started to catch up in the other direction. The Big Ten has to take control of its advantages right now (still the biggest population base, alumni base, etc.) and exchange them for future growth.

    That’s why the Big Ten has to get into Virginia/North Carolina before the next set of contracts is up in my mind. I think Delany and the presidents realize this as well.

    Like

  61. bullet says:

    Dennis Dodd on Big 12:
    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/21177715/why-the-big-12-is-happy-with-10-amid-the-latest-round-of-realignment

    Note they are expecting $30 million in distributions. Bowlsby also says if the right opportunity came around, they would be on it.

    Like

  62. mouse says:

    Just out of curiosity, does anyone else think the addition of Louisville weakens the $50MM enforcement case against Maryland? I understood (but defer to those who deal with this sort of thing) that clauses that provide money payment provisions of whatever label are enforceable if deemed compensation for what is lost and not enforceable if deemed to be penalties. My thought was that much attention is given in drafting contracts to characterizing payment sums as “liquidated damages,” and even then the clauses come under close scrutiny in case they might be penalties by another name. Here, with Louisville’s addition, it appears clear the ACC loses nothing. One sports network is even wondering if Louisville (given their athletic budget, etc.) might be an improvement over Maryland. Given that, what are the chances of the ACC case being tossed?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      It will likely be settled before it comes close to that.

      You are right though, with ESPN saying that the contract will be unchanged for Louisville switching places with Maryland and all the talk of the “football improvement”, you’d have to think that the ACC’s stance is going to be somewhat weak.

      The settlement should come in between $20 million and $25 million. Who knows though, I wouldn’t mind seeing it go to an end and ending up at $0. That’d be awesome.

      Like

    • acaffrey says:

      Maybe that is why the ESPN release said that this would not lead to a re-negotiated TV deal. An increase might count against it.

      Of course, keep in mind, the ACC exit clause is calculated based on TV revenue, but that is not ALL the revenue that exists. Otherwise, Louisville would not have a high operating budget on Big East revenue. There is general goodwill and the intangible value of a stable conference. Maryland destroyed all that, leading to 500 comments a day about who from the ACC is going where & statements by UNC/UVA. How do you quantify that? You cannot. Ergo, using the TV revenue as merely a basis for the calculation.

      Moreover, $50M = 3 years of TV revenue = $17M year (roughly). With 14 schools (plus the conference share) remaining that is about $1m/year during that period. To the extent that Maryland leaving has weakened the ACC, this seems like a pretty fair amount.

      IIRC, the use of TV revenue as the basis for the exit fee has existed previously. The only thing that changed was making it 3 years. I may be wrong.

      Like

  63. Richard says:

    One conclusion I’ve come to:

    With 16 schools (4 pods with 1 protected game vs. a school in 1 of the 3 other pods for 6 annual rivals and 9 teams you play 1/3rd of the time), all the major rivalries in the B10 that at least one school cares a lot about can be kept.

    Specifically, PSU-OSU, PSU-UNL, and the Little Brown Jug game (sorry, I don’t consider the Illibuck game to be major enough) can be protected.

    In a Big20, all 3 of those would have to go away.

    Not sure about in an 18 school Big10, though maybe all of those 3 could be played at least 2/3rds of the time with 6 3-school pods.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s