The Mayans Were Right: Conference Realignment Armageddon (or Maybe Not) FAQ Part I – Big Ten Expansion

Posted: December 4, 2012 in Big East, Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, Illinois Fighting Illini, Sports
Tags: , , , ,

https://i2.wp.com/www.chicitysports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/illini-georgia-tech-b1g-acc-challenge-290x160.jpg

The echo chamber of conference realignment rumors continues on Twitter, blogs and message boards everywhere continues with thoughts of the destruction of the ACC by the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12 and MEAC and superconferences going up to 20 teams or more (16 is for chumps).  Let’s try to separate the wheat from the chaff by addressing some frequently asked questions regarding Big Ten expansion:

(1) Is the Big Ten done expanding? – From the standpoint of the Big Ten initiating another expansion, yes, I believe that they’re done for the time being.  In my opinion, it would take another move from the SEC and/or Big 12 for the Big Ten to act again since the most likely targets for Jim Delany won’t want to move unless they are absolutely forced to do so.  (We’ll get to those schools in just a moment.)  Ultimately, the Big Ten’s expansion with Maryland and Rutgers needs to be looked at in conjunction with the decision to add Nebraska in 2010.  When Delany first announced that the Big Ten was looking to expand three years ago (and kick-started a conference realignment process that continues to this day), addressing long-term demographic concerns was right alongside improving athletics (AKA improving football) as the top goal.  The Big Ten’s home population base of the Midwest has been slowing in growth for many years (although too many people on the coasts tend to overstate this since their image of Rust Belt tends to focus upon Detroit, whereas places such as Chicago, Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Columbus have been growing at a perfectly fine clip), which meant that it was imperative for the conference to address that issue while it was still in a position of strength. For all of the talk about how conference realignment has largely been about TV dollars, the Big Ten’s addition of Nebraska was probably the purest football move that any conference made in this round of realignment with the Cornhuskers bringing along one of the most tradition-rich football programs and a rabid fan base.  Nebraska, though, didn’t do anything to address the need to expand the conference’s footprint, hence the latest moves with Rutgers and Maryland.  Getting into the New York City/New Jersey and Washington, DC/Baltimore regions addressed the overall demographic concerns for the Big Ten, so there isn’t any urgency to do more.  Outside of adding Texas, the conference can’t really add more households with two schools than the #1 (New York) and #4 (DC/Baltimore) combined statistical areas on top of the #3 (Chicago) CSA that it already has.  As a result, I don’t see the Big Ten on the proactive prowl unless moves by other conferences (or threatened moves by other conferences) shake some of the schools that I’m about to mention loose.

(2) If you’re wrong, Frank, who would the Big Ten go after? – Let’s assume that the SEC and Pac-12 aren’t going to be poached and the Big 12, with each school having assigned its TV rights for the next 13 years to the league (called a “grant of rights”), probably won’t lose anyone else, either*.  The amount of a buyout of a grant of rights would likely need to be equal to the present value of the applicable school’s home TV rights for football and basketball games for the rest of the grant of rights period.  For example, any conference that wants Texas needs to pay the Big 12 the equivalent of the rights to all Longhorn home games for the next 13 years, which could easily run into the hundreds of millions of dollars considering what ESPN is willing to pay for not-very-desirable third tier games.  This is what makes a grant of rights (which the Big Ten and Pac-12 have in addition to the Big 12) such a powerful deterrent to schools leaving.  As a result, that basically means that the “realistic” (and I use that term very loosely) targets for the Big Ten would come from the ACC or, much less likely, Big East.

(* Besides the obvious value of adding Texas, if the Big 12 were poachable, Kansas would be the most attractive target for the Big Ten out of the Big 12.  One thing to remember is that basketball actually matters quite a bit for the purposes of the Big Ten Network, where the sheer volume of hoops content drives the need for cable companies to carry that channel.  As a result, the normal “football means everything” mantra that normally applies to conference realignment and TV rights doesn’t necessarily hold for the BTN.  Kansas actually made the most revenue off of third tier TV rights in the Big 12 prior to the formation of the Longhorn Network due to the strength of Jayhawks basketball.  On a related note, that also means that the value of Maryland basketball is as important to the Big Ten as Maryland football in terms of being able to monetize that school.)

Rumors over the weekend indicated that the Big Ten was poised to invite Virginia and Georgia Tech (which have since been dismissed by Georgia Tech’s president).  Certainly, those two schools would fit the Big Ten in terms of institutions, but the question is more about whether they would add enough athletic revenue and can integrate into the league culturally.  For all of the consternation about the Big Ten supposedly leaving its Midwestern roots by adding Rutgers and Maryland, those were fairly mild changes geographically and culturally in the context of conference realignment over the past three years (both for the Big Ten and the new schools themselves).  Those two institutions are in states that are geographically contiguous with the existing Big Ten footprint and there is much more of cultural difference between the the North and South (like oil and water) compared to the East and Midwest (distinct but complementary with each other).  I’m fairly certain that Virginia would be in the long-term plans for the Big Ten as an elite academic institution that’s the flagship in what will now be another contiguous state with the addition of Maryland.  However, UVA still very much considers itself to be a Southern school (whereas Maryland has really turned into a Northern school for all practical purposes over the past couple of decades) and that’s going to be a cultural barrier for it to joining the Big Ten no matter how much Jim Delany can offer Thomas Jefferson’s creation.  While the influx of transplants to Northern Virginia just south of Washington, DC have been “Northernizing” the Commonwealth, that process isn’t anywhere complete yet.

Georgia Tech is an interesting case to me.  There has been quite a bit of smoke about the Yellow Jackets contemplating Big Ten membership, but this is one move that I have a hard time seeing happening.  On paper, Georgia Tech seems to fit what the Big Ten is looking for as a top academic institution in the middle of a fast-growing Atlanta market that also happens to be rich with football recruits.  The problem, though, is that even if the Big Ten were to add UVA at the same time, Georgia Tech makes little sense as a lone outpost in the Peach State.  Atlanta is SEC territory to the core and the Big Ten attempting to challenge Mike Slive there with only Georgia Tech alone would be a complete lost cause.  It would be akin to the SEC taking Northwestern and then trying to claim the Chicago market – it simply wouldn’t work.  Rutgers and Maryland can combine with the presence of Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan alums in the NYC and DC regions to create positive network effects that are greater than the fan bases of those two schools.  While a large number of Big Ten grads are moving to Atlanta, there are so many more SEC grads and fans (along with fans of other Southern ACC schools such as Clemson and Florida State) that it’s one of the few markets that I believe Jim Delany has no chance of ever breaking through in.  To be clear, I really like Georgia Tech as a school, but in terms of Big Ten expansion, I actually believe that its location is going to work against it.

Some thoughts on other ACC schools:

  • North Carolina – UNC is essentially in the same boat as UVA: likely a very top long-term target for the Big Ten, but probably a generation away from becoming “Northernized” enough for the school to consider a move.  Plus, UNC effectively has the same status in the ACC as Texas has in the Big 12: the ACC is their conference.  As we’ve seen with Texas, having control can often be more of an allure than having money.  Therefore, as much as both the Big Ten and SEC would love to add UNC, the Tar Heels aren’t going anywhere until the ACC is completely on its deathbed.  UNC certainly wouldn’t start the exodus.
  • Miami – The Hurricanes have long been a sleeper pick for me if the Big Ten were serious about raiding the ACC further.  While Miami isn’t an AAU member, it has research levels that would justify its inclusion in the group and would the 4th highest ranked Big Ten school in the US News undergraduate university rankings (behind only Northwestern, Michigan and Wisconsin).  The school continues to be a top national TV draw even in its down years and is located in arguably the best pound-for-pound football recruiting territory in the country.  Most importantly for me, it’s the only real power conference school that’s located in the Sun Belt but is really a Northern school culturally.  Last week, the Chicago Tribune actually posted data of the most popular out-of-state colleges that Illinois residents attend.  While bordering flagship schools such as Iowa, Missouri, Indiana and Wisconsin draw tons of students of Illinois, there were only a handful of power conference schools outside of the Midwest and Kentucky (which borders southern Illinois) that were able to draw more than 100 freshmen from Illinois this past year: Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, Vanderbilt and… Miami.  In fact, Miami draws about 5% of its students from Illinois, which is a higher percentage than any out-of-state Big Ten school other than Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, Purdue and Michigan.  The thing is that Miami draws even more students from the New York/New Jersey corridor that the Big Ten is now trying to lock down.  This is only one piece of data, but it’s indicative of the fact that if there’s one school in the South that won’t give a crap about being in a Northern conference, it’s Miami.  People can note that they’re about to be sanctioned (my retort is to look at UNC) or they have a fairweather fan base with poor attendance (my response is that we just added Maryland), but they actually have a legit football history and the home recruiting base to maintain it regardless of possible NCAA actions down the road.  Much like USC, the location of Miami itself means that they will always be in position to win with the right coach.  In my opinion, Miami is a potential candidate that works regarding academics, demographics, TV market, football recruiting and football history.  The fact that it’s a private school shouldn’t eliminate them from consideration.
  • Virginia Tech – Another sleeper pick for me for the Big Ten.  The assumption of many followers of conference realignment is that the SEC would want Virginia Tech, which is exactly why the Big Ten shouldn’t let Mike Slive walk away with them.  With the addition of Maryland, the Big Ten is now committed to owning the DC market.  Jim Delany should be able to withstand preexisting ACC ties there, but letting the SEC in with arguably the most popular football school in that area would be particularly damaging.  Remember that Virginia Tech doesn’t pose the same academic issues that, say, Texas Tech did when the Big Ten was looking at Texas a couple of years ago.  Much like Miami, VT is a school that has AAU-worthy metrics despite not being currently a member and, in the US News undergrad rankings, is tied with Iowa and Michigan State and ahead of Indiana and Nebraska.  Similar to Miami, it’s a school that addresses several needs regarding demographics, TV market (locking up DC) and the strength of the actual football program.  If the Big Ten wants UVA and they’re say that they’re required to bring VT along with them, it’s a pretty easy decision to say yes if I were running the conference.
  • Duke – Full disclaimer here: I hate Duke.  I REALLLLLLY HATE DUKE.  Even as a massive Bears fan, Duke ranks ahead of the Packers as the team that I hate the most (whether college or pro) on the basis that a Green Bay win could conceivably help the Bears in a playoff race depending upon the records, whereas there is absolutely nothing positive that could come out of Duke winning a game.  The thing is that there are many people that feel the same way even though (like me) they aren’t even a rival of my alma mater (Illinois), which is why they can’t be discounted as a potential Big Ten candidate or thought of as powerless in the football-focused game of conference realignment.  The academics at Duke are obviously impeccable and the basketball program draws attention and ire like no one else in college sports outside of Notre Dame football.  In 99.9% of the cases, basketball is truly irrelevant in conference realignment, but Duke is that 0.1%.  Even though few conference realignment stories would give me greater personal joy than seeing Duke getting relegated to the Southern Conference, it won’t be happening.  Much like Virginia Tech with UVA, it’s a pretty easy “yes” decision for the Big Ten if the league has a chance with UNC with Duke being part of the package.
  • Syracuse, Boston College – It’s not inconceivable that the Big Ten could go after either or both of these schools as part of a Northeastern-centric expansion, but Jim Delany seemed to emphasize expansion into the “Mid-Atlantic” (which would intimate more of focus on Virginia and North Carolina in the future) much more than the Northeast and New England per se.  That makes sense since the Mid-Atlantic region is where the long-term demographic shifts are very favorable (not to mention much stronger football recruiting territories, whereas Upstate New York and New England are growing as slowly as the Midwest.  I was someone that always like Syracuse as a Big Ten candidate since its basketball program could actually help get BTN subscribers in the NYC market as much as any other school and it might even make more sense to pair them up with Rutgers, but the feedback that I’ve always received from Big Ten circles was that the conference has been lukewarm on the Orange.  Boston College has the presence in a major market, yet it might be even tougher for the Big Ten to crack that area than even NYC.  New England doesn’t have the same critical mass of Big Ten alums that the New York/Jersey area has.  That being said, I think the value of BC is often underrated by fans as to how much it is overrated by conference commissioners and university presidents (if that makes sense), so I wouldn’t ever discount them.
  • Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Louisville – Pure athletics focused expansion candidates with good-to-great recruiting territories and markets, but the academics likely wouldn’t be good enough for the Big Ten.  Personally, I’d take a hard look at Florida State because they are so extremely valuable in a key state (especially if the Big Ten is seriously considering Georgia Tech and don’t want them to be a lone outpost), yet the tea leaves are saying otherwise.
  • Pitt – As I’ve stated in previous posts, it’s a great academic school with a solid athletic department, but it is one of the few schools out there that wouldn’t add any BTN revenue at all since Penn State already delivers that market.  This is too bad since the Panthers fit into the Big Ten extremely well on almost all other levels.
  • Wake Forest – I personally like Wake Forest at some levels, but it’s a small private school without the research capabilities of Duke or the market of BC.

As for the Big East, the only school that would even have a chance at the Big Ten is UConn, and I’d put the odds of that merger occurring as extremely low.  Connecticut is in a similar position as Syracuse and Boston College – Upstate New York and New England have large populations as of today just like the Midwest, but the demographic shifts favor the Big Ten waiting to get into Virginia and North Carolina.  Also, I had previously stated how an ACC invite was UConn’s to lose and I stand by that with Louisville athletic director Tom Jurich saying, “UConn wasn’t penciled in [for the ACC].  It was penned in.”  However, I underestimated how much the relative youth of UConn playing football at the FBS level could really affect perceptions of the school negatively.  For better or for worse, the Big Ten wants to be able to show grainy footage of schools from the 1960s and 1970s on BTN and claim them as conference successes.  (Those 5 Nebraska championship teams were among the greatest Big Ten squads of all-time!)  I’m only half-joking there.  The fact that Rutgers has a really long history of playing college football as the first school to participate in a game seems to trump the fact that such history hasn’t exactly been illustrious.  The Big Ten is ultimately an old school league, and while UConn was at the Division I-AA level for many years prior to moving up to the top level in 2003, that history (whether fair or not) doesn’t seem to count with the power conferences.

So, this is a really long post with a ton of interesting hypotheticals, but I don’t believe that the Big Ten itself will pull the trigger on any of them unless UVA and/or UNC is ready to bolt.  My feeling is that those schools aren’t anywhere close to being ready to leave the ACC, so my money would be on the Big Ten waiting for awhile as other leagues decide about whether to react.  I’ll be taking a look at the realistic options of those other conferences over the coming days.

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

(Image from ChiCitySports)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Denogginizer says:

    GBR

    Like

  2. […] The Mayans Were Right: Conference Realignment Armageddon (or Maybe Not) FAQ Part I – Big Ten E… VT Reply With Quote […]

    Like

  3. Matt Rohr says:

    I noticed that you didn’t mention Notre Dame, and I have to agree with you. I think that ship has sailed, and the B1G isn’t looking in that direction any more. If, for whatever reason, Notre Dame would ask for membership, I have to think that the B1G would be crazy to refuse – they would certainly take them. But gone are the days when the B1G would do the wooing.

    Like

    • largeR says:

      Thankyou for reinforcing ‘domer law’! More scotch please.

      Like

    • dtwphx says:

      No mention of Johns Hopkins either.
      This is the new school the B1G/CIC should be wooing.
      Seriously though, does anyone think this is a realistic possibility?
      They’re at (above) B1G caliber is the areas they choose to participate.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I don’t. Chicago is the only exception the B10 has ever made to the policy of not having affiliate members. I also don’t see the B10 chasing schools like Carnegie Mellon or Case or …. Besides, why should we think JHU wants to join?

        Like

        • metatron says:

          Chicago’s only a member of the CIC because their President went ax crazy and tried to destroy everything the alumni cared about. That, and they’re one of the top universities in the world.

          Like

          • metatron says:

            I should point out, the CIC isn’t some magical grant-bearing genie. It does help in research projects (if only because collaborative projects are more likely to be funded), but that’s not the only thing it facilitates. Many schools already contract these things out individually – the CIC gives an official venue to make these agreements more easily.

            Like

      • metatron says:

        No. It wasn’t an option for the CCHA, it wasn’t an option for Notre Dame, it won’t be an option for Johns Hopkins.

        Leave the crumbs to those east coast conferences, they’re desperate.

        Like

      • Nemo says:

        Hopkins play D-I lacrosse and they have an amazing tradition in this sport. For all other sports, they play at D-II level. How does that square with the Big Ten unless you want another U Chicago?

        Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          That is pretty much exactly what he is suggesting (U of C). Getting JHU into the CIC would be a massive coup. They almost double up #2 in total research spending. Lacrosse would just be a (tiny) side benefit allowing a B1G lacrosse league to stand up with six teams.

          Like

    • beanocook says:

      I can’t believe people let Delany off the hook so easily. If he was such a genius, he would have added Notre Dame at some point. His inability to do so reveals all you need to know about this “genius”. DELIVER THE IRISH!!! WHERE ARE THE IRISH DELANY?!?!

      He is the reason they are not warm to the Big Ten but instead the ACC. Complete fail. Maryland/Rutgers is a complete joke.

      Like

  4. dtwphx says:

    W: OSU, Illini, NW, Wisc, Minn, Iowa, Neb
    E: Indiana, Purdue, MSU, Mich, PSU, Maryland, Rutgers
    Only protected crossovers:
    OSU-Mich
    Neb-PSU

    14 or 18
    -no 16 with UVA and VT
    -no 16 with UVA and UNC
    -go for 18 with UVA, GT, FSU, UF, or nothing

    Like

    • StevenD says:

      I back those divisions 100%. If we keep mentioning them, perhaps Delany will take notice.

      Send OSU west and everything else falls into place.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      dtwphx,

      “W: OSU, Illini, NW, Wisc, Minn, Iowa, Neb
      E: Indiana, Purdue, MSU, Mich, PSU, Maryland, Rutgers
      Only protected crossovers:
      OSU-Mich
      Neb-PSU”

      I could live with the divisions, but they suck for OSU. Every border state team is in the other division (PU, IN, MI, MSU, PSU). OSU also has more east coast ties than Chicago ties, so that suck as well. On the plus side, OSU wouldn’t have to play PU, IN, MD and RU every year (good for the record, bad for ticket sales).

      There really aren’t any balanced divisions that don’t suck for OSU, though. Swapping OSU and WI for MI and MSU above (the move IL west plan) gets border games back, but also sticks OSU with 4 annual games nobody gets excited about.

      “14 or 18”

      18 sucks.

      “-no 16 with UVA and VT”

      I could live with that pair. They’d make a nice wall to stop the southern hordes and provide a balance of academics and FB.

      “-no 16 with UVA and UNC”

      I agree only because that means VT and NCSU to the SEC, so we’d split both states and VT is more popular than UVA.

      “-go for 18 with UVA, GT, FSU, UF, or nothing”

      UF is never leaving the SEC. That’s a pipe dream. You ceded NC to the SEC as well as VT so they would own VA, too. I don’t see FSU joining the B10.

      Like

      • geo says:

        18 Teams makes sense if you look at it this way…. 9 game conference schedule, no divisions.

        Big Boys
        Group 1 Mich, ND, Nebraska
        Group 2 OSU, PSU, FSU

        In the Middle
        Group 1 WISC, Iowa, GT
        Group 2 MSU, Minn, BC

        Little Guys
        Group 1 IND, ILL, MARY
        Group2 Pur, NW, Rutgers

        So if you are OSU you always play MICH (protected rivals are on top of each other) and two years you play ND and NEB and the following two years you play PSU and FSU. THen OSU plays Group one two years straight (home and home) then after two years swiches to Group 2 (Middle and little guys)
        Works out perfect. You play four home and four away games every year plus your protected rival game which switches every year for home to away but you play everyone in the entire conference at least twice in a four year span. Best record wins Big Ten, Then head to head etc… No divisions neccessary. In basketball play 17 games plus one protected game to doulbe it up to make it an 18 game schedule. Protected rivals in basketball can be different than in football. Just my thought…

        Like

    • James says:

      PSU-OSU is the Big Ten’s second best game, they aren’t going to split that up and not protect it, which means you either have OSU and Michigan in the same group, or OSU and PSU like you have now. From an inventory standpoint they can’t not have that game for sale.

      Like

      • StevenD says:

        Boy, you OSU guys are hard to please. OSU must play Michigan every year. OSU must play PSU every year. OSU wants to play more in the east than in Chicago. OSU doesn’t want to play too many patsies. OSU doesn’t want to play too few patsies. Everybody will complain if they don’t get to play OSU.

        As a Nebraska fan, I was sick of seeing the Big XII perverted to meet the wishes of an arrogant prima donna (Texas). I’m not ready to bow down to the wishes of another arrogant prima donna (OSU).

        Like

        • lol. Every fan has their own opinion, and it’s not like us OSU fans are homogenous by any means. I’m sure Nebraska (and its fans) has its own list of demands as well. I think the only ironclad requirement, the one all OSU fans agree on, is to play Michigan every year. The rest are wants and are likely negotiable.

          Like

          • StevenD says:

            Nebraska is making no demands. Naturally, Nebraska has a preference for nearby opponents, but IIRC the only specific request (and a mild request at that) was to play Wisconsin every year.

            It’s interesting that Minnesota and Iowa also wanted to play Wisconsin every year. Minnesota got a fixed crossover; Iowa and Nebraska got nothing.

            Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska form a natural grouping in the west (as do PSU, Purdue and Maryland in the east). It would make a lot of sense to keep the groups together.

            I hope the B1G recognizes these natural groups and builds the new divisions around them. The are three good ways to do this:

            OSU goes west (with NW and Ill)
            OSU/Michigan/Purdue/Indiana go east
            East-west groups combine (OSU/Mich in Central Division).

            I would be happy with any of those.

            Like

          • greg says:

            Iowa requested to play Nebraska, Minnesota and Wisconsin annually. We got Nebraska and Minnesota and lost on Wisky. Every school had to give up something.

            Like

          • StevenD says:

            Oops. The natural group in the east is PSU, Rutgers and Maryland (not PSU, Purdue and Maryland). Silly me.

            Like

          • It’s ok, I knew what school you meant.

            Like

          • Personally, I like your middle setup:

            OSU/Michigan/Purdue/Indiana/PSU/Rutgers/Maryland
            Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa/Minnesota/MSU/Illinois/Northwestern

            It’s a nice geographic split. But I don’t know if those in charge would be ok with PSU/OSU/UM all being in the same division.

            Like

          • StevenD says:

            One advantage of putting Michigan, OSU and PSU in the east is the increased exposure for the B1G. If you are going to push the B1G into the NYC and DC markets, you really want your kings playing there every year.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            StevenD,

            The downside is the media ignoring the other half of the conference.

            Like

          • manifestodeluxe says:

            @StevenD:

            I would echo what Brian said. My guess is those in charge would be concerned with the other half of the conference not getting a fair shake in the media. Problem is I would assume UM, OSU, and PSU all really want a yearly shot at the Maryland/NY markets…

            Guess we’ll see how it goes.

            Like

          • StevenD says:

            It would be great for OSU, Michigan and PSU to get a lot of media on the east coast. That’s the advantage of pushing toward the east with Rutgers and Maryland — we might as well make the most of it.

            Meanwhile the teams in the B1G West will still be getting good media coverage in the central time zone. That’s the advantage of having geographical divisions: with all nearby B1G teams playing in the same division, there is a greater local focus on that division.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            StevenD,

            “Meanwhile the teams in the B1G West will still be getting good media coverage in the central time zone. That’s the advantage of having geographical divisions: with all nearby B1G teams playing in the same division, there is a greater local focus on that division.”

            And how do you think that will go over with MSU fans? They’re ET, not CT, and already complain about the media in MI ignoring them to favor the Wolverines. I think even much of the CT media will cover the East more than the West except for the local team.

            Like

          • Pezlion says:

            I think you have to flip MSU and Purdue in those divisions. But in this 14-team league, OSU, PSU and UM need to be on the same side, playing every year and playing Rutgers every year.

            Who knows what happens with Wisconsin, given the coaching change, but I think Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa and Northwestern provides pretty solid balance to OSU, PSU, UM, MSU. It’s not perfect, but football strength isn’t static either. It wasn’t too long ago that the SEC west was garbage and the east was the dominant side with UT, UF and UGA.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Pezlion,

            “But in this 14-team league, OSU, PSU and UM need to be on the same side, playing every year and playing Rutgers every year.

            Who knows what happens with Wisconsin, given the coaching change, but I think Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa and Northwestern provides pretty solid balance to OSU, PSU, UM, MSU.”

            I don’t see that at all.

            OSU >= NE
            MI > WI
            PSU > IA
            MSU > NW

            Like

        • Brian says:

          StevenD,

          “Boy, you OSU guys are hard to please. OSU must play Michigan every year. OSU must play PSU every year. OSU wants to play more in the east than in Chicago. OSU doesn’t want to play too many patsies. OSU doesn’t want to play too few patsies. Everybody will complain if they don’t get to play OSU.”

          1. OSU/MI is a given and only an idiot of a commissioner wouldn’t lock that game. It’s much too valuable to not play every year.

          2. The value of the OSU/PSU game isn’t an OSU want, it’s TV money for the conference. The B10 will want it locked. As an OSU alum I’m fine with not playing PSU annually. I just don’t think the B10/TV execs are fine with it.

          3. OSU has more alumni in the east, but they wouldn’t complain about playing in Chicago. It just isn’t a priority for OSU to play in Chicago like it is for most B10 teams (see MSU demanding to play NW when the divisions were set up).

          4. Nobody wants to play too many patsies every year. Selling tickets is a consideration for all schools, and you’d liek conference games to excite the fan base.

          5. It’s not the number of tough games, it’s the relative number. OSU wouldn’t complain if everyone was playing 8 tough games, but nobody wants a competitor to get a built in scheduling advantage like WI and MSU have now (3 of the 4 CCG slots, hmm). In addition, PU might complain about playing OSU, MI, PSU and IA annually when nobody else gets 3 kings and a near prince. You want every team of equivalent success level to play about the same difficulty of schedule ideally.

          6. See #4. Selling tickets is important, and OSU and MI sell tickets for other B10 teams. That’s not an OSU want, it’s what the others want. It’s like B12 teams wanting to play in TX regularly. It’s for the good of the program, not for UT’s benefit.

          Like

  5. Hawkeye says:

    II’d like to see Georgia Tech and Kansas in the B1G. Any chance that Kansas or Mizzzou could get a B1G invite?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Hawkeye,

      1. KU is tied to KSU, and KSU will never get a B10 invitation.
      2. KU has a GOR, so it would cost $200M+ to get them.
      3. MO is in the SEC after being rejected by the B10. Why would they leave for the B10 now?

      Like

      • Andy says:

        To say Missouri was rejected by the Big Ten is only partially true. There was an understanding that Mizzou could join the Big Ten eventually in the case of future expansion under the sort of reduced revenue plan that Nebraska agreed to. Missouri shopped around and found a better offer from the SEC that was available immediately so they took it. Now the Big Ten gets Rutgers instead.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          If you say it often enough, does that make it true?

          Like

          • Pezlion says:

            No, the point is that stuff that occurred prior to the mid-’60s isn’t really relevant in any way to the modern era of college sports. If it was, Army would be a factor.

            Like

        • @Andy – I enjoy your commentary, but you’re incredibly off-base on this issue. I know that you have claimed to have sources on this, which is fine, but those sources are dead wrong. 110% dead wrong. Not even close. The Big Ten chose Nebraska OVER Missouri. Period. End of story. It had nothing to do with Missouri objecting to the “junior membership” that you keep referring to (which, even if you call it a “junior membership”, is to recognize obtaining equity interest in a television network that the Big Ten schools own and the SEC schools currently don’t have). We figured out here on this blog a long time before Nebraska was actually invited that NU was the most valuable expansion candidate from the Big 12 outside of Texas, and the Big Ten had a whole army of people reviewing even better information. Nebraska is more valuable than Missouri. Not even close. Period. End of story.

          Maryland is also clearly more valuable than Missouri – better academics, similarly-sized immediate home state, located in the DC market, faster growing, better basketball brand and better football and hoops recruiting grounds. We can quibble as to whether Rutgers is more immediately valuable than Missouri (that’s fair to argue), but that was a long-term play for what would be potentially the biggest TV market of them all. I’m as skeptical as anyone whether that play will work, yet I understand the rationale and that it’s a risk that the Big Ten is willing to take when they’re playing with house money.

          Look – it’s nice that Missouri found a golden parachute into the SEC when Texas A&M pushed the issue, but please stop the delusions that this was some type of long-term plan by Missouri in questioning the Big Ten’s financial structure. Mizzou was in the right place in the right time when the SEC wanted to expand last year, which is 90% of the battle in conference realignment. However, let’s be very clear about this: Missouri was judged to be worth less to the Big Ten than Nebraska and Maryland without question. They were chosen OVER Missouri. It’s all water under the bridge at this point since Mizzou got lucky that the SEC wanted to expand and that’s obviously a nice home.

          Like

          • OrderRestored83 says:

            @ Frank, Thank you. I’ve been attempting to bring reason to this poster for awhile now. You hit the nail on the head; although I’m quite sure it will fall on deaf ears. I’m a domer by allegiance; but the inaccuracies he has been spewing are sickening even to me.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Frank, those are all your opinions of course, not facts. And I’m pretty sure you’re wrong.

            And yes I do have sources and I’m very much convinced that Missouri was basically a lock to be one of three additions to the B1G if Missouri agreed to the reduced earnings for 7 years. As far as the direct competition for spot #12 with Nebraska, reports vary from what I’ve heard. It’s very possible that Nebraska beat out Missouri direclty for that spot.

            But at the very least the B1G wanted Mizzou as #13 or #14 if we’d sign on.

            We decided not to wait around or to take reduced revenues and signed on with the SEC instead.

            I’m 99.9% sure of the veracity of what I just said above.

            As for directly comparing Maryland to Mizzou, well, Maryland does have stronger academics, but both are AAU.

            As far as markets, population-wise they’re about the same, that’s true. But which school has more fans? It’s not even close. Mizzou has way more fans than Maryland.

            Which has had more athletics success? Again, not even close, Mizzou has had by far more athleitc success.

            The same goes with Rutgers but even more extreme in that case.

            So it can easily be argued that from a value standpoint for a sports conference as far as getting fans/tv viewers etc Mizzou was the best choice of the three. Market-wise Missouri holds it’s own. And Missouri is AAU so the academics are in order.

            If Missouri had declined the SEC invitation and waited on the Big Ten while agreeing to the junior membership terms then Missouri would be in the B1G right now instead of Rutgers. I’m 98% sure of that.

            Like

          • Pezlion says:

            You are delusional if you think this: “Which has had more athletics success? Again, not even close, Mizzou has had by far more athleitc success.”

            If you’re talking recent football-only success, sure you could make an argument, but to say not even close is ridiculous. All-time, Missouri my have had some more top-line football success, but they are comparable with 632 wins for Mizzou and 614 wins for Maryland.

            However, overall athletics success? You’re right, it’s not even close. Maryland crushes Missouri. Missouri has two national championships. Ever. Maryland has won 12 just since 2000, and 26 since Missouri’s last title in 1965.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Andy
            I’m sure you heard this junior membership bit from people you believe.

            There are Louisville people who “know” they originally turned down the Big 12 because the Big East was more stable.

            There are Louisville people who “know” the Big 12 chose W. Virginia over them because the school that hired Bobby Petrino and Rick Pitino is more principaled than WVU and wouldn’t try to get out of the Big East early.

            There were W. Virginia people who “knew” the SEC was going to invite them right up until the day the SEC invited Missouri.

            I think about everyone on this board puts your bit in the same category. Noone outside Louisville believes their stories and noone outside Missouri believes yours.

            Another story I would add is the Washington TV reporter who had a source too good to ignore who “knew” UVA and GT would be invited to the Big 10 last Monday. You should consider that the MU source, if there is one, may have an agenda.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Pezlon, sure, Maryland has had more success in the non-revenue sports. So what?

            Missouri has been to more bowls, more NCAA tournaments, and has far more conference titles in football and basketball all time. They’ve finished seasons ranked far more often in both of the revenue sports.

            Bullet, I can’t be held repsonsible for every bullcrap theory made by a Louisville fan or WVU fan.

            I do know that what I’m saying is solid.

            Sometimes stories are actually true.

            Like

          • Pezlion says:

            NCAA tournament appearances – Missouri 25, Maryland 23 – titles? Maryland 1, Missouri 0

            Like

          • Pezlion says:

            Combined conference titles in basketball and football (since the formation of the Big 8): Missouri 15, Maryland 14 (includes tournament titles for both).

            Looks like the non-revenue sport success would rank their AD above Missouri’s. Point is, your statement that “not even close” “Missouri has had by far more athletic success” is ridiculous.

            Like

          • Pezlion says:

            Oh, and I forgot bowl appearances, hardly overwhelming: Missouri 29, Maryland 24 … national championships? Maryland 2, Missouri 0

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Gee, Pezlion, where did you get those numbers? They are waaaay off.

            Actual numbers: basketball conference titles, Missouri 23, Maryland 10.

            As for Maryland’s football titles, only one of those is recognized by the NCAA. The other is not. Mizzou has 2 football national titles that aren’t recognized by the NCAA. Also two basketblal national titles from 80+ years ago of the same sort. They’re nice and all but we typically don’t talk about them.

            But that’s all history. Most relevant is today’s numbers. Average attendance: Mizzou 67,000. Maryland 42,000.

            Like

          • Pezlion says:

            You’re wrong again. Like I said, since the formation of the Big 8:

            Basketball – Missouri (14), 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 2009, 2012
            Maryland (7), 1975, 1980, 1984, 1995, 2002, 2004, 2010

            Football – Missouri (1), 1969
            Maryland (7), 1974, 1975, 1976, 1983, 1984, 1985, 2001

            Total, 15 Missouri, 14 Maryland

            Like

          • Andy says:

            I see, so you’re restricting the date range. Convenient for you. The Big 6 included Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State. That’s basically the exact same thing as the Big 8 except it goes back 100 years. But sure, if you think CU and OSU somehow legitimated that league have at it.

            You still left off two of Missouri’s basketball titles. Theyve had 16 since ’76, and another 7 prior to that.

            If you include all conference titles in football and basketball combined all time then the count is:

            Missouri 38
            Maryland 21

            But yeah, a bunch of those shouldn’t count because we didn’t have to beat Oklahoma State to get them. Ha.

            Like

    • JayDevil says:

      Mizzou raised their skirt to the B1G twice and was turned down both times. The B1G had ample opportunities to grab Kansas on several occasions (at times when it wouldn’t cost them 13 years in TV rights). I don’t see it happening.

      Although, I will say that in a collapse of the Big 12, KU and KSU are not tied together.

      Like

  6. Carl says:

    Seventheenth?

    Like

  7. Dan z says:

    Already serious rumors of fsu to big 12. Might be the key to dislodging nc and Virginia

    Like

    • Jericho says:

      Those rumors have been around for a year. It took Maryland a weekend to move. My assertion is that if it was going to happen, it woould have happened already (and before the ACC raised its exit fee)

      Like

  8. Wes Haggard says:

    Reading another board, wherein a guy who claim inside knowledge of the Florida State PTB, emphatically exclaims that the deal is done and that FSU is on their way to the Big 12. FSU’s last choice of conferences but a necessity to improve their financial means and their seat in a football conference. I don’t know for sure but his excitement was real and his logic good. Says that Georgia Tech, Miami, and Clemson will also join as geographic neighbors and travel partners. But this would make fourteen for the Big Twelve. Does this make sense to all parties. DONE DEAL, he says.

    Like

      • bullet says:

        The only real significant comment in that is the “no comment” to his inquiries when he says they would normally say “no.” Sports talk radio is not high powered journalism. Also it isn’t clear if the Tampa talk was simply echoing the Dallas radio station. Most people seemed to think the Dallas guy was just echoing Sooner message board material.

        Still there seems to be a lot of smoke and I’ve seen a couple of skeptics who claim to have inside connections become less skeptical.

        Like

      • JohnCassillo says:

        This is the exact same thing we saw last summer. There was a “FSU to the Big 12 is a DONE DEAL” story every day for two weeks straight. Same amount of legitimate, named sources (zero) as then too.

        What fans think is possible — schools just jumping from conference to conference at a whim — is not the case when it comes to moves like this. No one prefers to change conferences. Sometimes a situation comes up that makes changing unavoidable (why Maryland and Rutgers went to B1G and Louisville went to ACC). When you double or triple someone’s money, they’ll listen, and even then it’s a slow process. Leaving for the Big 12 wouldn’t add more than $6-8M (max) annually per team. That’s not a big jump, especially if you’re paying $50M+ to leave the ACC.

        Like

        • frug says:

          No one prefers to change conferences.

          Yes they do. Colorado, TCU, Utah, Mizzou, Texas A&M and Nebraska were all more than happy to jump change leagues for plenty of reasons beyond money. (Though they will be getting pay bumps eventually)

          But, you are right to be skeptical about FSU.

          Like

        • Of course, you could say the same thing in 2011 about A&M to the SEC: they flirted in 2010, but nothing happened, so it’s definitely not going to happen this year either.

          That said, I honestly don’t know. MOST realignment rumors turn out to be bunk. If I had to guesstimate odds, I’d say something like 5% that this rumor is substantially true (5% is my default at this point unless something seems on the face of it ridiculous, which this doesn’t, or there’s just a massive amount of smoke, which isn’t the case here either).

          Like

      • metatron says:

        Radio stations never have the inside scoop; they just regurgitate whatever they find on the internet.

        That said, Florida State won’t move until they know how much Maryland has to pay. Once that’s settled, we can move to DEFCON 1.

        Like

    • frug says:

      It’s definite win for the Big XII, though figuring out which one of the Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas schools gets placed in the Eastern Division could be awkward (alternately they could keep ISU in the West and put KU and KSU in the West)

      In this case, I think it would make more sense for the Big XII to grab Louisville and Pitt and go all the way to 16.

      Like

    • Brian #2 says:

      This can’t be possible, as bullet has continually informed us that the SEC warned the Big 12 that 14 schools is just not worth the hassle……….hahaha

      Like

  9. Biological Imperiative says:

    I got nothing…stopped by to read the article first and lost my place in line.

    Like

  10. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!

    Like

  11. Chas. says:

    Excellent analysis as always Frank, as was Brian’s post from your last entry that partially inspired this one. However, I believe the tectonic plates of conference realignment are still extremely hot and unstable. If President Loh of Maryland is able to greatly reduce the exit penalty from the ACC, I believe both FSU & Clemson are ready to bolt as well and join the Big XII. Consequently, with the loss of its football anchors in the ACC, Virginia and North Carolina could value the academic cache of the CIC. With the ACC in shambles, the Big Ten’s white whale could once again find itself a free agent and outside bringing his alma mater UNC on board, nothing would bring Jim Delany greater pleasure then ND genuflecting to the Big Ten.

    Go Illini!

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Chas.,

      The issue is time. I’d expect it to take months for MD and the ACC to work out a settlement. The ACC knows how important this precedent could be and MD can’t afford to pay an extra cent so they’ll drive a hard bargain. Neither wants to go to court and risk the airing of dirty laundry, plus the ACC has to avoid the financial risk of losing big. Until a number is announced, I’m skeptical about any other ACC teams leaving.

      Like

    • metatron says:

      Genuflecting? Never. They’re too proud.

      It doesn’t matter though, we’re not trying to conquer them: we’re trying to invite them to the family they shun.

      Like

  12. bamatab says:

    RTR!

    Like

  13. Wes Haggard says:

    Apparently their is conversation about this topic on OrangeBloods, the WVU boards, the FSU boards and the “Ticket” radio station in Dallas. Interesting to say the least.

    Like

  14. bullet says:

    I agree with you on Miami vs. Georgia Tech. The Big 10 could be a player in Miami but an afterthought in Atlanta. The Big 10 could take Rice, get a better school in a bigger state with more recruits and have about the same market penetration. Maybe not as good in football, but with a better band and baseball!

    Hypothetical, if UVA was willing to go, but UNC and VT went to the SEC, Big 12 or stayed put, who is #16?

    Like

    • frug says:

      Either Duke or G-Tech would be my bet. (Though there is no way UNC or VT would take Big XII over the Big 10)

      Like

    • Brian says:

      bullet,

      GT baseball is pretty solid. I’ll defer to those who follow more closely, but Rice can’t be that much better of a program. Besides, Houston sucks. It smells like refineries and has mosquitoes the size of cars.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Only the eastern suburb, Pasadena, smells like refinerie$. And the mosquitoes are only the size of motorcycles. The mosquitoes were one thing I was glad to get away from in Houston, but they’re every bit as numerous in Atlanta. Atlanta is an urban forest, which means lots of mosquitoes.

        Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      With respect to Miami ONLY, Frank is Andy…..

      Like

  15. frug says:

    People can note that they’re about to be sanctioned (my retort is to look at UNC) or they have a fairweather fan base with poor attendance (my response is that we just added Maryland), but they actually have a legit football history and the home recruiting base to maintain it regardless of possible NCAA actions down the road.

    A. Frank, you know as well as everyone else that UNC isn’t facing anything close to the same level of sanctions as Miami.

    B. Having huge amounts of local talent hasn’t helped other small elite private schools like Tulane and Rice. Really, the best analogy for Miami is SMU and we all saw what happened after they cleaned up.

    Like

    • Bob in Houston says:

      It really depends on the attitude of the administration and whether they are willing to massage admissions standards where necessary.

      Duke basketball fishes from the same pool as everyone else. The admins decided long ago that giving a handful of exceptions to basketball paid off for the school far beyond their value. Football gets no slack.

      Other “academic” schools that attempt to compete at high D-I deal with these situations uniquely. Stanford largely is able to attract athletes that fit with the general profile. Northwestern, Tulane, Rice, do this with less “success.”

      If Miami goes the SMU route, they won’t be worth adding. It took 20 years for SMU to decide that floundering in D-I athletics was bad for business.

      Like

  16. JohnCassillo says:

    Is there one way around the Big 12’s Grant of Rights, though?

    If the Pac-16 ever comes to fruition, and the Big 12’s cornerstones (Texas, OU) leave along with Texas Tech and OSU, that could effectively dissolve the Big 12. If there’s no one to collect the television fees, and no Big 12 conference, the GoR is effectively null and void, no? Even if it didn’t end with just six teams remaining, you have to figure WVU goes to the ACC/SEC soon after, leaving five. And then who’d want to join a league with KSU, KU, TCU, Iowa State and Baylor?

    Like

    • frug says:

      It would take a minimum of 6 (likely more depending on conference bylaws) votes to dissolve the Big XII, meaning at least 6 schools would have to find better homes before the conference was dissolved.

      That is not going to happen.

      (Oh, and WVU applied to both the ACC and SEC before joining the Big XII was turned down by both)

      Like

      • JohnCassillo says:

        Right. But the atmosphere has changed since that application. There’s no way WVU wouldn’t get into the ACC on the second try.

        If the number to dissolve is outright majority (50% + 1), then out of the six remaining, you would think WVU and TCU could both vote for dissolution (SEC landing spots possible), while KU would eye a spot in the B1G. With three members left, they wouldn’t be able to remain a FBS conference, meaning there would be no league left to collect the grant of rights TV revenue, since the league would be dissolved by NCAA bylaws.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Except moving to the ACC would mean now would mean that WVU would have to take a significant paycut, TCU is at least a decade away from having any chance in hell of getting an SEC invite (and that would likely require near Miami type run where they win a bunch of national titles in a short period of time) and KU shares a BOT with K-State meaning they are stuck together so long as the Big XII remains viable.

          Like

          • JohnCassillo says:

            Not talking about a real-world scenario, though. Talking about a worst-case situation where the Big 12’s on its deathbed and down to six teams. In that case, the “viability” of the Big 12 would be called into question, potentially letting KU run off. If TCU’s free for the taking, I’d think the SEC would happily move on them. And WVU wouldn’t be taking a pay cut leaving a zombie Big 12 for the ACC. Completely agree that and all the other moves never happen without the Pac-16 situation, though.

            Like

          • frug says:

            In that case, the Big XII could just add Rice and Tulsa and then collect the $1 billion – $2 billion buyout the PAC would give them.

            Not. Gonna. Happen.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Also, TCU was free for the taking when they add A&M (and for 15 years before that) and the SEC didn’t take them then.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            With a GOR there is zero value to the other conference to invite anyone. Texas and Oklahoma don’t want to go to the Pac 12. They make more money in the Big 12. Because of the GOR they can’t go to the Pac 12. The odds of Texas and Oklahoma going to the Pac 12 in the next 13 years are equal to the odds of USC and UCLA going to the Big 12 in the next 13 years. None.

            WVU isn’t going to the ACC. They make more money in the Big 12. Because of the GOR they can’t go to the ACC. Because of the way they were treated or perceive they were treated, they might go to the CUSA before they ever went to the ACC.

            We might as well talk about Nebraska getting mad at the Big 10 and wanting to go back to the Big 12 as long as they get to play OU every year.

            Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        How long would a conference remain viable if it fell below the number needed to fulfill its tier 1 media commitment, but a number still not low enough to allow dissolving?

        Like

    • Brian says:

      JohnCassillo,

      “And then who’d want to join a league with KSU, KU, TCU, Iowa State and Baylor?”

      To get a share of all those exit fees? Lots of schools.

      Like

  17. frug says:

    Chip Brown so take it with a big ole grain of salt

    http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1445262

    what makes absolutely no sense to an increasing number in the Big 12 is sitting back and watching the conference with the largest TV household footprint (Big Ten) looking to get even larger with the additions of Rutgers, Maryland and perhaps more, sources say.

    According to Warchant.com, the Florida State site on the Yahoo!/Rivals network, FSU officials are now exploring conference options and have put out feelers to the Big Ten.

    Warchant.com has also reported there appears to be a movement in the SEC led by Alabama to make the conference rethink its stance against adding Florida State and/or Clemson…

    But according to multiple sources, Florida State did not even come up at a Big 12 athletic directors’ meeting in New York on Tuesday when new commissioner Bob Bowlsby gave his realignment update.

    Texas continues to be the loudest voice favoring a 10-team league because it makes for easier scheduling with 9 conference football games (everyone plays everyone) and round-robin scheduling in basketball; no conference title football game to potentially derail an undefeated team from the national title picture; and fewer schools to share TV revenue with.

    But sources in the Big 12 tell Orangebloods.com there is increasing disagreement about these positions.

    Those sources argue it’s actually easier to get to a national title game in a league with divisions because there’s an increased chance the best teams won’t always play each other and knock each other off.

    Florida State and a partner out of the ACC – either Clemson, Miami, Virginia Tech or all of them, would be adding real value, three officials in the Big 12 told Orangebloods.com Tuesday.

    In the Big 12, new, TV contracts with ESPN and Fox totaling $2.6 billion as well as a $960 million ESPN TV contract for a bowl game with the SEC – all through 2025 – are providing nice bottom lines of roughly $28 million annually for Big 12 members – in addition to third-tier TV deals (Texas makes $15 million annually from ESPN for the Longhorn Network).

    But the only way for schools in the Big 12 to grow in TV revenue is by expanding its footprint. And the only way for a league with one-third the population (36.6 million) of the Big Ten (103.9 million) is by adding the Seminoles in a state with 19 million people, those sources say.

    Basically, those sources want new commissioner Bob Bowlsby to make Florida State his top priority, whether Texas agrees or not. Sources at Texas say UT does not have an iron-clad stance against expansion but definitely favors 10 schools.

    There is increasing fear in the Big 12 that if the league doesn’t get proactive on expansion, Florida State could get away – either to the SEC or, God forbid, the Big Ten if Delany could convince his schools to make an exception to its AAU membership requirement.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Chip Brown has a lot of value in this; if he starts working the expansionist angle as a counter to the increasing heft of the Big Ten and SEC; that’s an important angle to the story.

      It means there’s chatter in the Big 12 and he’s the mouthpiece for it.

      He doesn’t always just parrot what he hears from Texas sources, but reading Chip Brown is basically like sticking your finger in the air in the Big 12…

      Like

    • Mike says:

      He must need to sell some subscriptions…

      Like

    • Larry says:

      The B12 politics of expansion would be painful.

      How do you split the divisions? In the B12 everyone wants to play games in Texas for recruiting and expanding to 12 means giving up some of those games. The problem is I can’t imagine Baylor, TTech, or TCU agreeing to be in a different division than UT. And you know OU would have to be in the same division as Texas, so your two best teams most years (IMHO) would be in the same division. You would end up with the same power block and cultural issues the B12 had – just with crazier geography.

      From FSU’s perspective, if they aren’t playing in Texas regularly, have crazy travel (especially for non-revenue sports), and have to play in Kansas or Iowa in late November, it takes away a lot of the appeal.

      Everyone would love the revenue of adding a power like FSU and the money from a championship game, but politics could make the addition very painful.

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      I do not believe that “national” conferences, that is, conferences devoid of regional identity, will long endure. As an example, WVU will, eventually, be in some other league than the BIG 12.

      Now, short-term interests may differ greatly from long-term interests. If the 12 and the ACC are really in a death match, I could see this type of addition. If only one survives, you want to be the one, and worry about the rest later.

      Like

  18. largeR says:

    It bothers me that the media has largely portrayed the B1G as a greedy, money hungry, organization, with the addition of Maryland and Rutgers, while the SEC got off ‘easy’ with the A&M/ Missouri additions. In essence, we are playing catch-up to the SEC both in markets and athletic(football) performance. Yet, our additions, because Maryland, has not been seen as entirely voluntary, is cast not as a response to the SEC, but as a singular cash grab. Has anyone else felt strongly about this?

    Way, way back in time, like two and a half years ago, I recall rumours tht the COP/C told Delaney, ‘no more Big 12’ when they got Nebraska into the B1G. The COP/C didn’t want to destroy the Big 12. With the latest additions of an ACC and a big east school, the B1G would in effect, not be destabilizing any fellow conferences. I would, if I were a COP/C member, at least, feel good about that. And to continue that train of thought, I would not want to further destabilize the ACC(impossible to do with the big east) by grabbing additional members of that conference. With that said, IMO, the B1G will not be the one bringing down the ACC. If Va/VT/NC don’t want to join the B1G, or can’t find the political cover to want to join, I don’t want expansion for expansions sake.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Delany did more to destablize the landscape with his extended open expansion project than anyone else. It will be interesting to see how Delany and Slive are viewed 20 years from now. Maybe they said no more Big 12 because they didn’t want a Missouri or Iowa St. who was near the bottom of the AAU like Nebraska, not because of any interest in helping the Big 12.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        In a funny way, Delany is exactly the same as Bielema.

        He’s just cashing in his chips while his market value is at its relative peak for this era…

        Like

      • largeR says:

        @bullet
        And Delany now admits that was the wrong way to do expansion! IMO Missouri/Rutgers were ready, available, and acceptable. However, if I were a member of a small, elite, snooty(?) club, (total fantasy for me)such as the COP/C, I would be very careful about bringing the downfall of another, small, elite, snooty(?) club.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Er, small?

          Large, elite, snooty club, perhaps.

          Like

        • Bob in Houston says:

          Delany wants both sides of the argument. He grabs the schools that he wants for his plan, while saying, you know, I regret what I did. It’s not like he’s releasing Nebraska and or reneging on Maryland and Rutgers.

          Like

    • Stevo says:

      you’re both a couple of cun*s! Rock Chalk Jayhawk!

      Like

    • James says:

      Difference – fans of both the SEC and TAM/Missouri liked the moves. No one in the Big Ten or at Maryland liked that addition. I’ve still not heard anything either way from Rutgers, mostly because I don’t know where any of their fans are.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I haven’t met any Georgia fans who like the moves. Its more like, “Ok I understand. A&M brings money. Where’s Missouri anyway?” Arkansas and LSU fans probably like the move, but the rest dislike or don’t care.

        Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          bullet – many LSU fans were against expansion altogether. From an LSU perspective, A&M is a mixed bag. Its an historic, sometimes heated rivalry that has been played 50 times prior to A&M’s admission. From a recruiting standpoint, LSU has been able to go into Texas and get several great players that wanted to play in the SEC. The thought is that with A&M in the SEC, many of those players may want to stay closer to home.

          Mizzou? Columbia Mo is just as close to Baton Rouge as Columbia SC. Florida State and VA Tech were the favorites around here, for #14. LSU & Mizzou may both be the Tigers, but that’s about it. No history whatsoever, unless you count the 1978 Liberty Bowl. Congrats Andy, as Mizzou got that win.

          Last year when Mizzou was at the Independence Bowl, LSU bought several billboard welcoming the Mizzou Tigers to the SEC, and encouraged fans to go cheer for Mizzou.

          Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Rutgers fans LOVED the move, and actually there are a good # of them–check out their Rivals forum sometime….

        Like

    • Gfunk says:

      Nice post largeR. Maryland was a bit aggressive because they overvalue their UNC-Duke basketball, I say this because the alum and fans of UNC and Duke have always viewed Md as a northern menace in their conference. Also, Md loses ground in Men’s Lax, Field Hockey, Men’s n Women’s Soccer and Women’s Basketball – all sports, minus Women’s Soccer, wherethey’ve won NC’s. But the Md alums and fans are warming up to the B1G – two years from now they’ll be fine.

      The B1G doesn’t need to move next in expansion unless FSU really wants a membership. But FSU will aim for the SEC foremost. I agree, FSU would prefer the B1G over the Big12, long-term & financially.

      The BIG would fail, in my opinion, to reject a Florida State membership if they are in fact seeking the BIG. If they’re asking, then the BIG should pair them with Miami or GT and also ask for an opportunity to house our struggling baseball programs during late winter & early spring – build some facilities and classroom bldgs – make the CIC step beyond their current mission & educate student athletes in season.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        Save for a few College Park diehards such as myself (I wrote a letter to the Diamondback, the campus newspaper, in early 2010 proposing the move), the very idea of Maryland joining the Big Ten seemed something out of the blue. But the more one examines the concept, the more it makes sense for all facets of the university. Terrapin fans will warm up to the move in time.

        Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      To any unbiased observer, imo, the Maryland grab makes the BIG look pretty bad……..because most of the MD alums/fans (not to mention BIG alums/fans) didn’t back it, and it was rammed through with such secrecy.

      I would characterize it so much as greedy, but rather as desperate. The BIG had no choice but to react to A&M/MO. The SEC has held most of the cards in this expansion derby….the BIG didn’t have a lot of realistic choices….and that’s the case with 16, same as it was with 14……therefore, I do expect the BIG to hold and eact this time around…….

      Like

      • Ross says:

        Why do you suggest the SEC holds more expansion cards? I don’t see them as having more options than the Big Ten, and I would characterize the B1G expansion of Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers as superior to A&M and Missouri.

        Like

        • Andy says:

          OK, let’s look at the additions in aggregate:

          Big Ten (Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers)

          Average USNews Ranking: 75.7
          Average Football Attendance: 57,127
          Markets added: Omaha, Baltimore, Newark, DC (sort of), NY (maybe)

          SEC (Texa A&M, Missouri)

          Average USNews Ranking: 76.0
          Average Football Attendance: 77,091
          Markets added: Houston, St. Louis, KC (halfway), Dallas (somewhat), San Antonio (Somewhat)

          Now tell me who did better?

          Like

  19. Milton Hershey says:

    There isn’t much talk of this… but I think the next domino to fall will be NC State. Similar to the way that TX A&M wanted to step out of UT’s shadow, I see NCST accepting a bid to the SEC in order to emerge as a legitimate athletic power in North Carolina. This move would really put them on the map and UNC would no longer be the unrivaled top dog in the state.

    As a result UNC has the most to lose if the ACC breaks up. Therefore, they will do whatever they can to stop it from imploding. I seriously doubt they will be able to derail the reallignment train… There’s just too much money and power up for grabs for the status quo to be maintained.

    The BIG and SEC are both looking at the ACC for expansion…I’m sure Slive wants one school from NC and one from VA (just like JD). I’m hoping the BIG gets UVA and UNC, but for some reason I think UVA and VT will be a package deal.

    Like

    • metatron says:

      Without knowing North Carolina politics, I’m assuming that NC State is free to move to the SEC without UNC, but does the SEC want them?

      The big rumors coming from Dixie are that they’ve got Chapel Hill circled in red.

      Like

    • Brian #2 says:

      Why in the world would the SEC offer a non-binding bid to NC State without waiting for UNC? That makes no sense at all.

      The SEC is squarely focused on UNC, and likely will bring any dance partner along that helps UNC move – Duke, NC State, or Va Tech.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      UNC & NCSU share the same Board. They’re almost 2 branches of the same university (like UCLA and Berkeley). Neither will go anywhere and leave the other in a worse situation.

      Like

  20. jj says:

    I think you are pretty much right about basically all of this.

    I would add, however, that I don’t see IL simply getting moved to the legends and the new guys in the leaders. Schools will want that eastern exposure that the B10 extended so hard for. I think they will retool the divisions putting the 4 western teams together with the rest being subject to some serious discussion/debate.

    Like

    • jj says:

      Assuming we end up with 2 groups of 7 and mi and osu are split, i think it would behoove them to also have only have the mi/osu game a cross division game on the last week. We then have 3 sets of 2 for that last week and playing intra-division increases the odds dramatically that 2 teams will be playing head to head for the championship game spot in the last week. Personally, I’d go one further and lock the last week games.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      From Delany’s comments, I wonder if they are putting OSU and UM back together again. Maybe MD, RU, PSU, OSU, UM, MSU, Northwestern. You could NOT have any locked rivals so you could increase the number of times you play teams in the other division. With an 8 game schedule you could play 6 teams 2 of 8 and 1 team 4 of 8. That’s assuming NW and IL are ok going to every other year. With 9 games, you could play 5 teams 2 of 6 years and 2 teams 4 of 6 (or over 8 years 2 2/8 and 5 4/8).

      ACC has dropped their plans for 9 conference games, just as Big 10 backed off. Georgia Tech is stuck with Alabama A&M and Elon ooc next year as all the ACC schools were scrambling for ooc games. Probably good news for Idaho and NMSU.

      Like

      • I had this comment in the last post:

        I’ll have a separate post on the divisional alignments at some point, but if I were running the Big Ten, I’d want his alignment:

        EAST
        Michigan
        Ohio State
        Penn State
        Rutgers
        Maryland
        Indiana
        Purdue

        WEST
        Michigan State
        Wisconsin
        Nebraska
        Iowa
        Illinois
        Northwestern
        Minnesota

        Go to a 9-game conference and lock only Michigan-MSU and Nebraska-PSU (important for TV) as permanent cross division rivalries (similar to how the Pac-12 only locked in the California cross-division games). Everyone else would rotate cross-division opponents. There’s no need to force annual games that aren’t necessary.

        An alternative would be to swap Purdue and Michigan State and then only make IU-PU and PSU-NE into protected rivalries, although having MSU in the west definitely makes it look more balanced competitively.

        I agree with Brian that OSU-PSU is the 2nd most important game that the Big Ten has to protect. Michigan is also a key to unlocking a lot of the value in the new East Coast schools. This may mean that the Big Ten may not be as hesitant to put 3 kings into the East as long as the depth in the West is perceived to be good enough. Putting Michigan State in the West could accomplish that.

        Also, if the Big Ten was insistent upon every school having a protected cross-division game in the setup that I outlined below, I’d do it this way:

        Michigan – MSU (Obvious in-state rivalry)
        Penn State – Nebraska (Top brand names)
        Ohio State – Wisconsin (Top brand names)
        Purdue – Iowa (Meaningless “rivalry”, but it’s protected now, so they can protect it again)
        Rutgers – Northwestern (Northwestern likely *wants* to travel out east more and there’s a Chicago vs. NYC undercurrent)
        Indiana – Illinois (Schools in bordering states passing time until basketball season)
        Maryland – Minnesota – (Last 2 picks on the board)

        Like

        • greg says:

          Frank, even if the West is as competitive as the East, there will always be the perception that it is weaker, a la the B12 North. I don’t see this configuration ever being approved. Also, the West teams aren’t going to be happy about rarely hosting OSU/UM/PSU. Extremely unlikely to happen.

          While Iowa and Purdue fans both make fun of our current protected crossover, but Purdue is Iowa’s 3rd most common opponent while Iowa is Purdue’s 4th most common opponent with 82 games played.

          Like

        • Arch Stanton says:

          I like this set up a lot. The best part is you could clearly call the divisions “east” and “west”.
          I don’t see any of the western schools complaining about being in a different division than OSU, PSU and Michigan. Well, they could complain, but I don’t see them being resolute about it.
          They still have pretty good set ups.

          MSU gets Michigan, Nebraska and Northwestern every year.

          Minnesota gets Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska every year. They are probably going to get one of Michigan, Ohio State or Penn State every year. I could see Minnesota vs Michigan State developing into more of a rivalry too. (of course, that can happen under the current setup)

          Northwestern gets Illinois, Nebraska, NYC, MSU and probably one of Michigan, OSU or PSU every year.

          Illinois may have the biggest beef, but they should be glad that there might be a weird year that they can ride to a division title based on an unbalanced schedule and a little luck (sort of like their most recent Big Ten title)

          Nebraska, I think, would love to have Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin all in their division and I know a lot of Nebraska fans would be happy to play Wisconsin on Black Friday every year (espeically since Iowa wants to move it back to a Saturday game). UNL would also continue to play PSU every year.

          Iowa has all their local rivals together and will likely play one of the East Big Three every year.

          Wisconsin should be happy to be in a division with schools actually near to them again plus they’ve got to like their chances at making the Big Ten title game in that division. They keep their most traditional rivalries with Iowa and Minnesota intact and get a great new potential one in Nebraska. Wisconsin would also play OSU every year.

          In the east, Rutgers and Maryland should be pleased by that set up as well.

          Best thing about this split is that it really jacks up the stakes for the Michigan-OSU game. I think that is definitely a good trade off for losing a possible OSU-Michigan conference title game (especially since such a title game would always be a rematch from one week before).

          In the SEC, Florida-LSU is a protected cross over game every year. So LSU plays Florida every year, just like it plays Alabama every year. But compare the stakes of LSU vs Alabama games with LSU vs Florida games. I think Florida and Alabama have been comparable over the past decade. The LSU-Alabama games have a much bigger feel to them because more is on the line for both teams. And think of how magnified that would be if Alabama-LSU was played in the last week of the regular season. I realize that can’t happen because of Alabame playing Auburn, but it would be the situation for OSU-Michigan. The Game would be truly epic nearly every year. With no possible rematch, every season hinges on The Game for OSU and Michigan. That’s the way it should be. The Game, not a game.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Arch Stanton,

            “I like this set up a lot. The best part is you could clearly call the divisions “east” and “west”.”

            What are the odds Delany ditches his beloved division names?

            “I don’t see any of the western schools complaining about being in a different division than OSU, PSU and Michigan.”

            I do.

            “MSU gets Michigan, Nebraska and Northwestern every year.”

            They complained about playing PSU and OSU less frequently when we went to 12.

            “Minnesota gets Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska every year. They are probably going to get one of Michigan, Ohio State or Penn State every year. I could see Minnesota vs Michigan State developing into more of a rivalry too. (of course, that can happen under the current setup)”

            MN/MSU is an unlikely rivalry. MSU is too much better than MN right now. MN will miss the LBJ, with it going to 2 out of 6 years or so. That’s a longstanding rivalry for them, too. They’ve played MI almost as much as IA, and it would be more except for when MI left the B10.

            “Illinois may have the biggest beef, but they should be glad that there might be a weird year that they can ride to a division title based on an unbalanced schedule and a little luck (sort of like their most recent Big Ten title)”

            They lose Illibuck but don’t gain MI. They lose the Purdue Cannon and IN but gain IA. Yeah, they’d have complaints.

            “Nebraska, I think, would love to have Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin all in their division and I know a lot of Nebraska fans would be happy to play Wisconsin on Black Friday every year (espeically since Iowa wants to move it back to a Saturday game). UNL would also continue to play PSU every year.”

            Sure NE would be happy. They don’t have any long term rivals in the B10 to lose, so geography works best for them.

            “Wisconsin should be happy to be in a division with schools actually near to them again plus they’ve got to like their chances at making the Big Ten title game in that division. They keep their most traditional rivalries with Iowa and Minnesota intact and get a great new potential one in Nebraska. Wisconsin would also play OSU every year.”

            Didn’t Alvarez say the liked their current division? But yes, WI shouldn’t complain about getting an easier division and playing NE.

            “In the east, Rutgers and Maryland should be pleased by that set up as well.”

            As long as they get PSU, I don’t think they much care who they play. Either OSU or MI works fine for them to drive attendance.

            “Best thing about this split is that it really jacks up the stakes for the Michigan-OSU game. I think that is definitely a good trade off for losing a possible OSU-Michigan conference title game (especially since such a title game would always be a rematch from one week before).”

            That’s a sticky issue, just like it was the first time around. Many would argue that The Game would mean less because it can never decide the B10 title again. Others think it means more because it’s for the division title. I’ve never seen a consensus on the issue. I consider the rematch a weak argument for several reasons:

            1. It has never happened, so we don’t know that there is anything bad about it. Stanford/UCLA was a better game the second time around, and that’s the only next week rematch I know of ever happening.

            2. The stakes of OSU/MI can’t get jacked up from what they already are because The Game already means everything to both teams. B10 titles were a way to keep score, but bragging rights were always the real stakes. John Cooper had the 11th best W% nationally during his 13 years at OSU, won 3 B10 titles, was 1-0 in the Rose Bowl and 1-1 in the Sugar, but he got fired for being 2-10-1 against MI. Lloyd Carr won a national title but was pushed out after going 1-6 against Tressel (5-1 against Cooper). The Game is everything to these fan bases.

            3. The Game is the B10’s most valuable TV asset. Losing the ability to have it played in the CCG may cost money from the CCG contract.

            4. Rough math shows it wouldn’t be a common occurrence anyway:

            East = OSU, PSU, WI, PU, IN, MD, RU
            Rough historical odds of winning the East:
            OSU = 35
            PSU = 25
            WI = 20
            PU = MD = RU = IN = 5

            West = MI, NE, MSU, IA, NW, MN, IL
            Rough historical odds of winning the West:
            MI = 30
            NE = 25
            MSU = 18
            IA = 12
            NW = MN = IL = 5

            Odds of MI and OSU rematch: = 0.35 * 0.30 = 10.5%, or once every 9-10 years.

            Obviously, that’s rough math. You could argue the percentages somewhat, but they can’t be that much higher for OSU and MI. On the other hand, this doesn’t take into account the likelihood of one eliminating the other by winning The Game. OSU odds are better in years when MI isn’t winning the W and vice versa.

            The point is, this is unlikely to be a frequent occurrence. Making decisions to avoid a once a decade event that may not even be that bad seems unwise.

            “In the SEC, Florida-LSU is a protected cross over game every year. So LSU plays Florida every year, just like it plays Alabama every year. But compare the stakes of LSU vs Alabama games with LSU vs Florida games. I think Florida and Alabama have been comparable over the past decade. The LSU-Alabama games have a much bigger feel to them because more is on the line for both teams.”

            I disagree. The past 2 LSU/AL games felt bigger because of their rankings and the NCG implications (and thus ESPN hype). Back when Tebow was around, the UF/AL games felt bigger for the same reasons. That said, AL fans will tell you the AL/AU game was always bigger. Beating LSU rings hollow if you have to hear War Damn Eagle for 364 days.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          And I made this response:

          Frank the Tank,

          “I’ll have a separate post on the divisional alignments at some point, but if I were running the Big Ten, I’d want his alignment:

          EAST
          Michigan
          Ohio State
          Penn State
          Rutgers
          Maryland
          Indiana
          Purdue

          WEST
          Michigan State
          Wisconsin
          Nebraska
          Iowa
          Illinois
          Northwestern
          Minnesota”

          It’s been discussed frequently, but I don’t see it.

          1. Media imbalance

          The most popular teams are all in one division as are most of the major media markets in the footprint.

          2. Competitive imbalance

          WI and MSU do not balance two kings long term. This also hurts OSU, MI and PSU competitively as NE doesn’t have to get past a king to reach the CCG and MSU and WI only have to get past 1. Kings beating up on each other too much is bad for business.

          3. Unhappy schools

          The other schools didn’t want MI and OSU together before. Will they want it now? NE, WI, IA and MN may be OK with just keeping their group of 4 together, but there is definitely a cost with infrequent games against OSU and MI including the Little Brown Jug and Illibuck. Is NE OK with not seeing OSU and MI often?

          Gene Smith already came out and said he would fight to avoid being in that alignment. He has to sell tickets at home, and PU, IN, MD and RU aren’t thrilling opponents annually. OSU has lots of eastern alumni they want to play near, but the tradeoff isn’t worth it to him. MI will have similar concerns but may decide the tradeoff is worth it.

          I assume PSU, MD and RU are fine with it. PU and IN are likely happy, too, although they have a lot of built in losses playing 3 kings every year. MSU might have some complaints. The move to divisions cost them the PSU rivalry and regular OSU games and they weren’t thrilled with it.

          4. Unhappy TV?

          Does TV prefer to have OSU and MI separate for the CCG? Do they want the 3 kings together? I don’t know.

          5. Locked games

          On top of the 3 kings playing each other, you have to look at the locked games.

          NE/PSU
          WI/OSU
          MSU/MI
          IA/PU
          NW/RU
          IL/MD
          MN/IN

          PU gets 3 kings and a near prince. PSU, RU, MD and IN get 3 kings every year. OSU, MI, WI and MSU get 2 kings and a prince. NE, IA, NW, IL and MN get 1 king and 2 princes.

          “Go to a 9-game conference”

          We all hope so, but the ADs fought it last time.

          “and lock only Michigan-MSU and Nebraska-PSU (important for TV) as permanent cross division rivalries (similar to how the Pac-12 only locked in the California cross-division games).”

          The B10 won’t do that. They’ll insist on locking 1 game for everybody (see them refusing to lock only WI/IA as a second locked rival and them insisting on locking PU/IA and IN/MSU now).

          “Everyone else would rotate cross-division opponents. There’s no need to force annual games that aren’t necessary.”

          Not to us, but they’ve proven they feel differently.

          “I agree with Brian that OSU-PSU is the 2nd most important game that the Big Ten has to protect. Michigan is also a key to unlocking a lot of the value in the new East Coast schools. This may mean that the Big Ten may not be as hesitant to put 3 kings into the East as long as the depth in the West is perceived to be good enough. Putting Michigan State in the West could accomplish that.”

          Did you factor WI losing Bielema into your thinking? I really think the B10 will resist combining the 3 kings and counting on MSU and WI to balance them, especially with NE not being elite yet.

          “Also, if the Big Ten was insistent upon every school having a protected cross-division game in the setup that I outlined below, I’d do it this way:”

          And they will be.

          “Michigan – MSU (Obvious in-state rivalry)
          Penn State – Nebraska (Top brand names)
          Ohio State – Wisconsin (Top brand names)
          Purdue – Iowa (Meaningless “rivalry”, but it’s protected now, so they can protect it again)
          Rutgers – Northwestern (Northwestern likely *wants* to travel out east more and there’s a Chicago vs. NYC undercurrent)
          Indiana – Illinois (Schools in bordering states passing time until basketball season)
          Maryland – Minnesota – (Last 2 picks on the board)”

          I came to similar conclusions, except I went with MD/IL to give MD some Chicago access, leaving IN/MN.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Ideal would be setting it up in a way you avoid locked cross-division rivalries. That means you see everyone else less.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “Ideal would be setting it up in a way you avoid locked cross-division rivalries. That means you see everyone else less.”

            I don’t know about that. I get the feeling the B10 will have locked games no matter what because they can assure themselves of certain big games for TV. I’m not sure you can preserve all the rivalries without them anyway.

            NE – MN – MI – OSU – IL – NW
            | X | | | | \
            WI – IA MSU PSU PU – IN
            ^
            MD RU

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Well, that completely lost my formatting. Those lines were all spaced out to show the web of rivalries.

            NE – WI, IA, MN
            WI – NE, IA, MN
            IA – NE, WI, MN
            MN – NE, WI, IA, MI
            MI – OSU, MSU, MN
            MSU – MI, PSU
            OSU – MI, PSU, IL
            PSU – OSU, MSU, MD, RU
            IL – NW, OSU, PU, IN
            PU – IN, IL
            IN – PU, IL
            NW – IL
            MD – PSU
            RU – PSU

            How do you keep all of those without locked games to help? Besides that, don’t forget TV games like PSU/NE.

            Like

          • mnfanstc says:

            Regarding the potential divisional “re-alignments”– I do not envy TPTB. There really will be no way to please everyone.

            IMHO, I like the pure East/West split, except Michigan is West, Illinois is East.

            West
            Iowa
            Michigan
            Michigan State
            Minnesota
            Nebraska
            Northwestern
            Wisconsin

            East
            Illinois
            Indiana
            Maryland
            Ohio State
            Penn State
            Purdue
            Rutgers

            Mich-OSU is protected x-over.
            Illinois-NW is protected x-over.

            No other cross-over potentials are “historical” match-ups, so choose as you like.

            Virtually all of the historical rivalries are kept intact (on a yearly basis), you split the “recent-historical-kings”, overall competitiveness is reasonably even, with the West currently being a little stronger top-to-bottom.

            The reality in regards to football strength, is that it changes some over time. Not all “kings” are dominant all the time, not all “doormats” are bad all the time. PSU, may see some down time due to sanctions and Wiscy is due for a crash–especially in light of the recent coaching drama (unless Alvares can pull a rabbit out of his hat).

            Go Gophers!

            Like

          • Pezlion says:

            mnfan,

            There’s no balance to those divisions. The east has five of the six worst teams in the league.

            Like

  21. zeek says:

    If the Big Ten really does end up going for Georgia Tech, I feel that it must be paired with Florida State.

    Just throwing that out there…

    Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      I’m wondering if that isn’t out of the question.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        If the Big Ten has to make a true football improvement, the only one on the table is FSU-Georgia Tech.

        Virginia/Virginia Tech would be a nice markets/football addition, but the only true football move is Florida State/Georgia Tech.

        Like

        • Tom says:

          If the B1G turns down Florida State, it would be the biggest mistake in the history of conference realignment, rivaled only by the then Pac 10 and Big Ten turning down Texas in the early 90’s. (I would rank Florida State ahead because the impact of shifting populations was not entirely realized back then.)

          Like

          • frug says:

            Nothing will ever be worse than the Big East turning down Penn St. in 80’s. No conference did more long term damage to itself in one action.

            (Note, I am speaking from perspective of conferences. If you talk about the perspective of schools then Tulane leaving the SEC probably takes the cake)

            Like

          • @Tom – As I said in this post, FSU is a marquee brand name in a massive state (and one that happens to have arguably the best pound-for-pound football recruiting anywhere), so if there’s any school that the Big Ten ought to consider stretching its academic requirements for, FSU should be it. FSU is at #97 in the US News rankings, while Nebraska is at #101.

            Thinking about this more, how could the Big Ten let FSU possibly head off to the Big 12 or anywhere else if the Noles seriously want to leave the ACC? We have already seen one power conference combine the forces of the states of Florida and Texas (the SEC), so letting the Big 12 claim the same thing would be a huge negative for the Big Ten in the long-term.

            The Georgia Tech to the Big Ten smoke puzzled me, even when there was the thought that UVA could be going with them. GT and FSU together, though, makes a whole lot of sense and would be a game changer.

            Like

          • Let me first go on record saying I’d hate to see FSU/GT being added, just because I do believe in the idea of some kind of regional footprint. But, with that being said, FSU in the BigTen could be awesome from a pure football perspective. Yearly matchups with some combination of Michigan/OSU/PSU/Nebraska/Wisconsin? Wowwie. There are a decent amount of reasons to be against it, but football certainly wouldn’t be one of them.

            Like

          • greg says:

            A FSU/GT addition would be the first one to guarantee a team eventually leaving the conference. Why would FSU want to have every single road game in every sport be halfway across the country?

            Like

          • zeek says:

            greg, if they come with Georgia Tech, the distances are just an extra hour by plane flight to the Midwest as opposed to the Mid-Atlantic.

            Like

          • greg says:

            For the football team its an extra hour. There will still be vans of golf teams and tennis teams driving all over tarnation.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Greg, you are right…it is absolutely freaking absurd.

            Like

        • Richard says:

          Zeek:
          FSU-Miami.

          Like

          • joe4psu says:

            I have to agree with Richard. Does the conference want to add a single king and throw the balance off maybe forever? I think you need two kings if you take one. Now if the goal is 18 or 20+ then it’s not a problem but I don’t remember Delaney talking about going beyond 16.

            Like

    • @zeek – Completely agree about that or Miami as an alternative. I’m not the biggest fan of adding Georgia Tech, but if they are truly part of the end game for the Big Ten, then the states of Georgia and Florida together make sense. Much of my hesitation about GT is that they don’t make much sense just sitting out there as a lone outpost, but pairing them up with Florida State or Miami can change that equation.

      Like

      • Great Lake State says:

        Alright guys, it’s settled. ‘Conference’ call time.

        Like

      • zeek says:

        Yep, I agree with your points there and above Frank.

        I don’t see UVa-Georgia Tech being the solution.

        It has to be Georgia Tech + Florida-based school.

        Like

        • joe4psu says:

          Adding only one king, FSU or Miami, would throw the balance of the conference off. I could see GT with any of FSU, Miami, UVA or VT if the eventual goal is 18 or more. Is there any reason to believe that the B1G would like to expand beyond 16? I don’t remember hearing anything legitimate.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Brandon mentioned that at a certain point you hit diminishing returns; didn’t mention whether 16 was that point specifically.

            It does seem like 16 is the likely endgame for this round of expansion.

            I don’t think FSU would throw off competitive balance; you might end up with one pod that’s harder than the other 3 (Penn State-Florida State pod), but it’ll balance out in a 9 game schedule given that the pod will be connected to the other 3 every 2 years out of 6.

            Like

  22. Drew says:

    Carolina, Virginia, Miami, Notre Dame. That’s a power conference.

    3 six-team divisions?

    East: PSU, Miami, UNC, UVa, RU, UMd
    Central: Mich, MSU, UND, NW, Ind, Pur
    West: OSU, Wisc, Iowa, Minn, Ill, Neb

    Like

  23. greg says:

    Go Hawks.

    Like

  24. Drew says:

    If Florida State wants in, I don’t see how the B1G can say no. I know academics (specifically being non-AAU) is an issue, but they are ahead of Nebraska in the university rankings, but the $$$DOLLAZ$$$ speak volumes. The B1G would grab a football powerhouse in one of the already most-populous and fastest-growing states in the U.S. with a huge national fanbase to back to it up. Bring along Georgia Tech or Miami and the B1G will have taken a huge step forward to ending the sharing of the mountaintop of collegiate athletics with the SEC and taking it completely for its own.

    (Interesting note though: Do you think it’s possible that FSU is simply attempting to create enough attention, by flirting with the B1G, to get the SEC to rethink its stance on their admittance? The Orangebloods site also noted that Alabama could be leading a movement towards this same end.)

    Like

  25. metatron says:

    You know what I’m wondering?

    What changed for the ACC to offer Notre Dame partial membership, but reject Texas’ request for the same?

    Like

    • frug says:

      The TV renegotiations going badly. Swafford more or less admitted as much.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Yeah, they got a bit more out of Syracuse/Pitt and then a bit more out of ND’s partial admission.

        Both sets of additions were made because the television deal the first time (12 teams) and the second time (after Pitt/Syracuse) didn’t really change their trajectory…

        Like

        • Bob in Houston says:

          Remember that the Pitt/Syracuse increases were based to a significant extent on the agreement to go to nine-game conference football schedule and an 18-game basketball schedule. It wasn’t a reflection on the value of Pitt and Syracuse.

          Like

  26. zeek says:

    Florida State-Georgia Tech would basically be the #15-16 version of what the Big Ten did with #12-14.

    Power football school combined with demographics. It’s basically the equivalent of Nebraska/Maryland/Rutgers academically and on the field.

    If the Big Ten COP/C pulled the trigger on 12-14 like that, they should do it again on 15-16.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Conference would be split into 4 pods as such:

      2 power football programs (including Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa for this definition) + 2 of the remaining 8:

      East: Florida State, Penn State, Maryland, Georgia Tech
      South: Ohio State, Wisconsin, Rutgers, Purdue
      North: Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Indiana
      West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois

      That’s probably the best division of football strength I can come up with… I know that some people want Wisconsin in the West, but then Ohio State’s division becomes too weak.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        zeek,

        To make things easier, you have to think rivalries first, not balance. The pods will get paired up so the balance differences get smoothed out.

        E – PSU, FSU, MD, RU
        S – OSU, GT, PU, IN
        N – MI, MSU, NW, IL
        W – NE, WI, IA, MN

        Lock 1 rival for 2/3 of the time, and replace them with a secondary rival when the primary rival is in your division (so a 3-4-1-1 schedule). Always do the rivals in success tiers:
        OSU/MI/PSU/NE
        WI/MSU/FSU/GT
        IA/NW/PU/MD
        MN/IL/IN/RU

        Like

        • spaz says:

          Rivalries first, but splitting Ga Tech and FSU, making both islands? It would make sense to swap OSU and FSU in your pods, but that would probably make Buckeye fans pretty upset (understandably). Though I doubt playing Indiana and Purdue every year makes them giddy to begin with.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            spaz,

            “Rivalries first, but splitting Ga Tech and FSU, making both islands?”

            Yep, because the balance is also important. I didn’t say to ignore it. 1/3 of the time FSU and GT are in the same division. The other 2/3 of the time they are locked rivals. The FSU/GT game isn’t going away, it just isn’t in pod.

            “It would make sense to swap OSU and FSU in your pods, but that would probably make Buckeye fans pretty upset (understandably).”

            No, it wouldn’t make sense. You are forgetting to allow for the locked rival games that preserve FSU/GT. You could swap FSU and GT, but GT and PU fit together too well.

            BTW, it would make PU and IN mad too as nobody travels from GA or FL to see those games.

            Like

  27. Craig Z says:

    Go Buckeyes.

    Like

  28. Richard Cain (@Rich_Cain) says:

    The Big Ten had better not be in a passive mode. If schools like FSU, Miami (FL), Clemson, Carolina, Duke, the Virginia schools, et al get fidgety and show the desire to change leagues, the B10 would be extremely foolish to not go after them. I think it was a massive mistake to let Missouri go to the SEC. A Missouri/Kansas pairing would be an excellent addition to the B10. Very unlikely to happen now (I think it still could if Missouri sours on the SEC culture). B10 should have offered Texas A&M too. I am fairly certain A&M’s first choice would always be the SEC. But if the B10 would have been a little more forward thinking in 2009 and offered A&M along with Nebraska and Missouri, think how much stronger the league would be now both competitively and commercially.

    I believe the B10 should look like this by the end of the decade:
    Big Ten Central
    Wisco
    Minnesota
    Iowa
    Nebraska
    Illinois
    Northwestern
    Purdue
    IU
    MSU
    Michigan
    Ohio State

    Big Ten Atlantic
    BC
    PSU
    Maryland
    Rutgers
    UNC or NCSU
    UVa or VaTech
    Clemson
    GaTech
    FSU
    Miami (FL)
    Duke (only if this is the only way UNC comes along)
    If not Duke, then one of these: ‘Cuse or Louisville or UConn or WVU

    This plan restores the cherished traditional B10 rivalries while preserving most of the cherished ACC rivalries. In football, no protected crossovers. Schools play only within their divisions. Winners meet for conference championship. This set up also means division championships are truly special.

    I don’t believe the Big 12 or ACC will ever be able to create cable networks and that means their days are numbered. Some Big 12 will join the SEC and some will join the Pac12+. Ironically, the perceived weakest conference (among the original BCS leagues) – The Big East – will survive all this insanity.

    Like

    • metatron says:

      So basically the Big Ten and the ACC. Why would the Big Ten ever agree to sponsor these teams and give them a handout from their own media revenues?

      Like

      • Rich says:

        It’s about expanding the BTN into these markets and taking in more dollars of carriage fees on the cable packages. Every 1,000,000 subscribers at $1.00 per month = $12,000,000 per year in added revenue. Cable households in North Carolina = 2mm+, Virginia = 1.9mm+, Georgia = 2mm+, So Car = 1mm, Florida = 5.2mm+. That’s at least 12mm+ cable subscribers or $144mm in carriage fees alone. Add in more advertising revenue and increased TV contracts with ESPN, etc and you see the value of adding these schools. The B10 would not be sponsoring these teams at all.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      Richard Cain,

      “The Big Ten had better not be in a passive mode. If schools like FSU, Miami (FL), Clemson, Carolina, Duke, the Virginia schools, et al get fidgety and show the desire to change leagues, the B10 would be extremely foolish to not go after them.”

      Being passive doesn’t mean ignoring opportunities. It means not actively seeking new members but instead waiting for them to show a desire to move. Nobody is suggesting a moratorium on expansion at this point in time.

      “I think it was a massive mistake to let Missouri go to the SEC.”

      I don’t. I think MD serves the B10 better in the long term. The states are about the same size and the B10 already gets part of STL with IL. Besides, MD is growing faster. UMD is better academically, too. On top of that, MD leverages the large alumni bases of PSU, OSU and MI in DC/NOVA while MO would work with IL and NE alumni.

      “A Missouri/Kansas pairing would be an excellent addition to the B10. Very unlikely to happen now (I think it still could if Missouri sours on the SEC culture).”

      KU was never an option. They were and are tied to KSU.

      “B10 should have offered Texas A&M too.”

      You only offer those who will say yes, and TAMU never wanted the B10. It was SEC or bust for them.

      “I am fairly certain A&M’s first choice would always be the SEC. But if the B10 would have been a little more forward thinking in 2009 and offered A&M along with Nebraska and Missouri, think how much stronger the league would be now both competitively and commercially.”

      TAMU wouldn’t have come, so I don’t see a big difference.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      It’s kind of laughable to refer to the Big Ten being “passive,” when the Big Ten has been the instigator all along. But Jim Delany is good at keeping secrets. You just don’t know who he is talking to. I think you can bet your life that Delany will know when any of the schools you mentioned is ready to make a move. If indeed it’s true that FSU has put out feelers to the Big Ten, the only real question is whether the presidents are willing to relax their stance on AAU membership.

      Like Brian, I have to disagree with you on Missouri. It meets the Big Ten’s academic standards, but it doesn’t contribute much athletically, nor does it add a market where the Big Ten was particularly looking to grow. Kansas, as Brian noted, would never move without K-State.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Its a moot point, but KU was talking about the Pac 16 w/o KSU. They were Pac’s 1st choice to replace A&M. And KU was on a short list previously for B10 expansion. It was Rutgers, Missouri, Kansas after ND had turned the Big 10 down in the late 90s.

        Like

        • Brian #2 says:

          Kansas is tied to Kansas State. That is a fact that both sides will begrudgingly agree on.

          Like

          • metatron says:

            Eh, not if the Big XII stays afloat. The whole issue is that the little brother schools aren’t left behind.

            That’s why I think NC State can leave without UNC, but not vice versa.

            Like

          • Rich says:

            KU chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little addressed that issue during an informal meeting with student journalists at the University Daily Kansan. Gray-Little was asked if the Kansas Board of Regents has a requirement that the state’s flagship institutions share the same conference. She responded that there is no such requirement keeping KU or K-State from separating.

            Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2011/09/02/1998806/gray-little-ku-k-state-arent-tied.html#storylink=cpy

            Like

          • TomTom says:

            Members of the Board of Regents in Kansas have said publically that they are willing to let KU go off on it’s own to protect pretty much the best brand in the state of Kansas. They just want to make sure the rivalry is protected. Also the Grant of Rights is much weaker than everyone thinks. There is no way the punitive penalties will hold up in court. Kansas wants out of Big Texas.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Rich

            Just because there is no requirement doesn’t mean they would let it happen.

            There was no legal requirement that Baylor and Tech be in the same conference as Texas, but the politicians forced that to happen.

            Hell, UVA and V-Tech had never been in the same conference, but the governor forced UVA to hold the ACC’s entire expansion plans hostage until the ACC agreed to take the Hokies.

            @TomTom

            There is nothing punitive at all about a GOR. In fact, schools can leave anytime they want to without having to pay the conference a single dime. They would just have to let the Big XII broadcast their home games.

            Kansas couldn’t force the Big XII to give them back their TV rights anymore than Disney can force Fox and Sony to give them back the film rights to X-Men and Spider Man just because when those contracts were signed Marvel didn’t produce their own movies but does now.

            Like

      • Rich says:

        Kansas is not tied to K-State. That’s a myth.

        Like

        • Mike R says:

          However, both KU and K-State are governed by the Kansas Board of Regents, which has fiduciary duties to both institutions. The regents, who are appointed by the governor of Kansas, can’t as a practical or political manner make a decision that would benefit one school at the other’s expense. So, KU and K-State can move independently of the other, but the board has to mindful of the effects on each school’s athletic program, overall financial well-being and branding.

          Like

          • Rich says:

            Although I think Kansas would be of value to the B10, especially if Missouri was also coming, I don’t think Kansas is going to end up in the B10 – even though it’s possible. That being said, what would the Board of Regents do if the Big 12 was disintegrating and Kansas had an invite from either the B10, SEC or the PacX and that invite was contingent on KSU being left out? Would the Board not approve KU’s move without KSU coming along and allow both schools to founder? Would they approve KU moving to a “big” conference and KSU moving to a conference like the Mountain West and then make up for the revenue disparity by funding KSU at a higher level then KU? I have no idea.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Rich

            You are hitting on the key. Kansas and Kansas St. aren’t bound together; they just have veto power over each others movements so long as the Big XII remains viable.

            They could be split, but neither Kansas nor K-State could ever be the first to jump ship.

            Like

  29. Transic says:

    I could see a scenario where UNC, not wanting NCSU to get better under the SEC association, to jump ahead of State and take UVA with them. The fan pressure would be such that UNC can virtually “write their ticket” and go to a conference that is culturally closest to them, the SEC. The SEC won’t go beyond 16 if they get the UNC/UVA combo. All of a sudden, the SEC get a better academic reputation, adding those two to Mizzou, Florida, TAMU and Vandy. Georgia isn’t that far away from acquiring accreditation, so that makes 7 out of 16. This move also locks the B1G out of the Deep South. FSU, GT, Miami and Clemson would be too isolated and they’d be heading for the XII, instead.

    The B1G would “settle” for Virginia Tech and Duke. One a decent football program and the other a basketball powerhouse that the BTN would love having on its schedule.

    NC State and Louisville would fill out the other XII spots (and become officially the Big XVI in name) to bridge between the Plains and the Southeast.

    SEC and Big XII are partners the way B1G and Pac 12 are partners. Anything that help the XII helps the SEC.

    The divisions would be as follows:

    SEC

    East

    UNC
    UVA
    KY
    TN

    South

    SC
    GA
    FL
    VU

    Central

    AU
    AL
    MS
    MSU

    West

    TAMU
    MO
    AR
    LSU

    Big XVI

    East

    FSU
    CU
    GT
    Mia
    WVU
    NCSU
    UL
    ISU

    West

    KU
    KSU
    OU
    OSU
    UT
    BU
    TCU
    TT

    B1G

    Division 1

    RU
    MSU
    PSU
    Md

    Division 2

    UM
    OSU
    VT
    Duke

    Division 3

    IU
    WIS
    Purdue
    Minn

    Division 4

    IA
    NE
    IL
    NW

    Note: The Pac-12 won’t add anyone and the ACC will fill out with schools from the NBE: ECU, USF, UCF, Memphis, Tulane, UConn, Cincy

    SU
    BC
    UConn
    Cincy
    Pitt
    Memphis
    ECU
    Wake
    UCF
    USF
    Tulane
    Temple

    ND-partial

    Don’t care about the rest. 🙂

    Like

    • Richard says:

      1. UNC isn’t going anywhere without taking care of NCSU. They share the same Board.
      2. How is UNC “taking” UVa? UNC would be forced to find a home for NCSU before they can go with UVa. Also, I believe the motivations of the 2 schools are different. NC still has a part of the “Deep South” to them while VA now has a part of the North to them. UVa would (be forced to ) care about VTech ebfore caring about what UNC does.

      More likely is UVa & VTech to the B10 while UNC & NCSU go to the SEC.

      Like

      • Peter says:

        UNC jumping ahead of NC State with UVA/Duke to the SEC is one of the least likely expansion moves, probably even behind the B1G buying someone out from the Big 12’s grant of rights.

        Like

      • Rich says:

        It’s true that UNC and NCSU are part of the same university system. However, I don’t think that means they necessarily end up in the same conference. If one goes to the SEC and one to the Big Ten and both are better off, I don’t think the Board would stand in the way of that. Especially if keeping them together prohibits membership in either conference. SEC and B10 probably don’t want both. Although, as many commenters have said, a UNC/Duke pairing might be attractive to the B10.

        Like

    • Brian #2 says:

      “I could see a scenario where UNC, not wanting NCSU to get better under the SEC association, to jump ahead of State and take UVA with them. The fan pressure would be such that UNC can virtually “write their ticket” and go to a conference that is culturally closest to them, the SEC.”

      This is the exact outcome I predict on UNC as well.

      – UNC knows that the Big Ten will never take NC State, but the SEC might be willing to take the Pack.

      – The SEC is in discussion with UNC and makes it clear they are the top choice, but if they say no they will invite NC State.

      – Two options for UNC: go to Big Ten and be forced to battle an SEC-fueled NC State, or go to the SEC and fight a punch-less NC State in a weakened ACC or Big 12.

      – I have zero doubt that UNC ends up in the SEC once as is said and done.

      Like

      • greg says:

        Very unlikely for UNC to go SEC without NCSU. Their board of regents isn’t going to let NCSU be stranded in a dying conference. And the B12 isn’t a great option either.

        Like

        • bamatab says:

          So you think the UNC BOGs would prefer both schools to be stuck in a pillaged ACC over the possibility of at least getting one of them out to a better conference? And it’s not like the Big 12 plus some of the better ACC football schools isn’t also a better option than a pillaged ACC.

          I’m not sure (and I doubt anyone on this board is) exactly what kind of hand the overall system BOGs would play in determining which conference either school got into. The UNC fans/alumni seem to think that decision will fall unto UNC’s BOTs, not the system BOGs. Now maybe the BOGs could/would influence the overall decision of either school leaving the ACC, but I think the decision of which actual conference they join would be left up to the individual universities.

          Like

          • greg says:

            I believe the UNC BOGs would do their best not to leave NCSU stranded. Voting against a possible UNC to SEC move doesn’t mean they are voting to leave UNC/NCSU in a pillaged ACC in perpetuity. They could block the move, hoping that later both schools would be SEC bound.

            And to those on tobacco road, they may not view a pillaged ACC as the fatal negative that some people do.

            Like

    • Dave in VA says:

      This assumes that UVa would ever consider joining the SEC unless it was the absolute last viable option. Every source I have says that UVa wants nothing to do with being in the SEC and I can understand why (overall academics insufficient by UVa standards, overall politics unacceptable, overall culture not very compatible).

      Like

  30. mstinebrink says:

    The primary reason for not going to press with my expansion index is that I lack data on the numbers of fans per television market. [Does anyone besides Nate Silver have that? (I know that Silver’s data isn’t perfect, but its better than no data.)] The following is how the schools rank, if we ignore “territorial expansion,” and focus only on football brand (60%) + academics (30%) + basketball brand (10%)–shift schools up/down the rankings according to your gut feel for the “territorial expansion” value of each school:

    Note: These are on the 20-to-80 scale, where 60 represents one standard deviation “better than” an average B1G school.

    Note: The “academics” is not simply the US News & World Report rankings; it is partly that (15%), but also how much a school is similar to B1G schools, in ways that are most predictive of a school being a B1G school (i.e. AAU status, research expenditures, total staff, total students, whether a school is land-grant, whether a school is public, etc.)

    Note: I’ve bracketed the B1G institutions and asterisked those that Frank mentioned, in his blog post.

    62.13 – [Ohio State]
    60.24 – [Michigan]
    57.80 – Texas
    56.94 – [Penn State]
    56.06 – Florida
    54.97 – UCLA
    54.89 – Southern Cal
    52.31 – [Wisconsin]
    51.07 – Texas A&M
    50.89 – Alabama
    50.63 – Notre Dame
    50.53 – *North Carolina*
    49.05 – [Michigan State]
    48.81 – *Miami (FL)*
    48.78 – Oklahoma
    48.57 – California
    48.36 – [Nebraska]
    43.16 – Washington
    48.12 – *Georgia Tech*
    47.49 – Tennessee
    47.41 – Auburn
    47.33 – Georgia
    46.93 – LSU
    46.88 – [Iowa]
    46.86 – [Illinois]
    46.66 – *Pitt*
    46.31 – [Minnesota]
    46.22 – *Florida State*
    46.18 – *Virginia Tech*
    46.12 – [Purdue]
    45.86 – [Maryland]
    45.68 – Missouri
    45.55 – Stanford
    45.54 – *Clemson*
    45.13 – *Virginia*
    44.76 – Kentucky
    44.44 – *Duke*
    44.14 – Arizona
    43.97 – Kansas
    43.91 – Arkansas
    42.80 – [Rutgers]
    42.77 – [Indiana]

    42.26 – *Syracuse*
    42.21 – *North Carolina State*

    41.65 – [Northwestern]
    41.12 – *Connecticut*
    41.04 – *Boston College*

    39.69 – *Louisville*

    37.47 – *Wake Forest*

    So, let’s strike from consideration Pitt (no territorial expansion), Clemson (cultural misfit: Deep South), Syracuse (unless it delivers NYC), NC State (below the Indiana U. threshold), and UConn, BC, L’ville, and Wake (below the Northwestern threshold). I have a gut feeling that the B1G wouldn’t leap-frog the Commonwealth of Virginia, to take some combination of UNC, GA Tech, or a Florida school. So, here’s my list of possible B1G’s 15/16:

    UVA/VT + UNC
    UVA/VT + Miami
    UVA/VT + GATech
    UVA/VT + FSU

    UVA + VT

    UNC + Miami
    UNC + GATech
    UNC + FSU
    UNC + Duke

    Miami + FSU
    Miami + GATech

    Like

    • JB says:

      I said on the last thread that UNC, Georgia Tech, Miami, and Florida State are the only schools that really make sense. Virginia and/or Virginia Tech is safe, but I prefer to be more ambitious.

      Like

  31. OrderRestored83 says:

    add

    Like

  32. James says:

    I’m confused by the talk about UVA. From a pure organization standpoint, they’d be a great add to an academically and culturally minded Big Ten, but that’s not a real thing (see: Nebraska academics, Rutgers culture). They deliver no football power, provide no high-level inventory to bring to ESPN, and deliver no markets — I’d bet they’re outside the top five in followers in the DC market (PSU, OSU, Michigan, VT, MD maybe a distant fifth and only because of basketball). If you’re playing the same strategy as we saw with MD & RU, it’s VT or bust for the DC market, then going for BC or UNC if you want to further expand.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I think you underestimate the importance of academics. The people making these decisions actually care about that stuff, and academically UVA is a blue-chip add. It’s true that they’re not athletically important on their own, but UVA would almost certainly come with a partner. Whether the deal makes sense depends on who the partner is.

      Having said that, I think Frank is right that UVA is culturally a southern school, and they won’t lead the charge to detonate the ACC. Maryland made a move because their athletic department is nearly broke, a problem UVA doesn’t have.

      Like

      • Dave in VA says:

        UVa is more southern than northern, but more northern than Deep Southern. They certainly won’t lead the charge away from the ACC in its current configuration but won’t hesitate at all if the ACC does another seismic shift and the B1G comes calling.

        Like

      • James says:

        “The people making these decisions actually care about that stuff”

        This is just not true. Check out Michigan discussion right now about how no one on the academic side was even consulted, they heard about it on the radio (a quote). If Delany & Co cared about academics this wouldn’t be the case. In fact, the Michigan academic leaders are calling this last round a bad move for them and their students, academically.

        Like

        • greg says:

          James, you misread the comment. He didn’t say “the people that care about that stuff are making these decisions,” he said “the people making these decisions actually care about that stuff.” The presidents are making the decisions and they care about that stuff. Comparing the presidents decisions to the opinions of hundreds of faculty at a school, of course you are going to have differing opinions.

          I’d like to hear the reasoning that Michigan academic leaders have to call the last round a bad move academically. How are the Rutgers and Maryland additions hurting Michigan academically?

          Like

    • Dave in VA says:

      In terms of delivering the DC area TV markets (cable and cable-equivalents) — living in No.Va., I can’t speak for the Maryland+DC side as much, but I doubt OSU and Mich draw that well over there. This market is WAY heavily tilted to pro sports plus college hoops. I’d expect the top draws north of the Potomac to be MD, PSU, and then a muddle between UVa, VT, and Navy (sorta local, plus lots of servicemembers and vets — Army would be in the mix if they were more consistently competitive). On the Northern Virginia side, you’ll get the most viewing for UVa and VT, with PSU and George Mason next (and PSU is only tied with Mason because PSU has football), then the service academies.

      If the B1G want to really lock up the DC area market, what little there is of it after the Nats, Skins, Ravens, and Caps-when-the-NHL-is-actually-functioning, they’ll need both UVa and VT — but if they only take one of the two I think it’ll be UVa with academic and cultural grounds being the tiebreaker.

      Like

  33. zeek says:

    Frank, I think the best interpretation of the Georgia Tech talk is that it would serve the same role in the Big Ten as Missouri would have.

    Missouri was always meant to be a “hopscotch” addition in the Big Ten. It’s role was to geographically rationalize Texas or Texas A&M for the Big Ten, so that the Big Ten would become more geographically proximate.

    Georgia Tech’s role would be that role. It’s role would be to geographically rationalize FSU (or Miami). It wouldn’t be an attempt to actually get attention in the Atlanta market; it’s more like planting a flag for FSU (or Miami) to have in the region.

    This is also why UVa-Georgia Tech doesn’t make sense. Why in the world would you need Georgia Tech if you’re going for UVa?

    The same question could have been asked of Missouri. It’s why the Big Ten didn’t go and grab Missouri after Texas showed that it intended to stick to its region or choose the Pac-12 (at the time).

    Like

  34. LetsGoPitt says:

    HTP!

    Like

  35. Richard says:

    An oldie but goodie:

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

    12 of the 13 public schools in the Big10 rank in the top 26 among public universities in research.

    You can make the argument that VTech and FSU are no worse than UNL.

    Like

  36. greg says:

    The University of Maryland and Rutgers University have accepted invitations to join the Committee on Institutional Cooperation effective July 1, 2013.

    Like

  37. Read The D says:

    A few things on Big 12 expansion:

    1. More than anything B12 needs population to supplement recruiting. Any new adds shouldn’t have to suckle from the Texas High School Football teat for recruiting. Losing Missouri and Colorado were body blows in that regard. That’s why the state of Florida is so attractive to B12. Not just because current members don’t want to split revenues, they also don’t want to split recruits.

    2. During the last round of ACC expansion I specifically remember Georgia Tech being adamantly against adding West Virginia because of academics, even though they made more TV sense than Pittsburgh or Syracuse. I’ve been looking for the article but can’t find it anywhere.

    With that in mind, I can’t imagine Georgia Tech would want to leave the ACC for the Big 12 to join other academic lightweights AND be in a division with West Virginia.

    3. “I don’t know if we got to 12 if we would necessarily implement a conference championship game,” Bowlsby said. http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2012/09/07/big-12-football-no-title-game-even-with-expansion/

    If B12 can get Florida State and a partner and get back to 12, no divisions and no CCG would seem to be the happiest medium for the time being. A 9 game conference schedule means you play all but 2 teams and don’t have to play anyone twice in a conference championship game, but you still get the perception benefit of having 12 teams and adding a king-ish team in FSU.

    4. 16 would ultimately work best for B12, as Iowa State can easily, and maybe happily, be banished to an Eastern division.

    Like

    • greg says:

      The northern B12 schools, including ISU, are against expansion because none of them want to be banished to the East. They all depend on Texas for recruiting.

      GA Tech and others were against WVU on academic grounds, but just added Louisville. Times have changed quickly.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Despite what Bowlsby said, the Big 12 won’t go very long without a conference championship game. Otherwise, a team could “win” the conference without playing one of the major powerhouses. Imagine that Oklahoma is 8-1 with a loss to Oklahoma State; K-State is 9-0, but they didn’t play Oklahaoma.

      I do agree that the Big 12 doesn’t feel like a fit for Georgia Tech. Unlike the Big Ten and the ACC, the Big 12 isn’t really an academics-focused conference. Adding an AAU member that is the second-best football school in its state (and a very distant second, at that) would not make sense for them. Clemson or Virginia Tech would suit their purposes a LOT better.

      Like

  38. Psuhockey says:

    I wonder if the Bielema situation and BIG football taking a massive hit will make the Presidents a little more accepting of FSU now. BIG football has to be at an all time low right now.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I believe the presidents have a bit more foresight than that. The Big Ten isn’t going to be that bad every year. Obviously, in any other year, a 12-0 Ohio State team would have represented the Leaders Division in the championship game, not Wisconsin.

      But the fact is, although it lacks AAU membership, FSU is not (academically) all THAT far off of Nebraska. FSU is close enough to the Big Ten’s academic standards that I think it could be justified. Much like Nebraska, FSU just might be one of those blue-chip programs that you just don’t say no to.

      Like

      • greg says:

        Can we all stop comparing academics to Nebraska? They are not the new minimum. They are the one-time outlier football king that the presidents aren’t going to use as the new measuring stick.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          The point is, that once the presidents accepted Nebraska, it sets a new benchmark for what they MIGHT be prepared to consider, in a sufficiently compelling case. I mean, just because YOU think that Nebraska was a one-time deal, does not mean the presidents do. You’re not going to see Mississippi State in the Big Ten, but there’s a pretty good argument that FSU is within the envelope, or at least close enough to be worth considering.

          Like

        • Richard says:

          FSU is also a football king (in a much larger growing state). Rejecting FSU when taking in UNL would be foolish.

          Like

          • greg says:

            Nebraska is in the B1G for the long haul. An FSU addition would be short term and they’d eventually leave.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Maybe, maybe not. Unlike you, I don’t have a crystal ball in to happenings decades from now.

            The B10 has a decades-long GOR.
            In any case, it would still be foolish not to take FSU.

            Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          I certainly hope you’re right Greg…..what these guys don’t understand is that conferences have meaning….or they don’t. The BIG 12, for example, with VWU, is just a temporary collection of schools.

          The BIG is a NORTHERN conference……we’re talking rust belt. These are public schools. They should be dedicated to improving their state and their region. What the hell does it say about your conference when IT wants to move to Florida?

          Like

    • I don’t see why. Bielema is chasing the money. He got a nice pay bump and will likely have a larger budget for his staff.

      I think Adam Rittenberg makes a pretty good statement:

      “The money angle is the most concerning for the Big Ten. Even though the conference ranks as the richest conference thanks to its successful cable network, it is still losing one of its top coaches over what appears to be mostly a pay issue. Decry the out-of-control salaries and never-ending arms race all you want. Just don’t complain when the SEC is winning national titles and the Big Ten is not.”

      (http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/67150/loss-of-bielema-a-b1g-bitter-pill-to-swallow)

      Like

      • Psuhockey says:

        Here’s the problem: although he is chasing money every national sports publication is bashing the BIG. Yahoo, SI, etc, all have the same story: three time rose bowl participating Wisconsin not as good as the 4th or 5th best job in SEC west division. National outlets matter as they set up the group think that is the journalism profession. That’s how you have multiple SEC teams in the top ten every year yet none of them play anybody out of conference. Oklahoma and Ohio State both stink in bcs championship games, yet OSU is an example of the terrible football in the BIG and the Big12 reputation remains as the 2nd best conference in football. National media drive perception and thus votes. Until there is a playoff of conference winners, they play a huge part in college football, like it or not.

        Like

        • @PSUHockey:

          If BigTen presidents care then they already know the solution. It’s a conscious decision not to participate in trying to hire the best coaches, and the results on the field speak for themselves. Bringing in FSU, ND, or the Steelers aren’t going to change the simple fact that you get what you pay for.

          There’s a reason ND supposedly ate something like $20mil to dump Charlie Weis when it was obvious he wasn’t going to work out and paid lord knows how much for Brian Kelly. OSU pays Urban Meyer a crap ton of money and OSU went 12-0 in his first year. It’s noble to believe that the BigTen should be above getting into the arms race, but if you don’t want to participate at this level of the game don’t be surprised when your conference is surpassed. Wisconsin isn’t exactly in a recruiting hotbed to bail them out for being cheap.

          Like

          • Also, even though I agree that it’s BS that OSU is treated like a pariah when they lose versus OU, the problem is in the last decade when OSU faltered no one was there to pick up the slack for the conference. The BigTen, imo, has been content to collect the paycheck. Hopefully, if the Bielema situation shows them anything, it’s that ignoring the arms race for coaches/facilities for so long has just brought the war to their doorstep.

            Like

          • greg says:

            Damn, the rest of the big ten content to cash the paychecks. We all didn’t have the dedication to cheat like OSU and PSU.

            Like

          • The sad part is OSU didn’t need to cheat to win. But, they did, got caught, and paid a hell of a price imo. And add Michigan to that cheaters list as well — they pay Hoke and Mattison well and are on NCAA probation still I believe.

            Like

          • greg says:

            “The sad part is OSU didn’t need to cheat to win”

            Keep telling yourself that.

            Like

          • “Keep telling yourself that.”

            Biggest athletic department budget in the BigTen combined with the best state in the BigTen for recruiting. One of the original kings of the BigTen, from back when it was considered the Big2-Little10, and one of the overall winningest programs of all time. Yes, I will keep telling myself that.

            Like

          • greg says:

            Care to expand on the rest of the league “content to collect the paycheck”? Iowa pays Ferentz better than almost anyone in the country. Wisconsin certainly seems to put an emphasis on football, although they aren’t willing to sell their soul. Minnesota wasn’t content with annual bowl trips under Mason and are just now recovering. MSU, UM, PSU all seem to strive to succeed, and have done well. Even struggling programs like Purdue, Illinois and Indiana make changes in an attempt to succeed.

            Just because they don’t succeed doesn’t mean they aren’t trying. Such claims are completely false.

            Like

          • @Greg:

            Ok ok… I retract that statement about being content to collect a check. It was hyperbole, based on frustration as a fan of the BigTen, and I apologize for that. This board is better than that kind of ESPN comments section-type banter.

            Back to my original point, I still maintain that it behooves the BigTen to pay more for their coaching staffs if they hope to bring better results to the field. There were some older posts on ESPN from June that had the coaching staff wages for all of the public schools in the SEC and the BigTen. For 11 programs in the SEC (minus Vandy because they’re private and the list didn’t have TA&M/Mizzou), the average was $5.98mil/team. For the BigTen (10 programs listed, minus Northwestern and PSU for some reason) it’s $4.6/team. That seems like a pretty big discrepancy to me. I’d link the posts, but more than one link and it seems you get flagged for moderation.

            This isn’t about cheating to win, or instituting lax standards to bring in unqualified students, or cutting all other programs and only funneling money to football, or selling your soul. The BigTen brings in large sums of money, and that’s mostly on the backs of the football programs. It’s about reinvesting it into those programs.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            “Such claims are completely false.”
            —So is your claim that Ohio State University ‘cheated’ to win let alone ‘needed’ to do so. It was the University that discovered & self reported the email to Jim Tressel, if it hadn’t done so the NCAA would never have known it existed.

            Like

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          The writers for national publications are at best lazy and at worst incompetent. The coach of the 3rd best team in it’s division made a lateral move to a school that grossly over paid for him. The real story is that Arkansas made a terrible hire but it’ll take a few years before the writers catch up to that.

          Like

        • Rich2 says:

          The Big10 is being bashed unmercilessly and it should be bashed. There has not been a coherent strategy or strategy for years. “Growing BTN revenues” is not a strategy — it is a means to an end. What is the end? Unfortunately, its short-term benefits hide the emptiness of the vision. Supposedly, the purpose of the BTN is to be a vehicle to enhance competitiveness in sports (in you think it will recruit “better” students, you are daft). However, fundamentally, Wiscy is not prepared to compete with Georgia or Alabama. Georgia is on track to sign 36 recuits on NSD. It matters that they can sign them under NCAA rules only the Georgia faithful. The litany of legal practices that a SEC program is willing to pursue are well known and well documented. Wiscy is not ready — nor do they want to continually invest in upgrading and expanding sports facilities. Money cannot paper over this fundamental issue. This is what has never been addressed in all of this expansion talk — when the goal is to “monetize” your college athletic program, what is your end game – especially if you set your peer group as a group who do not share your values on the role of sport at a university — and some on this board think it would be a good idea to leave the NCAA and form a league of 64. I would love to read the mission statement of such a group.

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Rich—You’re a ND fan aren’t you? This is EXACTLY the reason that I argued that ND, no matter how much they hate the BIG, or vice versa, should have joined the BIG. Right now the SEC is in a position to run amuck with the system, which is certainly corrupt enough already. The NCAA appears to be completely powerless to stop the rambant abuses that occur under its nose–Cam Newton anyone?-unless of course they have the political coorectness police on their side—-goodbye Penn State, even though their abuses had NOTHING to do with actual competition……

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            And…….in case EVERYONE has forgotten, which it appears they have, the original PURPOSE of the BIG, the original conference, was to bring some sanity to the college football universe…..that is lost when you’re talking about FSU and Miami as possible additions to the BIG–completely absurd.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @mushroom
            If you remember, you are the only one around here who remembers 1907. Even Duffman and I don’t go back that far.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            1907 was a damn good year. 1908 sucked.

            Like

        • Pezlion says:

          Yes, but they’re missing the real story, which will eventually become obvious. Arkansas just overpaid for an overrated coach. Bielema lucked into the greatest free agent in college football history last year, and this year “won” the conference because the two best teams in the league were ineligible. Bielema might have brought Wisconsin to three straight Rose Bowls, but they’re about to lose #3 of 3.

          Like

    • zeek says:

      I honestly think that they already have 15-16 in mind, but are waiting for the game to play out now.

      Once we took Maryland/Rutgers, the strategy went into motion. At 12, you could make a claim for long-term stability.

      At 16, you can do the same.

      At 14, you can’t; the Big Ten isn’t at a long-term stability phase yet. This is like being at 11, it’s only a matter of time until you get to the next addition(s).

      I do think that Florida State is on the table if we’re giving a hard look at Georgia Tech. It’s almost impossible to rationalize Georgia Tech as some sort of lone Southern outpost. It has no value in that regard. It’s not like Penn State as a “lone Eastern outpost” which it was for around 20 years.

      You can’t just take Georgia Tech and leave them on an island, and I think the presidents recognize that.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I don’t see why 14 isn’t a stopping point. They just added 2 non-fb powers. They aren’t likely to get any others (unless you add FSU or Miami who are a long ways away). Do they dilute with UVA, etc.?

        I do think they probably are looking at 15 & 16 and analyzing 18. But 14 is nothing like 11, which created imbalanced schedules and left the league 1 short of a championship game with 1 eastern outpost.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          14 is a lot more similar to 11 though in the sense of being short-term stable.

          You can get away with 2 annual rivalries and 8 game scheduling in an 11 team conference.

          It may not be a long-term stable outcome, but it can be in the short-term while you chase a whale for #12 (Notre Dame) for a decent period of time.

          13 on the other hand isn’t short-term or long-term stable. It’s purely unstable.

          12 and 16 are both short-term and long-term stable.

          Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          I really wouldn’t see VA as diluting football. They have a 61000 seat stadium, seem to fill it when they’re decent(unlike Stanford, say)….they seem to me to be a stronger Stanford……now any likely #16 out there does seem to me to dilute, unless its UNC………

          Like

    • Peter says:

      Outside of sports writers, no one cares about Arkansas and Bielema being mutually delusional. Of course Arky worships football. But they don’t achieve anything in it. Bielema wants more money than he was getting at Wisconsin.

      Arkansas has pretty conclusively demonstrated there’s no inherent benefit to spending blank checks on football because SEC SEC SEC.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Psuhockey,

      “I wonder if the Bielema situation and BIG football taking a massive hit will make the Presidents a little more accepting of FSU now. BIG football has to be at an all time low right now.”

      I fail to see the massive hit. Bielema moved laterally for a big raise. So what? It’s quite possible for 2 schools to disagree on the value of a coach.

      Like

  39. zeek says:

    Folks if there was any doubt about the academics being just as pro-expansion as the presidents, there should be no doubt after this CIC press release:

    ‘Said CIC Executive Director Barbara McFadden Allen, “We are excited about building a bigger, more vibrant collaborative with a larger national footprint.”‘

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Maybe we should start talking 18 or 20; Richard’s outlandish scenarios fit into the manifest destiny approach but don’t really seem that wild when you consider just how pro-expansion certain factions in the Big Ten are…

      Like

    • cutter says:

      Here’s a link to the release: http://www.scarletknights.com/news/release.asp?prID=12486#.UL-AR4NrPng

      The CIC Welcomes The University of Maryland and Rutgers University to Membership

      Two More Top-Tier Research Institutions Join Consortium

      The University of Maryland and Rutgers University have accepted invitations to join the Committee on Institutional Cooperation effective July 1, 2013.

      Following the Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors approval of Maryland and Rutgers’ applications to join the athletic conference, the matter of CIC membership was referred to CIC Provosts for action. The Provosts, who govern the CIC, voted unanimously to invite the University of Maryland-­- College Park and Rutgers University to join the consortium.

      The addition of the University of Maryland and Rutgers University will increase CIC membership to 15 institutions, which includes the Big Ten Conference institutions and the University of Chicago. All CIC universities share a very strong research emphasis. Together CIC universities engage in $8.4 billion in funded research each year—the addition of these two universities will push that to $9.3 billion, and will add another 8 million library volumes and over 5,600 more full-­-time faculty to the collective resources of the consortium. In addition, these new colleagues bring leading-­-edge collaborative research projects in areas as diverse as biotechnology, transportation, cyber-­-security, and food safety research.

      CIC Chair and Michigan State University Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Kim A. Wilcox said, “We welcome Rutgers University and the University of Maryland, two top-­-tier public research institutions that share the academic values, aspirations and challenges of the CIC member universities.”

      Said CIC Executive Director Barbara McFadden Allen, “We are excited about building a bigger, more vibrant collaborative with a larger national footprint.”

      About the CIC: The CIC is the nation’s premier higher education consortium of top-­-tier research institutions, including the Big Ten Conference members and the University of Chicago. Through collaboration CIC members save money, share assets, and increase teaching, learning and research opportunities. Founded in 1958, CIC members engage in voluntary, sustained partnerships such as library collections and access collaborations; technology collaborations to build capacity at reduced costs; purchasing and licensing collaborations through economies of scale; leadership and development programs for faculty and staff; programs that allow students to take courses at other institutions; and study-­-abroad collaborations. For more information, please visit http://www.cic.net.

      Like

  40. Joe Williams says:

    I don’t think you need VTech if you can get UVA. VT has a more popular football program than UVA or Maryland, but that’s overall. In the DC metro area, VT may have a slight edge over UVA but not over Maryland, and if you bring in UVA you definitely have the market locked down and VT is superfluous. In other words, it’s much like not needing Pitt for the Pittsburgh market.

    Also, it’s worth noting that VTech’s overall athletic program is surprisingly weak, while UVA brings much to the table in the non-revs and has far more success and tradition in men’s basketball as well. Couple all of that with academics and UVA is the stronger choice and renders VT unnecessary.

    To me, what makes the most sense is to wait out the ACC crumbling a bit more (FSU, Clemson and others heading to Big 12) and then move on UVA and Carolina (and probably Duke). At that point, the benefit of Notre Dame’s ACC deal has pretty much fallen apart with the collapse of the conference and you might be able to bring them in. If not, you’d need one more (Syracuse? Georgia Tech? BC?) to get to 18, but I think there would be a decent chance at ND in that scenario.

    Like

  41. Mike B. says:

    Frank – just don’t understand your continued negative outlook of the prospects of Georgia Tech. I can’t imagine a scenario in which the B1G wouldn’t want a presence in the Atlanta market, even if it was just for basketball, or to attract other future members in the mid/southern atlantic. Will the B1G every be #1 in football in Atlanta? No. But will SEC ever be #1 in Texas? Didn’t stop them from taking Texas A&M.

    Anybody have any figures on B1G alums in the Atlanta area? Just curious how it compares with the other top ten Combined Statistical Areas.

    Like

    • greg says:

      In 2011, GT averaged 46k for football. TAMU averaged 82k. GT 20k students. TAMU 53k students.

      There is a huge difference in their #2 status.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        greg,

        You should give a little context. Bobby Dodd Stadium only holds 55k, and that’s only for the last 10 years. Before that it only held 44k. It’s an old, small stadium in the middle of a major city.

        Like

    • @Mike B. – It’s not that I’m necessarily negative about GT, but rather if you’re going to make a non-contiguous jump and truly go out of the Big Ten’s geographic comfort zone, then it needs to bring extraordinary value. So, taking GT along with one of the Florida schools makes sense, while taking GT with, say, UVA, makes a lot less sense to me. Texas A&M’s fan base alone is strong enough to get the SEC traction in the state of Texas because there’s still a critical mass of SEC fans in places like Houston to build upon (along with all of the Texas residents that end up paying out-of-state tuition to go to SEC schools). From my admitted outside view, the state of Texas seems to be a place that’s just more naturally inclined to latch onto SEC football, whereas there’s an unwavering pro-SEC bias (and corresponding anti-Big Ten bias in a lot of cases) in Atlanta that would need to be broken through. UVA plus GT wouldn’t break through that, but FSU plus GT might be able to do it (so I’m much more bullish on GT if that’s the ultimate proposal).

      Like

      • One thought on 16-team Big Ten pods with GT and FSU included just for discussion purposes:

        NORTH
        Michigan
        Michigan State
        Illinois
        Northwestern

        EAST
        Ohio State
        Penn State
        Maryland
        Rutgers

        SOUTH
        Florida State
        Georgia Tech
        Indiana
        Purdue

        WEST
        Nebraska
        Wisconsin
        Iowa
        Minnesota

        The pods would rotate and there would be the obvious permanent cross-division rivalries (e.g. Michigan – Ohio State, etc.).

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I think you have to put Penn State and Florida State in a division with one another.

          Ohio State is probably the strongest national power in the Big Ten; I think they’re the ones that you don’t pair up with another football power if you don’t have to…

          Like

        • Mike B. says:

          @Frank – sign me up for GaTech/FSU. That would be a visionary move. You outflank the SEC and further destabilize the ACC. Could make the Big 20 a real possibility.

          Like

        • mstinebrink says:

          I recall seeing comment(s) suggesting a system of promotion-and-relegation, on this blog. A 16-team B1G could implement promotion-and-relegation “Lite,” by reserving all of the non-intrapod/non-intradivision games (i.e. those otherwise “protected matches”), as tier-1, tier-2, tier-3, and tier-4, interpod games. Humor me…

          Ranking Frank’s 16-team B1G pods, by 1998-2010 average Sagarin Ratings, we get:

          NORTH
          (1) Michigan – 82.34
          (2) MSU – 76.34
          (3) Illinois – 70.00
          (4) Northwestern – 69.57

          EAST
          (1) Ohio St – 87.70
          (2) Penn St – 81.41
          (3) Maryland – 75.59
          (4) Rutgers – 65.76

          SOUTH
          (1) Florida St – 86.98
          (2) GA Tech – 79.28
          (3) Purdue – 76.22
          (4) Indiana – 65.31

          WEST
          (1) Nebraska – 83.88
          (2) Wisconsin – 81.94
          (3) Iowa – 77.60
          (4) Minnesota – 73.15

          Let the schools play their intrapod rivals, each season, and pair-up the pods, on a rotating basis, per the typically suggested, 4-pod/16-team schedule (i.e. 3+4+1 or 3+4+2). Then, let the tier-1 teams (i.e. Michigan, OSU, FSU, and Nebraska) play each other, every year, in round-robin fashion [if given a 9-game schedule–or lock-in Michigan-OSU and FSU-Nebraska, if 8 games]; likewise for the tier-2’s, -3’s, and 4’s. Then, adjust the intrapod tier rankings – not the composition of the pods, themselves – as individual schools improve/regress, relative to their intrapod rivals. So, for example, a good run by Wisconsin might promote the Badgers to tier-1 and relegate Nebraska to tier-2, if the Huskers faltered. [I’d use 5-year, rolling average F/+ ratings, per Football Outsiders, instead of Sagarin, to make it interesting–shorter duration, rolling averages are more dynamic; F/+ is a better measure than Sagarin.]

          This would be most appealing to the TV powers, while maximizing strength-of-schedule for those most likely to compete for a national championship and also opening the door to a Cinderalla-ish run [to the B1G CCG], by reducing the strength-of-schedule of the lesser programs. But, which AD’s/coaches would object–those of the kings, the princes, or the paupers???

          P.S. In case you were curious…

          Avg. 1998-2010 Sagarin Ratings:
          WEST = 79.14
          EAST = 77.62
          SOUTH = 76.95
          NORTH = 74.56

          Like

          • Brian says:

            mstinebrink,

            “But, which AD’s/coaches would object–those of the kings, the princes, or the paupers???”

            Lots of people would complain.

            1. You’ll never find a method that people will accept for ranking teams. Advanced stats are BS to most people, and so are computer rankings. W% is nice but only if everyone plays the same schedule.

            2. Relegation is a European soccer thing. That’s not going to go over well with most CFB fans.

            3. The kings will complain about getting tougher schedules. The princes will complain about not being considered kings and not getting to play as many kings. The paupers will complain about playing so many other paupers (bad for ticket sales)

            4. If the kings beat up on each other, it looks bad for the B10.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          Frank the Tank,

          I’d swap OSU and FSU in your pods. It helps PU and IN by keeping them with OSU (GT and FSU fans aren’t going to IN for games) and keeps a B10 king in each pod. FSU and GT are locked rivals so that game doesn’t go away. It also provides better balance:

          NE+WI
          MI + MSU
          PSU + FSU
          OSU + GT

          Those are more balanced than OSU + PSU and FSU + GT.

          Like

    • Richard says:

      Right. The difference between Texas and A&M is kind of like the difference between USC and UCLA. The difference between UGa & GTech is more akin to the difference between Iowa and ISU.

      Like

  42. Richard says:

    I think if FSU is willing to move, the B10 should take the ‘Noles and Miami. FSU, VTech, and UNL are all about the same level in research, and Miami is rapidly trending from a party school for rich kids in to a research powerhouse (like USC in the ’70’s/’80’s and Stanford before that). Culture and global warming are actually a bigger concern for me than academics when ti comes to FSU, but I think it’s worth the risk.

    If the B10 takes the FL schools, the VA schools could be had. I think UNC & NCSU will opt for the SEC, but where UVa & VTech go is in doubt. I think they’ll lean towards the B10, though they may go to the SEC if the SEC is willing to go to 18.

    Regardless, I don’t see the SEC going past 18, so there would still be some opportunities for the B10 out there for 15 & 16.

    I also don’t see the B10 go to the Big20 because the last 2 spots will be saved for UF & UGa on the tiny possibility that the SEC implodes. 18 is certainly possible, however.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I think you have to bring Georgia Tech though; it’d be like Nebraska/Maryland/Rutgers; something for the CIC folks to be giddy about and something for the football/bean counters to be happy about…

      FSU-Ga Tech is a natural extension of the Nebraska-Maryland-Rutgers strategy.

      Like

    • frug says:

      When was Stanford ever a party school for rich kids?

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Pre-WWII.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Are you confusing WWII with the Spanish-American War, because Stanford was a founding member of the AAU back 1900.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Well, USC was still seen as a party school for rich kids in the ’70’s and ’80’s (and NYU was the school for rich NYC kids who couldn’t get in to CUNY in the ’70’s) even though they were both AAU by then.

            OK, I understand your point, though; maybe Miami’s still a decade away from where USC & NYU were in the ’70’s.

            Like

  43. zeek says:

    http://espn.go.com/new-york/college-sports/story/_/id/8713564/rutgers-sues-big-east-exit-fee-wait-time

    “The lawsuit, filed in Middlesex County Court in New Jersey, was first reported by Courthouse News Service. Rutgers contends in its complaint that the $10 million exit fee “arbitrarily applies to some, but not all, of the Big East football schools, and the effect is to penalize certain members if they seek to withdraw.”

    Rutgers points to the way the Big East allowed Syracuse, Pittsburgh, TCU and West Virginia to leave the league before the 27-month waiting period, and alleges the Big East has failed to collect $39.5 million in withdrawal fees from departing schools — money that was set to be divided up among remaining members.”

    Like

    • frug says:

      My guess… they pay $10 million in exchange for the Big East waiving the wait period (remember that Rutgers voted for the $10 million exit fee unlike ‘Cuse and Pitt)

      Like

    • acaffrey says:

      The Big East should counter-sue noting that Rutgers voted against an extension of the TV contract with ESPN, which ultimately was among the contributing factors for Syracuse and Pitt to leave for the ACC. These schools are shameless. Just pay your $10M and move on. Borrow the money against the largesse to come from the B1G.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        They’re just anticipating the BE who sues everybody. The BE just needs to die.

        Rutgers will pay the $10 million. They just don’t want to stay for 27 months. That’s what this is about.

        Like

        • acaffrey says:

          True. The Big East should have the protocol in place to say in public–you want to leave in 2013, it’s X. in 2014, its Y. In 2015, its Z. Choose. Not their first rodeo here.

          Like

          • Phil says:

            To me Rutgers has one very valid point here, and that is the inconsistency in exit fees.

            An exit fee is supposed to reflect actual damages to the conference, otherwise they are punitive. Boise signed for a $5mm exit fee until they start play, but that dropped to $1mm for the BE not remaining an automatic qualifier.

            Now that the BE has to compete with the other 4 conferences for a bid, it is even MORE damaging if Boise left the Big East. Reducing the Boise exit fee by 80% means the exit fees have no correlation to actual damage.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            The Big East, including Rutgers, agreed to that protocol regarding Boise State. So that is irrelevant. It is further irrelevant given that Boise State has not exercise that right yet.

            Rutgers does have a point that the Big East cannot possibly hold them to the 27-month window. However, everyone else has paid to get out. So Rutgers has to pay. The only issue is amount.

            The amount should be the amount set by the rules. If the Big East is refusing to negotiate as it did with WVU, Syracuse, and Pitt, then they are turds and deserve to be sued. Rutgers should pay what the other schools paid at a minimum, and perhaps more given that Rutgers agreed to a higher amount even after several defections.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            Also, the inconsistency is based on timing. The fees increased before WVU left. Plus, WVU left one year earlier than Pitt and Syracuse. TCU left before even joining. It’s not like there has been favoritism. Plus, Rutgers, as part of the Big East, agreed to whatever WVU, Pitt, TCU, and Syracuse had to pay.

            Like

          • Phil says:

            I agree that RU will pay X dollars and join the same year as MD.

            The lawsuit seems to be less about whether RU will pay than how much “credit” they should have to offset their fee. Evidently there is disagreement over whether RU is due a full share of the $39mm in exit fees generated while they were a member, or just a share of what the Big East was actually paid while RU was a member (which according to the lawsuit is minimal).

            Maybe the Big East strategy isto defer receipt of these exit fees long enough so that when conference reorganization is finally done, the handful of remaining original Big East schools will share about $100mm

            Like

  44. zeek says:

    @greg

    Why do you think FSU would leave the Big Ten? If they join with Georgia Tech, then the only alternative conference for them is the SEC.

    I’m not really sure they’d have that much of an incentive to leave for the SEC.

    It’s like saying that Texas A&M would leave the SEC for the Big 12. Geographic proximity isn’t always destiny and Georgia Tech would be a mitigating factor in that respect.

    If they join with Ga Tech, they’d be in a significantly more prestigious academic configuration than UF; you don’t think the president and academics there wouldn’t love to have that over UF for the long haul? The schools compete but have never really felt the need to be in the same sphere of influence…

    ————————————————————————————————–

    All of that being said, FSU is probably the reverse of Missouri in this respect; their first alternative may be the SEC (like Missouri’s was the Big Ten), but they’d gladly accept a long-term configuration with the Big Ten (like Missouri has with the SEC).

    Like

    • greg says:

      “Why do you think FSU would leave the Big Ten?”

      They would be an EXTREME geographic outlier. Comparing TAMU’s proximity with FSU is a red herring, they aren’t even comparable. SEC may be FSU’s only other option right now, but in 30 or 50 years, who knows.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        How are they an extreme geographic outlier with Georgia Tech as a partner?

        Once you talk about schools far away than Georgia Tech in the ACC, FSU is getting on a plane.

        Going to the Rust Belt is basically an extra hour in plane flight over going to the Mid-Atlantic. And that’s ignoring the fact that they’re currently in a football division with Maryland and BC and soon to be Pitt or Syracuse as well (and Maryland subbed out for Louisville is a wash).

        Like

        • greg says:

          Adding GA Tech gives them one “local” school, but the weight of the conference remains far away.

          Not every sport flies. Van rides to NC are much more feasible than van rides to the Midwest. The ACC does have northern schools, but the B1G is 100% northern.

          A quick google:

          ACC tennis tourney in greensboro.
          ACC golf tourney in greensboro.
          ACC womens soccer tourney in cary, NC
          ACC mens soccer tourney in maryland

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            AND….the NE v. SE factions have been at odds within the expanded ACC and will be even more so at odds with the additions of PITT and SYR. Geography and regions and fit matter……the realignment generals and expansion tycoons on here notwthstanding………

            Like

          • @mushroomgod – I clearly understand what you’re saying and sympathize. It’s why I’ve been writing a lot more about “cultural fit” lately because I’m concerned about just grabbing land for the sake of grabbing land, as well. That being said, the ACC splinters were more because the Southern football-oriented schools didn’t find much value in the Northern school additions. They aren’t just looked at Northern interlopers – they’re seen as diluting revenue and football strength. It’s doubtful that would happen with the Big Ten adding Florida State (or as we discussed here seemingly ages ago, the prospect of Texas moving). That’s a school that can carry its weight in financial and football power. If FSU is truly asking the Big Ten about moving, then I have a hard time seeing Delany say no (and he’d likely convince the presidents to take them). If you’re going to have a geographic appendage, then make that appendage count.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            greg,

            “Adding GA Tech gives them one “local” school, but the weight of the conference remains far away.”

            The whole ACC is far from FSU.

            GT – 4.5 h
            Clemson – 6.5 h
            Miami – 7.5 hours
            UNC/Duke/NCSU – 9 h
            WF – 9.5 h
            VT – 10.5 h
            UVA/OSU/MD – 12.5 h

            “Not every sport flies. Van rides to NC are much more feasible than van rides to the Midwest. The ACC does have northern schools, but the B1G is 100% northern.”

            Yes, they’ll have to fly everywhere. They’ll have to spend some of that extra B10 money on travel. I think NE estimated about a $2M increase in travel for them, so FSU would be in that $2-3M ballpark. The increase from the B10 in payouts would easily cover that.

            Like

      • Peter says:

        FSU won’t care about being a geographic outlier. They were built on being a “anybody, anywhere” independent.

        Whether the B1G cares about the geography is far, far secondary to whether they care about the academics.

        Like

        • greg says:

          They won’t care about joining, but some day they will leave. Thats the problem.

          Like

          • Peter says:

            Even if someone wanted to leave the B1G, they can’t. The grant of rights that’s central to the B1G’s TV structure prevents it.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            We’ll see about that……….I haven’t seen any contracts in the modern college sports world binding anyone to much of anything.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Mushroom: schools have fought contracts when there were clear economic reasons to do so. Vague feelings of southerness aren’t worth millions of dollars (otherwise, FSU would not be interested in joining in the first place).

            Like

      • ohiomarc says:

        Tallahassee is closer to Columbus than it is to Austin.

        Like

    • drwillini says:

      Zeek you bring up a very interesting point. What do you think the acadmic side of UF would say to FSU getting access to CIC?

      Florida is a very interesting state demographically. I lived there for nearly 10 years. FSU belongs in the SEC. Its fan base is SEC-like, the motto of the Tallahassee Chamber of Commerce was “Florida with a Southern accent.”

      I would challenge anybody to find a better purely institutional fit with the B1G than UF. There is no school anywhere in the country not currently in the B1G that would be a better institutional fit. The folks born and bred in central Florida have a lot of the same attitudes as midwesterners.

      Southeastern Florida is dominated by transplants from the northeast. Frank is right about Miami having a northern bias, and if B1G is moving into the NE corridor it is compatible, but it lacks the overall fit of UF.

      This whold FSU putting out feelers thing is very interesting. The combination of good/great schools, great football, and great demographics could drive this whole thing to a different plane if B1G is really considering such a move.

      Like

  45. tigertails says:

    B1G could add 6 more ACC teams in the mid-atlantic & other major markets to create the Big Twenty Conference & BigTwentyNetwork =

    SOUTH POD = Georgia Tech, North Carolina, NC State, Virginia Tech, Virginia

    EAST POD = Miami, Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Northwestern

    NORTH POD = Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana

    MIDWEST POD = Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska

    Teams would play the other teams in their pod annually (4 games) & be paired with another pod (5 more games, 9 total conference games) to create a division. The division winners would play in the B1G championship (no rematches this way). The other pod you’re paired with rotates annually so you’ll play everyone in 3 years. The student-athlete would get home&aways with most every team if they stay 5 years. The lucky player that gets a medical redshirt & regular redshirt would get to completely tour the Big Twenty in his 6 years.

    If this happened, the SEC would need to play catch-up with FSU, Clemson, NC State, Louisville, West Va & Pitt to get to 20.

    XII could stay at 9-10 or the 4 Texas teams, the 2 Oklahoma & 2 Kansas schools could join the PAC-20.

    Boston College, UConn, Cuse, Notre Dame, Pitt, Cincy, Wake, USF, Iowa State & BYU wouldn’t like 3-twenty team conferences.

    Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      Who Delany chooses next will tell us if he is open to 18/20. If he were to choose FSU/GT, it’s pretty obvious he is going in that direction. I think a BTE and a BTW are very real possibilities, with Virginia/Tech UNC/Duke (or NCstate) GT/FSU (or Miami) filling it out
      …unless, of course, ND reconsiders and fills one of those slots.

      Like

  46. JMann says:

    Frank – like most of your writing but you have to get over this idea there is a connection between UNC and Duke in conference expansion. UNC is a state flagship university; Duke is a small private school that just happens to be 15 miles down the road. Most of Duke’s students come from out fo state and most go somewhere else after graduation – thus Duke has little political pull or conenctiosn in the state.

    The real partner/conenction to UNC is NC State – both are part of the UNC system and share the same overall Board fo Govenors. If UNC needed a partenr to move it would be NC State, as the board is not going to let one go and leave the other in a rump ACC. Alternative would be to work out deals where both move at the same time – UNC to Big 10 and NC State to SEC.

    Like

    • bamatab says:

      But if there ends up being more exodus out of the ACC, would they choose to at least try and save one of their schools and allow UNC to go to the SEC, or force both to stay in an ACC that has basically become the Big East? The more a read the UNC board, the more I doubt that the PTB will go to the B1G while NCST goes to the SEC. They are extremely worried that if that happened, then NCST would pass them as the football school of NC (and thus could possibly pass them in overall sports visibility), and (to a lesser extent) that their baseball program would die on the vine so to speak.

      It may turn out that the SEC could offer both UNC and NCST. But if that doesn’t happen, I don’t see the BOG’s regulating both schools to die on the ACC vine when they could save at least one of them (and I still think that NCST would end up in what ever the remaining 4th conference ends up being).

      Like

  47. frug says:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/2499/2499what-is-a-bcs-game-worth-to-northern-illinois

    But there is some solace for[AD]Compher: If he can’t persuade fans to spend more by going through the school and can’t sell out the allotment, NIU won’t be left with a budget crisis. MAC commissioner Dr. Jon Steinbrecher told ESPN.com on Monday that he expects the conference presidents to approve a disproportionate revenue sharing plan that will cover NIU’s costs. Steinbrecher said the five non-BCS conferences will split $12 million, and the MAC will get roughly two-thirds of another $12 million bucket.

    Like

  48. zeek says:

    McMurphyESPN Brett McMurphy
    Hooray more realignment! Chicago State leaving Great West for WAC in 2013, sources told @ESPN

    Like

  49. JayDevil says:

    The big, nuclear schools (UVa, UNC) won’t be the next to move. It’ll be the schools at the fringe, with no ties to the conference traditions, and no true geographic rivals. Think GT, FSU, Miami, or Clemson.

    The B1G jabbed the ACC by taking Maryland. It’ll let other conferences steal away the ACC’s football revenue properties (FSU, Clemson, Miami). Then, the remaining ACC schools look around, and find themselves to be four North Carolina schools, two Virginia schools and a few non-continguous Big East teams. They’ll see that they’re a regional, non-football conference with half the payouts of the other major conferences. That’s when the B1G will nab some core schools– and their original targets (UVa, UNC, and/or some sister schools).

    Like

    • metatron says:

      Clemson flirts, but I think she stays faithful. Florida State is gone when they get an invite. Miami is radioactive.

      UNC = Texas, NC State = Texas A&M, Virgina/VaTech = OU/OSU.

      Everyone wants the Tar Heels, but they’re happy where they’re at. The SEC tries to get UVa and UNC, but they settle for NC State and Florida State. Virgina Tech stays for the academic rep.

      Like

  50. duffman says:

    @ Frank

    I am invoking the spirit of Vincent here in that the two of us took much flack early on for suggesting that the Terps would be a B1G add. While you favor Miami as the private I feel the same way about Duke. Like you I am not Duke fans just because they are a media only team followed by folks who know nothing about basketball. As a basketball fan I have been to NCAA tourney games on Duke tickets that were well below any for IU or UNC (and might possibly cloud my acceptance of Duke in the B1G for personal reasons) and sitting with their fans I am not impressed with their knowledge of the game.

    I still say 16 is the number and all these discussions of 18 or 20 are at least a decade or two from serious discussion. At best that will only happen when the contracts expiring in the 2020’s force the next movement. I still say UVA and UNC is the most appealing to 16 followed by Duke and Kansas. The Kansas option man not be too farfetched if the B12 boards are an indication. Some have posted the B12 would release Kansas from the GoR if they could “trade” the spot for an added ACC football school that had a strong secondary position in baseball. Kansas is a basketball outlier in the B12 and their baseball is no winner. Swapping them for Miami with their baseball and football history might make the B12 receptive to such a deal.

    I would break down the privates like this :

    Duke
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Miami
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Boston College, Syracuse
    .
    Wake Forest (about 24 spaces below and no chance)
    Notre Dame – I still think no matter what the Irish would pick the B1G as last resort

    .

    .

    I really think think Duke is the only private with a shot. As for the public schools :

    Virginia
    North Carolina
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Kansas as AAU + basketball + midwest
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Georgia Tech – problem is delivering a market that is 90% SEC
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Uconn as public will be more valuable than private Boston College or Syracuse
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Pittsburgh – overlap with PSU kills them
    Florida State or Clemson – B12 is the better option for them
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Virginia Tech or NC State – 3rd pick behind SEC and B12
    .
    everything below this point would be Wake Forest level odds
    Cincinnati – no real chance
    Navy – no real chance
    Louisville – moves across the river and 750 endowment and desire to upgrade

    Like

  51. pioneerlion says:

    Contratry to your point about the Northerization of Virginia, it is complete. VA has voted democrat in the past two presidential elections, has two democratic senators, and more democratic governors over the past 25 years than republican. Northern VA is a completely homogenous culture zone, and Hampton Roads-Norfolk is also pretty homogenous with all the retired military from across the country. Lots of big10 alums in close in to DC, downstate along the I-95 corridor, and out west along I-66. UVA may still think its a southern school, but the increased revenue of the big10of12 goes a long way toward mitigating those, ahem, “traditions”.

    Like

    • Peter says:

      NOVA is going to consume the state. It’s rich and growing rapidly. Not true for the agricultural areas in the south and west of Virginia.

      Like

    • Gfunk says:

      NOVA = Homogenous : /, try multicultural, which has a tendency to side with Blue – since Blue values mutli-culturalism from a platform perspective.

      Like

  52. […] The Mayans Were Right: Conference Realignment Armageddon (or Maybe Not) FAQ Part I — Big Ten E… […]

    Like

  53. drwillini says:

    Slive and Delaney could be much more collaborators than competitors here. Right now they really con’t compete with each other much for cable markets, they both compete with the ACC and Big 12. The SEC is soon to have its own cable network, and that will put them in the same position as the big ten as both a provider and purveyor of content. The most likely expansion for both conferences is the heart of the ACC. Neither has a school in NC or Va. Both of the NC schools and Va schools have political entanglements that would make in hard for a unilateral move, and yet neither conference really wants to take two additions in the same market.

    Not sure how this scenario fits in with GaTech/FSU.

    Like

    • Geo says:

      Simple. FSU and Clemson jump ship to Big 12, fractures ACC, then North Carolina decides where it wants to go (Big 10 or SEC) and decides BIG 10 and takes UVA and Georgia Tech with them, leaving Notre Dame one last option. If Notre Dame declines, BIG 10 says screw it we are going to a Monster 20 team conference and adds Kansas and Mizzu along with UVA, GT and NC. One last spot is out there for either ND or Syracuse or Duke or Pitt. ND caves. THE NEW BIG 10. This all goes down in the next 12 to 18 months, completely hinges on FSU to move.

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      I think both will want UNC and VA….so I see them more as competitors than collaboreators….

      Like

  54. zeek says:

    “Lance Allen of WTMJ is reporting Chryst’s buyout is near 8 Million.”

    Off of Wisconsin’s Scout board.

    Big gap between there and Bielema’s $1 million buyout…

    Like

    • Peter says:

      With what has happened to Pitt, not surprising. They can’t change coaches again.

      The Bielema Arky “I quit” buyout is only $3 million. The Arky “fire him” buyout on the other hand is $12.8 million for the first three years, and is $9.6 million as late as December 31st, 2016. It’s $6.4 million through December 31st, 2017, while his “I quit” buyout is down to $1 million. That goes to $3.2 million/$500,000 in the last year of 2018.

      I think I see why UW had no interest in matching this. The whole contract is essentially guaranteed – and he can always leave fairly cheaply. Very, very lopsided deal.

      Like

  55. Gfunk says:

    This is the best thread I’ve seen on B1G expansion because incredible potential awaits with either a Florida State – GT or Florida State – Miami pairing as 15 and 16.

    Why not focus on FSU with either GT or Miami? Florida’s culture is already hodge podge enough to absorb Midwestern and Eastern culture. Miami Dade – Ft. Worth and Tampa-St. Pete already have generations of Midwestern and Northeastern / eastern culture.

    But, here’s a somewhat radical idea that could help make this work: if we can get FSU with either GT or Miami – then the B1G should push for athletic facilities that house our Northern baseball and track field programs from winter to early spring. The B1G’s glory years of baseball are distant, yet the sport’s popularity is growing & revenue is starting to rise in this sport. I chat with FSU fans who like the idea of the BIG but they often raise the baseball issue. Miami, FSU and GT are quite relevant baseball programs in the modern era. FSU has more than 20 CWS appearances. Miami has won 2 NC’s over the past 20 years. GT has recent CWS appearances. If the B1G could push athletic facilities for the northern teams to play ball on these campuses for the early part of the baseball season – essentially spring training and early season games – a win, win for everyone.

    Also, why not push the CIC to build classroom bldgs for the Baseball and Track and Field athletes during this vital period?

    These were ideas I threw at the BIG Expansion Survey.

    Also, FSU and Miami can achieve AAU status within a decade of B1G membership, esp if they have a plan for it. Fellow B1G members could use a lot of muscle to make it happen.

    FSU, Miami and GT are already use to northern travel via the ACC, Miami, especially, during their Big East years. The future ACC, if it lasts, has already broken up their geographic contiguity. They’ve also exchanged their claimed academic integrity for Lville.

    Just saying . . .

    Like

  56. metatron says:

    I wrote a small summation earlier, but I’ll elaborate:

    I don’t believe the Big XII will expand. The smaller schools might be reluctant to be separated from Oklahoma and Texas again, and Texas definitely doesn’t want it. That leaves the Big Ten and the SEC – personally, I believe the SEC will strike first. The obvious targets are the same as they are for us – Virginia and North Carolina, but neither are likely to leave their comfort zone unless the league were to implode, and that’s nigh impossible.

    Florida State is an obvious defector, but without the Big XII, they’ll eventually have to bank on the other SEC powers to lean on the holdouts. A possible Big Ten invitation (or the rumor of such) would give a lot of leverage to the Seminoles here. They’re a national brand, and like Nebraska, they’ll boost their national ratings (which has already irritated CBS). Miami’s going to be executed, there’s nothing they can do and nobody will touch them. Clemson and Georgia Tech, I believe, while frustrated, ultimately have no options and prefer the country-club atmosphere of the ACC, over the perceived “trailer park” that is the SEC.

    Now NC State is the wildcard in this. Their fans want to leave the SEC, and the SEC wants into North Carolina. They’d rather have the Tar Heels, but good luck convincing them to give up their own little fiefdom. With UNC still atop the ACC, I find it hard to believe that the Wolfpack’s departure could ever be held up. Virginia Tech is another rumor, but I’m not sure they’re ready to make a football-first decision. Besides, with Florida State gone, they’re the default champion every year. It’s down to those three schools: FSU, VT, and NC State.

    The Big Ten, on the other hand, will wait. Fortress Midwest is locked down on both sides of the Mississippi, so unless Jim Delany can fast talk Bob Bowlsby into letting Kansas buy back their rights, the Big Ten will wait out a never coming UNC and UVa. This would lead into stagnation, except…

    With the disgruntled out of the ACC, I expect a grant of rights to be instated. Notre Dame is a member of the ACC, but they play football as an independent. This is an important distinction, because that entails a number of things, such as the $50MM exit fee. Notre Dame’s a fiercely independent school, and a grant of rights is like a Catholic marriage: you’re in forever. I think the school would have to look at their long-term prospects seriously and honestly – if the Big XII can’t offer them the ACC’s deal (because there’s no way the XII takes anything less than the five guaranteed games the ACC got), I think the Big Ten becomes a real possibility. Even if they don’t want to leave, I can only see them becoming the lone dissenter in a group of traumatized survivors – ejection becomes a real possibility.

    If that ever happens, which admittedly is a very large “if”, then who becomes #16? I think Jim Delany calls Brady Deaton and sweet talks him over a warm candle-lit dinner, or at his romantic cabin. Something along the lines “Girl, you knew you were always my #1, but I’m sorry we couldn’t make it work. You know you want to be with us: we’ve got real rivals for you, a Bentley made of solid gold, and all those sweet academics you’ve been dreaming about.” Mizzou’s conflicted; she’s been left at the altar before and while the SEC is a great guy, her heart is in Chicago.

    The SEC for its part, blinks then laughs and then puts an all out blitz on Virginia Tech, Clemson, and Georgia Tech, or West Virginia (in that order) before the ACC’s grant of rights come into effect. The ACC adds UCONN because nobody’s there to argue anymore.

    I can’t say all of this will be correct, or that it’s even likely (it isn’t). It’s just a scenario I see using the imperfect information I’ve been given. I think we’re seeing a period of irridentism and local annexation because the two drivers in this have been the most conservative and cautious thus far.

    Like

    • metatron says:

      I should point out that unlike the Big XII, the ACC is still a tight unit. Outside of Florida State, I don’t believe any of the school administrations have expressed a desire to leave. Even Maryland was conflicted and only did so out of necessity.

      The SEC will have to demonstrate (and I believe they can) a real opportunity for economic growth for potential members. NC State might be susceptible to this if they allow themselves to become jealous of their sibling’s power and status.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      Missouri doesn’t offer what the schools on the East Coast do though.

      The Big Ten has been conserving spots to get more East Coast exposure, which is why the Big Ten started looking East after taking Nebraska in a move to 12.

      There is no future Missouri-Big Ten connection. It makes absolutely no sense.

      Like

      • Read The D says:

        1 Year removed it looks like Missouri made the biggest realignment mistake.

        They started in a conference of 100 year rivals, close geographic proximity, a realistic shot to be competitive every year with an in on Texas recruiting turf.

        Then, opened the door for rival, Nebraska, to get into where they longed to be, the B1G.

        Then, joined a conference with no rivals, are an extreme geographic outlier, will likely never win even a division championship and have no new recruiting turf.

        Then, the conference they left signed a GOR, stabilizing the conference for more than a decade.

        Then the conference they still really want to be in signals with it’s next expansion moves that they aren’t even looking in their direction anymore.

        Like

          • @Mike – Oh yeah, as much as Andy has been an irritant to many with his blind Tiger Blood love, Missouri very clearly made the correct choice to join the SEC last year under those circumstances. There isn’t any guarantee that the Big Ten would even be looking at Mizzou as an option today with the ACC as a possible poaching ground. Missouri was in the right place at the right time when the SEC needed someone to come along with Texas A&M, so they took advantage. In fact, I said last year that Missouri turning down the SEC would be the dumbest conference realignment move in history, and I’d stand by that remark today. Maryland leaving the ACC for the Big Ten was honestly a much more difficult decision for the Terps than Mizzou leaving the Big 12 for the SEC.

            Like

          • Read The D says:

            At the time, I too thought Missouri made the correct move. But hindsight is 20/20 and if things stay the current course, Missouri made the worst move.

            Also, just because it’s the worst move doesn’t mean it is a terrible move. Greg is right, It’s not bad to be in the SEC.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            @Frank, haha

            I’m looking forward to Dec 22 in St. Louis. Are you going to be there?

            Like

          • @Andy – Unfortunately, no. Holiday family obligations here at home in Chicago. The game will be on, though. It should be a good test for both teams. I’m concerned that the gaudy Illini record has come against mediocre competition, so we’ll see the team’s true colors starting this weekend with a game at Gonzaga (as in actually in Spokane as opposed to Seattle, so that’s not going to be easy) and then up through the Braggin’ Rights Game.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Missouri’s a bit of an unknown right now too. We currently only have one player (Phil Pressey) from last year’s 30-5 team. But we’ve got a lot of good transfers, including a couple of 5 star recruits. With as weak as the SEC is this year I like our chances.

            As much as I talk about Missouri I don’t actually live in Missouri. I work at a Pac 12 school in California. I make sure to go to one Mizzou football game and one basketball game per year thoug, and this year I’ll be at the Braggin’ Rights game in St. Louis. Hopefully it’s another classic.

            Like

        • greg says:

          I would agree that Missouri didn’t get their ideal landing spot. But the SEC is certainly not a bad result.

          Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          You are seriously mistaken about Missouri. They never had “a realistic shot” to be competitive with Texas. How many Big 12 championships did they win? Answer: zero. When they were in the Big Eight, they won the title exactly once, in 1969.

          Missouri was going to be an also-ran in any league. The only question was where they’d make more money. The Big Ten was unavailable, and still is. Delany made perfectly clear that the league’s expansion direction is toward the east and south, not the west. They went west for a trophy program like Nebraska. They didn’t (and wouldn’t) for Missouri.

          So that left the SEC. Sure, they’ll be lovable losers there, just as they were (most of the time) in the Big 8 and the Big 12. But at least they’ll be wealthier losers.

          Like

          • Read The D says:

            They had a more realistic shot than Kansas State. The B12 is down to 2 football powers and a bunch of teams with a punchers chance.

            Missouri WANTED the B1G. Publicly. I never said it was the other way around. B1G maybe considered them but found a better option.

            I estimate Missouri will make marginally more money in the SEC over the next 25-30 years than what they could have made in the B12 but they sacrificed a lot to get it..

            Like

          • Andy says:

            read the d, that’s a preposterous statement. Mizzou will make considerably more money in the sec. That much is undeniable.

            Like

          • Read The D says:

            “Mizzou will make considerably more money in the sec. That much is undeniable.”

            @Andy time will tell but it is deniable and hasn’t happened yet. I suppose we can talk about it in 25 years.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            fair enough. but I’ve seen plenty of people gush at the potential earnings of the SEC once they get the SEC network set up. I’ve seen no such prognosticatiosn about the Big 12.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            My reading of the situation was that someone from MO seriously pissed Delaney off…………..and he is certainly a vengeful sob.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            For once, Andy is right….the Big 12 will eventually splinter………..

            Like

          • Andy says:

            It’s his loss. Missouri is just fine. Rutgers may turn out great but I doubt it. I think in 20 years you’ll all wish you had stopped Missouri from going to the SEC.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Andy, I certainly thought MO was a great fit and a safe pick……the best and safest fit of all of NEB, RUT, and MD, but maybe with the least potential upside of any of the 4………..

            Like

        • acaffrey says:

          The SEC has no GOR and no exit fee. Missouri could leave for the B1G at a moment’s notice. What is the downside?

          Frankly, from the SEC’s perspective, it might not even care if Missouri wanted to leave. Thanks for being team #14 for a while. Have fun storming the castle.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            It’s too late to get Missouri. They’ve gone all in on the SEC now.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            No way. There is no “all in” because there is nothing binding Missouri to the SEC. In 15 years, if Missouri has rivalries and a sense of being in the SEC, maybe they’d turn away the B1G. As it stands today, they would take the B1G.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            They wouldn’t right now….maybe in 5 years, depending on how things go……….

            Like

          • nicepair111 says:

            You’re crazy if you think Oklahoma is going to schedule a football series with Missouri in the next few decades.

            Like

        • Andy says:

          @Read the D, Mizzou will get much more money and exposure in the SEC than they ever got in the Big 12.

          “an extreme geographic outlier”, are you kidding? Have you looked at a map?

          Does Missouri not border Arkanas, Tennessee, and Kentucky? Aren’t Ole Miss and Vanderbilt relatively close as well?

          Was Missouri all that close to Waco, Austin, or Lubbock?

          The geographic thing is a weak argument.

          History, yes, we’re losing some history.

          But Missouri can have rivalries with Tennessee, Arkansas, and Kentucky.

          That Missouri/Tennessee game this year was a classic. 3 overtimes.

          Like

          • Read The D says:

            haha @Andy have YOU looked at a map? Missouri is within a 6.5 hour drive to 4 current B12 schools. The same could be said for 2 SEC schools, one of which is Arkansas, who isn’t even in Missouri’s division and you will rarely play in football.

            It takes more than 9 hours to get to most of the schools in the SEC from Columbia. That is an outlier.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Arkansas is scheduled to become Missouri’s permanent cross divisional rival in 2014 if the SEC doesn’t expand and go to 4 pods by then.

            as far as distances, here are the schools less than 500 miles from Columbia MO in the Big 12 and SEC:

            Lawrence KS 165mi
            Manhattan KS 245
            Aimes IA 263
            Fayetteville 312
            Starksville MS 428
            Nashville TN 431
            Stillwater OK 441
            Lexington KY 461
            Oxford MS 477
            Norman OK 492

            That’s 5 from the Big 12 and 5 from the SEC.

            The rest aren’t really drivable either way.

            Like

          • Read The D says:

            Yes but the Mississippi schools aren’t in your division. Trading Arkansas for A&M is good for rivalry and driving purposes but that takes away your Texas access which is a killer.

            Bottom line is you should have just stayed in the Big 12 where you belonged and everyone would be happy. I think losing Missouri was the 2nd biggest blow to B12 behind losing Nebraska.

            On top of all this you had the conference basketball tournament in your back yard!

            Like

          • Andy says:

            Missouri has 100+ years of history with 5 other schools: Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and Iowa State.

            We never really cared that much about Kansas State or Iowa State.

            Then Nebraska left.

            So that left only 2 schools in the conference that Missouri has any real strong ties to: Kansas and Oklahoma.

            So we weight dramatically increased national exposure and what has been promised as much higher revenue vs maintaining history with Kansas and Oklahoma.

            We did the smart thing and took the plunge into the SEC.

            I suspect that in a few years Kansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska will let bygones be bygones all play us in football and basketball on a semi regular basis.

            Like

      • Andy says:

        If the Big Ten can get some home runs on the east coast then of course Missouri doesn’t make sense. Maryland/Virginia/North Carolina for example.

        But I truly don’t think you can say that Rutgers was a better pick than Mizzou. It just wasn’t.

        Like

        • Andy says:

          ^that one was at zeek. Man, this format sucks. I’m trying to reply to different people and the replies don’t show up under the posts I’m replying to.

          Like

        • zeek says:

          Nobody knows what Rutgers’ value is.

          It was just interesting that Fox made a huge play on YES on the exact same day that Rutgers joined the Big Ten.

          Same is true of Maryland; no one’s claiming either is near Missouri as a football school; they happen to exist in a corridor with 40-50 million people…

          Like

          • Andy says:

            I lived in DC for a while. Never heard a single person mention Maryland or Rutgers athletics. I heard people talk about Penn State and Virginia Tech a lot. And Georgetown and George Washington. Occasionally Virginia.

            I don’t have any experience in NY but I was under the impression that Rutgers isn’t a big deal there either.

            Rutgers in particular seems clearly to be a reach. A gamble. Maybe it’s worth a lot, more likely it’s a bust. Missouri was a safe bet with a reliable, solid payout.

            Missouri is a HUGE deal in St. Louis and KC. Those are smaller cities, sure. But not that small.

            Anyway – I’ve made my point. Missouri has a lot more fans than either team. They average about 25k fans more per football game even though Columbia is 125 miles from the nearest city with more than 110k people. It’s in a part of the country that cares deeply about college sports. Everything I’ve heard is that Missouri was originally slated to be one of the first 3 additions to the Big Ten, but Missouri decided to go to the SEC instead of waiting around, partially because the SEC offered full revenue sharing from day one, and partially because Mizzou didn’t want to sign grant of rights to the Big 12 and the Big Ten wasn’t ready to take them at the time.

            Like

          • Andy says:

            And by the way, Frank and everyone, I get blamed for bringing up Missouri a lot. Certainly I’m guilty of that. But you all sure do bring Missouri a lot too. I never brought them up once on this page, only responded to people already talking about them.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Rutgers has enough fans; the question is whether it’s enough to make a dent in markets as big as NYC or Philly.

            The entire state of New Jersey is split between those two markets. Rutgers has more fans in northern New Jersey than any other school has in that NYC market area and there’s not really a close second.

            The question is whether you can monetize an area off of ratings that are the equivalent of 2-4% of a 22 million person market. Nobody really knows.

            As for Maryland, they definitely deliver D.C.-Baltimore; they have so many alumni in those markets, and those markets aren’t anywhere near as big as NYC.

            Like

          • Dave in VA says:

            Andy — don’t know where in/near DC you lived. I’ve been in the area for 20 years, on the Virginia side. This is a pro sports town: Nats, Skins, Caps (except when things go insane such as now), even the Ravens get the bulk of the talk and the press. (Last night’s win notwithstanding, the Wizards are the exception.)

            But in the rather small piece of the pie that is DC area college sports, Maryland has the biggest share by far of that if you look at all sports. Now the one college sport that gets a lot of attention here is basketball, perhaps because some of the local college teams might be better than the local pro team … in hoops you have MD and Georgetown, plus Geo. Mason here in No.Va. (may not get much attention north of the river though).

            If getting better BTN carriage on local cable (or equivalents) is mostly driven by football then *NO* college program is going to deliver the DC FedroSplat. If basketball plays a big role, then MD was a good add for the B1G.

            Like

          • metatron says:

            @Andy – I don’t blame you. I’ve thought from day one that the Tigers were a great addition, just that the schedules of the Big Ten and MU didn’t line up. I believe that they do now, and I hope the players involved are rational to recognize that.

            The only thing that troubles me is the “junior membership” you and yours seem to repeat. There ain’t no such thing, but you guys seem to misunderstand that buying a stake into the Big Ten Network is some sort of slight. The Network isn’t the property of the league, IIRC – it’s jointly owned by all the schools individually (and News Corp).

            Like

          • metatron says:

            Addendum: I may be wrong about the ownership. I’ll look into it further tonight.

            Like

  57. Jw says:

    VT ‘arguably’ the most popular football school in the area? Does said area include Penn State? VT football has DC metro and all of VA locked up no question. Interest in the same area for UVA and MD football is pathetic.

    Like

  58. MikeP says:

    FWIW, the greatest physicist of the 20th century not named Einstein finished his career at FSU (and was at Miami before that). Not that it reflects the current institutional values of FSU or the bottom line of the CIC, but having your library named after Paul Dirac wins at least nominal respect in academic circles.

    Like

    • drwillini says:

      John Bardeen says Hi!

      Like

      • drwillini says:

        Sorry, that’s cold.

        Like

      • MikeP says:

        Maybe if you’re an engineer or talking about influence in terms of societal impact. If you’re talking about pure physics and a theoretical understanding of the world, Dirac is in the same stratosphere as Einstein.

        As it pertains to this discussion, his time at FSU at least opens the door to discussions about academic commitment. With the recent budget problems in Florida, however, UF and FSU have made major cuts on the academic side. Interestingly, the 1 or 2% of the budget cuts affecting football may have caused a bigger uproar than the 40% (?) cuts seen in research.

        If the Big 10/CIC were to consider FSU, there would have to be a renewed commitment to research that’s been lacking in recent years.

        Like

  59. Mike says:

    1 Year removed it looks like Missouri made the biggest realignment mistake.

    IMHO – that is as wrong as the “junior membership” line.

    Like

  60. cutter says:

    These are the figures for FY 2010 for research expenditures (ends 30 June 2010) from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). See http://www.ns.umich.edu/Releases/2012/Mar12/research.html

    The amounts are for all government, industry and NGOs funding research at these universities (*-denotes 15 current and future CIC members, i.e., Maryland and Rutgers). The rankings are from the overall list (Johns Hopkins is #1). The 18 non-CIC schools on the list are ones mentioned to some degree or another as possible expansion candidates for the B1G in the past and going forward:

    2. Michigan* – $1.18B
    3. Wisconsin* – $1.03B
    5. Duke – $983M
    11. Pittsburgh – $836M
    13. Minnesota* – $786M
    14. Penn State* – $770M
    15. North Carolina – $755M
    16. Ohio State* – $755M
    20. Texas A&M – $689M
    21. Florida – $681M
    25. Georgia Tech – $615M
    26. Northwestern* – $603M
    29. Texas – $589M
    32. Purdue* – $548M
    34. Illinois* – $515M
    37. Maryland* – $451M
    39. Iowa* – $444M
    40. Chicago* – $437M
    41. Michigan State* – $431M
    42. Rutgers* – $428M
    47. Virginia Tech – $398M
    57. NC State – $360M
    74. Miami-FL – $280M
    75. Virginia – $276M
    76. Kansas – $267M
    82. Missouri – $238M
    83. Connecticut – $237M
    84. Florida State – $237M
    103. Nebraska* – $191M
    107. Indiana* – $177M
    137. Notre Dame – $110M
    140. Syracuse – $107M
    189. Boston College – $50M

    If you take this same list of schools and rank them by the amount of money they get from the U.S. government (all departments), here’s the results (percentage is amount of federal dollars compared to total dollars):

    3. Michigan* – $747M (63%)
    5. Pittsburgh – $594M (71%)
    9. North Carolina – $545M (72%)
    10. Wisconsin* – $545M (53%)
    13. Duke – $514M (52%)
    17. Penn State* – $464M (60%)
    20. Minnesota* – $426M (54%)
    22. Ohio State* – $399M (53%)
    24. Northwestern* – $379M (62%)
    25. Georgia Tech – $372M (60%)
    26. Chicago* – $352M (80%)
    27. Texas – $350M (59%)
    37. Illinois* – $303M (58%)
    40. Maryland* – $297M (65%)
    42. Texas A&M – $288M (41%)
    45. Iowa* – $282M (63%)
    46. Florida – $279M (41%)
    51. Purdue* – $232M (42%)
    54. Virginia – $228M (82%)
    56. Rutgers* – $224M (52%)
    61. Miami-FL – $197M (70%)
    70. Virginia Tech – $172M (43%)
    78. Kansas – $147M (55%)
    80. NC State – $139M (38%)
    82. Florida State – $134M (56%)
    83. Connecticut – $132M (55%)
    111. Nebraska* – $96M (50%)
    131. Indiana* – $71M (40%)
    140. Notre Dame – $62M (56%)
    171. Syracuse – $33M (31%)
    175. Boston College – $33M (66%)

    Like

    • Read The D says:

      Ugh. Those dollar figures make my stomach hurt.

      Like

      • loki_the_bubba says:

        Those numbers make me amazed at a how small Rice is, a respected research oriented AAU member in 144th place.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Yeah, by AAU metrics, Rice would probably have one of the smallest denominators on its numbers like Tulane.

          Normalized it probably works out to boosting Rice to the middle of the AAU pack, I would guess.

          Like

    • cutter says:

      On the second list, I forgot to include Michigan State and Missouri:

      57. Michigan State* – $214M (49%)

      99. Missouri – $116M (49%)

      Add those two programs and there now should be 33 total on that list.

      From a strictly research dollar view, it’s apparent why the Big Ten would be interested in the programs from the NC Research Triangle (especially UNC and Duke) along with Georgia Tech.

      Virginia is in the upper portion of the lower third in that list, but UVa’s value to the conference might be measured elsewhere, i.e., in terms of the BTN to solidify the Washington DC/Northern Virginia market.

      UNC (72%) and UVa (82%) also depend quite a bit on the federal government to provide research dollars to their two universities. How those two schools plan to develop their research arms, what their future plans are, etc., would be an interesting thing to know.

      This has been mentioned before by Frank, but if Pittsburgh was located in a state contiguous to the B1G’s footprint, they’d be a shoo-in for admittance to the conference. If Notre Dame were willing to play white knight here (which would never happen), then there could very well be room for Pitt in a 16-team conference.

      We’ll see what happens. Florida State doesn’t rate very high on the academic/research side, but does the B1G take the plunge and bring them in with GaTech if the opportunity presents itself? Or does the COP/C insist on taking AAU schools only, which means some duo that includes Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Georgia Tech? Or do we vault past 16 and go to 18 if things like up correctly, thus adding $2.6B in research expenditures to the CIC consortium?

      Like

  61. wmtiger says:

    VT & FSU, AAU requirements be damned. VT captures Virginia markets (for football) better than Virginia and FSU gets the B10 into the talent rich south….

    Unsure FSU is a great plan but they are terribly difficult to pass up. I don’t like them not fitting geographical (& for other sports like baseball, etc.) but they are a home-run addition where it counts, football…

    These two programs would give B10 football near the caliber of the SEC on the field. I’ve always wanted Virginia and NC but Virginia doesn’t offer much in terms of football and NC is dreaming of the SEC instead of the B10.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      Neither FSU nor GT wrestle. Both UNC and UVa do…

      Like

    • zeek says:

      Not sure how you’d get Michigan and Wisconsin on board with adding two more non-AAUs.

      You might be able to bargain on combining Georgia Tech with FSU.

      But, two non-AAUs? I think that’d be messy.

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        People need to update their perception of UofM. No doubt they have been a stick in the mud (to good effect with the exception to ND’s exclusion) but things have changed. Dave Brandon carries a lot of weight and he ‘gets’ expansion/BTN. He comes from a corporate, marketing background and is a favorite of Mary Sue Coleman. Who, by the way, is all too familiar with the changing dynamics of state funding. “We need these non-public sources of revenue.”
        I think if FSU came with GT they would accept it.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          They voted with Wisconsin to boot Nebraska out of the AAU.

          I have no idea whether that will affect future expansion but it’s a consideration, and it’s why we still group Michigan with Wisconsin for these purposes.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            They may do that and still favor expansion.

            Actually, even though MI is losing population, there is less incentive for Michigan to favor expansion, but those schools who really would benefit from more B10 advertising in high growth areas for recruiting purposes (both sports and general student body), specifically IU, PU, MSU, Iowa, Minny, and even Wisconsin (as well as NU because we recruit nationally already) really shouldn’t have a problem with letting FSU or VTech in. Come to think of it, it would aid UM as well.

            Like

  62. Mike says:

    From McMurphy

    Like

    • greg says:

      Includes the most famous Bielema story from his playing days at Iowa:

      Iowa just finished a 21-7 victory over Iowa State in 1992. Bielema, still in the heat of the moment, met then-ISU coach Jim Walden in the postgame handshake and said stuff.

      “You’ve been a big prick. I’ve enjoyed kicking your ass the past five years.”

      Like

    • zeek says:

      The good part of that article is that it captures the fact of him cashing in at a high point…

      But, it doesn’t really mean that the ceiling is higher at Arkansas, which seemed to be the point of that article. Given the recruiting situation there, I don’t think it’ll be easier to get Arkansas to the 4 team playoff than Wisconsin in a general sense.

      It’s more like he realized that if he stayed through a downtrend at Wisconsin that it might be fatal to his stock, which is a point that article skirts by… With these sorts of things, you’re only as good as your most recent years.

      Look at Urban Meyer, he was smart to bolt Florida when he saw the problems coming after winning those two championships. It’s sort of like he decided to just wait to cash out his chips at Ohio State rather than see them decline in value by staying through a down cycle at Florida.

      He’s a good coach, but this gambit is just a way of getting a clean slate in a lateral move; if he doesn’t get the job done there in 2 or 3 years; he’ll be in the same position he’d have been at in Wisconsin in 2 or 3 years.

      That 7-5 year would have been an Insight Bowl kind of year but for the Ohio State and Penn State situations…

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        I’d say his ceiling at Arkansas is way lower. At Arkansas, he’s got to beat out Alabama, LSU, and Texas A&M just to win his division. In the Big Ten, he only needs to beat out Ohio State. (Penn State remains ineligible for another three years, and will be digging out from sanctions for at least another three or four beyond that.)

        Like

        • zeek says:

          That’s probably true as well.

          The media has a serious problem with how they conflate SEC dominance and apply it to all 14 schools in that conference.

          SEC dominance does nothing for Tennessee right now and in fact it probably holds them down; the same may end up being true of Bielema’s tenure at Arkansas…

          You have a supercycle of several schools firing on all cylinders: Alabama, Florida, LSU, Georgia, South Carolina; virtually all performing at levels near their all-time historical peaks over the past 7 years.

          The main thing for him is that he gets a clean slate with a clean set of expectations. It’s a chance to reboot and see if he can spin out a triple 7…

          Like

    • jj says:

      That is not a photo of a douchebag.

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      He’s always been a jerk….a Brian Kelly sized jerk….now that he’s in the SEC he’ll be easier to hate.

      Like

  63. greg says:

    This is excellent.

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121205/SPORTS0206/121205010/Iowa-State-gets-its-own-sports-channel-deal-Mediacom

    “This agreement allows our athletics program to become only the third institution nationally (along with Texas and BYU) with a fully dedicated channel for its sports teams,” Iowa State athletics director Jamie Pollard said in a statement.

    Mediacom spokesperson Phyllis Peters said the cable television network reaches 320 Iowa communities. For now, programming will air on Mediacom Connections channel 22.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      How big is an Iowa community on average? 1000 people?

      Like

    • PurpleCatz says:

      I don’t think ISU gets any money from the deal, as the article mentions it’s 0 cost to the customer, which would imply that’s it’s not getting passed along, and I doubt Mediacom, which has a monopoly on cable in Iowa, is taking a loss.

      It’ll never be carried outside of Iowa, so, whatever. At least ISU fans will be able to watch their teams, hopefully online anywhere.

      Like

  64. zeek says:

    @Andy

    Here’s the proper angle for you; just comparing Rutgers in the NYC market and Missouri in St. Louis.

    In a good football year, Missouri grabs around a 9 rating in St. Louis (Illinois gets around a 2-3 in that market). [ http://forum.huskermax.com/vbbs/showthread.php?3162-St-Louis-TV-Ratings ]

    In a good football year, Rutgers grabs around a 2 rating in NYC (only Notre Dame probably draws over a 1 in NYC other than Rutgers but that’s a guess because I haven’t seen the ND numbers).

    The normalization is that NYC is 6 times as big as St. Louis, so there’s actually more people watching Rutgers in the NYC market (which includes the entire north half of New Jersey) than in St. Louis’ TV market area.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Again, the question is monetization, and it’s far easier to monetize Missouri in St. Louis because they’re more dominant as a share of that total market.

      It’s considerably harder to monetize Rutgers even though Rutgers has more TV viewers in its TV market.

      Like

      • Andy says:

        Good info, thanks.

        That said, Missouri has been to 29 bowl games. Rutgers has been to 7. So the “good years” come more often from Missouri.

        And like you said, monetizing Rutgers isn’t a sure thing.

        Rutgers has the potential to be a huge moneymaker

        But more likely is that they won’t be.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Of course, I fully acknowledge that this is a huge risk.

          The SEC went the route of taking the guaranteed gains of STL and KC; those 9-10 ratings consistently will ensure full carriage at a good rate for the SEC Network.

          On the other hand, the Big Ten is taking a big risk that it can push Rutgers numbers up into the 3-4 range when they play against big names with high rankings (like a top 5 Ohio State), and that it can sell that over time through distribution of the BTN.

          On balance, it’s going to be interesting to see what happens in the future and whether all of this pans out; I’m among those who think it’s a risk worth taking.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            We won’t know for another decade or so. The key will be if Rutgers can actually have some success and win over some fans. Maybe they can step into Penn State’s void a bit.

            If they continue to be a loser team with minimal fan support (as they have been for most of the past centurey plus) then this was a terrible move.

            Like

      • Andy says:

        Also, Zeek, you forget KC. Missouri does quite well there too. The population of the KC metro area is almost 2 million.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Yeah, and the numbers I’ve seen show Missouri pulling roughly the same ratings there.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            I’m not really sure what Rutgers’ pull is in south New Jersey (Philadelphia TV market); I’ve never seen numbers from there, so it’s probably just a number between 0 and 1; probably similar to Syracuse or UConn TV ratings in NYC.

            Like

    • Phil says:

      The other thing to keep in mind when trying to use historical TV ratings for Rutgers is that even in a good year Rutgers (and other Big East teams) weren’t getting on ABC. Their games were being shown on ESPN or ESPN2 because more prominent conferences had the better slots locked up.

      Like

  65. zeek says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8718339/16-team-big-ten-michigan-state-spartans-ad-mark-hollis-sees-advantages

    We need a Drudge Report for expansion or something; this would be a siren alert no doubt…

    ‘There are some advantages to 16 (teams) compared to 14. Fourteen is clumsy. We’re not out looking for two teams, but basically we will continue to survey the landscape.”

    Hollis would not name candidates, but said if the league expands “what we’ll look for is does it fit? What impact does it have on the current membership? If after (an) evaluation, you see any upside, then there is a reason to grow.”‘

    Like

    • manifestodeluxe says:

      Hah, figures you’d beat me by a minute.

      Like

    • Nathan says:

      Love it. The B1G are shaking it up, letting everyone (i.e. the ACC teams) that B1G musical chairs is not over. That’ll get presidents / ADs on the phones tout de suite to make sure they’re not left standing when the music stops.

      I was with Frank on thinking that the ACC would probably not get Big East’ed, but now I’m not so sure. This will push the BigXII to expand, regardless of what UT desires. And the SEC will be sniffing around to make it to 16. I give the ACC at most 5 years before there are *major* defections.

      Like

    • “We need a Drudge Report for expansion or something”

      How about Realignment Report?

      I’ve been collecting conference realignment articles from the links posted here and other places since February and just created Realignment Report as a place where everyone could access them.

      Click on my username “Realignment Report” above to check it out (I don’t know whether I’m able to post the link directly in this comment). It’s just a personal project during my free time, with a minimal, clean interface. Suggestions and other feedback welcomed.

      Like

  66. manifestodeluxe says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8718339/16-team-big-ten-michigan-state-spartans-ad-mark-hollis-sees-advantages

    Some interesting comments from Hollis I guess, even if ADs typically aren’t the best sources. Apparently no love lost between Yow and Maryland too.

    Like

    • PurpleCatz says:

      Yow is the reason the Maryland AD was so deep in red ink.

      Like

      • Nemo says:

        Yow was more interested in “Competitive Cheer” than football. She and Gary Williams had what one could call a “tempestuous relationship” and he won the N.C. in hoops in 2002! So glad she returned to her home state and is far away from the D.C. area.

        Like

  67. bullet says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8718339/16-team-big-ten-michigan-state-spartans-ad-mark-hollis-sees-advantages

    First MIchigan’s AD, now Michigan St. Preparing the masses?

    Yow comments about her former school negatively, but she also tweeted that at Maryland they referred to the ACC as the All Carolina Conference.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      This is what I meant bullet. I really do think they see 14 as the same as 11. Short term outcomes at best (of course that “short” term can drag out to 20 years.)

      16 and 12 are stability outcomes. (Until we get to 16 and think about 18 and 20…).

      Like

    • manifestodeluxe says:

      Is it just me, or is Yow going public with some of these comments… uncommon. Maybe I don’t pay enough attention to AD chatter, but it seems rather unprofessional for such a public figure to bitch about a previous employer.

      Like

      • Ross says:

        “Maryland will be on a plane to play Wisconsin in the middle of the winter,” Yow said. “Hope that money is really, really good.”

        I would agree Manifest. What’s more is Yow doesn’t exactly have a high ground to stand on, what with BC, Syracuse, and Pitt on the schedule.

        Like

        • manifestodeluxe says:

          Ross:

          Given that a lot of people believe her mismanagement of Maryland’s athletic department is at least a decent reason why they were in the red, and therefore a decent reason why they joined the BigTen, it’s kind of amazing she has the stones to make such a comment.

          Like

        • Nemo says:

          @Ross

          And great players in college playing in the NFL! She must think the entire league plays in Carolina and not in Chicago, New England, New York, etc. That is one huge adjustment that Southern players have to make after the NFL draft! It’s dang cold in January when the sleet is flying and a playoff game is at stake.

          Like

      • Richard says:

        Well, Yow pretty much bankrupt UMD’s athletics department before she left, so she shouldn’t exactly be the one reprimanding UMD for leaving for more money.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        You ought to have heard what the Maryland people said about her when she was there! She was more than a little unpopular.

        Like

    • frug says:

      It’s ironic she is complaining about Maryland leaving even though it was her mismanagement of the AD that created the financial straits that forced MD to join the Big 10.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      bullet,

      I’ll respond to your posting of this since all 3 of you chose not to mention one thing.

      While Hollis said a 14-team league is “clumsy” as far as football and basketball scheduling, a 16-team league is easier to schedule with two, eight-team divisions.

      1. I really think the B10 won’t use pods. If divisions are geographical, that sucks for the 3 old B10 schools stuck with PSU and 4 new eastern/southern schools. It takes a long time to build new rivalries and they’ll miss out on the old ones. The B10 may try to do some zippering to get a mix of schools.

      W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, MI, MSU
      E – OSU, PU, IN, PSU, RU, MD, #15, #16

      That sucks for OSU, PU and IN. Assuming locked rivals, that leaves 1 rotating game for 7 teams.

      2. I really don’t see 16 as any cleaner than 14 for scheduling. In fact, it’s worse with more time between games against the other division. The only difference would be pods or eliminating locked rivals.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        The only way I see it as being easier is that you don’t have odd numbers in the division so you can schedule everyone in division on a given week if you choose. You don’t have to match the one in the east with the one in the west who they are scheduled to play that week. But we have computers these days. And as of a few years ago, the last I heard, major league baseball was still doing it all by hand. That’s more complex as you have stadium conflicts and union rules.

        Given how they can’t balance the scheduling, putting all the prime games home or away in a given year for some of these teams, I guess it could be tough for them.

        Like

  68. Whitley says:

    I am starting to think that the end game might be 18 or even 20. I can see a Big Ten with 20 members that includes no Notre Dame or Texas. It would look like this:

    #15 Virginia
    #16 Virginia Tech
    #17 UNC
    #18 Duke
    #19 Georgia Tech
    #20 Miami (FLA)

    Go with Pods

    Pod 1: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois
    Pod 2: Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
    Pod 3: Ohio State, Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Virginia
    Pod 4: VTech, UNC, Georgia Tech, Miami (fla.), Duke

    Pod games: 4….5 against another Pod. 1 or 2 games against another pod (depending if one of the 5 games against that year is against a protected rival). 10 games in conference. 2 OOC and CCG gives you 13 games.

    Nebraska and VTech would be the only non AAU schools. I think that might make the Big Ten the most dominant conference.

    Like

    • Whitley says:

      Strike that. Miami (Fla.) would be a non AAU school as well.

      Like

    • Andy says:

      If we’re going to talk crazy fantasy scenarios, maybe the SEC should take North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas. 24 schools. 4 6 team pods.

      Pod 1

      Texas
      Texas A&M
      Oklahoma
      Missouri
      Kansas
      Arkansas

      Pod 2

      North Carolina
      Duke
      Virginia
      Virginia Tech
      Tennessee
      Vanderbilt

      Pod 3

      Florida
      Florida State
      Miami
      Georgia
      Georgia Tech
      South Carolina

      Pod 4

      Alabama
      Auburn
      Mississippi
      Mississippi State
      LSU
      Kentucky

      Like

  69. Richard says:

    UVa, VTech & FSU: Gentlemen, start your engines. (FSU: Miami can tag along if you come).

    I’m not a fan of splitting states (unless it’s a gigantic state like FL, TX, or CA), and as UNC is leaning SEC anyway, let them untangle the UNC/NCSU/Duke relationship mess.

    Like

  70. zeek says:

    All of this running commentary out of the Big Ten about future expansion is just going to continue to destabilize the situation elsewhere.

    Well, at least we’re in the game now. It’s time to see what Delany has in mind for 16.

    Like

  71. Roses1961 says:

    Maybe it’s just because I’m an old furt but doesn’t anyone find the irony in all this? There was a time when “Big Ten” football meant something quite specific, a style of play.

    Nowadays if you want to watch Big Ten football, you have to watch an SEC game.

    Like

  72. Tim says:

    So who goes down with the ship?

    Like

  73. greg says:

    Barry Alvarez to coach team in Rose Bowl.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8718209/barry-alvarez-coach-wisconsin-badgers-rose-bowl-bret-bielema-says

    The Wisconsin State Journal reported that team captains asked Alvarez to coach the team, and he agreed to do so.

    Bielema, who lost the previous two Rose Bowls and became coach at Arkansas on Tuesday, joked, “They might finally win one.”

    Like

  74. zeek says:

    “Maryland will be on a plane to play Wisconsin in the middle of the winter,” Yow said. “Hope that money is really, really good.”

    —————————————————-

    Um, don’t her teams have to fly up to Boston and soon Syracuse and Pitt in the middle of winter as well?

    Like

  75. Richard says:

    BTW, the number of marquee games if the B10 added VTech, UVA, FSU, and Miami would be stupendous. I’ve already worked out the pods. At least 15 ratings draws when Michigan, OSU, FSU, PSU, Miami, and UNL play each other or VTech or Wisconsin every season.

    TV people would drool.

    Like

  76. Eric says:

    If expansion to 16 does occur, I hope the Big Ten does what no conference has done yet (and it drives me crazy) and figure out an alignment BEFORE they invite teams. There are a couple of different ways pods could work, but you need to invite teams with a plan in place. For instance, if you go to 16 with Missouri (if they’d come which I doubt now) and an ACC team, any kind of divisional alignment gets really difficult.

    If we end up with 2 new ACC schools at some point in the future and they go to 9 games, then I’d suggest:

    Pod A: Penn State, Maryland, 2 new ACC schools
    Pod B: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Rutgers
    Pod C: Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern
    Pod D: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota

    If the last 2 teams were some combination of Florida State, Miami (FL), and Georgia Tech, then I’d suggest pods A and B always be in opposite divisions (as would C and D), but with 9 games, they’d still play everyone half the time.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      There’s a reason why “no conference has done” what you’re proposing: it makes no sense. Scheduling and divisions are second-order problems. If Schools X and Y make sense for your conference, there is _always_ a way to figure out a schedule. No one lets scheduling be the reason to turn down an otherwise desirable expansion.

      An additional reason is that an alignment usually takes a few months of debate and negotiation, and you can’t let a decision “twist in the wind” while you figure that out. Competitive balance matters, so you can’t decide an alignment without knowing the exact teams that would be involved.

      By the way, I doubt they’d go with the four pods above, because Pod C is too weak. Whichever pod gets paired with them would have a FAR easier path to the championship game.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Actually, in the Pac 16 proposal they were talking about schedules. They’d discussed the divisions and how they were going to set up the various sports. That was one of the reasons it didn’t happen. President Powers said everyone was trying to minimize travel and when he looked at it, he realized they could do the same thing staying in the Big 12.

        When you get into something that’s so spread geographically, you need to consider that. The SEC is running into lots of scheduling problems even though they don’t have the massive geography issue because they didn’t think about it first. Football is a real problem. Even sports like swimming and tennis are having issues.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          I’m so glad the PAC presidents are involved in scheduling athletic dept travel arrangements, along with running billion dollar endeavors.
          BS. Scheduling is an excuse, rather than a reason for D1 schools. It’s used when they don’t care to reveal the actual impediment.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            They agreed on scheduling. It was simply that it looked an awful lot like the Big 12 schedule for Texas. If they could get similar money in the Big 12, why do it?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            You shouldn’t compare the B12 vs P12 contract. The comparison is the B12 vs a P16 contract. UT may get similar money (thanks to ESPN’s donation) to the P12 schools with the current conference setup (but not the other B12 schools). What would UT’s (and the other 15) T1 been worth if marketed through a P16? The estimate, two years ago, was at least 25-28mm/school for T1 alone. P12N profitable before startup. P16N? I doubt increased travel costs offset that amount. It seems to me power and influence was UT’s deciding factor, not money.

            Like

          • Read The D says:

            As a Texas resident I thought the Pac-16 would have been awesome. I think the two main factors it didn’t come to fruition: 1. The Aggies weren’t sold on it, which would have meant Kansas probably joining, which gave Texas very few driveable games and rivals and 2. The LHN. Texas couldn’t bring it with em.

            Like

      • Eric says:

        I disagree especially as we get this big. There was a reason the WAC-16 collapsed. There were multiple reasons Nebraska left the Big 12, but one factor that made it a lot easier was they already felt they lost what made the Big 8 special. If the set-up had left Nebraska and Oklahoma playing yearly, it would have been a lot harder to break that up.

        If the Big Ten is seriously thinking 50 years out, then they need to consider that they need this thing to work to make viable alternative unattractive. If you have a set-up where schools are not playing other they’d like to be playing regularly, then it’s a heck of a lot easier for them to decide to leave when circumstances turn that way (and they always will, who 20 years ago would have ever thought Nebraska would be leaving behind all their Big 8 rivals and especially that Missouri would ditch them for the SEC).

        Like

        • Eric says:

          To further illustrate let’s think about the formation of the Big 12 and even assume the teams are locked as they were. You could have had divided the Big 8 and 4 Texas schools between the divisions with Oklahoma/Nebraska as the headline names in one division and Texas/Texas A&M as the headline teams in the other (with locked crossovers to keep Texas-Oklahoma and other rivalries). This would have still had issues to be sure, but in the long run, that’s a set-up would have made Nebraska and Texas A&M fans a lot less likely to support moving conferences. The Big Ten needs to take into account similar things with divisions and that’s easier if you think about it before inviting teams in.

          Like

  77. ShockFX says:

    This is all so laughable. The Big Ten doesn’t have to expand at all. It’s an incredibly powerful academic and athletic group that will always have a seat at the table. They sat at 11 for 20 years while the SEC, then the B12, then the ACC had a conference championship game. They don’t give a shit about the SEC. Period. Do you think the Michigan’s, Wisconsin’s, or Northwestern’s president cares at all that the SEC has won the last 6 football championships? No. They are too busy raising billions of dollars and running multi-billion dollar universities.

    If you want to figure out the targets for future B1G expansion, ask this simple question: “If football didn’t exist, would this make sense?” If no, then it’s not an option. This rules out FSU, Miami, Clemson, and any other football only school. I think we should assume that Delany and the COP/C are away of the implications of what would happen if forced cable carriage went away, if football was banned/changed for safety reasons, or if the O’Bannon lawsuit against the NCAA and EA requires athletes to be paid. For those reasons, as stated above, the additions have to make sense if football didn’t exist.

    Rutgers means ND is off the table and that is how the B1G is going to crack NYC. Maryland gets DC/Baltimore. Both, outside of their AD deficits, have large ADs, are the biggest schools in the state, are academic fits, yada yada yada. Their only knock is they suck at football. Which doesn’t really matter to the Big Ten. They solve the demographic problem, they give DC and NYC exposure. The Big Ten owns (to the extent universities can fan wise, and also with alumni) Chicago, Minneapolis, Ohio, Michigan, PA, and soon to be Jersey, DC, and NYC. The SEC has St. Louis, Atlanta, Nashville, and Florida. There’s a lot more money in the first set than the second set.

    It’s just kind of ridiculous. The B1G is building a conference that won’t fall apart, not a convenient super football conference because they have to. Any talk of a super B1G that’s half ACC and half B1G is hilarious. What’s the point? If you get to 18 because the next 4 schools are UVA, UNC, Duke, and GT, then okay, this makes sense. Who are the next 2? Texas, Florida, and Vanderbilt would be the only remaining similar schools with prestige out East. Something from Mizzou/Kansas/Connecticut/Oklahoma? Why bother? The B1G won’t expand just for shiggles. The PAC-12 isn’t expanding. Maybe in 50 years two out of Nevada/Idaho/New Mexico/Wyoming will have schools that fit the bill.

    Nebraska is the exception, not the rule when it comes to academic standards. If ND had been 12, there’s no doubt that Nebraska is NOT in the Big Ten. Does Nebraska make sense as 13 with Mizzou 14? No, not at all. Several B1G presidents weren’t thrilled with the add, felt Delaney pushed it on them, and in return they booted Nebraska from the AAU. This matters.

    The CIC is not a magic money delivering group. You don’t just join the CIC and get money. It has benefits, but they are mutual. Rutgers and Maryland bring a lot to the group. PSU brought a lot. GT, UVA, Duke, UNC, Pitt (sorry, geography, never getting in the B1G), these would bring a lot to the group. FSU? Kansas?

    All that’s happening right now is the B1G is seeing if they can shake UVA/UNC loose. If Clemson and FSU bolt to the B12, maybe something happens. Otherwise, it’s a 30 year wait to try again for UVA and UNC.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Whatever you’re smoking, can I have some? Expansion is basically ALL about football and the money that it brings to the table. Money is the reason why Maryland and Rutgers were acceptable, despite not being great at football. Yes, there is an academic hurdle to be cleared, but it’s a hurdle when the money and the football make sense.

      In a way, you seem to understand this, given that Pitt would clearly make a ton of sense if this were driven by academics, and you realize that Pitt ain’t happening. But then you talk about football being banned for safety reasons, about which….get real!

      I do agree with you that there is no inexorable law pushing conferences to 18-20 members. Every addition needs to make sense from a money, football, academic, geographic, and cultural point of view. When you already have one of the two wealthiest and most stable conferences, it’s hard to find new members that are financially accretive, and that meet all of your other standards. But they do exist. MSU AD Mark Hollis’s statement yesterday made that pretty clear. The Big Ten won’t be at 14 teams for 30 years.

      Like

      • rich2 says:

        If academics, brand equity and increasing the value of a diploma granted to alums was a driver of Big 10 expansion then neither Rutgers nor MD (nor Nebraska) would be members of the Big 10. In their respective markets, Rutgers and MD are back-up choices. They are commuter schools with a very weak tie to their alums. Expansion is a short-term football decision executed without a hint of a strategy.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          You’re obviously right. Otherwise they wouldn’t be interested in Notre Dame which doesn’t meet their standards for a serious research institution.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Is it necessary to be such a troll? Pitt is a commuter school and its highly regarded. Most of the UC schools are commuter schools. But if you ask academics about the top schools in the country, UC-San Diego will be there. Notre Dame probably wouldn’t be, although they will be high on the list. UC-Irvine will be high on the list as will almost all the other UC schools. Maybe in the northeast people prefer private schools, but that doesn’t diminish Maryland and Rutgers.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @rich2
            One comment like that is one thing. But this is about the 4th or 5th one. Your second comment does contribute something. Your first was trolling. Notre Dame is a fine school, but Notre Dame grads have a far higher opinion of it than others. Notre Dame is not Stanford and shouldn’t be denigrating other fine schools like Maryland and Rutgers.

            http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2012.html

            You will find Maryland at #38 and Rutgers at #61 in the world.

            Like

        • Jairus says:

          didn’t Rutgers turn down an offer to become an Ivy league school?

          Like

          • rich2 says:

            Can’t reply directly to Bullet, who apparently is “out of bullets” since he is now name-calling. It is laughable to think that pumping out tons of alum (at Rutgers and to a lesser degree MD) who care little to nothing about the institution (as evidenced by endowment participation rate and endowment per capita) adds a “strategic asset” to the Big 10. Adding alums who don’t care does not add anything to the brand equity of the Big 10 — and of course — these back-up choice schools generate their alumni base primarily at the undergraduate level where the quality of their programs are their weakest programs. If Rutgers alums in NJ cared about Rutgers at a “Big 10” level of affiliation then — their football stadium would have way more people attending games, their basketball stadium would be larger and attendance would be higher and they would contribute to their school — but they don’t and therefore the “average level of quality” of the Big 10 declined when Rutgers and MD was added.

            Like

      • bullet says:

        I think there are definitely going to be B1G presidents who think like ShockFX. There’s going to be a struggle w/i the Big 10.

        UVA, UNC and Duke are easy sales for Delany if the $ are there. Vandy could be sold if paired with UNC. GT gets into geography, but otherwise is easy. Anyone else other than Notre Dame, Texas or Florida is tough. And two non-AAUs won’t happen.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I could add Texas A&M as well, but UF and A&M will never happen. I don’t believe Texas will ever join. I would be surprised if Notre Dame joined a conference for football in the next decade.

          Like

        • Psuhockey says:

          I think there will be presidents who don’t like an expansion without AAU membership, but in the end money wins out. Those acedemic high-hats booted Nebraska from the AAU in protest but after they were excepted by the conference. I think FSU could be the same type deal. There is way too much upside in FSU to pass over, even academically as Florida is a fast growing state and has a lot of pull politically which can translate into research dollars under the right leadership. FSU and Notre Dame are the only two non-AAU schools I could see the BIG taking.

          Like

          • cutter says:

            When you say money wins out, which “money” are you talking about?

            Michigan, for example, has research expenditures at around $1.3B. That’s ten times the amount of the athletic department budget. In terms of growth, which one is more important to UM?

            The same goes to the other B1G universities, especially those with larger research budgets. Does the incremental growth in conference distributions match what they could get thru grants, etc., if they work with certain schools over others?

            Here’s an interesting article from Burnt Orange Nation (Texas’ SB Nation site) titled “Athletics, Research, and Filthy Lucre: Part One of a Love Story”–see http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/6/13/1512356/athletics-research-and-filthy

            It as an interesting take on the CIC and the net benefits to the universities involved in the organization.

            Like

        • zeek says:

          Yep, one non-AAU is the maximum they’re going to consider at best. And it can’t just be any non-AAU; it has to be a non-AAU that’s not too far off in terms of research expenditures (excluding Notre Dame).

          Like

      • Eric says:

        I hope you are wrong, but think you are probably right that 16 or more is coming.

        Like

      • ShockFX says:

        Football being banned for safety isn’t something that’s likely, but you have to consider the possibility. Look at these two links:

        Roger Goodell brings up idea NFL could eliminate kickoffs http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/12/06/goodell-kickoff-rule-changes/1751289/

        Banning tackle football under age 18
        http://www.realclearsports.com/articles/2012/12/06/lets_ban_tackle_football_until_age_18_97818.html
        The studies the above is founded on are from Purdue, Virginia Tech, and Michigan.

        Also if you combine that with the Ed O’Bannon lawsuit, it’s something to be aware of.

        As for Hollis, it’s shaking the tree to see if UVA/UNC fall out. Otherwise, nothing will happen. Until the next time the Big Ten football contract is up for renewal.

        Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      I agree with most of what you say and hope your view prevails….and my feeling is it will. I think adding schools like FSU and Miami would be a huge long-term blunder.

      However, it certainly shakes my confidence when the MSU AD talks about adding “2 teams” to the Big 10. WTF–how about the Packers and the Steelers? I hope that is just his jock side showing through and the discussion is over whether to add other schools, not “teams”.

      I do quibble with some of your comments. I notice you didn’t list Texas as an SEC market. The SEC adding A&M was a big game changer, imo. Also, I do agreethat whatever happens to UNC and VA will be much more likely to happen in the next 3 ,not 30, years.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        This is the B10 we’re talking about. They’d get the Browns and the Bengals and still lose to the SEC.

        Like

      • ShockFX says:

        Sorry about leaving out Texas. Just an oversight in my diatribe. That and Texas A&M in the SEC is still not second nature. I also agree that a UNC/UVA change is more likely in the next 3, not 30 years. However, if it doesn’t happen in the next 3, then it’s a wait until the next TV contracts are up and NOVA/NC become more northernized.

        Like

  78. bullet says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2012/12/05/ncaa-membership-power-conferences-img-iaf/1749365/

    Interesting article talking about splits among the major conferences. Also Pearlman seems to know what the revenue split on the playoff is but Alden and Yow don’t. Is that because they are Alden and Yow or are the handful at the top keeping it quiet?

    Like

    • bullet says:

      i.e. splits-in case you haven’t read the article-major conferences splitting from Division I, either in a separate organization or as a new division w/i NCAA.

      Like

      • Read The D says:

        I wonder if the split ever happened if it would cause several Sunbelt or now C-USA type teams to drop football all together. So many of them lose so much money on the sport while they’re chasing big dollars and exposure.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          I think they really see it as a marketing exercise and thus are willing to write off a lot for the same reason they don’t expect to directly make money off all those millions of flyers they send high school juniors and seniors (and it’s unreal how much they send). I’d have never heard of schools like Florida Atlantic, Southern Miss, etc if it weren’t for their football. That gives them a big leg up when kids are looking. For me, even in state in Ohio, when I was looking around, my first thoughts outside of Columbus were to the schools I’ve heard about in the past which mostly included MAC schools (and I was just getting into college football then so it’s not like I was even watching much). I don’t think I could have told you Youngstown State existed then, but I at least knew of all the Ohio MAC schools

          Like

          • Read The D says:

            Yea that’s what I mean though. If the MAC is relegated to a lower division than the B1G, does that cost pay for itself anymore? There are plenty of FCS schools obviously but I just wonder if some will think it’s not worth it anymore.

            Like

    • zeek says:

      It’s because Perlman is on the top committees of the BCS and academic side of things at the NCAA.

      Alden and Yow are just ADs that aren’t at the major football schools.

      I’d venture that the ADs at Florida, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma are much more connected as to what’s going on with the playoff money….

      Like

  79. Crpodhaj says:

    ‘”We don’t want to get outflanked,” Hollis said.’

    Okay, so what does that mean?

    In terms of adding Rutgers and Maryland, it may refer to getting shut out of the East Coast; but going forward to what would “outflanked” refer? Getting shut out of the Mid-Atlantic?

    Like

    • Read The D says:

      That confused me too but after thinking about it I think he mean markets. So basically they’ll move as methodically as they can until they feel like they may get shut out of the Mid-Atlantic and everywhere else they want the BTN.

      Also I believe it was Maryland’s AD who said he was impressed by Delaney’s expansion plans, insinuating Delaney had a master plan for expansion and it included future expansion beyond Maryland and Rutgers.

      Like

    • metatron says:

      We’re fortifying Cemetery Ridge?

      Like

    • zeek says:

      I think you have the correct response to that question.

      It originally meant being shut out on the East Coast entirely.

      Without Maryland and Rutgers, the Big Ten would have only really an alumni presence on the East Coast but no real physical presence beyond Penn State itself.

      Now, the Big Ten has the Northeast squarely in its corner along with two giant flagships pumping out alumni directly into NYC and D.C. along with two places to play directly in those markets.

      The question is where to next; it has to be some angle on the Southeast. Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida are really the states that you’re looking for…

      Like

    • bullet says:

      Delany said the same thing.
      http://www.news-gazette.com/news/education/2012-12-06/no-other-universities-considered-big-ten-when-maryland-rutgers-joined.html

      I think it means the ACC got put in its place for taking Pitt, SU and Notre Dame. Just BC was ok, but the Big 10 wasn’t going to let them dominate the northeast.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN
        Jim Delany: “There would be more movement in this region, flanks of the Big Ten region. We became more active. Risk in staying same.”
        Expand Reply Retweet Favorite
        3h Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN
        Jim Delany: “We thought there was more risk is embracing the status quo” in why B1G added Rutgers, Maryland

        Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        ShockFX—Looks like Chancellor Wise (what a good name) agrees with our way of thinking—#1 is institutional fit, THEN markets/expanding your brand without “our students …traveling all over the place”. Also, she noted that MD and NJ are contiguous to PA–that was the first thing mentioned in the article.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          mushroomgod,

          That’s what I took away from it, too.

          Much of the analysis of the decision centered on the sports audience and market share that the two schools can bring to the Big Ten, but Wise said academic fit was the initial consideration.

          “First and foremost, I think we really want to have teams from universities like ours to be in the Big Ten,” Wise said. “We would never have gone to thinking about whether or not the viewership would increase if that first element were not true.

          “Then, of course, you look to see how you can expand your brand and get it to an audience that you really want to get it to, and you want to make sure that our students are not traveling all over the place.”

          When the announcement was made, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney said the driving force was not a new foothold for just the Big Ten Network but the conference itself, as it competes for students, athletes and research dollars.

          So do a process of elimination:

          Meets the academic/fit bar?
          Yes – UVA, UNC, Duke, GT
          Maybe/No – Syracuse, VT, FSU, Miami

          Location?
          Yes – Syracuse, UVA, VT
          Maybe/No – UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, Miami

          Sorry, Frank.

          Like

        • ShockFX says:

          I’m a fan of that article. People need to realize Nebraska was the exception, and it’s still not THAT bad a fit. Football propelled them over Missouri and Kansas, but that was a one time thing going westward. I have good faith in the COP/C of the B1G.

          Like

    • Crpodhaj says:

      Thanks and good citations. The main reason I asked the question is, in the article as it is presented, Hollis makes the comment refering to moves potentially to be made in the future to react to what others do. So I wondered where would or could the B1G be outflanked as things sit now?

      Like

    • bamatab says:

      If I had to guess, I would think it’s talking about getting outflanked by the SEC in VA or NC (probably with UNC being the biggest worry).

      Like

      • Richard says:

        NC isn’t exactly a flank of the B10. The “outflank” comment made sense in the Northeast, where PSU would have had ACC schools abutting it to the north, south, and west.

        If the goal is to consolidate the Northeast more, the natural step is taking in the VA schools; one for the academics, one for football. Anything else to the south would be gravy.

        Like

  80. GreatLakeState says:

    I don’t believe they want to get shut out of Florida. There is to much of everything there (including B1G grads/transplants/retirees) to dismiss out of hand because of AAU status. I still think GT/FSU or GT/Miami is in the cards. Particularly if UNC and ND aren’t interested.

    Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      How in the world do you get that out of what Chancellor Wise said? That’s a hell of a stretch…..

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Again, it’s YOU that doesn’t want to get shut out of Florida. The Big 10s never been IN Florida, or Texas, or California, or Alaska, or the US Virgin Islands. You can’t be everything to everybody.

        Like