Big Ten Expansion Lacrosse-Style, Potential Catholic 7 Fallout and the “Classic East” C7 Name Game

Posted: February 7, 2013 in Big East, Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, Sports
Tags: , , , ,

It’s been a wacky week in sports: a power outage at the Super Bowl, moms stealing national letters of intent, a previously listless Illinois team taking down #1 Indiana (I-L-L!) and the Big Ten’s next expansion target appears to be… Johns Hopkins University.  Let’s get to some conference realignment talk:

(1) Big Ten Expansion and Johns Hopkins – In a somewhat surprising bit of news, the Big Ten is apparently targeting Johns Hopkins as an associate member for lacrosse.  Adding Johns Hopkins on top of Rutgers and Maryland would give the Big Ten the minimum number of teams for both men’s and women’s lacrosse (6) to garner an automatic NCAA Tournament bid.  This has brought up the question as to whether the Big Ten would consider other associate members, such as adding Notre Dame or Boston University for hockey or all of the Big West to improve baseball.  I don’t see that happening, though.  From my vantage point, Johns Hopkins is about as unique of a situation as it gets since (a) as noted, its addition is the difference between the Big Ten having an NCAA auto-bid lacrosse league versus having none at all, (b) men’s and women’s lacrosse are the only sports that Johns Hopkins plays at the Division I level (all of its other sports are in Division III), so they would technically be an “all-sports” member for the Big Ten since it is providing “all” of the sports in which the conference sponsors a league (unlike Notre Dame or BU that obviously play at the Division I level in other sports), (c) Johns Hopkins happens to be an elite lacrosse power, so their combination with Maryland would instantly make the Big Ten into a top notch league in that sport and (d) in terms of academics and research funding power, Johns Hopkins is about as top notch as you can get outside of the Ivy League, which means that they can provide further gravitas to the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, which is the academic research consortium of the Big Ten and the University of Chicago.  All of those factors make Johns Hopkins into a unique expansion target for the Big Ten that I don’t believe would apply to other potential associate members.*

(* Note that the College Crosse blog has a fairly skeptical view of the Johns Hopkins/Big Ten marriage occurring because it believes that Johns Hopkins holds the leverage here.  That’s a pretty fascinating lacrosse-centric viewpoint where there is actually a bizarro world where Jim Delany could be considered to be completely powerless while much of the rest of the conference realignment universe believes that he can bring the likes of North Carolina and Florida State to their knees.  All I know is this: whatever ESPNU might be paying Johns Hopkins for lacrosse games probably wouldn’t cover a day’s catering bill at the Big Ten Network.  If Johns Hopkins turns down a Big Ten offer, it certainly won’t be because of TV money or exposure.  The College Crosse analysis is focused upon the on-the-field element and concludes that the Big Ten supposedly doesn’t offer Johns Hopkins anything worthwhile, but it’s unlikely that the school is examining this conference option for any competitive reason.  Instead, it’s about an possible offer to be part of the most powerful conference and brand in college athletics on the basis of a single sport that isn’t football or basketball along with being the only school that the league has ever granted an associate membership to.  That’s an invitation that the vast majority of university presidents and athletic directors in this country would kill for.  We’ll see how Johns Hopkins approaches this going forward.)

Now, what does the prospect of adding Johns Hopkins mean for Big Ten expansion overall?  One school of thought is that adding Johns Hopkins and a Big Ten lacrosse league would make it more palatable for Virginia and North Carolina to consider the Big Ten (as they have powerhouse lacrosse programs that have greater influence on campus than their revenue might indicate).  The other viewpoint is the flip side, where the Big Ten wouldn’t be considering the addition of Johns Hopkins at all as an associate member if it believed a larger expansion that included UVA and/or UNC was imminent.  I tend to favor the latter point of view.  As much as I see the benefits listed above with adding JHU for lacrosse, I highly doubt it would be happening if the Big Ten thought that more full members with their own lacrosse members would be joining at any point in the near future.  That doesn’t mean that UVA or UNC won’t ever join the Big Ten, but the talk about Johns Hopkins is a bit of a canary in the coal mine on the overall status of conference realignment as of now.

(2) Potential Catholic 7 Fallout – We’ve spent most of our time here lately focused on the large potential realignment earthquakes with the power football conferences along with analyzing who might the 7 Catholic schools splitting from the Big East (AKA the “Catholic 7” or “C7”) might add to their new basketball-centric league.  However, we haven’t really examined the potential fallout from the formation of the new C7 league, which may very well affect every single Division I basketball conference that doesn’t sponsor FBS football.  While I’m an ACC Armageddon skeptic, there should be little question that the basketball conference landscape is going to get smashed as soon as the C7 announces who they’re adding (and that could happen any day at this point).

The C7 still appears to have Xavier and Butler as locks to be additions with some combination of 3 of Creighton, Dayton, St. Louis and VCU.  (My semi-educated guess is that VCU will end up being left out as a result of being a lack of an institutional fit.)  In any scenario, the Atlantic 10 is going to end up losing a crippling chunk of top programs, while the Missouri Valley Conference is at risk of losing its top breadwinner, as well.  Will the A-10 end up attempting to raid the MVC or vice versa?  Could both the A-10 and MVC start fighting over programs from the Horizon League (e.g. Loyola and/or my parents’ alma mater of UIC in the Chicago market)?  Will the Colonial Athletic Association get poached by the A-10 again (e.g. George Mason and/or Northeastern)?  Who would the Horizon and CAA end up raiding for replacements?  Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) just announced today that it is leaving the relatively geographically friendly Summit League for the spread out WAC that has been life support, which makes no sense on paper… unless they believe that the Summit will get picked apart after the C7 makes their move. The number of permutations is endless, so it’s tough to even wrap my mind around how all of these conferences are going to react to the C7’s final decision.  It’s particularly curious that there really isn’t any indication whatsoever as to who the Atlantic 10 would be interested in when they inevitably need to backfill their membership (assuming that they even want to stay as a 14-school conference), so it’s difficult to reasonably predict who will be moving despite the fact that there will likely be dozens of schools shifting leagues.  I’m going to give this some more thought, but I’d be interested to see what you (as the readers of this blog) believe will happen since (a) it’s uncharted territory and (b) much more imminent compared to FBS power conference moves as of now.

(3) My Vote for the Name of the C7 League: “The Classic East” – Assuming that the C7 won’t be able to keep the Big East brand name for their new league (which is still an item that’s up for negotiation), there have been a number of religiously-related names suggested out there, such as “The Vatican League” or “The Big Priest”.  However, I came across a suggestion from a discussion on VUhoops that I believe is brilliant: “The Classic East”.  It’s a name that gives the C7 league a new and separate identity yet still evokes the tradition and history of what the old Big East used to be.  Think of how the Coca-Cola Company backtracked on its “New Coke” disaster and brought back its original cola formula as “Coca-Cola Classic”.  Anyway, that’s my vote if the Big East name stays with the football schools.

Enjoy the weekend and let’s hope the Illini can keep building upon tonight’s massive win!

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

(Image from Baltimore Sun)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!

    Like

  2. frug says:

    Yeah, I still can’t figure out what exactly JHU would get by joining the Big Ten.

    (Hopefully, very little since it would make them more likely to decline an invite in the event the Big Ten is stupid to actually give them one).

    ….

    On the C7 issue I think they ultimately end up with the Big East name. Big East name doesn’t really have any football value at this point so it probably makes more sense for the football schools to go ahead and sell it to the BB schools.

    Like

    • frug says:

      Also, can we stop the non-sense that Hopkins would be “all-sports” member. If that were true then Hopkins would be entitled to a full share of Big Ten conference payouts even though they would only participate in one sport, and obviously that isn’t going to happen.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        I agree with Frank’s analysis on this subject.

        JHU is as unique a situation as there is in D-1 sports.

        It’s okay to me to think of JHU as an all-sports member as long as all its D-1 teams become Big Ten teams. They’d be somewhere between UChicago and the Big Ten members, but obviously closer to UChicago.

        So they’d get a payout commensurate with the fact that they’re only bringing two lacrosse teams.

        The payout shouldn’t determine whether JHU is an all-in member, in my opinion; it should be whether they’re providing all their D-1 sports.

        Like

        • frug says:

          So they’d get a payout commensurate with the fact that they’re only bringing two lacrosse teams.

          By that logic Michigan should get a higher payout than Purdue because UM participates in more Big Ten sponsored sports than the Boilermakers.

          Like

          • frug says:

            I don’t mean to come off as a sarcastic twit, it’s just that I can’t see anyway Hopkins can be viewed as anything but a partial member no matter how hard people try and spin it.

            Like

          • @frug – Oh, I agree that they’re a partial member. However, I do firmly believe that the fact that lacrosse is JHU’s only Division I sport is critical. The #1 question that I’m getting from people about this setup is whether the Big Ten would then allow other associate members such as Notre Dame for hockey or other sports, so I’m trying to make it very clear why the Johns Hopkins situation can be distinguished from that.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            You’re right frug.

            I think we’re just focusing on the fact that they don’t have any other D-1 sports than lacrosse to distinguish it from considering adding anyone else as a partial member.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Frank and zeek

            I get what you’re saying, but I still don’t think there is a philosophical difference. Partial membership is still partial membership regardless of where the other sports are played. I mean if they are willing to bend the rules for Hopkins what would stop them from bending them a little more BU hockey or ISU wrestling or whatever.

            Now I’m not saying adding JHU for lacrosse would lead to a slippery slope that causes the Big Ten to end up as a Big East style hybrid conference because I don’t believe that would be the case, but it would set a precedent.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            frug,

            I’m with you on this.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            @frug, whether its a difference that makes a difference depends on what is the objection to the Big Ten offering associate membership. On my part, the objection is the participation of the associate member in some other competition that is a rival to a Big Ten championship. JHU obviously would be a different case in terms of not being subject to that objection.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            @frug: There clearly IS a distinction between: A) Admitting JHU for 100 percent of the Division I sports it plays; and B) Admitting some other school (e.g., BU hockey) for just one of the many Division I sports it plays.

            Although the B1G has never had associate members before, they’re not generally harmful in other conferences. The Big East was an unusual case, in that it was split almost 50/50 between schools with radically different agendas. No other conference with associate members has had that problem.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            “By that logic Michigan should get a higher payout than Purdue because UM participates in more Big Ten sponsored sports than the Boilermakers”

            If a Big Ten school doesn’t participate in a televised sport–say Baseball–do they still get a split of that sport’s TV rights fees? Or the attendance money if the Conference tournament turns a profit?

            That money wouldn’t be large, but I’m sure the schools that field teams would like that money to offset the cost of having a team.

            When the Big Ten fields a Hockey League, all 14 teams will benefit if it makes their ownership stakes in the BTN more valuable. However there will also be rights fees paid by the BTN and other networks (probably ESPN or Fox) to the conference. Will that money be split 14 ways, or divided among the teams spending the money to put up hockey teams?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            m (Ag),

            “If a Big Ten school doesn’t participate in a televised sport–say Baseball–do they still get a split of that sport’s TV rights fees? Or the attendance money if the Conference tournament turns a profit?

            That money wouldn’t be large, but I’m sure the schools that field teams would like that money to offset the cost of having a team.”

            The B10 and BTN are secretive about all things financial. I’ve never seen the BTN payout broken down by sport. I believe all schools get the same amount (realistically, FB and hoops make 99% of the money anyway). If they really wanted to be fair, they’d split the money by sport and by full price subscribers per school in state and by TV ratings.

            “When the Big Ten fields a Hockey League, all 14 teams will benefit if it makes their ownership stakes in the BTN more valuable. However there will also be rights fees paid by the BTN and other networks (probably ESPN or Fox) to the conference. Will that money be split 14 ways, or divided among the teams spending the money to put up hockey teams?”

            We don’t know. I’m sure MN and WI, especially, would like rights fees for hockey. They get paid now, I assume. The B10 may counter by saying those schools get paid equally to OSU and MI for FB rights, so they can share hockey rights. More importantly, the playoff is about to give everyone a bunch of money so they’ll be OK. Then the new TV deal will start and everyone will get a big raise.

            Like

        • SpaceTetra says:

          So what happens in the future if JHU is admitted to the B1G and later decides that it wants to plan D1 Tennis? Are they blocked or would the B1G allow it?

          Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            The NCAA Division Three rules block them from doing that ~ only one D1 men’s sport and one D1 women’s sport is allowed, and for the men’s sport, it can only be a scholarship sport if it was already a scholarship sport in 2004.

            For women’s sport, they also allowed scholarships to be the Title IX offset for a grandfathered men’s sport, but JHU is not dropping women’s Lacrosse for women’s tennis.

            Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        OK, then “all-scholarship-sports” member. For all but seven schools in the country, associate membership implies splitting their scholarship sports between different conferences. For some of those seven grandfathered D3 schools with individual D1 programs, they can be “all in” as an associate member.

        Like

    • bullet says:

      If not the Big East, then the “Big North.”

      Like

  3. Kevin says:

    Go BLUE!

    Like

  4. bamatab says:

    RTR!

    Like

  5. Ro says:

    Its hard to take your (singly unflappable) assessment that the ACC is invulnerable seriously after Maryland flew the coop, Frank. That, combined with multiple B1G ADs discussing 16-20 team leagues, undermines that argument such that the constant refrain is getting tedious. You have new information. Love the blog, read all the updates, not Wong a prick, I just don’t see a reevaluation based on new evidence.

    Like

    • @Ro – I don’t think there’s really any new evidence. I’m fairly certain that there are scenarios where the Big Ten *wants* to expand to at least 16 (if not 18) and ADs all across the country are aware of that (which is why you continue hearing vague rumblings about expansion not being over). The skepticism that I continue to have is that the specific schools that the Big Ten would want/need in order to expand to that level (UNC and UVA) aren’t in the mindset of budging, and if they’re not budging, that lessens the prospect of schools like Georgia Tech and Florida State budging, too. Believe me – I’m not an “expansion for the sake of expansion” person, but if the Big Ten could add all 4 of UVA, UNC, GT and FSU, then I’d be all for it. I just don’t think it’s as easy as many people are making it out to be that the TV money difference (as much as it might be) will be enough.

      Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      Note that the post did not actually say that the ACC is invulnerable, just that the rumors of UVA having one foot out the door to the Big Ten might be overblown.

      And they could well be: we know that if UVA is working out a contingency back-up plan in case some other school’s defection leads to instability, the rumors that would leak out would be hard to tell apart from the rumors sparked by the UVA being more than half inclined to leave.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      I’m a fan of this blog, but Texas A&M’s move to the SEC and Maryland’s move to the Big Ten took Frank by surprise. He thought both moves were highly unlikely to occur.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Many of us saw aTm as probable, Frank thought it less likely. It got a thoroughly discussed for many months prior to it happening.
        Almost none of us saw the Maryland move happening when it did, but FtT had them identified as a likely target years ago.
        Is there a blog you could direct us to that has been as informatitive and civil, that has a better record of forecasting and explaining past, current, and possible future shifts?

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Is there a blog you could direct us to that has been as informatitive and civil…

          There is none; this is the best there is, by far. By mentioning Frank’s misses, I was merely pointing out just how much uncertainty there really is.

          Like

  6. JohnCassillo says:

    I was talking with folks over at College Crosse earlier, and the angle I think has gone unexamined (even in that post) is what Johns Hopkins means from a lacrosse standpoint. Other commenters were curious about why they’d bother adding JHU if they could potentially bring in other schools (Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota) on the lacrosse side to form a full league. To me, it traces back to how lacrosse works: it’s a social club that needs “elite” members in order to usher new members in. So for the B1G, whose programs are still pretty new to the D-I lacrosse scene, they need another liason into the sport’s small “boy’s club” besides just Maryland. Hopkins fits the bill, and as Frank alludes to, offers instant credibility to the B1G lacrosse conference. I’m tempted to believe there’s no nefarious angle here — it’s simply a smart move for the league to add quality lacrosse inventory as its cable network continues to grow.

    Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      Yes ~ as far as Lacrosse, the national Lacrosse association meets at JHU, and the Hall of Fame is located at JHU.

      Big Ten Lacrosse would be a good fit to the seasonal programming picture, with the conference schedule kicking in a little while after basketball has moved out of BTN’s hands. And a Boise State style deal to allow JHU to have a separate package for its home games and pass the revenue through to JHU would be a net win for the BTN, since it would have John Hopkins away games during the conference season, and the home games during conference season would put the Big Ten teams on ESPNU, raising their profile.

      If UVA joins, the conference schedule still falls in the space after the BTN loses basketball, JHU is happy to schedule UVA, and they can always fill their conference bye week with a good game ~ if UNC joins the conference that just fills in the bye game, and is another game JHU would be happy to schedule.

      As far as an ongoing Cross conference with Johns Hopkins and Maryland as sweetener for UVA and/or UNC ~ its not a lot of sugar, but it is one headache crossed off the list of of the Athletic Director’s non-revenue sports headaches, and for UNC, even a modest point to tilt the balance to the favor of the Big Ten versus the SEC is a good thing. Just stiffening resistance at UNC to joining the SEC would be a good thing. Obviously more UVA and UNC lacrosse players have gone on to become doctors and lawyers than have gone on to become professional lacrosse players, so its more of an issue with academic alumni donations than with athletic boosters.

      Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        Bruce – as far as LAX in the B1G serving as a “sweetener for UVA and/or UNC”, you’re right in that its not a lot of sugar. Looking at last season’s box scores, UNC drew 1,009 fans to its biggest home game of the year against Maryland, and UVA drew 3,615 in an ACC tourney game at Charlottesville against UNC.

        By contrast, UVA averaged 3,208 fans per game for baseball last season, and UNC averaged 1,483. Both UNC and UVA have participated in the CWS in recent years. Also, the ACC has only 8 regular season LAX games scheduled to air on ESPNU this season, while 24 baseball games are scheduled to be broadcast on ESPNU, CSS & Raycom this season.

        My source for the the numbers is the ACC website and related links to UNC and UVA’s athletic websites.

        I doubt either LAX or baseball figure into UNC and UVA’s decision regarding conference affiliation, but baseball appears to be a slightly bigger deal on those campuses and to their television partners.

        I would think SEC baseball provides a little more “sweetener for UVA and/or UNC” than does B1G LAX.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Alan,

          I disagree. I’d say baseball is a much bigger deal to them than LAX.

          Rice is an AAU school in TX with quality baseball. That adds footprint (sort of) and a top baseball school to attract the ACC teams, plus TX access for recruiting. They are worse than GT, but in a bigger market.

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Here’s another LAX fun fact. There are only 63 D-I LAX schools. Of those 63 schools, only 14 are FBS schools.

            http://www.laxpower.com/update13/binmen/rating01.php

            D-I LAX & FBS schools: Duke, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Syracuse, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Air Force, Army, Navy, and UMass.

            JHU could also be the 6th team in the future ACC with Duke, UVA, UNC, ND and Syracuse.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Well Detroit could be the 6th in the C-7 (if Marquette leaves independence). So could Notre Dame or John Hopkins.

            Like

          • DugHol says:

            For Virginia and North Carolina, I think lacrosse is a bigger sweetener from the B1G than baseball is from the SEC, because at least the B1G has baseball and will be sponsoring men’s and women’s lacrosse, while the SEC doesn’t sponsor either men’s or women’s lacrosse. That’s two sports teams that Virginia and/or North Carolina would have to dump or farm out if they went to the SEC. You think that isn’t a big deal? Same goes for wrestling and women’s field hockey, two other sports that North Carolina and Virginia field and the B1G sponsors that the SEC doesn’t; and I believe there are others as well. I think the only sport the SEC sponsors that the B1G doesn’t is Equestrian. And the B1G has an established network with over 70 million viewers to promote those sports for North Carolina and Virginia, while promoting the schools as well. Not to mention that Virginia and North Carolina are excellent in academics and research, two areas that the B!G is miles ahead of the SEC in. And you’re throwing baseball against all that? Seriously?

            Like

          • DugHol says:

            Heck,. I didn’t even mention basketball, the sport that the ACC teams most care about. Do you want to compare those sports, SEC versus B1G?

            Like

          • Transic says:

            Speaking of lacrosse and baseball, I want to bring something up that I haven’t had the opportunity to before. It’s about how the NCAA determines which sports gets played in what seasons. I’m OK with lacrosse as a spring sport but, for the life of me, I never understand why baseball is played in the early part of the year, whereas I think the quality of the game would be better if played from March to sometime in July or August. Right now, the schedule will always favor the southern schools, which is why those schools don’t mind playing on those months. There’s a reason why the pros play within the months of March-November.

            I think baseball and soccer should change schedules. There should be a rule where sports which are played indoors are played in the colder months, with outdoors sports in the spring and summer months, with the major exception for football and winter sports.

            March to September*

            Baseball
            Softball
            Soccer
            Golf
            Cross Country
            LaCrosse
            Outdoor Track

            August to March*

            Football
            Volleyball
            Gymnastics
            Wrestling
            Indoor track
            Swimming and Diving
            Basketball

            *Not necessarily have to play in all those months within the time frame

            IMO, football should start in the last part of September but I realize that may not happen now with the talk of expanding the season for future years.

            Like

          • DugHol says:

            Upon further review, North Carolina and Virginia don’t field Equestrian, so there isn’t a single North Carolina or Virginia sport carries that the SEC sponsors. Meanwhile, there are six sports that UVa and UNC carries that the B1G could house for them that the SEC couldn’t: rowing, men’s field hockey, women’s field hockey, wrestling, men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse.

            So, more than a quarter of Virgiinia’s 23 sports (6 of 23) would go homeless in the SEC, while all 23 would be snug-as-a-bug in the B1G. Nearly a third of UNC’s sports (8 of 25, including men’s and women’s fencing, which the B1G doesn’t sponsor, either) would go homeless in the SEC, while only 2 of those 25 would go homeless in the B1G. Penn State and Ohio State field men’s and women’s fencing, while Northwestern fields women’s fencing, so at least there’s a start toward leagues in those sports. (The ACC doesn’t sponsor men’s or women’s fencing, either, so UNC wouldn’t lose any sports by moving to the B1G).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Transic,

            “It’s about how the NCAA determines which sports gets played in what seasons. I’m OK with lacrosse as a spring sport but, for the life of me, I never understand why baseball is played in the early part of the year, whereas I think the quality of the game would be better if played from March to sometime in July or August. Right now, the schedule will always favor the southern schools, which is why those schools don’t mind playing on those months. There’s a reason why the pros play within the months of March-November.”

            You are ignoring the academic calendar. The NCAA has fall semester sports and spring semester sports. They prefer to avoid 2 semester sports, although obviously there are some. There are no summer semester sports. In part, that’s because they don’t want sports played when most students aren’t in school. It’s also because they tend to copy the high school seasons for sports. Beyond that, the sports themselves have a big say in when they play. The midwest doesn’t get to dictate the schedules to everyone else.

            “IMO, football should start in the last part of September but I realize that may not happen now with the talk of expanding the season for future years.”

            They would never approve extending the season that long. Right now it ends the week before finals start for some schools. The presidents don’t want them playing through finals and over Christmas and playing bowls well into January. The bowls don’t want that either. They need holiday vacation days to draw fans. The NFL owns all those weekends with playoff games, too. On top of all that is the idea of playing a game in Madison or Lincoln at the end of December.

            Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          @ Alan from Baton Rouge ~ Yes, baseball at UVA would be much like hockey at Wisconsin, the most popular of the subsidy sports. But you are only looking at attendance, and attendance is only part of what lends a subsidy sport some clout on campus. Lacrosse is a sport that tends to trend higher in the income ladder than baseball. Part of what makes Lacrosse the stereotypical old-boy’s-club sport is the number of doctors and lawyers and market traders on the East Coast that played lacrosse when they were younger.

          As set out by Doughol, for UVA, rowing, men’s field hockey, women’s field hockey and wrestling are four sports that the Big Ten sponsors out of the six that the SEC doesn’t. Adding women’s Lacrosse, as the Big Ten can do (and I’d expect is likely to do) in the 14/15 school year makes that five out of six. Adding men’s lacrosse makes that six out of six.

          In terms of taking non-revenue sports headaches off of the Athletic Director’s desk, 6 out of 6 is pretty good. And of those sports, Lacrosse would have more clout at UVA than all of the thers put together, so Men’s Lacrosse is the biggest headache of the six.

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Bruce – the difference between baseball and lacrosse is the number of games. Last year, UVA played 35 home baseball games and averaged 3,208 fans per game. This season UVA hosts 9 lacrosse games. Last year, UNC played 41 home baseball games and averaged 1,483 fans per game. This season UNC hosts 9 lacrosse games. Its season opener last week drew 1,714 fans.

            Parking a revenue neutral to money making sport in a terrible baseball league would appear to be more of a headache from an AD’s perspective than sticking 6 revenue losers in other leagues, if baseball, lacrosse, field hockey, rowing, and wrestling even enter the equation – which I doubt.

            I hope the ACC stays together and not other teams move for at least a generation. But if schools do change conferences, the moves will be based on money, goegraphy, cultural fit and academic fit. UVA and UNC may prefer the B1G to the SEC, or they may not. None of us know.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            You’re still analyzing Lacrosse as if it was an issue restricted to inside the athletic department and purely a matter of gate receipts. Your Lacrosse alums who went to elite private schools on the east coast and your Lacrosse parents who sent their kids to elite private schools on the east coast are not just athletic boosters ~ they are also sources of donations to the University as a research and educational institution.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            You also have to look at it from another standpoint. It is an upper middle class/upper class white sport when the universities are trying to get more diverse. I think that works against Lacrosse expanding beyond its east coast base in the universities.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Bullet:

            Attracting more upper class is not to the exclusion of other recruiting endeavors. In fact by attracting more money you enable those efforts, unless you specifically chose not to.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Bruce – you’re missing the point. Based on a review of the D-I lacrosse conferences on the NCAA website, it doesn’t appear to be necessary to be in a “major” conference to field a competitive lacrosse team. Johns Hopkins and Michigan are currently independents. Penn State plays in the Colonial. Ohio State plays in the ECAC. The ACC is currently a four team conference. Having a B1G “home” for lacrosse doesn’t appear to be nearly the big deal you make it out to be. On the other hand, sticking the UVA and UNC baseball teams in the B1G would probably have a devastating effect on the baseball programs that UNC and UVA have worked so hard to build up over the last decade.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Alan:

            It would, however, make a much easier path to conference championships and padding the schedule OOC would no longer be necessary. 🙂

            Seriously, I’d be concerned too. But does it follow that they necessarily will drop their level of play? Especially as they (presumably) would gain a significant bump in revenue?

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            ccrider – see Nebraska baseball for your answer.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            We’re they great in B8/12? Seems any record they have is a reflection of their former conference(s).

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            ccrider – that’s my point. As a member of the Big XII, Nebraska made it to three College World Series. The B1G usually only places one team in the tournament. The ACC received 7 bids last year and hosted 5 regionals, including UNC and UVA.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            But do you expect UNL to drop? Or (theoretically) UVA and UNC simply because they are playing some opponents in different color uniforms? I’d expect the B1G to rise by the amount the B12 and ACC suffered from the loss of those schools.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            I haven’t followed Nebraska baseball at all since they went to the Big Ten, but I know they were very worried about attracting recruits to the school once they changed conference.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            ccrider – yes. The Big XII, Pac-12, and the ACC are all baseball power conferences, along with the SEC. Nebraska baseball dropped off a bit prior to joining the B1G, but will probably never recover. As a member of a conference that is not competitive nationally, its going to be hard to put together great recruiting classes. Unlike football and basketball, college baseball programs not only have to recruit against other schools, but MLB as well. If UNC and UVA join the B1G, I would think great high school recruits would be hesitant to sign with the Tarheels and the Cavs since they won’t be able to showcase their talents against top competition.

            Again, I doubt baseball becomes a major consideration when moving conferences, but UNC and UVA’s baseball teams will undoubtedly suffer as a result of a move to the B1G. Their programs will go from making a little money or breaking even to being a drain on the athletic department. Field hockey, rowing, wrestling and even lacrosse will probably always be money losers.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            @Alan – I agree with your premise that a rising tide lifts all boats. However, Nebraska’s baseball drop-off isn’t due to the Big Ten (It hasn’t helped either) it’s mainly due to other factors.

            Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      @JohnCassillo and BruceMcF:

      thank you for the gr8 extra information, particularly re: JHU having the meetings and the HOF location.

      Like

  7. DR says:

    Do you think that if Creighton left the MVC that the MVC would take North Dakota State and maybe South Dakota State as full members? They both play football in the MVC and play their other sports in the Summit. NDSU is dominating in football with the last 2 FCS National Championships (I know it isn’t FBS level but it is nice to watch Northern Football Team with a bunch of local kids clobber teams from all over the country). Both NDSU and SDSU have won the Summit in basketball and played well in the tournament. SDSU will likely win the Summit again this year with a great guard and future NBA player, Nate Wolters, from St. Cloud who just scored 53 points in one game. These schools are not population centers and could be travel hassles however they have very strong state wide support. Both States are prosperous, growing, and in the case of North Dakota, booming and swimming in cash. Both schools, along with N. Iowa going further back, were part of the old NCAA DII North Central Conference. When most of the old Division II powers starting going the Division I / FCS route NDSU felt that they had to do the same. Initially, in an act of faith and nerve, they went as an independent playing almost all road games. I would like to see them rewarded. Most of the teams from that conference eventually followed. It’s interesting how this stuff rolls around.
    DR

    Like

    • @DR – I’ve seen NDSU and SDSU thrown around today as potential MVC additions. On paper, they seem to be logical targets. Now, the thing that I wonder about is whether the MVC would prefer going east toward the larger Great Lakes markets (e.g. Loyola, UIC, Valpo, Detroit, etc.). In particular, Chicago is a natural extension of where I would think the MVC would want to be – Illinois State, Bradley and Southern Illinois all draw the majority of their students from that metro area (and Drake draws also draws a large Chicagoland contingent). I guess it depends upon how strong the Horizon League ends up being and whether they stick together. From a pure ticket sale perspective, being in the MVC would help Loyola and UIC. In terms of how they look at themselves as institutions, they’d likely prefer staying in the Horizon or seeing if the Atlantic 10 would have interest.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        And the MVC is a mix of fb schools and bb schools (mostly private). Bradley, Drake, Evansville might prefer a Loyola or Detroit (who is a former MVC member from the 50s).

        But the Dakota schools do have good fan support in bb. That may the tipping point in their favor.

        Like

      • Arch Stanton says:

        I wonder if instead of one of the Dakota schools, that the Missouri Valley Conference would take a chance on the University of Nebraska-Omaha (assuming Creighton leaves, of course).
        None of the Summit League schools will ever replace the value of Creighton, but UNO would kept a MVC team in Omaha, would be a very easy transition for scheduling/traveling and there is already a familiarity/name recognition with MVC schools among Omaha basketball fans.
        There would definitely be a risk to taking UNO for the MVC since they have only been Division I for one year, but there might be more potential upside down the road.
        It probably depends on if the MVC fears losing more than just Creighton once the dust settles.

        The UMKC move is bizarre no matter how you slice the pie. Even the Southland Conference seems like a step up from the WAC for them if the Summit does implode. UMKC must be completely out of the running for the MVC if they are jumping to the WAC.

        There are a lot of ways that MVC could go, I think it largely boils down to how much geography plays into their decision. They already have associate members in Arkansas (UCA for soccer) and Texas (Dallas Baptist for baseball). I don’t think either of those schools are candidates for full membership (especially DBU since they are DII in all other sports) but I wonder if the MVC would look that far for a new full member. If so, that opens up a lot of possibilities.

        Like

  8. JohnCassillo says:

    C7 Realignment Hypothetical:

    C7 Adds: Xavier, Butler, St. Louis, Dayton (A-10); Creighton (MVC)

    A-10 Adds: George Mason, Northeastern, Hofstra (CAA)

    CAA Adds: Robert Morris (Northeast); Bucknell (Patriot); Siena (MAAC)

    … Potentially it could all end there. The Patriot may need to add another small school, as would the Northeast. But the MVC and MAAC could stay where they’re at and the damage could end there. This is the optimistic view though, I know.

    Like

  9. prophetstruth says:

    Frank, what do you make of the following comments from the article you link in your post regarding potential affiliate conference membership for other sports? What other sports could potentially have affiliate conference members and what teams could be potential expansion members for those sports?

    “We’ll be going through every one of our sports and we have to analyze each one of them,” Lyke said. “Obviously we’ll consider how [affiliate conference membership] impacts those particular sports and what are the best options for those programs.”

    Like

  10. Hopkins Horn says:

    At the end of the day, it looks like my alma mater will resist making a realignment move which otherwise makes sense because the TV money it receives in a unique one-off deal with ESPN makes maintaining the status quo more attractive than it otherwise would be.

    Sigh…

    Like

  11. alex says:

    I really think women’s lacrosse might a driving force between the Big Ten and Johns Hopkins rumors. With Maryland and Rutgers joining the B1G and Michigan having a varsity team starting next season, the B1G will already have six women’s teams (PSU, OSU, NW as the others). That leaves the American Lacrosse Conference with only 3 teams left (JHU, Florida, Vanderbilt) and without an auto-bid. Unless more schools start a women’s team, Johns Hopkins would be looking for a new home for their women’s team anyway.

    I think it also leaves the Big Ten with a bit of a reputation hit if they begin to sponsor a new women’s league without the more popular male counterpart of the sport. The Big Ten would want a men’s league too. But they need another team.

    It’s no secret that the Big Ten Network lacks live programing during the spring, especially during the week. If the B1G can create lacrosse leagues, they can control the scheduling and have games on Sunday night, Monday, or Thursday for television purposes. JHU could still possibly have most of their games on TV in the Big Ten on BTN. Or there could be a deal with only the conference games on BTN with ESPNU airing the non-conference slate. That could be a win-win-win for everyone involved.

    Like

    • @alex – This is a very interesting point. The lack of an autobid appears to have never been a real issue for the Johns Hopkins men’s team (or is at least on par with Notre Dame’s general ambivalence toward the benefit of conference bowl tie-ins up until now), but the women’s team could very well be a different story if the Big Ten plans to form a women’s league once Michigan joins (and thereby causing a mass defection from the ALC). There aren’t any other leagues that only sponsor women’s lacrosse and there also aren’t any independents, so JHU would have to join some league for women’s lacrosse that offers a full complement of other Division I sports, anyway. The only leagues that offer women’s lacrosse that would really fit JHU’s overall academic profile would be the Big Ten, ACC, Ivy League and Patriot League. Remember that for women’s lacrosse, Northwestern is already a superpower and Maryland is right next to them, so a new Big Ten women’s league would likely be the top one out there competitively.

      So, this is yet another reason why the Johns Hopkins situation is unique. In 99.99% of the cases, athletic department decisions aren’t ever going to be made based upon a non-revenue women’s sport. However, when a single women’s team constitutes half of your school’s Division I athletes, then finding a home for them could end up driving a need for the higher profile men’s team to go along with them (even if they wouldn’t necessarily want to if the men’s team’s interests were looked at in a vacuum).

      Like

      • zeek says:

        @alex, Frank

        Actually though, on the women’s lacrosse side, the recent developments may be a negative for JHU to the Big Ten rumors.

        JHU announced they were leaving the ALC before this latest round of expansion launched and the Big Ten took Maryland and Rutgers.

        The main reasoning (from the people who I follow on it) is that JHU was concerned about being in a league full of high spending Big Ten and SEC teams:

        Florida spent over $15 million to get their women’s lacrosse team the best facilities in the country. Northwestern built their lakeside field for women’s lacrosse and is building women’s lacrosse into their major facilities renovation. Michigan spent millions on its lacrosse facilities.

        My understanding of the situation is that JHU was actually concerned about being a little fish playing in a big fish pond of Big Ten/SEC women’s lacrosse teams, and that was a major concern that led them to leave the league.

        Maryland and Northwestern have won most of the past 20 women’s lacrosse championships, I’m not sure JHU wants their women’s team to be in a Big Ten with that kind of strength.

        Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Excellent points. I think this also confirms (if it hadn’t been already) that the B1G’s due diligence on the expansion front is deep and wide. They have every based covered.

        Like

      • Nemo says:

        @Frank

        This is Nemo (not the superstorm!) weighing in. I’ve read all the comments in this thread and would like to bring up two thing which are not mentioned. First, Hopkins is not just a great University but one with international connections. The old “saw” in Maryland, is that JHU would rather accept a student from an international location than one from the U.S. And since the B1G wants to gets more eyes on the BTN, JHU definitely cements the Baltimore and the East Coast market in the spring with its LAX team on the BTN. Second, as Hopkins is an “Ivy” they have the same kind of attitude/alumni as UVA (“the wine and brie crowd”). So, if the B1G wanted to totally cement the region from DC to the UNC line, adding Hopkins and its research and lacrosse team is a brilliant stroke. And as some one below mentioned, JHU is part of the “elite club” in lacrosse, and since LAX is up and coming as a national sport, I think it shows JD is a genius if he can pull it off. Trust me, LAX is going to be a great revenue sport in the future especially with football getting all the “hits” on concussions and having the NFL talking about “taming” the sport. It is definitely positioning the Conference for a 50 year view with regards to the East Coast where LAX is like a religion in high school sports.

        Nemo

        Like

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        i’m sorry. it’s mushy, but I have to say i just love this site. I’m not 1/4th of the way down the comments and I already learned where the lax HOF is located and now I am learning about the only women’s sport that might actually affect conference realignment.

        Where else but here at FtT do all the “two cents” and “here’s a thought” add up to gold?

        Like

  12. Craig Z says:

    Go Bucks.

    Like

  13. Brian says:

    Frank the Tank,

    Thanks for the new post.

    “In a somewhat surprising bit of news, the Big Ten is apparently targeting Johns Hopkins as an associate member for lacrosse.”

    Have we heard anything but that first rumor? Any decent source? Any major media outlet running with it? In other words, how much stock should we put in this report?

    “From my vantage point, Johns Hopkins is about as unique of a situation as it gets since (a) as noted, its addition is the difference between the Big Ten having an NCAA auto-bid lacrosse league versus having none at all,”

    So what? Where is the value in making it a B10 sport? It means the B10 will get an autobid into the NCAA tournament, but that has no value. JHU or UMD would win every year, and JHU already makes it every year as an independent. Will the BTN make a lot more money with B10 lacrosse? Do they show it at all right now?

    “(b) men’s and women’s lacrosse are the only sports that Johns Hopkins plays at the Division I level (all of its other sports are in Division III), so they would technically be an “all-sports” member for the Big Ten since it is providing “all” of the sports in which the conference sponsors a league (unlike Notre Dame or BU that obviously play at the Division I level in other sports), ”

    I disagree. As long as they play other sports elsewhere, they can’t technically be an all-sports member. You can say they are a special case because they only play 2 D-I sports and I won’t argue. But they will NOT be all-sports members.

    “(c) Johns Hopkins happens to be an elite lacrosse power, so their combination with Maryland would instantly make the Big Ten into a top notch league in that sport”

    Agreed, JHU and Syracuse are the true kings of lacrosse. It’s similar to adding ND in football in terms of their brand relative to others in the sport.

    “(d) in terms of academics and research funding power, Johns Hopkins is about as top notch as you can get outside of the Ivy League,”

    Their research money is much larger than any Ivy. Their academic reputation is on par with the Ivies.

    “which means that they can provide further gravitas to the Committee on Institutional Cooperation,”

    I’m not sure how much this would really help the CIC. They have actively avoided expanding even with quality AAU schools like CWRU and Carnegie Mellon in the footprint. JHU would add more research money and presumably more resources to share, but is that enough to overcome not having any historical ties? Is helping MD feel at home worth it?

    “(* Note that the College Crosse blog has a fairly skeptical view of the Johns Hopkins/Big Ten marriage occurring because it believes that Johns Hopkins holds the leverage here.”

    He started by saying he’s only looking at it from a sports POV. He ignored any academic considerations. The CIC is the B10’s best selling point to JHU. He’s right that the B10 needs JHU lacrosse more than the other way around.

    “One school of thought is that adding Johns Hopkins and a Big Ten lacrosse league would make it more palatable for Virginia and North Carolina to consider the Big Ten (as they have powerhouse lacrosse programs that have greater influence on campus than their revenue might indicate). The other viewpoint is the flip side, where the Big Ten wouldn’t be considering the addition of Johns Hopkins at all as an associate member if it believed a larger expansion that included UVA and/or UNC was imminent. I tend to favor the latter point of view.”

    As do I. If the B10 really thought UVA was right around the corner, they wouldn’t need JHU. If they still wanted them anyway, it’s better to wait until UVA is onboard to make it more appealing to JHU. On the other hand, if UVA is on the fence this could help 0.00001%. It’s just not enough to make a difference.

    Like

    • David Brown says:

      The Academic portion of JHU is the most important thing from the perspective of the Big 10/CIC. If you have the opportunity to gain one of the top research institutions in the Country you do it. The addition of the Lacrosse teams and the ability to create a Big 10 Lacrosse Conference is just icing on the cake, it is that obvious. The more interesting question, is why would Hopkins consider it? The need to expand going forward into the future that is why. Here in New York, two of the most contentious issues this decade involved the need for New York University (NYU) and Columbia University to expand versus Local Communities opposition to it. In one case, NYU was basically given the New York Polytechnical Institution in a “Shotgun Wedding” by NY State. Why did this happen? Although Polytechnical was one of the top Engineering Institutions in America, they were too small for their own good. From NYU’s perspective it involved two things: 1: NYU wanted to create an Engineering Department (They had not had one in Decades). 2: They needed additional Classroom and dorm space for all students (Polytechnical had an overabundance of it in their home area of Brooklyn (NYU is based in Manhattan but close to Brooklyn)). NYU got both and are still fighting the Local Community (Manhattan) to build dorms and classrooms there as well. As for Columbia, they won a very famous Eminent Domain case to clear out local businesses to expand in their footprint in Upper Manhattan (Note: This will be a 20 year project that is how big it is). If you are Hopkins, you do not want to wake up some morning in the future, and realize you are Polytechnical (Getting swallowed up by a larger institution) because I cannot compete with Medical Schools like Columbia, NYU, Harvard or Stanford all of which have much larger resources. Even Penn State which was NOT known for their Medical Program (Was always behind Pitt), is expanding in that area with stuff like the Hershey Children’s Medical Center, and 10 years from now, will surpass them. Why? Because they have the resources to do so. The Big 10/CIC offers the opportunity for JHU to remain a top University for the next 50 years even without sports above Lacrosse (See the University of Chicago), so perhaps taking it now while being able to negotiate at a position of strength makes sense? It will be interesting to see if they do.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      The question for Brian and Frug is: What “bad thing” happens if JHU joins in Lacrosse only. The good thing, obviously, is that the Big Ten instantly becomes a national power in a growing and increasingly popular sport. Oh, and the CIC gets a research university that outranks any in the Big Ten except Michigan.

      I don’t know the value of those benefits, but clearly the Big Ten does see value of some kind. No one in the Big Ten has acknowledged discussions with JHU, but several ADs have said that they look forward to adding lacrosse as a league sport. Like most things they do, they don’t share their financial projections, but you can be pretty sure they have them.

      So apparently there is some value, even if we can’t quantify it. So, what’s the detriment?

      Where is the value in making it a B10 sport?

      Well, where is the value in any B10 sport, other than football or basketball? As far as I can tell, there’s a lot more interest in lacrosse than women’s rowing, so if “value” is the measure, the Big Ten ought to drop women’s rowing. Or maybe it should just drop all the sports that don’t add value.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Marc Shepherd,

        “The question for Brian and Frug is: What “bad thing” happens if JHU joins in Lacrosse only.”

        I’ll let frug answer for himself. My answer is that when I said I agree with frug, it was about JHU not being an all-sports member. That’s just spin from people supporting the move. JHU would be an associate member. Right now, I’m ambivalent to their addition. I see advantages for the CIC, but not necessarily for the B10. I’m just not sure how much value this brings to the CIC.

        I have five main questions about this move:
        1. Is the B10 really considering this or is it just a rumor?
        2. Would it be just lacrosse or CIC membership also?
        3. If JHU, why not Case and Carnegie Mellon too?
        4. How much would JHU be worth to the CIC?
        5. How much would JHU be worth to the B10/BTN?

        Once I hear those answers, then my opinion may change.

        “Where is the value in making it a B10 sport?

        Well, where is the value in any B10 sport, other than football or basketball?”

        The value is in Title IX offset scholarships, reduced travel compared to joining another league and the built-in rivalries. But some/many of those sports already existed as B10 sports before money was an issue. The B10 made no real effort to add hockey until the BTN existed. Coincidence or cause and effect? Is that the same reasoning behind adding lacrosse now?

        “As far as I can tell, there’s a lot more interest in lacrosse than women’s rowing, so if “value” is the measure, the Big Ten ought to drop women’s rowing. Or maybe it should just drop all the sports that don’t add value.”

        It needs the scholarships from rowing. But if it wasn’t for that, I think non-revenue sports should be intermural instead of interscholastic. Maybe club level if students are willing to pay for it..

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          “But if it wasn’t for that, I think non-revenue sports should be intermural instead of interscholastic. Maybe club level if students are willing to pay for it..”

          I’m surprised. I didn’t take you for being a proponent of college athletics as simply a profit center and a professional farm system.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            I’m not. I’d like to take the money out of FB and hoops, too. If you could, I’d cap their budgets and give all profits to the academics side. I just don’t see the need to throw money at sports that people don’t care about. FB has money now because it had fans first. I think any sport should get minimal outside support. If you can’t raise revenue, then just play for fun. That’s the point of sports, after all. Especially when most schools require large student fees to pay for athletics, it bothers me to see that money wasted on things the students clearly don’t care about.

            Like

          • morganwick says:

            I’d argue the real point of sports that no one wants to admit is to serve as a surrogate army and outlet for humanity’s xenophobic tendencies.

            Oddly, that leads to the same conclusion on this issue.

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          I have five main questions about this move:
          1. Is the B10 really considering this or is it just a rumor?

          Like just about every scenario we discuss on this board, we will really never know until just before it happens, or something else happens to rule it out.

          2. Would it be just lacrosse or CIC membership also?
          3. If JHU, why not Case and Carnegie Mellon too?

          Every B1G move to date has had both an athletic and an academic justification. It therefore seems inconceivable to me that JHU wouldn’t join the CIC.

          Case and Carnegie Mellon bring nothing athletically, as they are Division III in all sports. If the CIC invites them, it might as well invite the whole Ivy League, too, along with NYU for good measure.

          4. How much would JHU be worth to the CIC?

          JHU’s research budget is higher than any Big Ten school. We’re probably never going to know exactly what that’s worth to the CIC. They didn’t tell us what Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland are worth, either. But it’s hard to imagine it not being significant.

          5. How much would JHU be worth to the B10/BTN?

          I would guess it’s not very much, in the context of lacrosse being a non-revenue sport. If I were to guess Delany’s thinking, it would be that if you’re going to launch a sport at all, do it in a way that you can be the best. Adding JHU in lacrosse is like adding Penn State or Nebraska in football.

          This assumes, of course, that the Big Ten would like to be in that sport. The value proposition of offering inter-scholastic non-revenue sports is a whole other question, but obviously the Big Ten has already decided to be in that business. The only issue is how to do it.

          Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            great discussion.

            fwiw, i “second” Brian’s call for more info on whether the B1G is actually considering this or if this is pure pure internet rumor. Anyone know a connected media person (a la Teddy Greenstein) who we can ask to put the question to Delany?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            You don’t really think that would provide the definitive answer, do you?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “2. Would it be just lacrosse or CIC membership also?
            3. If JHU, why not Case and Carnegie Mellon too?

            “Every B1G move to date has had both an athletic and an academic justification. It therefore seems inconceivable to me that JHU wouldn’t join the CIC.”

            But it’s still an unknown. JHU may prefer not to join it for reasons of their own.

            “Case and Carnegie Mellon bring nothing athletically, as they are Division III in all sports. If the CIC invites them, it might as well invite the whole Ivy League, too, along with NYU for good measure.”

            Of course they bring nothing athletically. That’s the point. Chicago brings nothing athletically, either. Yes, they used to be in the B10, but JHU is new. CWRU and CMU used to play football against B10 teams back when UC was a member. It would be pure CIC expansion. If adding JHU brings value to the CIC, why wouldn’t 2 more AAU schools in the footprint also help?

            “JHU’s research budget is higher than any Big Ten school. We’re probably never going to know exactly what that’s worth to the CIC. They didn’t tell us what Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland are worth, either. But it’s hard to imagine it not being significant.”

            No, but you can look back at how much the CIC claimed to save B10 schools each year.

            The 2010-1 Annual Report (download here – http://www.cic.net/Home/NewsAndPubs/Newsroom.aspx) claims the CIC saved $15.3M total versus getting $2.2M in dues. That’s saving $1.0M per year per school. Collaboration has other value, obviously, but that’s what they claim financially.

            The year before, library savings were $1.0M lower while purchasing savings were the same. There was no mention of OmniPop savings.

            2008-9 was better, saving $5.9M on purchases, $6M on libraries and $19M with OmniPop. That’s $31M for 12 schools, or $2.6M per school.

            “5. How much would JHU be worth to the B10/BTN?

            I would guess it’s not very much, in the context of lacrosse being a non-revenue sport. If I were to guess Delany’s thinking, it would be that if you’re going to launch a sport at all, do it in a way that you can be the best. Adding JHU in lacrosse is like adding Penn State or Nebraska in football.”

            If adding JHU means the BTN gets to start airing lacrosse, then it has value. Programming equals ads and subscription fees.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            Not definitive, no. But if some of the connected B10 reporters all start saying that their sources say the B10 is seriously discussing it, that means something. If Teddy said his sources say this is serious, that would carry some weight.

            Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          “3. If JHU, why not Case and Carnegie Mellon too?”

          There are seven Division Three schools allowed to offer scholarships for individual D1 teams: Johns Hopkins (men and women’s lacrosse), RPI (men’s hockey), Clarkson and St Lawrence (men and women’s hockey), Colorado College (men’s hockey and women’s soccer), Hartwick (men’s soccer, women’s water polo), and Rutgers-Newark (men’s volleyball). RPI added women’s D1 hockey as a Title IX offset sport. Oneonta State in men’s soccer was also grandfathered, but then they decided to drop down to D3 soccer.

          Note that the list does not include any of the UAA, the Egghead Eight. The Egghead Eight presently HAVE all of their scholarship sports in the Big Ten ~ also all of their scholarship sports in the SEC, ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 for that matter ~ since they have no scholarship sports to offer.

          I reckon that the AAU and/or top-25 research universities on that list are: Johns Hopkins.

          The closest analogue in another sport is RPI in hockey, but (1) RPI isn’t really on JHU’s level as a research school and (2) women’s hockey needs 2 schools to hit 6, not just 1.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            BruceMcF,

            “3. If JHU, why not Case and Carnegie Mellon too?”

            “There are seven Division Three schools allowed to offer scholarships for individual D1 teams: Johns Hopkins (men and women’s lacrosse), …

            Note that the list does not include any of the UAA, the Egghead Eight.”

            You misunderstand. I’m asking for the CIC, not the B10.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            But every member of the CIC is either a current or legacy member of the Big Ten. UIC held guest membership for its medical school (I believe at the request of Illinois), but that was withdrawn in 2011.

            It seem that the “legacy” membership of Chicago (which entered the CIC as a legacy member of the Big Ten, since the CIC was formed in the wake of the athletic scandals of the 50’s and the Post-Sputnik days of rising science research funding) was not controversial. That’s likely because they are the only “former” Big Ten member in existence, so its not as open-ended a criteria for membership as having an important research wing of a state system at a campus other than the Big Ten campus.

            JHU’s associate membership in the Big Ten is what would sidestep refighting that fight.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            BruceMcF,

            “But every member of the CIC is either a current or legacy member of the Big Ten.”

            So what? Every B10 member is a full member right now, and you’re proposing to change that. The CIC has 1 no-sports member and 1 potential 2-sports member. Why not 2 more no-sports members that help the CIC?

            “It seem that the “legacy” membership of Chicago (which entered the CIC as a legacy member of the Big Ten, since the CIC was formed in the wake of the athletic scandals of the 50′s and the Post-Sputnik days of rising science research funding) was not controversial. That’s likely because they are the only “former” Big Ten member in existence, so its not as open-ended a criteria for membership as having an important research wing of a state system at a campus other than the Big Ten campus.”

            CWRU and CMU wouldn’t be like UIC, they’d be the primary school just like JHU. They would be the only non-D-I AAU schools in the B10 footprint not in the B10, so it’s also a pretty limited criteria. If adding JHU’s research is worth it, then those two should also bring value.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            “‘But every member of the CIC is either a current or legacy member of the Big Ten.’

            So what?”

            So they just had a fight over this, and it was settled by kicking out the school that did not fit that description. Getting Case Western or Central Michigan invited to the CIC would involve refighting that fight and getting it to come out the opposite way, while getting JHU would sidestep that fight.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            BruceMcF,

            “So they just had a fight over this, and it was settled by kicking out the school that did not fit that description. Getting Case Western or Central Michigan invited to the CIC would involve refighting that fight and getting it to come out the opposite way, while getting JHU would sidestep that fight.”

            No. UIC was a branch campus. CWRU and CMU are main universities. UIC isn’t AAU, CWRU and CMU are. Apples and oranges.

            Like

          • Bikemore says:

            CMU = Carnegie Mellon, not Central Michigan

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Oranges and Tangerines maybe ~ the sticking point for UIC was that its not a member of the Big Ten, allowing the the slippery slope question to be raised of what exactly is the basis for entry into the CIC.

            You’re the one objecting to an organization “undermining its tradition / principles / policy” ~ this is a case of an organization changing its policy to line things up with its tradition and core principle, to serve as an academic fig-leaf for an athletics conference. I’d think you’d celebrate and support that, rather than arguing for them to change policy and aim for being a regional subset of the AAU.

            Like

      • frug says:

        What “bad thing” happens if JHU joins in Lacrosse only.

        What “bad thing” would happen if the PAC added a religiously affiliated school? What bad thing would happen if the SEC added a non-Southern school? What bad thing would happen if the Big Ten added a non-AAU school?

        Conferences have principles. Violating them is bad. After all the ACC didn’t think anything bad would happen if they added ND as a partial member after 60+ years of swearing they never would and that move has been a unmitigated disaster.

        Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          Unmitigated disaster? I think that’s quite an exaggeration. Maryland would have left the ACC whether ND was in it under these terms or not. They needed the infusion of cash very badly, and the academic prestige of the Big Ten didn’t hurt either.

          Ironically, the addition of Notre Dame actually helped spare some tradition for the core of the ACC. With 14 members, each ACC basketball team was set to play only one other program twice every year. NC State fans were flipping out because that meant they’d no longer play UNC twice a year, which is something they’ve done every year since 1919. But with 15 members, there either has to be zero permanent rivals or two. To protect the UNC-Duke series, they of course elected to have two protected rivals.

          Besides, the ACC had to do something to increase TV revenue. Remember, the ACC was so far behind in revenue that Big 12 was threatening to take FSU and Clemson without even relying on the Big Ten or SEC to help pick it apart. ND will help the ACC catch up with its competitors. Yes, it irked Maryland because it was leading to a diminished connection with the Tobacco Road schools, but that was not even a factor in why they left.

          Like

          • frug says:

            Unmitigated disaster? I think that’s quite an exaggeration. Maryland would have left the ACC whether ND was in it under these terms or not.

            Actually they wouldn’t have, because prior to the ACC move the Big Ten was content to sit back and wait out ND. Once the ACC gave ND a safe home the Big Ten had to recalibrate which meant attacking the ACC.

            As for increasing the TV revenue, the ACC is looking at a million dollars a year with the ND addition. That’s it. And it came at the cost of destroying 60+ years of tradition (something that Maryland said was a factor in bolting) and forcing the conference to endure the humiliations of being raided, having their most powerful member force the league to abandon its planned 9 game schedule and being unable to get unanimous consent for raising exit fees and accept a major academic downgrade.

            Add in the fact the Maryland departure has ramped up the speculation that more members will bolt (with FSU fans in particular pushing hard for the team to bolt) and there is just no way the conference is stronger with the ND admission.

            Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            I recall Delany citing the failed B1G-P12 partnership as a reason for the addition of Rutgers and Maryland. Had that deal gone through, the need for expansion would not have been there. ND’s presence in the ACC is no different than its presence in the Big East, as far as Delany is concerned. (Oh, so what that ND dropped the Michigan game; that’s not even remotely a valid reason to seek out Maryland.)

            Notre Dame was never going to join the Big Ten, and Delany knew this in 2012 just as well as he did when he added Nebraska instead of Notre Dame in 2010. He and the conference always have the door open for ND, but they’d decided long before the ACC added ND that they coukd make additions other than ND and help improve their league. In Delany’s mind, ND was either going to stick it out in the rapidly declining Big East, or it was going to go get a similar deal in the Big 12. That they surprised everyone by going to the ACC wouldn’t have stopped him from going after MD.

            You’re right that Maryland might have stayed in the ACC if ND had joined for all sports. But that was never an option, unfortunately. Heck, ND could singlehandedly secure the ACC’s future by joining for all sports, but that’s not happening. I hate it, but that’s the way it is.

            The real disaster was not the addition if ND. It was the weak TV contract which was made before the market for college football peaked (and made worse by Swofford’s insistence that the ACC keep its relationship with Ray com, where his son is an executive, in lieu of a better deal with Fox.) The deal turned out to be far lower than it should have been, relative to its competitors, and it has left schools in a financial crunch like Maryland to examine its options.

            Look I’m not crazy about the way the Notre Same deal happened. It is worthy of criticism. Lots of criticism. But it was not the catalyst for Maryland leaving the ACC or the Big Ten seeking them out.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Michael

            They were going to use the PAC deal as a substitute for expansion, but even after it crashed they were still content to wait ND. And given that ND said they HAD to make some move (either partial membership with a scheduling agreement or joining a conference) they wouldn’t have had to wait long.

            Like

          • frug says:

            I will give you this though, the ND decision was a reflection of some insanely short sighted decision making by the ACC starting with the TV deal.

            Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          Also, the Big Ten added an AAU school that several members made sure was non-AAU by the time it actually joined the league. Nebraska was non-AAU as far as those schools were concerned.

          As far as I can tell, nothing bad has happened for the Big Ten as a result of that move.

          Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          What bad thing would happen if the Big Ten added a non-AAU school?

          The Big Ten added a non-AAU school, and its world didn’t come tumbling down. They already knew that Nebraska was at risk of losing its AAU membership, and they were willing to take Notre Dame at any time (and still are). Hence, that was not an actual principle, merely a rule of thumb they were prepared to relax for the right reasons.

          Conferences have principles. Violating them is bad.

          Can you refer me to where such a principle was stated? There is a difference between an actual principle, and something you never did because the right opportunity never arose.

          One needs better reasons than merely, “We’ve never done that before.” Otherwise, nothing would ever, ever change. At one time, the Big Ten sent only its champion to a bowl game (the Rose). Was that a principle? Did the Big Ten suffer when they changed it?

          After all the ACC didn’t think anything bad would happen if they added ND as a partial member after 60+ years of swearing they never would and that move has been a unmitigated disaster.

          The ACC was already weak. News stories to that effect, pre-dating the Notre Dame move, are not hard to find. After the Maryland announcement, the MD president acknowledged that he’d been in informal conversations with the Big Ten for quite a while, and the MD athletic department’s financial woes were already well known. It was probably going to happen, no matter what.

          …prior to the ACC move the Big Ten was content to sit back and wait out ND. Once the ACC gave ND a safe home the Big Ten had to recalibrate which meant attacking the ACC.

          Even assuming that’s the case, it would have been the same had ND joined the ACC as a full member. Hence, your argument is not that associate memberships are bad, but that the Big Ten has a Notre Dame fixation.

          Where’s the argument that adding JHU in lacrosse would have a similar outcome?

          Like

          • frug says:

            Even assuming that’s the case, it would have been the same had ND joined the ACC as a full member. Hence, your argument is not that associate memberships are bad, but that the Big Ten has a Notre Dame fixation.

            No. Because had ND joined as a full member they would have brought significantly more revenue. Probably enough to placate Maryland.

            And Maryland’s president confirmed that Maryland wasn’t formally approached by the Big Ten until months after ND was added. Prior to that the “talks” consisted on nothing more than a 1 minute conversation at an AAU meeting a couple years ago.

            At one time, the Big Ten sent only its champion to a bowl game (the Rose). Was that a principle? Did the Big Ten suffer when they changed it?

            The Rose Bowl deal didn’t begin until after WWII, a full 50 years after the conference was founded. Full membership has been required since the day the conference was founded 115 years ago.

            The Big Ten added a non-AAU school, and its world didn’t come tumbling down. They already knew that Nebraska was at risk of losing its AAU membership, and they were willing to take Notre Dame at any time (and still are). Hence, that was not an actual principle, merely a rule of thumb they were prepared to relax for the right reasons.

            A. The Big Ten had every reason to believe Nebraska would survive that vote. If UM, UW and UChicago flipped their votes they would have. I’m also of the belief that had the AAU expulsion vote been held six months earlier Missouri or Rutgers would have become the Big 10’s 12th member.

            B. The Big Ten’s interest in ND predates the AAU requirement. ND nearly got invite back in the 50’s but political pressure resulted in MSU (then a non-AAU school) getting one instead.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I’m still waiting for you to answer the question, What bad thing will happen, or is even at risk of happening, if JHU joins in lacrosse only.

            Even allowing for your version of history (which it is not worth correcting), none of the examples are relevant. I mean, you’re not suggesting that if JHU joins, Indiana will join the Big XII, right? Where exactly is the potential harm?

            Like

          • frug says:

            I already said (multiple times actually) that I don’t believe that adding JHU lacrosse would lead to a slippery slope that causes the Big Ten to spiral into a Big East style hybrid, but there is potential for unintended consequences.

            Do I know what they are? No. But I do know that of the three power conferences that have tried partial membership (the Big East, ACC and PAC) one has already collapsed as a result and another is on life support.

            And I have yet to hear a version of history that is any more correct than mine.

            Like

          • greg says:

            “And I have yet to hear a version of history that is any more correct than mine.”

            The problem is that you don’t seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            So…the PAC is next?

            Was the B12’s two near death experiences come from this? Or the demise of the B8 and SWC? I think the reasons for collapse lie elsewhere.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “At one time, the Big Ten sent only its champion to a bowl game (the Rose). Was that a principle? Did the Big Ten suffer when they changed it?”

            Yes, the B10 did suffer when they changed it. That started the slippery slope that led to diminution of the Rose Bowl today. It also let teams be happy finishing 2nd or 3rd, so they got complacent.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “I’m still waiting for you to answer the question, What bad thing will happen, or is even at risk of happening, if JHU joins in lacrosse only.”

            Just because you keep asking:

            Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
            Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
            The dead rising from the grave!
            Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

            Like

          • frug says:

            @greg

            You’re saying that the collapse of the Big East had nothing to do with the hybrid/partial membership model?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “Can you refer me to where such a principle was stated? There is a difference between an actual principle, and something you never did because the right opportunity never arose.”

            You keep using this argument so I wanted to point this out separately. The Big Ten by-laws are not public record and never have been. Things like this, or AAU status, or contiguous states may be in there or were in there earlier and we wouldn’t know. We only know what sources tell us (AAU and contiguous aren’t rules now). This is why past behavior is a more reasonable guide than it would be otherwise.

            Like

          • greg says:

            “You’re saying that the collapse of the Big East had nothing to do with the hybrid/partial membership model?”

            The Big East collapsed due to its status as the weakest power conference, which led to its members being poached by the stronger conferences. The hybrid/partial membership model was a symptom of its standing. The ACC’s partial membership move was a symptom of its new found status as the weakest power conference.

            Those situations are not comparable to the nation’s strongest league adding the nation’s #1 research university and #1 lacrosse school as an associate member.

            Like

          • frug says:

            The Big East collapsed due to its status as the weakest power conference, which led to its members being poached by the stronger conferences.

            The C7 weren’t poached. They left on their own.

            Like

          • frug says:

            And for the record, even Mike Tranghese (who over saw the creation of the hybrid) said the Big East hybrid was a mistake and that the conference should have split in the early 90’s.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The MAC has Kentucky and South Carolina as men’s soccer members. The Pac 12 has Boise as a wrestling member as well as other affiliates. Those are probably the two most stable conferences. Affiliates are not a big deal. Having schools that are full members with different priorities like the BE had with Notre Dame, the C7 and the football schools is a big deal.

            Like

          • greg says:

            The MAC also added Missouri as a wrestling affiliate this year.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Yes, the Big Ten should definitely use the MAC as a model.

            Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          What principle is violated? The Big Ten has never been “all in for all your sports”, since there are a number of Big Ten Universities with club sports that are Big Ten sponsored sports at other Big Ten Universities.

          There is no practical difference at Big Ten Universities between being “all in” for all of their varsity sports and being “all in” for all of their scholarship sports. There is no fundamental principle being violated by admitting JHU as an associate member for all of their scholarship sports: for practical purposes, the Division III sports of John Hopkins are equivalent to inter-mural club sports at existing Big Ten campuses.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            BruceMcF,

            “The Big Ten has never been “all in for all your sports”, since there are a number of Big Ten Universities with club sports that are Big Ten sponsored sports at other Big Ten Universities.”

            It has always been all in for all your varsity sports that the B10 offers. That’s why MN and WI are being forced to play B10 hockey instead of staying in the WCHA liked they’d prefer.

            “There is no practical difference at Big Ten Universities between being “all in” for all of their varsity sports and being “all in” for all of their scholarship sports.”

            Yes, there is. Varsity teams are different from club teams.

            “There is no fundamental principle being violated”

            Just because people keep saying that doesn’t make it true. The B10’s by-laws are not public record and never have been to the best of my knowledge, so we don’t know what principles the league has had over the years. We only know what we’re told. That’s why people infer from past behavior what principles might be there.

            Adding non-AAU members wouldn’t violate any fundamental principle either. We’ve been told that it wouldn’t violate the by-laws. But most of us believe it’s unlikely except for ND because that’s not what the B10 does.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The B10′s by-laws are not public record and never have been to the best of my knowledge, so we don’t know what principles the league has had over the years.

            That’s it precisely. Since we don’t have the B1G’s bylaws, we don’t actually know what ARE the fundamental principles, and what is merely: “We haven’t done it, because the right opportunity never came along.”

            As there’s no point in arguing the contents of bylaws we haven’t seen, and probably won’t ever see, all we can discuss is why the idea is good or bad on its own terms. When I asked what Bad Thing would happen if JHU joined in lacrosse, this is what you came up with:

            Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
            Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
            The dead rising from the grave!
            Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

            If that’s the best you’ve got, it sounds like JHU to the B1G is a done deal, assuming that Hopkins wants in.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Like I said above, if their is no fundamental difference between adding JHU for lacrosse only and the other schools having club sports, then Hopkins would be entitled to a full share of Big Ten revenue distributions.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            But all varsity Big Ten sports are Division 1 sports, so the boundary between inter-mural sports that are in fact all in and inter-mural sports that are not all in lies somewhere between club sports and Division 1 sports.

            Its entirely ambiguous where it lies in that range because there are no Big Ten sports in that range to observe lying on one or the other side of the boundary. They are all either scholarship NCAA Div1 varsity sports or non-scholarship, non-NCAA, club sports.

            My question remains, what fundamental principle is maintained by resolving the ambiguity by insisting that the boundary is between club and varsity sports that is not maintained by placing the boundary between scholarship and non-scholarship sports?

            I can see the fundamental principle that unites club sports and NCAA Div3 sports and divides them from NCAA Div1 and Div2 sports ~ the students do not receive scholarship assistance in return for playing the sport. What I don’t see is the fundamental principle that places Div1 and Div3 sports in one group and club sports in the other.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            They obviously are separated, or we wouldn’t have separate championships. This isn’t an issue except for those trying to make it one. What is an issue is the minimum number of sports requirement. Without meeting that there would need to be some kind of prorated conference distribution arrangement. It would be workable, but would be new.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Like I said above, if their is no fundamental difference between adding JHU for lacrosse only and the other schools having club sports, then Hopkins would be entitled to a full share of Big Ten revenue distributions.

            The club sports and the non-revenue varsity sports have this in common: they don’t earn money. I’m not even sure what the substantive difference is between a club sport at a Division I school, and a varsity sport at a Division III school, as in either case no scholarships are given.

            Who’s to know, as we’re debating a “principle” that the Big Ten itself has never articulated.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            That’s it precisely. Since we don’t have the B1G’s bylaws, we don’t actually know what ARE the fundamental principles, and what is merely: “We haven’t done it, because the right opportunity never came along.”

            And yet people proceed to say that principles aren’t being violated. How can anyone know that? The B10 has had plenty of opportunities to

            When I asked what Bad Thing would happen if JHU joined in lacrosse, this is what you came up with:

            Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
            Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
            The dead rising from the grave!
            Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

            If that’s the best you’ve got, it sounds like JHU to the B1G is a done deal, assuming that Hopkins wants in.

            1. Good lord man, watch a movie. That’s from Ghostbusters.

            2. I’ve never claimed anything bad would happen.

            3. Nothing bad would happen if the CIC added CMU and CWRU either. Or if they let UIC back in. Or if they added UNO. And yet the CIC thought otherwise about UIC and UNO and apparently CMU and CWRU. Explain the harm there and maybe your theory would be more persuasive.

            4. How does it sound like a done deal? We don’t know that it’s more than a rumor. If talks started in December, it should be done by now.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            Sorry, editing error.

            That’s it precisely. Since we don’t have the B1G’s bylaws, we don’t actually know what ARE the fundamental principles, and what is merely: “We haven’t done it, because the right opportunity never came along.”

            And yet people proceed to say that principles aren’t being violated. How can anyone know that? The B10 has had plenty of opportunities to add partial members over the years. Hockey certainly could have used one for decades, for example. They always chose not to do it. They clearly had some reason.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            @Brian: And yet people proceed to say that principles aren’t being violated. How can anyone know that?

            @frug said that to add JHU in lacrosse would violate the B1G’s principles, and it appeared you agreed with him. A number of us said that we are unable to see any such principle. That doesn’t mean we see the opposite, either. It is simply unknown.

            It therefore seems to me that if one opposes the idea, one needs a better reason than to fall back on principles you don’t know and will probably never know.

            I’ve never claimed anything bad would happen.

            You sure seem opposed to the idea.

            Nothing bad would happen if the CIC added CMU and CWRU either.

            Most of our discussion is about things that we think might be under consideration. That’s why there aren’t many “Toledo to the Big Ten” threads. The JHU-to-B1G rumors might not be the strongest ones, but at least someone has reported it. If there have been any CWRU-to-the-CIC rumors, I haven’t seen them.

            How does it sound like a done deal? We don’t know that it’s more than a rumor. If talks started in December, it should be done by now.

            All I meant was, if the best reasons against it were fire & brimstone and rending of garments, then it’s probably a done deal, but that assumes JHU wants it. Maybe they don’t. And maybe some B1G schools have real reasons for opposing it — not merely, “We haven’t done that before. I don’t see why a discussion started in December (if it even started then) would necessarily be over in early February.

            I, for one, would be more interested in whether the idea makes sense substantively, not whether it violates hitherto unseen principles.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            I’ve never claimed anything bad would happen.

            “You sure seem opposed to the idea.”

            One can’t be opposed to something without thinking it will bring the end of days? I never said I though anything good would happen either. I think people are vastly overestimating the value to the CIC of adding JHU and I don’t see lacrosse as important to the BTN at all. Nobody has provided a compelling reason to add JHU. Until there is one, I see no reason to break decades of B10 policy/tradition/principles.

            “Most of our discussion is about things that we think might be under consideration. That’s why there aren’t many “Toledo to the Big Ten” threads. The JHU-to-B1G rumors might not be the strongest ones, but at least someone has reported it. If there have been any CWRU-to-the-CIC rumors, I haven’t seen them.”

            You’re the one saying no principle would be violated, and many people are suggesting the addition of JHU mainly for the CIC. I’m pointing out that the CIC could have added two quality AAU research schools already in the footprint at any point over the years and never did despite no principle against it. They allowed UIC, then gave them the boot before UNO might get in. We have no idea why they don’t want more schools in the CIC except that it was formed as the academic side of the B10. But as you love to point out, just because it was always that way doesn’t mean it needs to stay that way. So feel free to explain what bad thing would happen if UIC stayed and UNO got added. Then explain all the value JHU will bring but CWRU and CMU wouldn’t. Then you’d have a basis to explain why adding JHU is good but those others are bad.

            “I don’t see why a discussion started in December (if it even started then) would necessarily be over in early February.”

            They added MD faster than that, and that was a full addition. JHU would be moving two teams. Which one sounds simpler?

            “I, for one, would be more interested in whether the idea makes sense substantively, not whether it violates hitherto unseen principles.”

            Then why don’t you explain it substantively?

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I think people are vastly overestimating the value to the CIC of adding JHU…

            The CIC is a research consortium, and JHU has a higher research budget than any B1G school. If you don’t see how that might add value, then I can’t help you any further.

            I don’t see lacrosse as important to the BTN at all. Nobody has provided a compelling reason to add JHU.

            Several Big Ten sources have said they want to add lacrosse as a varsity sport. I have no interest in lacrosse myself, but adding sports to a sports league doesn’t seem crazy to me. A bit of unscientific research suggests that lacrosse is one of the more popular sports available that the B1G doesn’t already sponsor, especially in the new markets the B1G is looking to enter.

            No other B1G school is known to be considering it, so without Hopkins a men’s league would probably be some years away. Besides, the B1G would probably want to dominate any sport it enters, which is difficult without having one more “king” of the sport (besides Maryland). Hopkins is AAU, inside the geographic footprint, and from what I can tell, culturally compatible with the B1G. They play no other D1 sport, so the league would be strengthened in lacrosse, and not diluted in anything else.

            Assuming they want to add lacrosse, I am not able to see a downside. I’ve asked if anyone could think of any, and no one could, other than, “They’ve never done that before.”

            So feel free to explain what bad thing would happen if UIC stayed and UNO got added. Then explain all the value JHU will bring but CWRU and CMU wouldn’t. Then you’d have a basis to explain why adding JHU is good but those others are bad.

            I can well imagine that they worried about satellite campuses diluting the CIC. CWRU and CMU are obviously very good schools, but they aren’t in Hopkins’ league. Compared to the rest of the Big Ten, they wouldn’t really raise the average. Nebraska lowered the CIC average, but they were added for athletic reasons. CWRU and CMU bring nothing athletically.

            The CIC, unlike the Big Ten, doesn’t play on television every night, and isn’t in the newspaper every morning, so it is a lot harder to unpack what is going on there. All I am suggesting is a potential reason, not necessarily the only one.

            They added MD faster than that, and that was a full addition. JHU would be moving two teams. Which one sounds simpler?

            You’re assuming JHU has decided to join a conference; the reported story said they haven’t. Maryland, I think, had already been very thoroughly vetted as one of the potential 12th schools.

            Then why don’t you explain it substantively?

            See above.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “The CIC is a research consortium, and JHU has a higher research budget than any B1G school. If you don’t see how that might add value, then I can’t help you any further.”

            I didn’t say it wouldn’t add value. I said people are overestimating its value. The CIC typically saves schools $1-2M per year. That’s with $7B in research. Going to $9B and adding 1 school won’t increase that much. B10 schools already collaborate outside the CIC regularly, so JHU doesn’t automatically add to that either. Quit assuming value and prove it instead.

            “Several Big Ten sources have said they want to add lacrosse as a varsity sport. I have no interest in lacrosse myself, but adding sports to a sports league doesn’t seem crazy to me. A bit of unscientific research suggests that lacrosse is one of the more popular sports available that the B1G doesn’t already sponsor, especially in the new markets the B1G is looking to enter.”

            And again you fail to show any actual value.

            “No other B1G school is known to be considering it, so without Hopkins a men’s league would probably be some years away.”

            Hockey was a non-B10 sport for decades and we survived just fine.

            “Hopkins is AAU, inside the geographic footprint, and from what I can tell, culturally compatible with the B1G.”

            Because they are a large state flagship with a large Olympic sports program while competing at the top level in revenue sports?

            “I can well imagine that they worried about satellite campuses diluting the CIC.”

            And your imagination is the basis for decisions? How exactly does this dilution work? How are the other schools harmed?

            “CWRU and CMU are obviously very good schools, but they aren’t in Hopkins’ league. Compared to the rest of the Big Ten, they wouldn’t really raise the average.”

            But they wouldn’t lower it, either. Since you can’t come up with a bad thing that would happen from adding them, then by your logic the CIC must add them.

            “Nebraska lowered the CIC average, but they were added for athletic reasons. CWRU and CMU bring nothing athletically.”

            Exactly. They bring literally nothing to water down the B10 while adding to the CIC. Unlike NE, they don’t hurt the B10’s academic rep. CWRU did $416M in research and ranked ahead of IA, RU and IN. CMU is smaller and does $218M (more than IN). Both are top 25 private research universities according to CMUP.

            Then why don’t you explain it substantively?

            “See above.”

            I’m still waiting for the substance. That’s all handwaving just like what you disregard from others.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            @Brian: I think you are seriously misunderstanding the point I am trying to make.

            I am not asserting the value of lacrosse, or any non-revenue sport. I realize you’re hostile to the non-revenues, but it’s clear the conference doesn’t agree with you, and never has. That ship has sailed. The B1G is going to add lacrosse; the only question is how.

            There are 1,200 schools in the NCAA, and between them they probably have 10,000 to 20,000 teams, most of which don’t earn money. The reasons why these sports exist are beyond my ability to answer, and apparently beyond yours as well.

            I am merely saying: If you assume they are eager to add lacrosse (which they’ve said, so it is not speculation on my part), adding JHU seems to be a pretty good way of going about it. So I’m asking, in what way is it bad? I can’t think of any. Neither can you (at least, not so far).

            “I can well imagine that they worried about satellite campuses diluting the CIC.”

            And your imagination is the basis for decisions? How exactly does this dilution work? How are the other schools harmed?

            You asked why they kicked out UIC. It actually happened, so there must be a reason. I gave the best explanation I could think of. Do you have a better one? The CIC will probably never tell us, so any discussion has to be speculative to some extent.

            “CWRU and CMU are obviously very good schools, but they aren’t in Hopkins’ league. Compared to the rest of the Big Ten, they wouldn’t really raise the average.”

            But they wouldn’t lower it, either. Since you can’t come up with a bad thing that would happen from adding them, then by your logic the CIC must add them.

            People don’t make moves for merely neutral reasons. Hopkins is a king in a sport the B1G wants to enter, and it’s also a king in research. Neither is true of CWRU and CMU.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Marc:

            “The reasons why these sports exist are beyond my…”

            Generic yet plausible answer: athletics are an important and fundamental piece of the educational experience the university’s strive to provide.
            Another possibility: the amount of alumnae giving by the non FB and BB athletes dwarfs that of FB and BB. Creating opportunity for many more to compete for and therefor strengthening ties to a school is not a bad longer term investment.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            “I see no reason to break decades of B10 policy/tradition/principles.”

            That’s my question: what principle is being broken?

            If it “violates a policy” but not a tradition or a fundamental principle, there has to be a pragmatic COST to violating that policy, and none has been advanced.

            It wouldn’t violate any distinct Big Ten tradition, like the tradition of the Rose Bowl being the only bowl game that Big Ten schools can go to, or the tradition of playing all other members of the Big Ten in football every year. EXPRESSING the involved tradition as having all varsity sports in the Big Ten is just semantics ~ all varsity Big Ten sports are Division 1 scholarship sports, so the same tradition can just as easily be expressed as having all scholarship sports in the Big Ten or having all Division 1 sports in the Big Ten.

            So if its a PRINCIPLE at stake, surely the principle at stake can be explained? The existing tradition, with varsity, scholarship, Division 1 sports following one rule of behavior and non-varsity, non-scholarship, non-Division 1 sports following a different rule of behavior, is open to the boundary line being placed between club sports and NCAA Div3, between Div3 and Div2, and between Div2 and Div1.

            No matter where the dividing line is placed, an “all in” rule that respects that dividing line places substantially more limits on associate membership than the general patchwork quilt for conferences that take associate members to make up the numbers in individual sports.

            (1) First there is the fundamental principle involved in placing the dividing line between Div3 and club sports. Which is … I don’t know, that’s why I asked. What is it supposed to BE? Surely if placing the boundary there is upholding some fundamental principle, it will be possible to say WHAT fundamental principle it is upholding.

            Under (1), the eight Div3 scholarship exception schools are out unless they drop the rest of their sports to club status, and any Div2 school playing a mix of Div1 and Div2 sports would be under the same stricture ~ getting their Div1 sports in as associate members in the Big Ten would imply dropping all of their other sports to club sport status.

            (2) The underlying fundamental principle for the Div2/Div3 dividing line would be the scholarship / non-scholarship distinction: all of a school’s scholarship sports would be in the Big Ten for all Big Ten sponsored sports. That is certainly a distinction that gets some people all hot and bothered ~ hence the effort in 2004 to strip the 8 Division 3 scholarship exception schools of their exception and “purify” Division 3 of all of the sullying traces of scholarship athletics.

            Under (2), a Div2 school that was admitted as an associate member would have to decide between raising their varsity sports to Div1 status or else dropping them to club sports.

            Under (2), the only Div3 associate members possible are the eight schools that received the grandfather clause exemption for scholarships when Div3 overhauled their rules in 2004.

            (3) The underlying fundamental principle for the Div1 / Div2 dividing line would be a non-competition principle: a Big Ten member in one sport “should not” be in a conference contesting an NCAA championship with the Big Ten champion of another sport.

            Under (3) as a principle, a Div3 school might be in a bind regarding any sports it sponsors in the “common national championship” sports: Fencing, Gymnastics, Rifle, Skiing, Water Polo, and Women’s Bowling. Of those, the Big Ten sponsors Gymnastics, and has schools with Fencing and Women’s Water polo teams.

            Under (3), a Div2 school that was admitted as an associate member of the Big Ten would have to “play up” in all of those sports it sponsored as well as Ice Hockey and Men’s Volleyball, where there is no separate Div2 championship. There wouldn’t be any regulatory bind in doing that ~ all Div2 schools are allowed to “play up” if there is no separate Div2 championship in a sport.

            Under (3), a Div3, “Div1 exception” school might be in a regulatory bind for Gymnastics, and hypothetically for Fencing, Gymnastics, Rifle, Skiiing, Water Polo and/or Women’s Bowling, unless they were their exemption sport, since Div3 schools can only “play up” in one men’s and one women’s sport.

            Like

          • Bikemore says:

            It is an interesting question as to why Carnegie Mellon and Case Western are not part of the CIC. It would seem to be a win-win for the CIC and the schools. Wash U, which is just outside of the footprint, would seem to be a nice addition as well. All three fit the U. of Chicago model except for the fact that they are not former B10 members.

            On a related note, I always thought that U. of Chicago was technically still a B10 member–although, of course, they field zero scholarship teams, so participate in zero B10 sports. This may be a distinction without a difference, and I may be wrong about this. But I remember hearing that when there discussions about Northwestern being kicked out in the ’70s and ’80s, U. of Chicago threatened to field a football team in response, and supposedly they had that right.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Marc Shepherd,

            “I think you are seriously misunderstanding the point I am trying to make.”

            Failing to see it might be more accurate.

            “I realize you’re hostile to the non-revenues,”

            Wrong as usual in this discussion.

            “There are 1,200 schools in the NCAA, and between them they probably have 10,000 to 20,000 teams, most of which don’t earn money. The reasons why these sports exist are beyond my ability to answer, and apparently beyond yours as well.”

            I know full well why they exist.

            “So I’m asking, in what way is it bad?”

            It’s bad because the B10 will no longer be a group of full members of major research schools that also compete at the highest level of all sports. It will change what the B10 is. But the B10 seems hellbent on destroying what it was, so a pox on all their houses.

            “People don’t make moves for merely neutral reasons.”

            They would add to the CIC’s total research. You used that as a partial explanation for the value of JHU. That means they would create value, too. So you need to explain the bad thing that would happen if they were added that outweighs the value they would add. Otherwise, you’re being totally hypocritical.

            “Hopkins is a king in a sport the B1G wants to enter, and it’s also a king in research. Neither is true of CWRU and CMU.”

            No, they’re only princes in research. Last I checked, princes add value.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            BruceMcF,

            “That’s my question: what principle is being broken?”

            The B10 being a collection of full member major research universities that also compete at the highest level in a bunch of sports. Adding JHU changes the B10 fundamentally.

            Like

    • metatron says:

      ESPN found it valid enough to report it.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        But they didn’t independently report it, IIRC. They reported that others said it.

        Best I can tell, this all started with a lacrosse web site.

        http://insidelacrosse.com/news/2012/12/07/imlca-convention-rumors-and-rumblings-conference-realignment

        “Another expressed thought at the Convention is that the Blue Jays become the Big Ten’s sixth men’s lacrosse member as an associate which, though it’s apparently against conference bylaws right now, an athletic department official in attendance said lacrosse-playing members could and likely will appeal to Commissioner Jim Delany for an exception if, upon Rutgers’ and Maryland’s arrival, there are five Big Ten teams.

        Obviously, any conference movement involving Johns Hopkins would require the assent of the program and Blue Jay coach Dave Pietramala, and when asked during his on-camera interview with IL Thursday, he said though they haven’t had serious conversations about joining a league, it was something they’d consider and continually evaluate.”

        Next was a MD blog tweeting this on 1/16:
        “Jeff Ermann ‏@insidemdsports

        On a less blockbuster level … Have had now had a few people mention Johns Hopkins to Big 10 as Lacrosse-only member may be done soon.”

        Then came the more recent report with the comments from Heather Lyke about associate members in the B10 and such.

        In summary, this all traces back to some rumors from a lacrosse convention in December and no major media outlet has reported having any sources confirm it.

        Like

  14. Michael in Raleigh says:

    The move by UMKC from the Summit League to the WAC seemed very bizarre to me, too, until I read that the school was anticipating a raid on the Summit by the MVC and/or Horizon (as a down-the-line consequence of the C7 raiding the MVC and A-10).

    My other thought on the UMKC move is that the University of Denver has to be the mist overlooked loser in conference realignment. As a pretty darn good non-football sponsoring D1 school, they were stuck in the Sun Belt for over a decade. It was a bad fit athletically and much worse geographically. Then they got their life raft to the Denver-based WAC… only to see that league brought to its knees where it was faced with becoming the worst conference in all of Division 1. Then Denver got a get out of jail free card to the Summit… and now that league is so threatened that it is losing a school to the very league Denver just fired from! Denver, I’m sure, us desperately trying to become the Mountain West’s #12 school for non-football sports; Hawaii is #12 in football. Perhaps BYU would be the MWC’s real target for #12, but I’m not sure that relationship could be worked out for a number if reasons on both ends.

    Conversely, I think Butler, alongside Utah, TCU, and, to a lesser extent, Rutgers, has to have made the quickest and largest ascent up the pecking order. They weren’t even in the MVC a year ago; they were in the Horizon League, which has been knocked down significantly by Butler’s departure. Now they’re in the respected A-10, and already they’re going to be joining the Catholic 7 schools in what’s basically a BCS-level conference that happens not to sponsor football.

    Like

  15. OrderRestored83 says:

    add

    Like

  16. Biological Imperiative says:

    Lacrosse is a major sport? Women wrestling?

    What in the wide, wide world of sports is a-goin’ on here?:

    Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      Its not a major sport, its a niche sport.

      But why does JHU have a contract with ESPNU for their Lacrosse home games? Because Lacrosse is a niche sport (1) with attractive demographics in its audience and (2) with a playing season that falls in a relative hole in the Big Ten Networks programming schedule and (3) that is growing in popularity in the Northeast and Atlantic Coast.

      So both Lacrosse and Women’s Wrestling are filler programming for the Big Ten Network, but a Big Ten Lacrosse Championship could well be particularly appealing filler programming from the BTN perspective.

      Like

  17. Blapples says:

    add

    Like

  18. […] another note, Frank the Tank has an interesting update on the Catholic 7 and the Big 10′s possible interest in Johns Hopkins for lacrosse only.  […]

    Like

  19. Milton Hershey says:

    The B1G wants to cement their reputation as the ivy league of public (and a few private) universities. This firmly differentiates them from the SEC and gives the conference a highly sought after academic status/advantage.

    As a PSU fan, I’m loving JD’s Mid-Atlantic focus withJHU! I hope it works out.

    He’s strategically adding valuable content to the BTN with hockey and lacrosse leagues. I just hope he keeps all his expansion discussions as private as possible. Because the minute ESPN finds out about about one of his prospects or potential candidates, they move quickly to stop him!

    Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      I agree. This is a brilliant move by Delany (& B1G) if they pull it off.

      Like

    • David Brown says:

      I agree 100% with what you say, particularly as it relates to ESPN. There is not a bigger bunch of Nitt (As well as Yankee) Haters in this country (And that includes Ohio State & Pitt fan boys (Even they did not want to shut down the entire Penn State Athletic Department)). That said, trust me, the Big 10 is quite aware of their “I Hate State” agenda, and will make sure that ESPN will be the last outlet to be aware of any major changes (Although they seem to act like they are breaking news first).

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        The B1G got the first word, when they called ESPN’s bluff and started the BTN, and someday they’ll get the last word too, as the first domino to fall in ESPN’s game of Collegiate Monopoly.

        Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        “(Even they did not want to shut down the entire Penn State Athletic Department)”
        —To be fair many of us would like to see the entire ‘university’ shut down and the entire length of I-80 lined with it’s impaled fans. 🙂

        Like

      • Jon says:

        I’m a PSU grad (’99) who grew up 15 minutes north of Pitt’s campus and always considered myself a Panther fan first despite my undergrad degree. I just want Pitt & PSU to play every year. Could care less if it was the beginning of September or the Friday after Thanksgiving, conference or OOC. These two teams need to find a way to play each other every year. ’16-’19 is a nice “restart”, but its not enough. PSU’s true rivals will always be the former Eastern indies.

        I get the $$$ angle & I’m hardly a college president. But the absolute urination of tradition to genuflect to the almighty cable subscriber fee is just too whorish for me.

        Sorry for the mini-rant. Long-time lurker and first time poster.

        Like

        • gregenstein says:

          Jon – Great rant. From the Penn State side, I’m finding that there’s still a lot of “old guard” folks who could care less for Pitt. I’m finding their voices considerably more subdued and less boisterous about playing anyone but Pitt. Bill O’Brien I think has had a lot to do with this.

          I’d rather the game be allowed to have some type of exception where they can play a little later in the year, though no necessarily the last game of the regular season. It seems like it would carry more weight. Either that, or make it the FIRST game of the year, which is eminently doable.

          Like

  20. Jams says:

    Other bonus of the Classic East is that Classic sounds close enought to Catholic that people can work with it for wordplay and nicknames and such.

    Like

  21. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Selection Committee update from the conference commissioners meeting yesterday in Dallas.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8927686/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-consist-14-20-members

    “BCS executive director Bill Hancock said the selection committee would consist of between 14-20 members, including at least one individual representing each of the 10 FBS conferences.”

    “The selection committee will receive a “jury charge” from the commissioners. In ranking the teams, the committee will consider strength of schedule, where the games were played, conference championships and whether teams lost games because of injuries to key players.”

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      wow, sounds like a large committee to pick just four teams. that could end up being a disaster. if they go an even number, who gets the tie-breakers?

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        They’re going with a large committee, so that there’s no single person who can sway (or can be perceived to have swayed) the outcome to an inordinate degree. I mean, if you have five people, and one of them’s an Ohio State grad, everyone will say the fix was in if OSU makes the playoff. Same story if one of them’s a Michigan grad, and OSU doesn’t get in.

        If you’ve got 24 people deciding, it’s a lot harder for critics to say that one person’s biases led to a result that wouldn’t otherwise have happened. Obviously, they’d need a way to resolve ties, but it’s not rocket science to figure that out. Somehow, they manage to seed a basketball tournament every year, which is a much more complex undertaking.

        Like

  22. Read The D says:

    The UMKC move is a curious one. It probably indicates there is more going on below the surface than we are aware of.

    I wonder if the WCC is looking at expanding. Gonzaga has said in the past it wants more exposure to the east and the WCC is the only real non-football conference with any power west of the plains.

    Denver makes sense to me for the WCC and would pull a strong addition away from the Summit. If the MVC is looking at SDSU and NDSU, and the A-10 is looking at Detroit or Valpo then I would think the Horizon would back-fill from the Summit. The Summit would be seriously weakened and UMKC may have made a very smart preemptive move for security.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      There’s speculation the Dakota schools might be moving to MVC with Creighton moving from MVC to C7 group. Missouri State seems to be considering moving up to FBS which would open up another spot in the MVC. The Horizon League will likely raid the Summit for replacements if the A10 takes more from them.

      Like

      • Arch Stanton says:

        If Missouri State moves up to FBS, where do they go? Sun Belt seems like the only possibility.
        A step down for most of their non-football sports in order to place their football team at the bottom of one of the worst FBS football conferences. But, FOOTBALL!, so it will probably happen.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Sunbelt to get their feet wet, but schools often join the Sunbelt without hoping to remain in the Sunbelt over the long haul.

          Like

          • Arch Stanton says:

            Yeah, it they were successful enough, maybe Conference USA would be a possibility down the road. I think that would pretty much be their ceiling though. I don’t see the Big East coveting Springfield, MO, any time soon. I think one could make an argument that the MAC is passing Conference USA on the pecking. Well, not so much the MAC passing, but rather C-USA falling behind it. I think the MVC is ahead of C-USA, or will be for sure once the moves to the Big East are complete. MVC could regress if Creighton leaves though.

            I think schools are going to have to think hard about moving from FCS to FBS in the future. It doesn’t really seem like there will ever be a chance for a current FCS program that transitions to FBS to eventually move into a BCS conference and the gap between the Big 5 conferences and everyone else is just going to get bigger and bigger.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            The MAC passing Conference USA in the pecking by standing still while Conference USA is picked over to rebuilt Conference USA Plus in the husk of the old Big East seems like a strong argument for building your conference with schools that actually want to be in your conference.

            Like

      • Read The D says:

        If all of those things come to pass Wichita State will be on a pretty serious island. I wonder if the MVC would consider Oral Roberts for a travel partner? I would love for UT-Arlington to squeeze their way into a legit basketball only conference.

        Like

        • Arch Stanton says:

          Or does the MVC get picked apart enough that Wichita State sees the Southland as more attractive? Or maybe the Sunbelt? – they have a few non-football members.

          They have a pretty stout baseball program that would benefit from a southern move.

          Like

          • Read The D says:

            I think the Southland would be too far of a step down from the MVC. Wichita State has a relatively solid athletic brand like you mentioned. The Sun Belt would probably jump at the chance to invite them.

            Like

  23. cutter says:

    There was an article in the Baltimore Sun on 6 February talking about how women’s lacrosse is “just at the beginning” of major growth–see http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-02-06/sports/bs-sp-womens-lacrosse-preview-0207-20130206_1_american-lacrosse-conference-jen-adams-college-lacrosse.

    Some excerpts from the article:

    In addition to the Big East falling apart, the American Lacrosse Conference could dwindle to just Florida and Vanderbilt. Johns Hopkins is departing in two years to become independent, and if the Big Ten starts a women’s lacrosse conference, it would siphon off two-time defending national champion Northwestern, Penn State and Ohio State to join Maryland, Michigan and Rutgers.

    Not everyone is convinced all the changes are good, however, and they certainly come with growing pains. Reese and Duke coach Kerstin Kimel, both former Terps, have strong emotions about Maryland’s departure from the ACC, although Reese said she hopes to hold on to traditional rivalries with Virginia, Duke and North Carolina.

    There are also concerns about travel expenses for a team such as Maryland, which is farther away from its future Big Ten rivals than a lot of its ACC rivals.

    “I certainly think it’s at the beginning stages,” USC (University of Southern California) coach Lindsey Munday said of all the changes, “and once the dust settles a little bit, it can be a great thing. I think the Big Ten has the ability very soon to create a conference, and the Pac-12 as well. If we, as an organization, come at it the right way, if these administrators at other schools look at the newer programs that are doing well, they can see real-life examples of it being able to work.”

    Those examples include Northwestern and Florida. In 11 seasons, Northwestern already has seven titles. Florida reached the final four last May in just its fourth varsity season.

    Having the sport’s two most successful programs, 11-time national champion Maryland and Northwestern in the same conference — and one with its own TV outlet, the Big Ten Network — also creates more enticement for other major conferences to consider the sport.

    ******

    Cutter’s Comments: With the exception of Northwestern, all the current Big Ten programs have a men’s lacrosse team at the varsity or club level. If one of those universities promoted their club team to varsity level, then there would be no need to add Johns Hopkins in order to have a B1G league with a tournament auto-bid. So the point about JHU entering the conference because the Big Ten isn’t optimistic about Virginia, North Carolina or Duke might not be a strong one.

    The Big Ten will have the necessary six women’s lacrosse team when Michigan fields its team and when Maryland and Rutgers join the conference for the 2014 season. I haven’t seen an official announcement on that, but given what transpired with men’s hockey, I suspect it’ll happen for women’s lacrosse as well.

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      The Big Ten will have the necessary six women’s lacrosse team when Michigan fields its team and when Maryland and Rutgers join the conference for the 2014 season. I haven’t seen an official announcement on that, but given what transpired with men’s hockey, I suspect it’ll happen for women’s lacrosse as well.

      Due to Title IX, any school adding men’s lacrosse will also need to add women’s lacrosse, or another comparable women’s sport. At that point, you’re talking about a pretty big expense. It’s no surprise that Michigan (adding two lacrosse teams) and Penn State (adding two hockey teams) are among the wealthiest athletics programs in the conference — and even they needed large alumni donations to pull it off.

      Johns Hopkins is such a blue-blood, both academically and athletically (in lacrosse), that I suspect the Big Ten would be happy to have them, even if another Big Ten school added the sport.

      Like

      • cutter says:

        My point about ice hockey is that once the Big Ten had an opportunity to form its own league with PSU going varsity, they went forward and set one up as soon as possible. I’m sure that they will get a lot of coverage and live games on the BTN as well.

        I haven’t seen an official announcement of a Big Ten women’s lacrosse league, but as I mentioned above, I suspect the B1G will opt to have one set up as soon as Rutgers, Maryland and Michigan are in place with Northwestern, Ohio State and Penn State. And as the article mentions, that sport will also be on the BTN.

        I absolutely agree with you that if JHU was willing, they’d be welcome into the Big Ten. No question there.

        At Michigan, the Project Lacrosse Founder’s Club raised $6M to start up the men’s and women’s lacrosse programs. The men already had a club team, but I’m not sure about the women’s side. That should give you a rough number of what the start up costs would be for those two teams. UM is also planning a new lacrosse facility as part of a larger renovation of the South Campus–see http://support.mgoblue.com/south-campus/explore/

        Like

    • zeek says:

      Women’s lacrosse is growing like wildfire.

      That sport could have 200 D-1 programs eventually; just crossed 100 recently.

      Problem is men’s lacrosse; seems like it’s too difficult to add given Title IX. Michigan’s one of the few big programs to pull it off of late, whereas I’d imagine many big conference schools are considering women’s lacrosse after seeing Florida/Michigan/USC jump into the fray.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        Women’s lacrosse is becoming the spring corollary of women’s soccer — something many colleges use for Title IX purposes, even if they choose not to field a men’s team in the same sport. (It’s still hard for me to believe that all 12 current Big Ten members have women’s soccer, but only seven have the men’s version — not Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa or Nebraska.)

        Like

        • Brian says:

          vp19,

          “It’s still hard for me to believe that all 12 current Big Ten members have women’s soccer, but only seven have the men’s version — not Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa or Nebraska.”

          The B10 offers more sports than anybody else, but you can’t do everything thanks to Title IX.

          B10 sports:
          All 12 (M & W) – hoops, golf, tennis
          All 12 (M only) – football, wrestling
          All 12 (W only) – CC, softball, volleyball, soccer, swimming & diving
          11 (M & W) – indoor T&F (NW), outdoor T&F (NW)
          11 – baseball (WI), M CC (NW)
          10 – M swimming & diving (IL, NE)
          8 – W gymnastics
          7 – W field hockey, M soccer, M gymnastics

          Coming soon:
          6 – M hockey, W lacrosse

          There are other sports which B10 schools play but aren’t played in the B10 itself (need 6 teams):
          M volleyball, M lacrosse, fencing, rifle, synchronized swimming, W hockey, W water polo, etc.

          ACC sports:
          All 12 (M & W) – hoops, tennis, indoor T&F, outdoor T&F
          All 12 (M only) – football, baseball
          All 12 (W only) – CC, volleyball
          11 – M CC, M golf, W soccer
          9 – M soccer, W golf, W S&D
          8 – M S&D, softball
          6 – wrestling, W field hockey, W rowing

          I’m more surprised that not all ACC teams play W soccer than that the B10 only has 7 men’s teams. Soccer is bigger in the east. Only 8 softball teams is surprising, too. Lacrosse being the same size or bigger in the B10 is really odd.

          Like

  24. Arch Stanton says:

    Still don’t understand the UMKC move to the WAC. How many schools could the Summit League lose? Where would they go? Unless we are going to start to see 14-16 team non-football conferences, I don’t see the Summit getting worse for UMKC then the WAC already is.

    I would think UMKC would be trying to best position themselves for a MVC invite, don’t see how this move helps that. UMKC in the WAC makes no sense whatsoever at this time. Even in the worst case scenario for the Summit League, it seems to me that UMKC could move to the WAC at that time. The WAC isn’t going to turn them down in a year or two.

    If any league looks in danger to me, it is the Horizon League. Perhaps UMKC believes that the Horizon schools will tear apart the Summit League to refill their own ranks. But even then, you’d think UMKC could move to the Horizon (Summit 2.0) and that would be better than the WAC.

    Interested in what the MVC may do if/when Creighton leaves. As I mentioned above, University of Nebraska-Omaha could be an add with higher potential then any of the Dakota schools.
    Not sure what will happen, but in addition to those schools I could see the MVC vetting any of:
    Loyola
    Detriot
    Oral Roberts
    Murray State
    Wisconsin-Milwaukee
    Valparariso
    Central Arkansas (unlikely, but already of associate MVC member for soccer)

    Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      Over its time, the Summit (Mid-Con) has lost eight members to the Horizon and two members to the Missouri Valley, and has members in the footprint of both conferences. Over its history, the Horizon has lost six members to the A-10 and one to the Missouri Valley.

      Without any change in the current size of the intervening conferences, five adds by the Catholic Seven combined with the two losses that the A-10 is already set to experience (Temple to the NuBigEast and UNC-Charlotte to C-USA) could easily ripple down to four to six losses by the Summit.

      Like

  25. dtwphx says:

    fear the fork

    Like

  26. Logan says:

    The discussion here in KC was that they expect ND State and SD State to move to the Valley as that conference tries to beef up its football profile. Those two appear to be putting a lot of money into their athletics, with the oil industry booming up there. They also expect Oakland to take Butler’s spot in the Horizon. That would leave the Summit with just 6 schools, the minimum required for an automatic NCAA berth. Those 6 would be Western Illinois, Nebraska-Omaha, South Dakota, IPFW, IUPUI, and UMKC. The talking heads on local radio seem to think the depleted WAC still has more name recognition and better name teams than what is left of the Summit.

    UMKC really is an afterthought in their home city. KU, KSU, and MU dominate the college discussion. The team doesn’t win, and they bounce around to different home courts. This year they are playing at what is basically their rec center on campus, with plans to move back to the old Municipal Auditorium downtown next year. Since moving to D1, they have yet to even play in their conference championship game to have a shot at the NCAA’s. There has also been talk of changing the name (it used to be University of Kansas City before being folded in to the University of Missouri system several decades ago).

    Like

    • Mike says:

      The discussion here in KC was that they expect ND State and SD State to move to the Valley as that conference tries to beef up its football profile

      That’s very strange since they already play in the Missouri Valley Football Conference. For those that don’t know the MVFC is a FCS conference of composed of Missouri Valley and Summit members with Youngstown St.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Valley_Football_Conference

      Like

      • Arch Stanton says:

        Maybe the Dakota schools are in discussions with another conference and the Missouri Valley needs to add them in all sports or lose their football teams from the MVFC?
        Pure speculation on my part.

        Like

      • Logan says:

        Perhaps the Dakota schools would be joining as full members of the Valley? It was mentioned that they were looking to replace Creighton, who is headed to the Catholic league, and Evansville, who they believe is moving to the Horizon (another move that doesn’t make sense to me).

        Like

        • Arch Stanton says:

          If Evansville moves from the MVC to the Horizon, it would basically be admitting that they can’t compete with the MVC schools and they wanted to be in a conference where they could drive to just about every opponent. Problem is, the Horizon might end up looking more like the current Summit League a few years down the road. Which, of course, makes this an even worse move for the Purple Aces.

          Like

          • Logan says:

            Good point, I don’t think we have seen a school voluntarily move to a lesser conference. Maybe the lowered travel costs offset everything else (I’m assuming less NCAA tournament money, maybe fewer home ticket sales for less marquee opponents).

            It is funny how the more conferences shift around, the more schools end up being around the same teams as before, like you said, the Horizon is becoming the new Summit, and the ACC is becoming the new Big East, and the Big East is becoming the new CUSA.

            Like

    • Arch Stanton says:

      Good insight into the decision there. I still think the move might have been a bit premature.
      Hard to imagine the WAC saying “now or never”.

      If MVC is inviting new members to boost up their FCS football conference it is only going to make the non-football schools more open to move elsewhere. Shades of the Big East taking on subpar all sports members (Looking at you, Tulane) in order to have even warm bodies playing football.

      Like

      • DR says:

        I am sorry but your comparison is uninformed. First of all North Dakota State and South Dakota State are not warm bodies needed to fill out football slots. NDSU is the current 2 time FCS National Champion and SDSU is also a FCS football power. Their men’s basketball programs would be competitive in the MVC today. Both are better than Evansville right now. SDSU would also have the strongest women’s program in the conference today. Both have well-funded athletic departments in states that do not have budget problems, N. Dakota in particular is swimming in oil revenue, both schools have strong state wide support and large fan bases, a media presence that dominates their local markets and extends into the Twin Cities. Northern Iowa used to be in the old NCC conference with these guys as well so there is history and they would be in contiguous states. Travel would be a hassle but my guess is that NDSU would be willing to subsidize a portion of the expense back the conference. The MVC originally took N. Iowa years ago because they needed another football school and that hasn’t exactly hurt their basketball brand.

        Like

        • Arch Stanton says:

          I think it would actually be worse for the MVC to take a school because of its FCS football team than it was for the BIg East to take Tulane.
          Now, you raise good points that the Dakotas have some attractive qualities. Tulane has some attractive qualities too (media market being the obvious one). But unless this oil boom also causes a huge population boom with great infrastructure improvements and modern airports and facilities and all these new transplants are suddenly huge fans of the Jackrabbits and Bison then there are some serious drawbacks as well.
          Basically, look at this from Wichita State’s perspective. Do you think they want to see Creighton or anybody else replaced by a school that was even partly chosen due to their FCS football program? That’s where the comparison to the Big East comes from. WSU and the other non-football playing schools in the MVC wouldn’t want football to be a factor in any additions. There could very realistically be a point in which WSU says, “this isn’t the Missouri Valley that we know” and packs their bags and leaves. Some of the other teams could have options to go to the Horizon League, etc.
          And then you could be left with a Missouri Valley Conference that is basically a new version of the Summit League, which itself is a new version of the old North Central Division II Conference.
          And that would be very much like the Big East being a new version of Conference USA.
          Perceived slight on the Dakota schools not intended, but that is the way I see it.

          Like

      • BruceMcF says:

        I could see some disgruntled members if they passed over a stronger basketball school to try to boost FCS football ~ but are there really going to be better basketball adds available to them?

        That is, if the MVC would be inviting one new member, maybe two, to replace losses, wouldn’t the reload or two be coming from the Horizon or Summit league?

        And they will be competing with the A-10 for schools,

        Like

  27. bullet says:

    http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/02/07/2662612/athletics-official-never-checked.html

    Good to see some Carolina grads (on the board) acknowledging the obvious, that the AD department had to be involved in some way.

    Like

  28. Quacs says:

    Apparently, according to MHver3 (one of our favorite WVU expansion afficionados), Johns Hopkins to B1G is already a done deal. Check out the tweet he sent today!

    Like

  29. Arch Stanton says:

    My prediction is the farther down the food chain these conference realignment moves happen, the less predictable they become.
    Have we ever seen one school leave Conference A for Conference B, followed by a school from Conference B moving to Conference A within the same year.
    That’s what we have with Denver going from the WAC to the Summit, followed by UMKC moving from the Summit to the WAC. To make matters even more strange, each school is moving to the more geographically distant conference.
    What are the odds that either Denver or UMKC pulls a Boise State and doesn’t end up moving? I have a feeling that both schools will end up in either the WAC or the Summit, but I don’t know which it will be.

    Then there are rumors of the MVC making all sports adds based on how they would beef up the FCS level (technically separate conference) Missouri Valley FC.

    Speaking of the MVC, we are hearing rumors of Evansville leaving that league for the Horizon – a move down by two grades at least and to a league that is much more likely to be picked apart in the C7 aftermath. Seems like if the Purple Aces are actually thinking of such a move they ought to just look into Division III, because obviously they are not prepared to support a competitive DI program at even the mid-major non-football playing level.

    I think we might be on a free-for-all among the mid-major and lower conferences.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      There will be echoes from the Nebraska to Big 10 move for a decade or more. Arkansas and S. Carolina moving to the SEC and PSU to Big 10 were followed by lots of moves over the years that indirectly tied back.

      Like

      • morganwick says:

        There are more than there would be, especially at lower levels, because of the failed Pac-16 experiment. Colorado could have easily stayed in the Big 12 if that had never been proposed, and no Colorado means no Utah, which means the Mountain West stays intact… unless of course the Big 12 picks up BYU or TCU to replace Nebraska and get back to a championship game.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Colorado has been trying to get in the Pac since the mid-90s after they initially rejected them. The problem was the Pac had noone acceptable to add with them. CU and UT was fine. CU and anyone else wasn’t. CU was going in 2010 because Utah had become acceptable #12. Colorado wasn’t doing it defensively. Their alumni base is more in California now. They were going even if the TV$ were a little less.

          Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Have we ever seen one school leave Conference A for Conference B, followed by a school from Conference B moving to Conference A within the same year.

      “Ever” is a strong word, but it basically doesn’t happen, because most conference moves are steps up, not down.

      Like

  30. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    The hot rumor in Baton Rouge is that LSU is about to hire Cam Cameron as the Tigers’ new OC.

    What do you Michigan and Indiana guys think?

    Like

    • cutter says:

      It’s been awhile since Cameron was at Michigan coaching quarterback and wide receivers. He seemed to do a good job with them at UM, but he was also working with Jim Harbaugh, Elvis Grbac, Desmond Howard, etc. I don’t know if it was him or the talent in Ann Arbor that got him his next gig as QB coach for the Redskins.

      I don’t recall him doing very well at Indiana. He had Antwan Randle-El there during his tenure, but he also had a losing record and they showed him the door. IU is a tough gig for football though, so I doubt it hurt his career much.

      I don’t know what to tell you. I live in the DC area and was aware of the fact that he lost his job with the Ravens as their OC for being somewhat unimaginative in his play calling. I have no idea if that bodes well for LSU, because his tenure as San Diego’s OC went pretty well.

      Like

    • jokewood says:

      I’d much rather have Cam Cameron as my team’s OC than Gary Crowton or Greg Studrawa.

      Like

  31. Tough Choices says:

    I don’t anybody has mentioned this but lacrosse was one of the major negotiating points that Maryland discussed with the Big Ten. I think creating a Big Ten Lacrosse was part of the agreement. JHU to the Big Ten is the answer.

    Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      I have not seen anybody mention that. Where was that reported?

      Like

    • Brian says:

      I’d think it was more the other direction, with the B10 telling MD that if/when the B10 has 6 teams that lacrosse will become a B10 sport and they’ll have to join, just like MN and WI in hockey despite their protests. There may also have been some discussion of TV rights and how many games the BTN would show.

      Like

  32. […] Hopkins Weighing Big Ten, Other Conference Options; No Imminent Decision | InsideLacrosse.com From Frank the Tank: From my vantage point, Johns Hopkins is about as unique of a situation as it gets since (a) […]

    Like

  33. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Here’s the latest on the Super Bowl blackout.

    http://www.nola.com/superbowl/index.ssf/2013/02/super_bowl_blackout_caused_by.html

    Like

  34. zeek says:

    Frank, is there a 3rd possible angle here to the JHU to the Big Ten rumors?

    What if you were on the right track about FSU to the Big Ten?

    If the Big Ten adds FSU and Georgia Tech to go to 16, then there may not be a #6 men’s lacrosse team in the Big Ten for a long time (until UVa and others come on board in a move to 18 or 20).

    In that scenario, the Big Ten would absolutely need JHU as a men’s lacrosse member.

    Like

    • frug says:

      Or they want to use Hopkins as academic cover to take FSU.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Which would be a much better reason than wanting to start B10 lacrosse.

        Like

      • zeek says:

        That’s fair, I could see that being a compromise given that there are probably presidents that are more strongly on the “no new non-AAU schools” side of things that might be willing to consider a combination of FSU if JHU was added to the CIC.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          One reason I would have trouble seeing FSU in a pair rather than as one of four is that I don’t know of any single Football school out there (aside from maybe Texas) which seems like it would provide that much academic cover on its own. But JHU and GTech as a combination covers quite a bit more ground than GTech does alone.

          Selling it AS a package deal, though, I don’t know. Its just possible that some might ask the question: why would JHU joining as an Big Ten Lacrosse associate and CIC associate be contingent on football expansion

          Like

      • largeR says:

        The problem I have seeing FSU to the B1G in any version, is that Slive and the SEC would offer FSU membership rather than see them in the B1G. And, FSU would rather be in the SEC than the B1G. The SEC might get NC/Duke or they might not, but, FSU is the one southern u that Slive absolutely doesn’t want in the B1G. B1Gers and SECers, give us your thoughts.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I also think FSU to the B10 is unlikely. I just think it would be a better reason to add JHU than lacrosse.

          Like

        • Transic says:

          That’s certainly a possibility but then them SEC boys would prefer the B1G don’t go below the Mace Dix in the first place. The problem I see is there I see a mutual benefit between the B1G and schools like FSU, GT, etc.. Each could help each other out in terms of access to playoffs, academic prestige, potential financial gains, demographics, etc.. What has regional pride done other than benefit certain schools who have unearned political clout in a region at the detriment of others? Also, UF would now prefer that FSU never play in the same conference as them. They don’t care if it’s ACC, BigXII or B1G. But a school like Alabama might feel threatened and would play up the “Northern aggression” card. The question then becomes if it becomes a tug of war between UF and Ala, who wins?

          Like

        • GreatLakeState says:

          No doubt the FSU fan base would much prefer the SEC, but I have seen no evidence that the University would. In fact, I think they would prefer to remain in the ACC (if it survives) or go to the B1G, rather than go the SEC route. The siren song of the B1G’s money/academic combo would be difficult to refuse.
          UF really holds all the cards. If they even imply FSU membership might give them wanderlust, case closed.

          Like

          • largeR says:

            @GLS
            We have more than covered the cultural issue of FSU being more like the SEC than UF, but I have strong doubts UF would consider leaving the SEC due to FSU membership. Yes, paired with GT, NC and VA, that would be helluva B1G add. I just don’t see it ever happening. Just my opinion.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            If stories of a gentlemen’s agreement by the only schools in their state are correct, that they will vote in line with the school in that state, then it wouldn’t be a matter of threat ~ it would be Florida’s decision to veto or allow FSU. However, the only evidence of the existence of that agreement other than rumors from 3rd parties is a comment by a Kentucky AD regarding vetoing Louisville, and its putting a lot of weight on that one remark to take it as more than suggestive evidence.

            Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      People always think there has to be ONE main reason for doing things. The Big Ten presidents are capable of having more than one objective at a time.

      Adding JHU is sufficiently compelling, that it doesn’t really matter what future events may hold. If UVA and UNC never join, then JHU gives the B1G a lacrosse league that is instantly one of the top 2-3 in the country. Assuming the Big Ten wants to be dominant in any sport it chooses to enter, and assuming that lacrosse is such a sport, who wouldn’t want them?

      And they get a dominant lacrosse league while adding school to the CIC that is culturally and geographically compatible, an AAU member whose research budget dwarfs that of every current Big Ten school except Michigan. If you’re an academic (as all Big Ten presidents are), who wouldn’t want them?

      If UVA and UNC do join eventually, it’s not as if they’ll regret having JHU around. The move is obviously beneficial, regardless of what UVA and UNC eventually do — given that the B1G wants to be in lacrosse, as it apparently does.

      Like

      • DugHol says:

        My thoughts exactly, Marc. Excellent post.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        Perhaps that’s because almost every human decision comes down to ONE main reason. There can be lots of other considerations, but it usually comes down to 1 thing.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Though when that one main reason is money, that normally automatically includes trading off multiple pluses and minuses to arrive at the financial bottom line.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Sure, but any reason can be broken down into subsets. If you’re deciding based on money, that’s how you’ll evaluate all of the pluses and minuses. Put a price tag on them and add it all up.

            My point is, you usually decide based on 1 thing and then come up with a long list of justifications that consider other reasons.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Yes, that’s priority decision making (with which much academic economic models are formally incompatible, congratulations on your standing as a heterodox economist) … but its only really ONE thing making up the persons mind if its the first priority that decides it. If two alternatives are tied on the first two priorities and its the third priority that decides it, it would be misleading to say it was decided only on that one thing ~ it was decided on that one thing GIVEN the tie in the top two priorities.

            And it doesn’t follow that a conference makes its decisions in the same way, because a conference decision is a group decision, and different members of the group may be making up their mind based on different criteria. There is pressure in a “collegial” group setting for members to set out how good is “good enough” for the things they are pressing for.

            That is, after all, how the AAU membership has likely emerged as a proxy for academic quality, as a simple measure of “good enough” which avoids the slippery slope of “if so and so was good enough, what about so and so, they are almost as good.”

            Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          Perhaps that’s because almost every human decision comes down to ONE main reason.

          You would expect a bunch of academics, who have a full-time professional staff in the Big Ten office to feed them with data, and who know they are making choices expected to last many decades, to make a somewhat more thoughtful, analytic, nuanced decision most people make in their everyday lives.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            No, I wouldn’t. They’ll have more data, sure, but when push comes to shove they’ll decide based on one main thing and the rest will become justifications. If they’re against it, they will find some data to support their side. If they’re for it, they’ll use other data to support themselves. Getting degrees and high paying jobs doesn’t make them stop being human.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            As above ~ you still wouldn’t assume that EACH of the twelve would make their decision based on the SAME “one thing”.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Not necessarily, but they could all choose the same one – money. Most of their decisions lately have ignored everything else in the pursuit of money. Since they don’t have to be unanimous, it only takes a large number to focus on the same thing (or different things that happen to agree on the outcome) to make the decision.

            Like

  35. SpaceTetra says:

    Is there someone on this board that can explain how the CIC works?
    For example, here are some questions –
    1) Is there a fixed percentage of research dollars that must be share with the group such as x%?
    2) How much does the adding of congressmen and senators impact the CIC?
    3) Do the schools still apply for the grants themselves and just find partners in the CIC or does the CIC also make grant requests and divy them out to the members?
    4) Are some of these grants so large that it becomes necessary to have partners and the CIC provides a convenient way to do that?
    5) It has been quoted on this board that some B1G presidents have stated that a bad non-AAU school could cost the group over a billion dollars. If true, why? If some the schools are high quality, can’t the bad schools just be ignored?
    6) If JHU takes in so much research money, would joining the CIC actually bring more dollars to the CIC?
    7) Comments on this board have implied that JHU might have to share some of their research money. Really? If so, then the CIC would have to bring in more than they would share.
    8) How much research money would JHU bring in for the other CIC schools?

    It seems to me that LAX is a technicality to getting JHU to join the CIC. It seems like all of these other issues being discussed could be trivial compared to possible CIC impact. And I am unable to judge the value of JHU joining the CIC because I don’t understand how the CIC works.
    And from all of the other discussions on this board, I am not sure anyone else understands this either.
    My point (besides the questions) is that most of the factors being discussed might really be moot to the CIC possibilities which makes me question the actual dollar value of JHU in the CIC.

    Can anyone explain or reference something that explains how the CIC works?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Basically, the CIC does some things to reduce costs (shared resources, library digitization, shared purchases of some things).

      Each school has its own research money. The money is never pooled in the CIC. Thus, saying that the CIC accounts for $9-10 billion in research annually is almost meaningless. That’s just an aggregation of what the soon to be 15 schools perform annually in research expenditures.

      But the main thing which you’re talking about is unquantifiable. You’re asking what % increase do you get in terms of research production from being in the CIC.

      It’s impossible to really know, but whatever it is, even if it’s just 2% on average per institution, that’s an enormous amount of money, $200 million among the 13 schools.

      Maybe studying UIC’s research production over the next couple years will give an indication given that they’re being removed from the CIC.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        What I mean by that 2% figure (or $200 million) is just that you can’t really measure what % of research wouldn’t be taking place if the CIC didn’t exist or what does because it does exist.

        There are plenty of research projects which include multiple CIC schools; you just can’t say which would be taking place and which wouldn’t if the CIC didn’t exist.

        Schools collaborate all of the time without research organizations like the CIC in place, etc.

        Like

        • David Brown says:

          If anyone has doubts about the value of the CIC, lets look at something the CIC does. “The CIC also provides high-speed Internet connections among the universities and shared language courses, library resources and journal subscriptions, and opportunities for graduate students seeking fellowships; many of the resources will save the university money, Loh (Maryland President Wallace) said.

          For example, the Big Ten has a contract with Google to digitize whole library collections of the CIC universities, Loh said — a project that would cost the university “a fortune” on its own and will now only cost a fraction of the amount.

          “You want any book in the University of Maryland library or the University of Michigan library or wherever, you can go online and get it,” Loh said. “That’s the power of collective purchasing.”

          Although the CIC does not provide research grants and will not contribute to a direct source of research funding, university Research Vice President Pat O’Shea said membership will allow for greater research collaboration between universities, which often makes it easier to obtain larger grants.

          “Immediately, when I heard about the CIC, I said, ‘This is great, because we’ve got nothing like this in the ACC,’” he said. “The Big Ten historically has been more than just athletics. It’s almost like the Ivy League but for public universities.” http://www.diamondbackonline.com/…/article_e76ec78e-3d05-11e2...

          Like

      • metatron says:

        UIC’s already a pretty big deal in the medical field, so their expulsion as a kneejerk reaction to Nebraska’s request is asinine.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      SpaceTetra,

      “Is there someone on this board that can explain how the CIC works?”

      Probably not. They have a lot of reports (annual and others) that may help you out on their web site – http://www.cic.net/Home.aspx

      Below are my best guesses, with facts where I can provide them.

      “1) Is there a fixed percentage of research dollars that must be share with the group such as x%?”

      No, each school pays dues and collaborations happen as makes sense. They all participate in group purchasing and sharing various resources.

      “2) How much does the adding of congressmen and senators impact the CIC?”

      Theoretically it might help persuade the feds to fund certain research projects. More likely, it provides the CIC with more lobbying power.

      “3) Do the schools still apply for the grants themselves and just find partners in the CIC or does the CIC also make grant requests and divy them out to the members?”

      The individual researchers do the begging just like at any other school.

      “4) Are some of these grants so large that it becomes necessary to have partners and the CIC provides a convenient way to do that?”

      It’s more the other way around, I think. The CIC let’s them come up with bigger project ideas and then they seek grants. Also, the government has been known to offer large projects that require a multi-university team to collaborate. The CIC could help with that.

      “5) It has been quoted on this board that some B1G presidents have stated that a bad non-AAU school could cost the group over a billion dollars. If true, why? If some the schools are high quality, can’t the bad schools just be ignored?”

      It has? Well, I’ll let whoever said that explain.

      “6) If JHU takes in so much research money, would joining the CIC actually bring more dollars to the CIC?”

      Maybe. It might allow some new collaborations that wouldn’t have happened otherwise.

      “7) Comments on this board have implied that JHU might have to share some of their research money. Really? If so, then the CIC would have to bring in more than they would share.”

      Share as in having B10 members as partners, maybe. They wouldn’t lose money by joining.

      “8) How much research money would JHU bring in for the other CIC schools?”

      No idea. They do $1.86B now compared to MI’s $1.0B last I saw. Since the CIC schools had a total of $7.1B, getting to $9B has to be helpful.

      The CIC helps students (video classes, research options for grad students, etc), faculty (career development, research, etc) and the accountants (group purchasing saves them about 10%, libraries save a bunch). They pooled together to make an extra fast fiber optic computer system that saves them millions on research, too.

      Like

    • Psuhockey says:

      My understanding fwiw is that is allows colleges to bid for grants in collaboration and reduce the costs of doing the research with group buys and such. Also I believe there is a lobbying element as well. Here would be an example in basic terms:

      Alabama wants to do a research project for 50 million dollars from the Federal Government. Lets say it will cost the university 20 million dollars to do the research, so a profit of 30 mil to the university. Wisconsin and Penn State want to do the same research so they bid together, either at 50 mil or possible slightly more at 60 mil. The CIC helps reduce the total cost of doing the research to 10 mil, so PSU and Wisconsin will make almost the same money as Alabama would by itself. So the Government gives the grant to PSU and Wisconsin since that money, even if it is a little more, helps two schools and two states instead of one. Multiply that over and over again.

      Like

      • Mark says:

        Universities are not making $30M on a $50M research grant. As much as our government wastes money, they are not that stupid!

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          The numbers are way off, but he’s got the basic idea.

          Like

          • Nemo says:

            Here is how it is likely to work:

            1) The Feds post an RFP: a Request for Proposals, on a *Center* to Study “the interaction of head trauma in sports on higher brain function and its long-term effects”
            2) I’m a guy at PSU who has done a lot of research in that, and I know a guy at Michigan, and a guy at Minnesota who have also done great work
            3) We meet by teleconference and decide to get a team of people to write a “Center” grant; for the sake of argument, it is to be located at PSU
            4) We manage to find 2 people at PSU, two more at Michigan, three at Minny, and one from Purdue who all want in; each submits a separate grant proposal or perhaps several
            5) As principal investigator (someone has to be in charge), we vet these grants among colleagues and also get feedback from Administration as to what kind of facilities are needed at each campus; even though the Center is at PSU, the people on the grant can work at their own locations but can also visit the Center itself
            6) We end up asking for a Center Grant of $24 million. That includes funding for each grant, new space (buildings) if needed, salary support, supplies, etc. Travel is also included.
            7) Each participating University is entitled to Indirect Costs. IOW, even though the research costs $24 million, each Uni needs to have support staff to audit the funds, take out the trash, supply animals, hire techs, fund grad students, etc. The usual amount is about the 50% level. So the actual amount of the grant (Direct & Indirect Costs) is really $36 million total (that $12 million goes to the schools involved by a formula drawn up at the very start).
            8) The proposal goes to a Study Section or Review panel. Usually, people from the schools involved are honor bound to excuse themselves from considering such a grant. However, other schools in the Conference are likely to have at least a few members on the panel and the academic network is fairly large at premier Universities
            9) Depending on the funds available, if the Center grant is awarded, PSU, MI, MN and PU all benefit.
            10) It is the mutual interaction between “sister” schools, and the availability of high speed database searches which helps get key people together quickly to take advantage of such RFPs. Whether they are funded or not depends on merit, but clearly, AAU schools are going to have very high caliber faculty who can initiate such grants.

            That is one huge advantage of the CIC at least

            Like

  36. Transic says:

    OT – Interesting note about the BE TV negotiations:

    The source said the conference call didn’t focus on expansion but rather on the exit of the seven, as well as a new television contract. The Big East has a football contract for fall 2013 but nothing for men’s basketball in 2013-14. ESPN has the right of first refusal, but NBC Sports has been the most aggressive to secure the deal, according to the source.

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8931014/big-east-seven-catholic-schools-hope-split-summer-2014-source-says

    Like

    • metatron says:

      UConn is propping that league up.

      Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      I read a few weeks back on espn.com, I believe it was, that Aresco’s plan has been to extend the basketball TV contracts with ESPN and CBS by one year only. Then a long-term deal in which the football and basketball TV contracts are synced up will be made, and will be based on membership for the 2014-15 season, when the C7, Rutgers, Louisville and ND have all left and Tulane and ECU have joined.

      Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      I think it’s pretty clear the Big East football conference will get a very modest television contract. The flagship football program will be Cincinnati, which draws under 40,000/game, and the tier below them includes ECU, Houston, UConn, USF, and UCF. There have been maybe 2 top 25 finishes/year from that group over the past 10 years.

      In basketball, it may still be able to draw decent ratings with perennial top 25 teams like UConn and Memphis and top 40 Temple and Cincinnati. I’ll expect anyscheduling arrangement to have those four playing twice every year cfor the sake of maximizing TV, regardless if how unfair and unbalanced it is. As for the biggest feather in the old Big East’s cap, NCAA tournament appearances and the units that come with them, it will no longer be one of the top 2-3 leagues, but it still should be on par with the SEC and Pac-12. In other words, it will still be a power conference, even if it’s top heavy.

      Where the membership change, specifically in basketball, will hurt this league’s prestige is that it almost surely will lose the conference tournament at Madison Square Garden. The contract with MSG was extended this past fall, even after WVU had left and Pitt and the league’s signature program in Syracuse had announced they were leaving. But this league will face a mass exodus of 10 schools in July 2014. Only two schools (3 if ECU joins for all sports)within an 10-hour drive of NYC will remain. MSG supposedly has an out clause to protect themselves, and with options like the “Classic East,” ACC, and Big Ten available, there’s just now way MSG doesn’t use that option. This league will be fortunate to be on a rotation with other leagues at MSG, but I find it yard to see how even that would be possible. It does not have large fan bases known for traveling (Louisville, Syracuse), nor does it have a concentration of smaller schools within a few hours’ drive of NYC. The Big Ten and ACC at least offer large, willing-to-travel fan bases, and the Classic East group offers lots of local flair and would also, most likely, be a deeper league.

      Like

    • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

      “If the Big East expands again, the two schools mentioned most by sources are UMass and Tulsa out of the A-10 and Conference USA, respectively.”

      —-UMass would seem to be a natural fit but it’s one I haven’t seen mentioned much in connection with the Big East leftovers. I wonder if they will eventually look at Buffalo as well.

      Like

  37. rich2 says:

    Haven’t visited in a while…I still don’t understand the desire for a B20… do you root for more Applebee’s to be opened in your town and more local restaurants to close?

    I expected to read a serious discussion about the recruiting debacle for the Big 10 that was finalized on Wednesday. It appears that there is not one word. All this endless talk about television rights and dollars. It should be noted that if you look at a composite rankings list of recruiting, OSU and Michigan stayed even with the top tier of the SEC — maybe – and the remaining 12 teams fell further behind the SEC. Before you raise your objections, yes, it is only one year. But, with the looser recruiting rules for next year where you can spend as much fawning over potential recruits via social media as you want to, does anything think that the BIG10 is better poised to close the gap next year? Finally, overall, the BIg10 has to annually out-recruit the SEC for HS players since the SEC recruits JUCOs and is far “better” at roster management than the BIG 10 — and roster management matters — if it is a managed process, having 115 players flow through your talent pipeline every four years leads to a significant advantage over teams that have 92 players in the same time period. Better HS recruiting, access to JUCOs and aggressive roster management is a potent competitive force.

    At some point, does performance on the field mean anything when new below average football teams are added to the mix – MD, RU and UVA GT, etc?

    Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      Haven’t visited in a while…I still don’t understand the desire for a B20… do you root for more Applebee’s to be opened in your town and more local restaurants to close?

      A lot of the people who post here are skeptical of the benefits of a B20. Much of the discussion is along the lines of: “If they’re going to 20, who would it be, and why?” A number of presidents and ADs have mentioned that figure, so it’s clearly something that they’re considering.

      As far as the rationale, ultimately it’s to bring in more athletics revenue, to make the B10 athletic departments wealthier, improve facilities, fund the non-revenue sports, improve academic and research synergies, and bring prestige to the conference.

      I’m not quite getting your Applebee’s analogy, because where are the “local restaurants” (athletic departments???) that have closed?

      At some point, does performance on the field mean anything when new below average football teams are added to the mix – MD, RU and UVA GT, etc?

      I think most people assume that if they get to 20, at least some of the six additional teams will be football bluebloods. GT, by the way, is not a blueblood, but they’re not “below average” either. They’re in the top 30 in all-time wins and winning percentage (behind only Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska and Penn State, among Big Ten teams).

      Since 1991, they’ve had just one season without reaching a bowl, which is better than most of the Big Ten. In all-time bowl appearances, they’re behind only OSU, Nebraska, and PSU, and tied with Michigan. In all-time bowl wins, they’re behind only Nebraska.

      Like

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        @Marc – Nice points regarding Georgia Tech. That inspired me to look up where the various additions of the B1G & SEC since ’90 stand in comparison to one another in all time winning % (and I threw in Colorado & Utah for good measure):

        7 Nebraska 0.70136 856-353-40
        11 Penn State 0.65841 723-365-42
        23 Texas A&M 0.60067 692-452-48
        24 Georgia Tech 0.59500 693-465-42
        27 Arkansas 0.59333 683-462-39
        29 Colorado 0.59029 675-463-36
        31 Utah 0.58896 630-435-31
        55 Missouri 0.54283 633-529-52
        62 Virginia 0.52699 630-563-48
        63 Maryland 0.52558 616-554-42
        69 South Carolina 0.51086 566-541-44
        70 Rutgers 0.50782 628-608-42

        Of course it is slightly apples to oranges as it includes 20 years of Arkansas & South Carolina in the SEC, so here’s where they stood prior to their first season in the SEC:

        25 Arkansas 0.60226 541-351-37
        79 South Carolina 0.50611 434 423 43

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          Ark and S Carolina’s percentage went up after entering the SEC?

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Oops. S Carolina rank went up, not %.

            Like

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Yes Arkansas performed slightly worse compared to their historical average after joining while South Carolina actually improved. Both moved up when compared to the field because due to other teams sliding down.

            1992-2012:
            37 Arkansas 0.56078 142-111-2
            50 South Carolina 0.52789 132-118-1

            Similarly I wouldn’t be surprised at all if in 20 years Rutgers and/or Maryland has improved their standing slightly while Nebraska has slightly underperformed vs it’s history.

            Like

    • DugHol says:

      Ohio State once declined a Rose Bowl invitation because the administration didn’t want the school to be seen as primarily a place where meatheads bashed each other with helmets. I love college football, but college, in the eyes of many, is supposed to be a well-rounded experience for growing students.

      The Olympics are a big deal to many people, and colleges serve as the primary avenue to that arena. The Big Ten is striving to provide as many Olympic sports as possible to its students; I think they already offer more sports than any other major conference, and, fueled by expansion, they’re determined to add more. They’re also determined to maintain their excellent academic and research standards.

      You mention that the B1G needs to keep up with the SEC, but in reality, the SEC is scrambling in a probably vain attempt to catch the B1G. Slive, in imitation of Delany, is frantically buying up the third-tier of his rights of his schools in order to form his own network, and is desperately trying to land AAU schools in order to gain even a modicum of national academic respect. It’s no coincidence that Missouri and Texas A&M are AAU, or that Slive has apparently been trying to land North Carolina and Duke for three years.

      As I mentioned above, the B1G sponsors (or will soon sponsor) six sports that the SEC doesn’t, (and I didn’t include hockey), while the SEC only sponsors one (Equestrian) that the B1G doesn’t. So what, exactly, is Slive planning to show on his network, besides football reruns? Slive knows he’ll never catch up to the B1G in network power, research, academics or over-all sports. And you expect us to throw away all those advantages because you’re paranoid about Slive’s lead in football, a sport that many people are becoming increasingly concerned about because of all the concussions it engenders?

      Thank God Delany is running the B1G.

      Like

      • FranktheAg says:

        To answer your question about what Slive will show…how about quality baseball? That sport alone is better viewed and receives more interest than the rest of the “olympic sports” combined.

        Like

    • cutter says:

      @rich2-

      To answer your last question, I’d say no.

      IRT the SEC outrecruiting the B10, it’s no surprise given the demographics involved plus the conference’s success and the financial resources they’re willing to spend on football, coaching staffs, etc. The B1G also hasn’t seen the same level of “roster management” that is practiced in the SEC. All that translates into success if your solitary measure of it is who hold a crystal football over his head at the end of a national championship game in January.

      As long as football and men’s basketball teams are primarily used to promote their respective universities and to provide a forum for major contributors, then they’re a success. Win-loss records are important in as much as they support that goal, but it doesn’t make or break the school’s central mission.

      While you talk about programs with below average football teams, you fail to mention their academic standing and their research spending and specialties. In regard to expansion, that’s the primary goal of the B1G with financial self-sufficiency for the athletic departments being the secondary goal.

      While college football is national in scope, it also has a regional aspect to it. I suspect most B1G fans are concerned with how their schools are competing within the conference versus how they would do in a hypothetical matchup with a SEC team. Michigan, Ohio State and Nebraska might be the exceptions to the rule (Penn State as well, once it gets past sanctions), but I don’t think the other ten B1G schools or their fans realistically expect to compete for a national championship given CFB’s current structure.

      Maryland, Rutgers, Georgia Tech, Virginia, North Carolina and Duke are looked at by this board in the manner you mention–how do they increase the conference’s footprint, do they enhance the conference’s revenue possibilities and where do they fit in the CIC. I don’t think anyone here expects them to be gang busters in football (although men’s basketball is a different story).

      That’s one of the reasons why Florida State gets mentioned as a possibility. It’s a non-AAU school that does move the meter football wise and is located in a recruit rich state. There have been lots of discussions about if FSU is a realistic target for the B1G, how the Seminoles would fit into the conference, etc. More specifically, the talk has been about whether or not they would be added to spice up the football portfolio in the Big Ten.

      Let’s be frank about one other thing. There just aren’t a lot of really good options for the Big Ten in terms of bringing in a major football program into the conference like Nebraska and Penn State. Notre Dame might be a possibility down the road, but ND values its semi-independence so much that they would be one of the last to join. FSU was mentioned above. I think Virginia Tech has been touched on earlier, but if you have UVa, why do you need the Hokies? No SEC program is going to defect and there’s no real reason for a Big XII program at this time to move to the Big Ten. So that’s why much of the conversation surrounds the more likely/probable candidates such as a UVA or UNC or Duke or GaTech.

      Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      So your solution to the ‘recruiting debacle’ is to hunker down in our midwest enclave?
      If you’ve haven’t noticed (with exception to Ohio) many of the midwest’s best players go down south or out west to play.
      The day the BTN was created is the day the B1G became a multi-regional conference.
      Delany & Co. (including Fox) have national ambitions that require as many large markets as possible to succeed, while still maintaining its academic integrity. That’s the new reality. The old Big Ten is an unsustainable model.

      Like

      • DugHol says:

        Good points, Great.

        Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Old B10 was certainly sustainable. It’s ability to expand its influence was what was in question, plus the effort needed to simply sustain would have increased. Future cost/benefit analysis obviously indicated expanding (in leu of the B1G/PAC association) was of great enough benefit to surpass the positives standing pat.

        I do have concerns though. Only the PAC 16 plan seemed to lend itself naturally to maintaining rivalries and history.

        Like

        • cutter says:

          How does the Pac 16 maintain any sense of history when it would theoretically be a combination of the Pac 8 plus 4 additions that got it to 12 with four more additions from the Big XII? What sort of history or rivalry do USC and Oklahoma have or Oregon and Texas?

          If expansion and realignment has taught us anything, then rivalries and history are not the major part of the equation. Does having West Virginia in the Big XII make any sense when its biggest rival (Pitt) is in the Big East and is headed to the ACC? Heck, even as conferences expanded, history got set aside (Oklahoma-Nebraska) as games that used to be annual matchups couldn’t now be scheduled on a yearly basis.

          There are perhaps 17 rivalry/trophy/high profile games in the Big Ten with the inclusion of Maryland and Rutgers (for example, Maryland-Penn State is added to that list). With an east-west divisional breakdown, a dozen of those games would be within the division. Add a handful of protected cross-rivalry games and you get that number of 15. Now if your B1G season isn’t complete without a Penn State-Minnesota game or an Indiana-Illinois contest, then you’re going to have a problem.

          Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Well, the Pac-16 West is the old Pac-8 ~ there’s lots of history there in division.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Does having West Virginia in the Big XII make any sense when its biggest rival (Pitt) is in the Big East and is headed to the ACC?

            Given that Pitt had already left the Big East, West Virginia in the Big XII makes more sense than any other move available to either party. And you can’t really blame Pitt for exiting the Big East when the opportunity presented itself.

            Like

          • cutter says:

            I don’t blame any of these parties for leaving the conferences in the manner they did. The Big East was clearly a sinking ship, so West Virginia going to the Big XII and Pittsburgh making a beeline to the ACC was clearly in the best interests of these schools.

            The same goes for Texas A&M, who went to the SEC and set aside its rivalry with Texas and association with the Big XII schools to pursue what the ATM leadership thought was a better circumstance. I don’t think there’s anyone in College Station who is having much of a problem with that right now given how well they did in the SEC, their incoming recruiting class and that little matter of a Heisman Trophy winner.

            There’s also nothing preventing these games being played except the schools themselves. Being a conference game is not a prerequisite for a rivalry–you can go from Colorado-Colorado State opening the season to the three SEC-ACC matchups in late November and everywhere in between.

            The big thing facing college football’s future is how many teams will be in what we now call Division 1-A (or FBS), who will be in charge of the sport in terms of rules, etc., how the conferences will be organized and what the playoff system will look like. Division 1-A (if it’s still part of the NCAA) could end up with anywhere from 64 to 80 programs organized in four or five different conferences.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            “How does the Pac 16 maintain any sense of history when it would theoretically be a combination of the Pac 8 plus 4 additions that got it to 12 with four more additions from the Big XII?”

            BruceMcF pointed out the Pac 16 West would have been the old Pac 8.

            The original Pac 16 East proposal included 3 former SWC schools, 3 former Big 8 schools, 3 former Border Conference Schools, and 4 former Big 12 schools. It would have been about as historical as the old Big 12 South.

            A whole division formed around Texas Tech’s historic rivals!

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            ‘6 former Big 12 schools’

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            The P16 would have had 6 B12 (no Utah).

            Like

    • DugHol says:

      @Rich2.

      From elevenwarriors today:

      “As part of their ploy to get Eddie Vanderdoes to sign with them, USC and Alabama apparently offered a basketball scholarship to Eddie Vanderdoes’ sister. She’s 13.”

      Is this the type of recruiting practice you want the B1G to emulate?

      Like

    • bamatab says:

      In regards to the growing recruiting gap, I’ll re-link this article that I linked on Frank’s previous blog posting. It appears that Urban Meyer is very concerned about it, and plans on bringing it up at the next B1G coaches meeting. Apparently he is concerned that the B1G coaches don’t put forth the same effort and/or resources that the SEC does when it comes to recruiting.

      Here is the link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/07/urban-meyer-big-ten-coaches-weak-recruiting/1899715/#

      Like

      • Brian says:

        It seems to me he should have kept his mouth shut and enjoyed the advantage it gives him. Now everyone is mad at him for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

        Like

        • bigbangbuck says:

          His advantage is one he earns by relentlessly pursuing the best player to fill his need not the lack of other coaches efforts. He is absolutely correct to bring his concerns for the health of the conference (football centric) to the very people who can correct the deficiencies. I say this knowing not all schools can afford travel budgets of Ohio State, however the competing coaches would be wise to listen to Meyer.

          Like

          • mnfanstc says:

            Got nothing against Meyer as a coach, but it sure is a lot easier to get those higher level recruits when (a) you’re already at an established “blue-blood” program, and (b) you’re backyard is one of the premier recruiting grounds…

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bigbangbuck,

            “His advantage is one he earns by relentlessly pursuing the best player to fill his need not the lack of other coaches efforts.”

            Not quite true. Their failure to match his effort is what gives him that edge. He doesn’t have that edge over someone like Saban.

            “He is absolutely correct to bring his concerns for the health of the conference (football centric) to the very people who can correct the deficiencies.”

            It’s his job to win, not to help the conference. Besides, all he did was come across as arrogant and tick off everybody. They know what he does and they choose not to copy it. Him lecturing them won’t change anything.

            “I say this knowing not all schools can afford travel budgets of Ohio State, however the competing coaches would be wise to listen to Meyer.”

            http://thegazette.com/2013/02/07/urban-meyer-effect-b1g-football-recruiting-costs-soar/

            OSU has a fairly small recruiting budget, actually. In 2012, of the 10 fully public schools only WI spent less on recruiting than OSU.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            mnfanstc,

            “Got nothing against Meyer as a coach, but it sure is a lot easier to get those higher level recruits when (a) you’re already at an established “blue-blood” program, and (b) you’re backyard is one of the premier recruiting grounds…”

            That’s completely true. But I think he was talking about the amount of effort coaches put into it, not that they should match OSU’s class every year. I think he wants everyone to aim for better players and work non-stop to get them. A classic example is people complaining about flipping recruits. Every coach should be doing that. It’s their job.

            The recruiting budgets I linked above say something. WI is spending half as much as the rest of the B10 does. IL and MN are greatly outspending IA.

            Like

      • cutter says:

        What’s pretty funny about this is that ten months ago, The Sporting News published an article titled “From champs to chomped: How Urban Meyer broke Florida football” that outlined the apparent tailspin that took place in Gainesville–see http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-04-09/urban-meyer-florida-ohio-state-ncaa-violation-recruiting-drugs-program-will-musc with a second article published a week later–see http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-04-16/chris-rainey-percy-harvin-brandon-spikes-carlos-dunlap-urban-meyers-track-record

        A Florida blogger outlined back in November 2011 the problems with some of Meyer’s past recruiting classes–see http://ourtwobits.com/floridas-troubles-start-with-meyers-recruiting/

        Then, of course, there was the record number of arrests of Florida players while he was in charge–see http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_uf/2011/11/urban-meyer-says-arrests-during-his-tenure-at-florida-were-exaggerated.html and http://www.castefootball.us/archives/urban-meyer-and-college-footballs-thug-culture/

        Now I’m not denying Meyer’s successes at Bowling Green, Utah and Florida. When it comes to wins and losses and national titles, he’s absolutely one of the best college football coaches. He’s also one of the best at poaching players from other teams, as Penn State and Wisconsin (who accused him of having former OSU players in the NFL calling recruits) found out last season and Michigan did this year with Gareon Conley.

        But this is also the same guy who said college football is “full of garbage”–http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/11/urban-meyer-thinks-college-football-is-full-of-garbage/–when he was out of the game. Does he still feel that way now that he’s head coach at Ohio State?

        I just think it’s going to be funny to have Urban Meyer get up in front of 13 other B1G coaches and tell them to step up their game regarding recruiting given his recent past. But hey, if the Big Ten goes to nine or ten conference games and strength of schedule is going to be a factor in deciding which four teams get into the playoff, then you can see his why he might be worried. It’s not for the conference–it’s for his primary concern, and that’s Urban Meyer.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      rich2,

      “Haven’t visited in a while…I still don’t understand the desire for a B20…”

      Many people don’t desire it. Those that do seem to be playing the NCAA version of Risk where more is always better.

      “do you root for more Applebee’s to be opened in your town and more local restaurants to close?”

      Yes. They pump more money into the local economy.

      “I expected to read a serious discussion about the recruiting debacle for the Big 10 that was finalized on Wednesday. It appears that there is not one word.”

      Signing day happened at the end of us talking on Frank’s previous post. There was some discussion of it there. But Frank’s blog isn’t really a generic B10 blog, it’s focused on expansion and we try to mainly stay on that general topic. There are plenty of other places to discuss recruiting.

      But just for you:
      1. What debacle? OSU kicked butt and that’s all that matters. Besides, Scout had the B10 as the 2nd ranked conference overall (P12 was a close 3rd).

      2. OSU and MI both got great classes. The rest of the B10 not so much. In fact, I did an analysis that showed Meyer and Hoke are dominating in recruiting much more than at any time this century. The rest of the B10 needs to step up, and Meyer told them so the other day.

      http://www.offtackleempire.com/2013/2/7/3966044/an-even-deeper-look-at-recruiting-are-osu-and-mi-running-away-with

      3. That said, the B10 has smaller classes than most (only the ACC had a smaller average size and the P12 was close) so things weren’t as bad as the media made them out.

      Scout team rankings – 1, 2, 11, 41, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 56, 73
      Scout average stars – 2, 5, 17, 26, 27, 32, 33, 47, 51, 54, 57, 74

      That’s not great, but it moved the middle of the pack up considerably.

      By class size:
      >27 – 3 SEC (#9, 6, 7) – 32, 31, 29 respectively
      27 – 1 B10 (2)
      26 – 2 SEC (10, 19), 1 B10 (11)
      25 – 2 SEC (3, 8), 1 B10 (41)
      24 – 1 B10 (1)
      23 – 2 SEC (14, 32), 1 B10 (56)
      22 – 1 SEC (38), 2 B10 (49, 73)
      21 – 3 SEC (21, 23, 35), 1 B10 (51)
      20 – 1 SEC (36)
      19 – 1 B10 (45)
      18 – 1 B10 (43)
      17 – 2 B10 (44, 48)

      Average SEC = 24.6
      Average B10 = 21.8

      Smaller classes mean lower rankings automatically.

      “It should be noted that if you look at a composite rankings list of recruiting, OSU and Michigan stayed even with the top tier of the SEC — maybe – and the remaining 12 teams fell further behind the SEC.”

      There’s no maybe about it.

      Scout – OSU 1, MI 2, AL 3, UF 7
      Rivals – AL 1, OSU 2, UF 4, MI 5
      247 – AL 1, OSU 2, UF 4, MI 5
      ESPN – AL 1, UF 2, OSU 3, MI 6

      Averages:
      AL -1.5
      OSU – 2.0
      UF – 4.25
      MI – 4.5

      OSU and MI kept up with the top of the SEC.

      There are only 10 remaining teams since MD and RU don’t count yet, but let’s look at them, too.

      RU – #31, 22 recruits (4th of 14 in B10), #38 by average stars
      MD – #47, 22 recruits (9th of 14 in B10), #50 by average stars

      They would increase the average class size a little. RU would slot in behind NE. MD would be right in that big lower middle group (9 schools from 41-56). In other words, they fit in the B10 just fine.

      “Finally, overall, the BIg10 has to annually out-recruit the SEC for HS players since the SEC recruits JUCOs and is far “better” at roster management than the BIG 10 — and roster management matters — if it is a managed process, having 115 players flow through your talent pipeline every four years leads to a significant advantage over teams that have 92 players in the same time period. Better HS recruiting, access to JUCOs and aggressive roster management is a potent competitive force.”

      Nowhere in this do you allow for southern bias in the ranking of recruits, the impact of coaching on northern kids as they catch up on reps missed from not playing spring FB, or forming a team with players that fit rather than star chasing. Also, get back to us in August when we know how many players actually qualified academically. That tends to hurt the SEC classes more than the B10.

      That’s not to say that the B10 doesn’t need to do better. They do. But several teams have new coaches so let’s see if they take that next step. Meyer and Hoke helped their teams do better. Hazell and Andersen might help theirs, too.

      “At some point, does performance on the field mean anything when new below average football teams are added to the mix – MD, RU and UVA GT, etc?”

      You’d like to think so, but money seems to mean more. Besides, it’s pretty hypocritical for a ND fan to talk about on-field performance being important based on the past 20 years. Where are all the titles those elite recruiting classes should have produced?

      Like

      • rich2 says:

        I don’t have time to respond to all of these comments. My only points are:
        1. Alabama and UF are stronger programs today than MI or OSU. Therefore it seems logical that MI and OSU have to outperform Alabama and UF in HS recruiting — over a five year period — in order to close the performance gap. If you are behind overall, then matching your competitor for one year does not close the gap. Matching simply says you will continue to be behind — and the Big 10 is devolving again into the Big 2 and Little 12. But our Big 2 today cannot compete against the entire upper echelon of the SEC.
        2. If your program allows 115 players to flow through your program in 4 years vs. 92, then you have already taken into account that some of your HS players in this year’s class will not enroll — and you have taken steps to overcome this negative outcome.
        3. Bottom line — is anyone asserting that the Big 10 today is more competitive vs the SEC today after NSD than before? Is anyone asserting that the Big 10 would be more likely next year to win “a Big 10 vs. SEC Challenge in Football in 2013” than they would in 2012? Do you look at the results of NSD and say that the Big 10 is closing the gap vs the SEC — where Vanderbilt is recruiting as well as Nebraska and PSU, for example.
        4. Personally, my vote in the BFC is for Big 10 not to pursue a path in which it must compete with the SEC — to bottom feed with LSU or Ole Miss or Alabama to survive — but the logic of the BTN (e.g. “The Show Must Go On”) says that if you dilute the meaning of the brand (e.g., add MD, RU and then UVA and GT or NCSU or Pitt or whatever) then you are forced to compete not on transcendent values but on performance on the field — to be competitive with the SEC — and we will not be competitive next year nor were we cothis year– how does 2014 look?

        Finally, more generally, In Bloomington, I still prefer Anatolia’s to Applebee, Are we really arguing that taste and quality cannot be compared? You cannot force me to prefer Applebee’s and I am stunned that people root for Applebee’s to put Anatolia’s out of business — unless you never dine at either and your interest in the issue is purely “academic.”

        Like

        • Brian says:

          rich2,

          “1. Alabama and UF are stronger programs today than MI or OSU.”

          AL is ahead. It’s not clear that UF is. OSU went 12-0 against a weak schedule while UF went
          11-2 against a harder schedule. UF was 7-6 last year with an ugly bowl win over 6-7 OSU under an interim coach.

          “Therefore it seems logical that MI and OSU have to outperform Alabama and UF in HS recruiting — over a five year period — in order to close the performance gap. If you are behind overall, then matching your competitor for one year does not close the gap.”

          Actually it does because every year you graduate a class of players. If those players were less talented, they got replaced by equally talented players. Every year that happens, the closer the teams get. At some point, talent disparity stop being an issue and it becomes coaching, mental strength, conditioning, systems, etc.

          “2. If your program allows 115 players to flow through your program in 4 years vs. 92, then you have already taken into account that some of your HS players in this year’s class will not enroll — and you have taken steps to overcome this negative outcome.”

          Or you assume you’ll not renew scholarships for lots of players, allowing you to have big classes every year. Let’s see what happens as the new 25 player limit and the 4 year scholarship kick in. I’m guessing it will take a bite out of the SEC’s edge.

          “3. Bottom line — is anyone asserting that the Big 10 today is more competitive vs the SEC today after NSD than before?”

          No, but OSU and MI are. That’s a start.

          “Is anyone asserting that the Big 10 would be more likely next year to win “a Big 10 vs. SEC Challenge in Football in 2013″ than they would in 2012? Do you look at the results of NSD and say that the Big 10 is closing the gap vs the SEC — where Vanderbilt is recruiting as well as Nebraska and PSU, for example.”

          I don’t care if IN recruits well. That’s their problem. As for PSU, how about you compare apples to apples? They were limited to 15 players and had more penalties looming over them, but still had a top 30 class by average stars ranking. Scout ranked NE as the #11 class.

          “Finally, more generally, In Bloomington, I still prefer Anatolia’s to Applebee,”

          You didn’t ask about specific restaurants, you asked about more Applebees vs more local restaurants. Frankly, lots of local places suck. That’s why they go out of business so often. They also don’t hire many people. Applebees have more money, hire more people and tend to stay around.

          “Are we really arguing that taste and quality cannot be compared?”

          No. Nobody even mentioned those two words until just now.

          “You cannot force me to prefer Applebee’s”

          Nobody tried to force you to like anything. You asked a question.

          “and I am stunned that people root for Applebee’s to put Anatolia’s out of business — unless you never dine at either and your interest in the issue is purely “academic.””

          Well, it’s pretty unlikely that I’ll ever eat at Anatolia’s so why would I care? But honestly, is every local restaurant Anatolia’s? I’ve never been to a city where every local place is a 5 star restaurant. There are plenty of greasy spoons and bad ethnic places that deserve to go. And no, I don’t eat at Applebees often either. That doesn’t mean I don’t want them around.

          Like

        • Richard says:

          Yet all that great recruiting has netted Vandy 2 losses the last 2 years against a B10 school with far less heralded recruiting classes.

          Like

    • frug says:

      For one a move to 16-20 team conferences speeds up the process of the top 60-72 teams uniting in a true “Super Conference” which would end realignment at the top of college sports since the conferences would no longer be competing against each other.

      Like

  38. Michael in Raleigh says:

    So the general consensus is that the Catholic 7 and those who join that league should named the Classic East, in the event that they do not keep the Big East name, correct?

    What if they do keep the Big East name? What should the football league be called? Seriously? Please, no sarcastic ideas like “Conference USA 2.0.” I have no idea what a good name for that league would be. It has no real identity, other than, yes, a mostly shared history in Conference USA. It has no regional identity. Five will be in the Central Time Zone (SMU, Houston, Tulane, Memphis, and presumably Tulsa); two in Florida; one in North Carolina; one in Ohio; and three in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic. What else besides the Big East could they legitimately be called?

    Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      BIGmostlyEASTofthemississippiriverCONFERENCE.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Michael in Raleigh,

      “What if they do keep the Big East name? What should the football league be called?”

      Metro Conference

      The original one (Metropolitan Collegiate Athletic Conference) dissolved in 1995. Some charter members were Cincinnati, Memphis and Tulane, all members of this new conference. Plus, like the old BE, this new group is focused on schools in big metro areas. The Metro was also largely southern as it went from OH to MO to LA to FL to VA, so the footprint is similar. As a bonus, the name still has some value. People remember the Metro Conference name and it was a solid hoops league.

      Like

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        @Brian,

        Actually, I think that would work really well. It represents what this league is: an association of schools located in mid-sized to large metro areas. Plus, just as there were exceptions made in the old Metro Conference to that description, like Va. Tech, there would be exceptions made for ECU and UConn. (Although even UConn is only, what, 20 miles from Hartford?)

        Secondly, members if this conference are in denial if they don’t realize their need for rebranding. The incoming members may argue that their moves to the Big East represents an upgrade from their previous home, Conference USA. They may say that the name is a part of that upgrade, and they may point out that C-USA was, in theory, an upgrade over that league’s predecessor, the old Metro. Thus, renaming the Big East as the Metro would look like a regression, supposedly.

        That line of thinking has to be exposed for its flaws. Those schools DID make an upgrade by leaving C-USA for the Big East, albeit not nearly as great of an upgrade as they had initially anticipated. But they’re also not fooling anyone by keeping the “Big East” name. They have no tie-in to a contract bowl. Their bowl lineup will be only a slight improvement from what they had in C-USA, and for UConn, Cincy, and USF, it will be a dramatic downgrade. (Rumors have it that the Russell Athletic Bowl tie-in will be taken by the Big 12, for example.)

        Big East, for this group of schools, will be a reminder of what could have been; of what it used to be; of failure; and of what it isn’t at all. “Big East,” in its most positive light, was symbolized by great basketball by northeastern schools, and to a lesser degree by rapidly rising national football powers like Miami and Virginia Tech. With this group, Big East can’t represent either of those things.

        Metro would represent a throwback to something positive and would be an accurate name for what the league is all about. Hopefully those who make decisions about these matters are paying attention.

        Like

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        @ Brian. “Metro” is good, but there is a Bball conference called Metro Atlantic. So maybe the football conference should be Metro America.

        Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      “Big America” either way. It’s a great name for a BBall conference particularly if they keep the MSQ contract. MSQ would love the marketing potential. It’s a great name for a FBall conference that stretches across 3 or 4 time zones.

      Like

  39. Biological Imperiative says:

    Frankly, I want the SWC to get back together in some form or fashion.

    North Texas,tulsa,Tulane.La Tech. SMU,rice, houston, Texas state, ark. state, memphis UTSA and el paso, nm state,

    Like

  40. JB says:

    I mentioned this several months ago, but I think it is becoming a real possibility.

    Assume 8-10 ACC teams leave the conference, with the B1G taking 4, the SEC 2, and the Big 12 2-4 (from UVA, UNC, GT, FSU, Duke, Clemson, VT, NC St, Louisville, Pittsburgh, and Miami). The Big East and ACC merge with: BC, Wake, Syracuse, 1-3 of the teams above, plus UConn, Cincy, and a few others from the new Big East.

    What does Notre Dame do in this scenario? The new conference wouldn’t be worthy of the same deal that ND cut with the ACC, so the options would be:

    1) Stay with the same ACC deal in the new league (with a heavy diluted FB schedule)
    2) Keep Olympic sports in ACC, with no football scheduling
    3) Move Olympic sports to the Catholic 7 (assuming that league adds several other teams like Butler, Gonzaga, St. Louis, etc.)
    4) Move the ACC deal to the Big 12

    Of those options, number 2 seems the most likely to me. The Big 12 just doesn’t seem like a great cultural fit, and I don’t think the new ACC’s football would be appealing enough to tie up 6 games per year.

    In either scenario 2 or 3, why couldn’t the B1G offer to play 5-6 games per year with Notre Dame.
    Delany gets 25% of the Notre Dame inventory for “free.” Even 2-3 home games per year should improve the tier 1 contract and add revenue to the BTN. Notre Dame would get an agreement to schedule some decent games in the later part of the year.

    2-3 neutral site games are rotated among the following:
    1) Chicago (Illinois or Northwestern)
    2) DC (Virginia or Maryland)
    3) New York (Rutgers)
    4) Atlanta (Georgia Tech)
    Note that these are all teams that could probably live with giving up an extra home game per year and may value playing a game in their largest alumni base.

    Add in a few of the traditional rivals (Purdue, Michigan State) and one king per year (Michigan, Nebraska, Florida St, Penn St, Ohio St) and I think this could help both sides. It allows ND to remain independent and have an interesting football schedule. It also gives the B1G 25% of what they want out of Notre Dame without an additional mouth to feed.

    Like

    • cutter says:

      Why would the Big Ten need to make such an agreement with Notre Dame?

      You say that these games would add revenue to the Big Ten Network, but do you really think any ND game with the teams you mentioned above are going on the BTN? And even if there was one or two a year, do you really expect any substantial revenue boost? Are we talking about $7.2M per year per school versus 7.22M?

      Would making such a deal really improve the Tier 1 contract much? Are we talking about the 18 teams in the Big Ten getting $43.02M per year vs. $43.0M if these two or three games were set up with Notre Dame each season. Or would the B1G get the same result if an aggressive effort was made to schedule the higher powered teams from the other conferences?

      Why would the Big Ten want Notre Dame to remain independent? Why would the B1G want them to have an interesting football schedule? They’re the competition. If anything, the conference would want to have them as a full fledged member.

      I think Notre Dame would actually pick option A just as long as the diluted ACC allowed them to schedule late season games against them in the months of October and November. In recent years, we’ve seen ND play Western Michigan, Tulsa, Army, Duke and Wake Forest as filler games, so it shouldn’t matter much if they played Connecticut (which was also a filler game), Memphis, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF (which they’ve also played), Houston, etc.

      Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      JB’s question is fascinating, and deserves more serious consideration than I suspect most fans would be willing to give it.

      Many fans resent Notre Dame’s BCS deal, which no other school outside a major conference had. Fans also resent that the Irish are able to cherry-pick their schedule. On message boards, many fans think that the major conferences ought to refuse to schedule Notre Dame, which would force them to join a league, and force them to make the post-season under the same rules as everyone else.

      I have no such animosity towards them. They got the deals they got, because their brand is worth it. Most schools like playing against Notre Dame. I’ve never seen the slightest inkling that the presidents and ADs have the same resentment that so many fans do.

      Nevertheless if the Big Ten offered ND an “ACC-like” deal, after refusing to do so for years, there would be a considerable fan backlash. The fans would consider it a capitulation. If it were compelling enough, the presidents might do it, and rely on the complaints to die down eventually. Is it compelling? That’s the question.

      In football, Notre Dame used to play 3 Big Ten games a year. If you bump that up to 5 games, that would be an average of just one more home football game a year, beyond what the Big Ten historically had with Notre Dame. Is one football game worth it? The Irish, of course, are good TV draws in other sports, but I can’t imagine that the presidents would do it unless the football deal made sense.

      If the Irish are going to be independent no matter what, perhaps it’s better to have them in the Big Ten fold than some other league. But once they get associate membership in the Big Ten, the chance of landing them as a full member is probably over.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        I don’t resent ND for their choice of independence. I do resent their position as a pseudo power conference. I also resent the media/pollsters/(referees ?) giving them special consideration strictly because they are ND.

        Like

        • Marc Shepherd says:

          The Notre Dame poll bump isn’t unique to them. Pollsters tend to give the benefit of the doubt to blue-chip programs. As a Michigan fan, I know that Michigan’s end-of-season poll ranking is more often below where they started, than above it.

          Ohio State was probably not the 3rd best team in the country last year (given that they only barely beat a number of mediocre teams), but they’re Ohio State, so they got the benefit of the doubt. A Michigan, Nebraska, USC, Alabama, or Oklahoma team would get the same.

          ND’s position as a pseudo “conference of one” is directly because of the power of their brand. They wouldn’t have that status if people didn’t turn on their TVs when ND plays.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            The power of brand being reflected in viewership should have no bearing on ranking, reffing, or any supposedly objective evaluation. They don’t need the artificial bump to draw viewers/followers.
            Don’t we play the games to discover the rankings, not confirm them? If not, let’s just follow pro rasslin.

            Like

      • cutter says:

        @Marc-

        I really don’t know too many fans who resent Notre Dame’s BCS deal because they really weren’t able to take advantage of it much and when they did play in BCS bowl games, they got squished.

        What also happened with the BCS is that the deal was changed so that instead of getting a full share of money, ND had to take the same amount the second team from a conference having two programs in the BCS would get–the difference between $17M and $4.5M. If anything, that showed how much ND’s status had eroded over the years. Happily, the BCS opted to give them a little over a million per year in chump change when they didn’t get into a BCS bowl.

        Notre Dame isn’t able to cherry pick their schedule–that is a myth. The reason why ND accepted the ACC offer to play five games per year is that they were having trouble getting any sort of quality opponents to play them in October and November. The Big Ten would only play them in September. The SEC hadn’t been on their schedule for years. Until Oklahoma had a home-and-home with them recently, no Big XII team had been on their schedule. Texas does have a four year agreement with them, but three of those four games are season openers and the fourth game is in September.

        The only conferences giving them any breathing room were the Pac 12 with USC and Stanford, the Big East and the ACC. That’s why you saw Maryland, UNC, Duke, Wake Forest and Miami on their recent past and future schedules. It’s also why you saw teams like Western Michigan, Tulsa and Army on their schedules as well. It’s no shocker that independent BYU has been there as well.

        I do agree with you that the brand name was worth something to NBC, even during the lean years when the network was actually paying advertisers to put ads on during ND football games. Now that the program seems to be back on its feel with Brian Kelly at the helm, they should do fine. ND pretty much always sold tickets, even when they weren’t very good. Now that Kelly has them “getting there”, they’ll keep their niche.

        But the Big Ten has pretty much concluded that Notre Dame isn’t part of their immediate plans for expansion and they’re proceeding accordingly. It’s no secret that the B1G added Maryland and Rutgers so quickly in response to ND going to the ACC. All the programs we and others talk about are built around a strategy that doesn’t include ND in the picture–teams like Virginia, Georgia Tech, Duke and North Carolina. If past is prologue, ND will just latch onto another conference willing to give it semi-independent status until there is a major sea change in college football that essentially pushes them into one.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Happily, the BCS opted to give them a little over a million per year in chump change when they didn’t get into a BCS bowl.

          No they didn’t. ND still receives a payout equal to what they would make as an AQ conference team (1/63 of the BCS money). That comes out to like $4+ million a year. The other independents get about $100,000 each.

          Like

        • greg says:

          “I do agree with you that the brand name was worth something to NBC, even during the lean years when the network was actually paying advertisers to put ads on during ND football games.”

          Source? I find that incredibly hard to believe.

          Like

    • frug says:

      In either scenario 2 or 3, why couldn’t the B1G offer to play 5-6 games per year with Notre Dame. Delany gets 25% of the Notre Dame inventory for “free.” Even 2-3 home games per year should improve the tier 1 contract and add revenue to the BTN. Notre Dame would get an agreement to schedule some decent games in the later part of the year.

      Because

      A. 2-3 ND home games would be worth nothing compared to what the Big Ten would be making under this scenario anyways

      B. The Big Ten will likely move to 9 or 10 conference games which means less space for ND.

      C. The fans would riot, and string up Delany and the university presidents Mussolini style to serve as a warning to any future administrators who offer ND anything resembling partial membership.

      D. Refusing to do so makes it more likely (and honestly inevitable) that ND would have to join the Big Ten for all sports

      Like

    • Brian says:

      JB,

      “Assume 8-10 ACC teams leave the conference, with the B1G taking 4, the SEC 2, and the Big 12 2-4 (from UVA, UNC, GT, FSU, Duke, Clemson, VT, NC St, Louisville, Pittsburgh, and Miami). The Big East and ACC merge with: BC, Wake, Syracuse, 1-3 of the teams above, plus UConn, Cincy, and a few others from the new Big East.

      What does Notre Dame do in this scenario? The new conference wouldn’t be worthy of the same deal that ND cut with the ACC, so the options would be:

      1) Stay with the same ACC deal in the new league (with a heavy diluted FB schedule)
      2) Keep Olympic sports in ACC, with no football scheduling
      3) Move Olympic sports to the Catholic 7 (assuming that league adds several other teams like Butler, Gonzaga, St. Louis, etc.)
      4) Move the ACC deal to the Big 12

      Of those options, number 2 seems the most likely to me. The Big 12 just doesn’t seem like a great cultural fit, and I don’t think the new ACC’s football would be appealing enough to tie up 6 games per year.”

      Why not option 5, keep Olympic sports there and schedule fewer football games? They could afford 2 games in that league, maybe 3.

      “In either scenario 2 or 3, why couldn’t the B1G offer to play 5-6 games per year with Notre Dame.”

      No. Just no. This is where the B10’s stance against partial membership comes into play. ND is welcome to play B10 teams OOC. But they don’t get 6 games without joining unless 6 schools want them OOC. Nobody should have ND forced on them by the B10. And before anyone objects to that, OSU has scheduled ND twice since the 30s (1995-6). OSU may be the only team that doesn’t want to play them, but we don’t.

      “Delany gets 25% of the Notre Dame inventory for “free.””

      And gives NBCSN 3 B10 games every year. That doesn’t help the BTN which probably would have gotten some of those games otherwise.

      “Even 2-3 home games per year should improve the tier 1 contract and add revenue to the BTN.”

      And how much of that goes to pay ND? They don’t own part of the BTN and I assume they don’t want to buy in.

      “Notre Dame would get an agreement to schedule some decent games in the later part of the year.”

      Why help out ND? They are the enemy.

      “2-3 neutral site games are rotated among the following:
      1) Chicago (Illinois or Northwestern)
      2) DC (Virginia or Maryland)
      3) New York (Rutgers)
      4) Atlanta (Georgia Tech)”

      If those schools want to play those games, they can right now. They can use a bye week to schedule ND during the season or they can schedule them in September.

      If you are saying they would be forced to move to a neutral site, that’s unacceptable. The home team should always have the option.

      “Note that these are all teams that could probably live with giving up an extra home game per year and may value playing a game in their largest alumni base.”

      Maybe. Or maybe they’d like to build their home atmosphere.

      “Add in a few of the traditional rivals (Purdue, Michigan State) and one king per year (Michigan, Nebraska, Florida St, Penn St, Ohio St) and I think this could help both sides.”

      Screw that. OSU has never wanted to play ND. let them schedule on their own.

      “It allows ND to remain independent and have an interesting football schedule. It also gives the B1G 25% of what they want out of Notre Dame without an additional mouth to feed.”

      No, the B10 gets 0% of what they want. They want ND as a member.

      Like

      • JB says:

        Some responses to the issues raised above:

        1) “Why would the Big Ten need to make such an agreement with Notre Dame?”

        The point of the agreement is for the weaker B1G teams to get a home and home with ND. These teams would never get a home game with any king. Think Illinois, Northwestern, Maryland, Virginia, Minnesota, Indiana, etc. These are the teams that would love to have a draw like Notre Dame every other year.

        2) “You say that these games would add revenue to the Big Ten Network, but do you really think any ND game with the teams you mentioned above are going on the BTN? And even if there was one or two a year, do you really expect any substantial revenue boost? Would making such a deal really improve the Tier 1 contract much?”

        Whether its on the BTN or not shouldn’t matter. If Notre Dame-Maryland goes on ESPN, then that bumps Wisconsin-Iowa to the BTN. The Tier 1 contract has better content, and so does BTN.

        Even if we assume that Michigan, Mich St, and Purdue were going to keep playing ND every year, what we are really talking about is adding some of the weaker B1G teams playing against ND. An Illinois-ND game every other year has more value than a Illinois-North Dakota St. game every year. And Illinois could make more money playing that game at Soldier Field every other year than playing NDST in Champaign every year.

        3) “Or would the B1G get the same result if an aggressive effort was made to schedule the higher powered teams from the other conferences?”

        The OOC games are generally scheduled in the first few weeks. Could 6 B1G teams schedule Notre Dame without working around the conference schedule? And would ND schedule teams like Illinois, NW, Maryland, etc without a formal conference agreement?

        4) “Why would the Big Ten want Notre Dame to remain independent? Why would the B1G want them to have an interesting football schedule? They’re the competition. If anything, the conference would want to have them as a full fledged member.”

        Of course they would want ND as a full member. But if ND is committed to being an independent, and the B1G can make some money off them, who cares if you are helping them out.

        5) “The Big Ten will likely move to 9 or 10 conference games which means less space for ND.”

        If ND is not joining, the conference probably doesn’t go beyond 18, and 9 games probably make most sense. WIth 9 games, there would be space.

        6) “The fans would riot, and string up Delany and the university presidents Mussolini style to serve as a warning to any future administrators who offer ND anything resembling partial membership.”

        Who would riot? I hate ND, but I would love to see Illinois play them every few years. Do people riot that they play 3 B1G teams currently? What is the difference between playing 6 teams and 3 teams each year? How does that resemble partial membership any more than what we have now?

        7) “Refusing to do so makes it more likely (and honestly inevitable) that ND would have to join the Big Ten for all sports.”

        The only way ND joins the B1G is if there are 4 super-conferences with each having a champion placed in the final 4–a structure I hope happens. As long as there is a wild card, there is a path for ND. ND won’t be shut out of any system. I don’t see ND being forced to join until the Big 12 GOR expires…so why not have a 10 year scheduling agreement.

        Like

        • frug says:

          7) “Refusing to do so makes it more likely (and honestly inevitable) that ND would have to join the Big Ten for all sports.”

          The only way ND joins the B1G is if there are 4 super-conferences with each having a champion placed in the final 4–a structure I hope happens. As long as there is a wild card, there is a path for ND. ND won’t be shut out of any system. I don’t see ND being forced to join until the Big 12 GOR expires…so why not have a 10 year scheduling agreement.

          Or they can’t put together an acceptable schedule as an indy, which they have already said would force them to join a conference.

          6) “The fans would riot, and string up Delany and the university presidents Mussolini style to serve as a warning to any future administrators who offer ND anything resembling partial membership.”

          Who would riot? I hate ND, but I would love to see Illinois play them every few years. Do people riot that they play 3 B1G teams currently? What is the difference between playing 6 teams and 3 teams each year? How does that resemble partial membership any more than what we have now?

          The tens of millions of Big Ten fans that would hate the arrangement. PU and MSU (remember ND dropped the UM series already) schedule ND OOC by choice. This would be a formal decision by the conference to require teams to schedule ND.

          5) “The Big Ten will likely move to 9 or 10 conference games which means less space for ND.”

          If ND is not joining, the conference probably doesn’t go beyond 18, and 9 games probably make most sense. WIth 9 games, there would be space.

          Not for schools that feel they have to have 7 home games and want some OOC flexibility. And it would be impossible for Iowa.

          For your other points, I’ll just summarize that adding ND would result in (at most) a $1 million raise (which is what the ACC is looking at). The Big Ten schools are already looking at making $45 million a year starting in 2016. There is just not a financial incentive there.

          Also, keep in mind that if the Big Ten had any interest in a scheduling deal with Notre Dame, they would already have a scheduling deal with Notre Dame.

          (And speaking as an Illini I would love if ND wanted to schedule a game at Soldier. But I would be infuriated if it was part a scheduling agreement).

          Like

        • Brian says:

          JB,

          “The point of the agreement is for the weaker B1G teams to get a home and home with ND. These teams would never get a home game with any king.”

          PU does. NW has one coming up. ND doesn’t want to play the rest of the weaker teams or they would be doing it already.

          “Think Illinois, Northwestern, Maryland, Virginia, Minnesota, Indiana, etc. These are the teams that would love to have a draw like Notre Dame every other year.”

          MN just started getting rid of hard OOC games. Before that they got USC, so they do OK. UVA also played USC. IN doesn’t ever challenge themselves OOC. Most of these teams want OOC wins more than a king.

          “And would ND schedule teams like Illinois, NW, Maryland, etc without a formal conference agreement?”

          They have scheduled NW, so yes.

          “Who would riot?”

          OSU, MI, PSU and NE for letting ND get special treatment. Probably several other fan bases, too, that resent ND getting treated as more important than them. All the old school fans that don’t believe in partial members. People who hate ND. Need I go on?

          “What is the difference between playing 6 teams and 3 teams each year? How does that resemble partial membership any more than what we have now?”

          Because the 2-3 they play now all volunteer to play them in September. Your plan impacts the conference schedule. It also would force teams the don’t want to play ND to play them while forcing ND to play teams they don’t want either.

          I have a better plan. How about IL just schedules ND in Chicago on occasion and the rest of us go about our lives as is? maybe if IL won some games, ND would be interested in playing them.

          Like

          • mnfanstc says:

            Brian,
            You are right on regarding some of the scheduling… I was not a happy camper when the Gopher’s PTB paid $800K to North Carolina to get out of it’s home and home schedule with them.
            But.. Coach Kill and Co. want wins—I perceive that his methodology is to try to get his players to learn how to win–even if it’s against creampuffs–rather than to struggle, or get their asses kicked by a higher-level or “blue-chip” programs.

            Actually, I think that Kill’s philosophy is really no different than what Glen Mason did in his tenure here–or what Alvarez and Bielema have done at Wisconsin for many years… Slowly teach how to win–coach up 2 and 3 star players–become more competitive.

            A “blue-chip” game may sell a few extra tix due to name recognition, but won’t bring in long-time fans (or season ticket holders) if it’s just for an ass-kickin and a little extra gate receipts…

            Like

          • mnfanstc says:

            To add a little more… I believe what is more important to any of the B1G schools is maintaining the traditional rivalries…
            As a Gopher fan, the rivalry/trophy games are absolute musts—not so much the fabricated PSU-Minnesota “Governor’s Trophy”—but, the ‘Floyd of Rosedale’, ‘Paul Bunyan’s Axe’, and “the Little Brown Jug”—these games are the real draws… This is why I am a little hesitant when the B1G PTB want to continue to expand… If expansion continues, it HAS to be for the RIGHT reasons—not just to expand—as it will continue to jeopardize some of college sports oldest and best traditional rivalries, not just in football, but across the board.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            mnfanstc,

            “You are right on regarding some of the scheduling… I was not a happy camper when the Gopher’s PTB paid $800K to North Carolina to get out of it’s home and home schedule with them.
            But.. Coach Kill and Co. want wins—I perceive that his methodology is to try to get his players to learn how to win–even if it’s against creampuffs–rather than to struggle, or get their asses kicked by a higher-level or “blue-chip” programs.”

            I understand why he did it, and I don’t disagree with him. It does show he probably doesn’t want to play ND, though.

            “Actually, I think that Kill’s philosophy is really no different than what Glen Mason did in his tenure here–or what Alvarez and Bielema have done at Wisconsin for many years… Slowly teach how to win–coach up 2 and 3 star players–become more competitive.”

            I have no problem with it for a rebuilding or weak program like MN or IN. It’s not acceptable from WI anymore.

            Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      Notre Dame has no trouble scheduling SCHOOLS, but the challenge an independent faces is scheduling DATES. That is, Notre Dame has a wealth of schools to choose from to schedule Home and Home series in September … November is a hell of a lot harder.

      USC, Stanford, Purdue, BC and Navy plus three more ACC games is the equivalent of an eight game conference schedule. Those five plus four more ACC games is the equivalent of a nine game conference schedule. So the COMPROMISE in the ACC deal was taking five games instead of four.

      But in the “ACC and NuBigEast collapse into a single mid-major” scenario, Navy ends up in the NuACC, so no necessity to change the deal ~ the deal changes itself from a net four game commitment to a net three game game commitment, and for scheduling purposes Notre Dame *wants* a commitment with a conference that guarantees November home games.

      Where Notre Dame abandons that deal is if a Big12 offer on the same formal terms is seen as worthwhile, due to its Major status and additional of East Coast schools, even though it would be more limiting to Notre Dame in terms of scheduling independence.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        When ND announced they were moving to the ACC, they cited post-season access as a major reason. As long as the ACC maintains its bowl tie-ins, ND would probably prefer to remain there. It’s a better home for their Olympic sports, a better cultural fit, and they have more alumni in the ACC footprint. All of this would probably remain true, even in a hypothetical watered-down ACC.

        If the ACC were no longer viable, they could probably get a similar deal from the Big XII, and I think they’d take it, rather than give up independence.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Post season access would be a substantial part of it … and something it would make sense to highlight, since it is simpler to explain to their fans than the difficulties of an FBS independent scheduling late season games.

          As far as how watered down the ACC might be ~ I hope not too much, since I’m no big fan of 18 or 20 teams in the Big Ten.

          Like

  41. bullet says:

    Brett McMurphy tweeting NBC offering $20-$23 million to BE. Per school, that is CUSA territory, roughly $2 million a school. Less than BE is currently making. Less than C7 is projected to make.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I’m assuming that is for the football Big East and not the C7.

      Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      I checked the McMurphy twitter page, and you’re correct, bullet. It’s the football league getting that awful offer.

      It’s hard to wrap my mind around, though. A league with UConn (3 national titles in past 15 years), Memphis (top 25 fixture, multiple Elite 8’s in past decade), Temple, and Cincinnati, AND offers decent football cannot get an offer half as good as a bunch of small Catholic schools with limited fan bases and no football at all?

      Wow.

      Frank was definitely right: https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/big-mistake-by-the-big-east-overconfidence-in-tv-valuation-caused-exodus-beyond-rutgers-and-louisville/

      Like

      • Mark says:

        Those numbers don’t make sense, unless NBC is aware that UConn and Cincinnati are not going to be there. Certainly a football + basketball league would be paid more by Fox then the Catholic 7 + best of the A-10 for only basketball content. However, if UConn and Cincinnati are out, then it might make sense.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          You’re assuming Fox is offering market value to the C7. They may be overpaying by a large percentage.

          Like

          • Mark says:

            Why would Fox overpay for the C7 when they could offer a similar deal to the new Big East and get football and basketball including UConn, Cincinnati, Temple, Memphis, South Fla, etc? I think we are only getting part of the story.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Maybe they don’t want any crappy football. Maybe they want extra basketball to go with other football they have/expect to have.

            Like

          • @Brian – Along those same lines, Fox has a mix of the Big 12 football, Pac-12 football and Major League Baseball locked in for Saturdays during the fall. So, they really don’t have a large need for additional college football inventory. However, Fox *does* need a lot of winter programming, which is where the Catholic 7 provides extra value to them. ESPN already has lots of inventory in all seasons across the board, so they likely have tepid interest in the Big East. So, I think there’s a situation here where NBC is really the only party with legitimate interest and they don’t have any reason to bid against themselves. I’ve warned a lot of Big East fans over the past year that they need to be careful with what they wish for with NBC/Comcast since they are historically extremely thrifty and that might be coming to fruition now.

            Like

        • @Mark – The numbers are more than plausible to me. I’ve said from the beginning that people were going to be surprised by how much the Catholic 7 could make on their own. UConn, Cincinnati and Memphis have value, but (1) they can only play each other so many times in basketball and (2) only Cincinnati really has much traction in football. Even the dregs of the Catholic 7 like DePaul and Providence at least provide some tradition and major markets, which makes a big difference compared to the bottom of the New Big East.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            I agree, and when you add Butler and Xavier to the Catholic 7, you’re talking about legitimately valuable inventory being created here.

            Catholic 7 basketball > Big East football.

            Like

          • Mark says:

            I respect your opinion, but I don’t think Providence, DePaul or Seton Hall have any value above the $400k the A-10 makes. Georgetown, Villanova, St. John’s, Marquette and Xavier has some value, maybe triple A-10 value average, but much of the historic value was due to games vs. Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, Lou, Cin, etc that aren’t there any more. Butler might reach Xavier value at some point, but is a distant 4th in Indiana for basketball (IU, Pacers, Purdue then Butler at best – look at the poor attendance in the heart of Indianapolis). Butler also could return back to the pre-2010 school which would be A-10 type value. Then you add Dayton or St. Louis or Creighton or Richmond and these schools don’t add much above A-10 average value. It looks like a really good A-10 – maybe $1.5M per school value.

            I think they are all fine schools, and they add nice diversity to NCAA hoops, but how much are they worth without the games vs. the public schools?

            Like

          • @Mark – You’re correct that it’s not going to be the same for the Catholic 7 as it was when they were playing Syracuse, Louisville, etc. However, I think a lot of people have been underestimating the brand value of the Catholic 7. People keep talking about how terrible that, say, DePaul is these days. Well, remember that Providence, DePaul and Seton Hall are the *worst* schools in the Catholic 7. Those are all schools that have Final Four appearances since the modern Magic/Bird era of basketball began, have at least one NCAA Tournament appearance in the past decade, and are located in major TV markets. Compare the histories of those programs to the bottom of any conference in the country (e.g. the bottom of the Big Ten with Northwestern, Penn State, Nebraska) and it’s extremely favorable. Meanwhile, Georgetown is a marquee program in DC, Villanova delivers Philly, St. John’s is the one school that can captivate the NYC market, Marquette delivers Milwaukee, and presumed additions Xavier and Butler bring on-the-court gravitas. Much like how even the worst Big Ten football programs still bring *something* to the table (e.g. Illinois, Minnesota and Indiana all bring major population bases), all of the Catholic 7 schools add value in some capacity. That mix of schools simply has a LOT more national interest than anyone in the New Big East besides UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis and maybe Temple playing each other.

            Like

          • Mark says:

            Zeek: Catholic 7 basketball > Big East football – not per the ratings – a bad football game will almost always beat the best college basketball game in ratings points.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            But there are a lot more basketball games, and almost any live sport trumps a studio show or rerun. FB doesn’t give them weeknight programming, either.

            Like

          • Transic says:

            Just brainstorming here…I think this would be the lineup of the new C-7 league:

            G-town
            PC
            SJU
            SHU
            MU
            Dep
            Nova
            Richmond
            Xavier
            Butler
            Creighton
            Dayton

            Possible adds: SLU, St. Joes, Fordham, Notre Dame (you never know); Boston College (similar deal to that of ND), Duke (only if no ACC), Gonzaga, St. Mary’s, Loyola Marymount, Loyola (Baltimore), Pepperdine, BYU…why the heck not? Just add any good school with a religious affiliation.

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Transic

            I would be very surprised if the C7 added any football schools.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            I wonder if Houston and SMU are speaking with the MWC…?

            Like

          • zeek says:

            @Mark

            But there’s only 12 football games per season and 3-4 weekends of them are pretty much worthless for most of the Big East (first 3-4 weekends; nobody is tuning in for SMU-Sam Houston State if it even gets a slot anywhere in the package).

            On the other hand, you’re talking about 32 basketball games, where like 18 are conference games and another 3-4 of the remaining 12 are probably going to be against good non-conference opponents.

            So comparing 8-9 football games to around 22-24 basketball games is what you’re talking about…

            These are apples and oranges. Football games may be higher quality per game, but there’s 3 times as much basketball inventory.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Given that post a while back about how old the college basketball audience is, most of them remember when DePaul, Seton Hall, Providence, etc. were good. I agree with Frank. There’s a lot of brand value in the C-7.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            @ccrider55 ~ Houston and SMU talking to the Mountain West to get a share of their <$10m TV contract?

            Looking at those kinds of figures, I wonder whether the stronger basketball schools in the NuBigEast aren't reconsidering whether an 11th member ought to be purely on the basis of football, which Tulsa would seem to be. If Houston and SMU are among those pushing for Tulsa, they could have "talks" with the MWC to increase their bargaining position within the NuBigEast.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            BruceMcF:

            I believe it was 12M for the MWC from CBS (for 14 or 15 games). Add the yet to be worked out amount that the December restructuring agreement that will allow for the packaging and sale of other game rights to other networks. Will it be “bank”? No, but it’ll probably be in NuBE range, and adding Houston and SMU would increase the inventory of “attractive” games for those second group of non CBS packaged games.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Further, the restructure didn’t increase the length of contract. I think it’s up in 2 or 3 years.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            Question for Houston and SMU is whether they would get home games on national TV (broadcast or ESPN/ESPN2) to earn the national exposure bonus. Without that, its a step down.

            Flip side of the Boise State deal after all ~ step up for Boise State because they were only in for a 70% Big East payout, had a travel subsidy to pay to their non-FB conference, had higher travel costs playing in the proposed Big East of Reno division versus the MWC Mountain Division and will be likely to be making multiple national exposure bonuses after the MWC has sold their home games separately.

            That separate Boise State package has put a lower ceiling on the media value of the “MWC except Boise State Home Games” package.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            BSU conference away games aren’t just as valuable to media as home games? Again, I’m not suggesting MWC is a clear choice SMU and UH should make, but if they are being factored into the NuBE contract I wonder how them in the MWC would/will effect the new MWC media negotiations in a couple years.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            As far the suggestion that Boise State away games add NO value, no, I stick with the argument I made at the time, that having those away games is worth SOMETHING, which is why CBS Sports agreed to the deal.

            Hence “put a lower ceiling on the media value” rather than saying something to suggest that Boise State away games add no value.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            The contract re-do with CBS was done prior to Boise deciding to pass on the BE, hidden contract piece resulting from ending the Mtn. Network. All I’m saying that were Boise, SDSU, SMU, and UH in the MWC it wouldn’t surprise me if their next contract surpassed the NuBE’s (if it winds up what is currently being reported).

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            “But there’s only 12 football games per season and 3-4 weekends of them are pretty much worthless for most of the Big East (first 3-4 weekends; nobody is tuning in for SMU-Sam Houston State if it even gets a slot anywhere in the package).”

            Not saying the Big East non-conference schedule is generally great, but SMU has long-term deals with traditional rival TCU as well as Baylor. They’ve also had recent series with Texas A&M and Texas Tech.

            None of those will make a big mark on the national schedule unless SMU starts playing better, but they’ll get more attention than the average Big East Conference game.

            Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          The Fox number makes a lot of sense. Fox is rumored to be rolling out a national two-channel all-sports network. The Big12 and a share of the Pac-12 doesn’t make for enough basketball inventory for a two-channel all-sports network. So they need inventory. And with their western tilt, they need inventory in Eastern Time Zone markets.

          Fox would be paying more than the Classic East would be worth to ESPN, since between the ACC and the Big Ten, ESPN has lots of Eastern Time Zone inventory with established marquee brands. But they had to bid something like what the league is worth to them, since otherwise the league wouldn’t have gotten launched, and that inventory would be locked up with a bunch of football games that they have less interest in.

          NBC Sports could be low-balling the NuBigEast a bit, but ESPN had been showing a lot of the OldBigEast on ESPNU, and CBS Sports is not going to make a bid for the NuBigEast that sets a precedent on its Mountain West contract negotiations, so they may well get away with it.

          Like

        • wmwolverine says:

          Uncertainty that UConn, Cincy are going to be there sure would lead to a lower offer than they otherwise would. Despite recent success on the field, neither has much of a fan base despite being in decent markets. I don’t see a whole lot of ‘value’ in there football. With the instability in every football, non ‘power’ conference, it’s not a good time to negotiate a tv deal.

          Like

    • frug says:

      And C7 is looking at $30-40 million from Fox depending on the number of teams in the league.

      http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8932681/big-east-catholic-7-close-reaching-media-rights-deals

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        The problem with “The Catholic 7” is of course the New York Market. We basically care ZERO about Seton Hall, and even St Johns brings a lower level of interest than Preseason Yankee Baseball. Probably the most popular “New York” College hoops team is Syracuse, followed by Notre Dame. As far as the other “Big East” teams are concerned (Such as Cincinnati & SMU football), it is even lower. In fact, running infomercials could probably generate higher ratings, and needless to say, more revenue for the Network (s) involved.

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          However, “a lower level of interest than Preseason Yankees Baseball” in the NYC market can easily be the equivalent of a 20-50 media market that cares quite a lot. If college hoops is Syracuse, Notre Dame and St Johns, in that order, then after next season it goes from being a winter BigEast market to a winter ACC market with a Classic East foothold.

          You’ve probably pinned down why its $30m-$40m rather than $40m-$50m. 30% of a $130m offer puts the value of current BigEast BBall at about $40m, and it was arguably offering more than 30% of the total value of that offer.

          The teams they are talking about adding maintain the quality of the matchups in basketball terms, but the Classic East will have a substantiall smaller share of one important basketball market, hence the step down in value.

          Like

        • Mack says:

          The Fox number sounds like Fox is bidding against themselves. ESPN has enough basketball inventory. If Fox is offering $40M, what network is offering $35M for this content? If the other bidder cannot be identified, then Fox is overpaying.

          Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            But isn’t this the offer that was a big party in getting the Catholic 7 to decide to leave the NuBigEast? If you lowball the offer that is trying to spark a breakaway, the risk you take is that the breakaway never takes place.

            Like

      • bullet says:

        Do you have any data on Notre Dame and NY? Does anyone care about Notre Dame basketball in NY?

        Like

    • BruceMcF says:

      Ah, I was guessing high. I was thinking $30m.

      Like

  42. Transic says:

    Re: Rumored new TV contracts for “Lesser” East and C-7

    It looks like elitism has struck another huge blow to the integrity of college sports, if there are some left.

    Like

  43. loki_the_bubba says:

    Wow at this ND/Louisville game.

    Like

  44. GreatLakeState says:

    Sleeper with the most pleasant dreams tonight?
    Rutgers AD Tim Pernetti

    Like

    • Kevin says:

      No kidding! An extra 40,000,000 $’s (potentially) dream.

      From left behind to likely the best deal.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Rutgers might have legitimately had to cut another quarter to a half of their non-revenue sports if they hadn’t been able to join the Big Ten.

      Just thinking about their financial situation (from what little we know of it publicly), it would have been a mess to try to continue to run their level of outlays over income on that NBC TV offer.

      Like

      • David Brown says:

        Actually Rutgers Financial situation is no mystery. online.wsj.com/…/SB10001424127887324391104578225802…BCS: How Much Is Your College-Football Team Worth? – WSJ.com They are worth $64.1m Which is only behind Duke, Pitt, Vanderbilt, Missouri, Cincinnati & Temple. When it comes to major schools

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I mean the fact that their football/basketball revenue doesn’t cover much of their athletic department spending compared to other schools.

          Like

  45. stuart says:

    Have you looked at the average Basketball attendance numbers the NCAA has. The six schools the C7 are looking at for their five are all over 6,000 per game. The A10 will lose four of those.

    Do when I looked at the numbers six schools meet the criteria of large numbers (> 5,000) that are reasonably in the A10 footprint and might be approachable

    Bradley, Siena (what? Albany likes lousy Basketball), Murray St, Indiana St, George Mason, and Evansville

    GMU is the “safe” choice, so that would be one. The other one requires some thinking. I bet they pass on Siena unless they go to 14 schools. If only one more I think the two private schools in the MVC would be the primary targets.

    I see the MVC responding by taking Murray State, who would be an excellent fit. The OVC might pull the trigger on Western Illinois. At this point the numbers cease to give me a clue.

    I believe the numbers will dictate the decisions here. I really can’t see the MVC having any interest in the Dakota schools. And that is where the Summit collapse talk is based on.

    Like

  46. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8930657/joe-paterno-family-report-calls-freeh-report-sandusky-scandal-total-failure

    Well, the Paterno-funded “report” came out. Shockingly, it claims the Freeh report is wrong.

    Like

      • Carl says:

        What??? – No “shockingly!”? 😉

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I’m a little surprised he responded. He’s ignored all the critics so far. I do really wish the Paternos would just leave things alone, but I understand why they won’t.

          Like

          • Carl says:

            Brian,

            “I’m a little surprised he responded. He’s ignored all the critics so far. I do really wish the Paternos would just leave things alone, but I understand why they won’t.”

            That was kind of slick – but, as you know, I didn’t mean *that* he responded, I was referring to *what* he responded. 😉

            You don’t find Freeh’s self-serving characterization of the Paterno report “shocking”, as you put it?

            Oh, Brian, you’re quite something. 😉

            I don’t know if Paterno’s innocent or guilty, but most Pennsylvanians know that the Freeh report is not up to snuff. That’s one of the reasons we elected Kane! And it’s also one of the reasons Corbett recently filed suit.

            Keep watching – and, no, don’t hold your breath, it’s probably not a short-term project. But I think it’s still going to get interesting, maybe for Freeh, also …

            Like

          • Brian says:

            No, I didn’t say shockingly again because I didn’t want to repeat myself. Not everything is a conspiracy to keep PSU down.

            Like

          • Carl says:

            Brian,

            “No, I didn’t say shockingly again because I didn’t want to repeat myself.”

            Because you didn’t want to repeat yourself. Uh, huh. 😉

            (Just FYI: the parallelism would have been quite effective.)

            “Not everything is a conspiracy to keep PSU down.”

            That’s correct. But don’t sell yourself short, Brian: you do love starting and winning arguments, and you’re generally pretty good at it. 😉

            Like

          • Brian says:

            If it makes you feel better, I was equally shocked by the content of his statement as I was by the Paterno’s report. Sue wasted a lot of money on a report that nobody cares about and Freeh wasted his time saying so.

            Opinions are set on this issue by now and nobody is changing their mind based on a report paid for by JoePa’s wife. If you thought Paterno got shafted, this report just reaffirms your beliefs. If you think Freeh got it right, you don’t believe a word of this report.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Freeh’s opinion is pretty set. A lot of what he states is fact is merely his opinion. That is a fact.

            I think Paterno got railroaded, but I’m agnostic on whether his failures were those of neglect or active interference. Freeh believes it was active interference and this is his opinion from his interpretation of one e-mail. That is Freeh’s opinion and not a fact.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Everyone’s opinion is set. Not just the people involved, but everyone else, too. That’s why the report was a waste.

            You call out Freeh for reporting his opinion, but that’s what he was paid to do. He wasn’t supposed to be a court of law. He was supposed to investigate and then tell them what he thought happened.

            Nobody knows exactly what Joe did and didn’t think or know or do.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            Not everyone’s mind is set. I hope Bullet is right and JoPa was not actively covering up. Perhaps even felt he was prevented from doing more than he did. I prefer people I’ve held in high regard remain there.

            Do I believe his side of this? Not without far more evidence and far less emotion. Do I believe the opposite? Not without far more evidence and far less emotion.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “Not everyone’s mind is set.”

            Research says that isn’t really true. People form opinions quickly and then it is very hard to get them to change. They just reinforce their beliefs via confirmation bias or dig in their heels when challenged. Look at politics and religion for a multitude of examples.

            “I hope Bullet is right and JoPa was not actively covering up.”

            Everyone hopes that.

            “Perhaps even felt he was prevented from doing more than he did. I prefer people I’ve held in high regard remain there.”

            Who doesn’t?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Brian
            I’m calling out Freeh for stating that his opinions were facts, not for stating those opinions.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Freeh’s opinions are a reasonable interpretation of the facts, but they aren’t the only interpretations.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Nor are they the only reasonable interpretations. And his conclusions don’t explain why all the e-mails say they will followup but they failed to do so. And that failure to followup after talking to Sandusky was the big failure.

            Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            Current-now opinions are set, but there is the future to consider. There will be many biographies and SuePa spent a lot of money to make sure that future biographers have to read and account for 265 pages or so of well-thought-out and well-presented opinions that are counter to the opinion of Freeh.

            Like

      • spaz says:

        Which Freeh would know, since *his* report was self-serving to blame Paterno and the football program for a widespread failing including police, child protection services and university administration (including the Board of Trustees of the university).

        The Paternos’ report is obviously slanted a certain way, but it’s makes it very clear that the issue is not that a certain narrative is correct, but that Freeh’s narrative is only remotely supported by the “facts” that he presented. It’s basically just a conspiracy theory.

        Also, regardless of any issue surrounding Paterno, I’d recommend anyone read Clemente’s portion which talks a lot about how pedophiles manage to get away with it for so long. It’s eye opening and provides some valuable lessons for anyone.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          spaz,

          “Which Freeh would know, since *his* report was self-serving to blame Paterno and the football program for a widespread failing including police, child protection services and university administration (including the Board of Trustees of the university).”

          No, it wasn’t. He got paid no matter what. In fact, his life would’ve been easier if he gave the people what they wanted and said Paterno was a saint and did everything right.

          “The Paternos’ report is obviously slanted a certain way,”

          No kidding.

          ” but it’s makes it very clear that the issue is not that a certain narrative is correct, but that Freeh’s narrative is only remotely supported by the “facts” that he presented. It’s basically just a conspiracy theory.”

          Says the people paid by Sue Paterno to reach that conclusion.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Every point made in the ESPN article by the Paterno report was 100% correct. Doesn’t mean Freeh’s conclusions weren’t correct, but they were based on a lot of suppositions and no conversations with anyone who would know if they were correct. Now with all the lawsuits and legal issues, he probably couldn’t do any better.

            Their Dad/spouse has been dragged through the mud and blamed for Sandusky’s pedophilia to protect his own image. They have a perfect right to state their opinions that don’t agree with the lynch mob. The fact that the NCAA punished back to 1998 when that event was investigated by the police tells you all you need to know about the objectivity of the NCAA. And the board was trying to distract from their own failures by blaming everything on Paterno and the 3 stooges.

            I’m not saying the lynch mob is wrong in its conclusions, but its conclusions with regard to Paterno are based on pretty flimsy evidence.

            Like

          • spaz says:

            “No, it wasn’t. He got paid no matter what. In fact, his life would’ve been easier if he gave the people what they wanted and said Paterno was a saint and did everything right.”

            The Freeh Report was paid for by the Board of Trustees of PSU and they certainly had their own agenda in commisioning it. Interestingly, there has been a request via the FOIA for a release of the contract with Louis Freeh by PSU and the Trustees are suing to prevent that disclosure. Pretty odd, don’t you think? Why would they not want the contract public, especially in this new era of PSU “openness”?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            spaz,

            “The Freeh Report was paid for by the Board of Trustees of PSU and they certainly had their own agenda in commisioning it.”

            Sure, but Freeh had no stake. He was getting paid no matter what his conclusions. What would he have to gain by intentionally doing a bad job and making unpopular conclusions?

            “Interestingly, there has been a request via the FOIA for a release of the contract with Louis Freeh by PSU and the Trustees are suing to prevent that disclosure. Pretty odd, don’t you think?”

            No, PSU fights every FOIA request which you should know as a PSU fan. They went to court to not have to reveal JoePa’s salary and pension info. They hide behind their status as a state-affiliated school to avoid these requests all the time. You’re being disingenuous in ignoring that and trying to make this one refusal into something.

            “Why would they not want the contract public, especially in this new era of PSU “openness”?”

            Because it sets a precedent for them to have to share other contracts and fulfill other FOIA requests and they really don’t want to. You’ll have to try harder to make a conspiracy theory.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Sure, but Freeh had no stake. He was getting paid no matter what his conclusions.

            Richard Jewell like to speak to you 😛

            Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            @Brian. Honestly, I think you are being a bit naive about Freeh and the PSU BofT. For institutional reasons, the BoT needed scapegoats to fend off the media, the Department of Education, the B1G, the NCAA, angry corporate sponsors and donors, etc. etc. That is what the BoT bought and that is what they got.

            When you are hiring an “expert” or an “investigator,” you carefully consider your options before you hire said expert/investigator. If you need an expert to say “Blue,” you sift through the C.V.s to find the expert most likely to say “Blue.” If you see that an expert has said “Yellow” many times in the past, that C.V. goes in the trash.

            Then you interview the expert and make sure of the leanings towards “Blue.”

            And after the hire, you periodically check in with the expert to make sure he/she is heading towards “Blue.” If he/she is veering off course, you provide some correction by “helping” the expert massage the data or emphasis certain facts over others, etc. You can also help get to “Blue” by limiting what your “expert” reads. That can be a risky strategy, but it is perfectly acceptable. The “expert” says: “I reviewed X, Y & Z and based on that, my opinion is “Blue.” In extreme cases of veering off course, you get a new expert.

            Freeh was a perfect choice by the PSU BofT to get their scapegoats. He has good credentials for the media and public (“ooo, former FBI Director. He has gravitas.”) However, among lawyers and those with a more in depth understanding of Freeh, he has a reputation for shoddy work and for providing “Big Opinions” based on flimsy evidence.

            As one example, in the summer of 2011, Freeh “investigated” allegations Mohamed bin Hammam committed bribery in his efforts to be elected President of FIFA. FIFA paid Freeh and Freeh gave FIFA what it wanted: “proof” that Bin Hammam committed bribery and then FIFA banned Bin Hammam for life. But Freeh made those conclusions based on flimsy evidence.

            The lifetime ban was recently overturned. “It is a situation of ‘case not proven’, coupled with concern on the part of the panel that the FIFA investigation was not complete or comprehensive enough to fill the gaps in the record,” CAS said.”

            http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-19/bin-hammam-s-life-ban-from-soccer-overturned-by-top-sports-court

            There are other examples re: Freeh.

            To be clear, I am not interesting in arguing whether Freeh got it right or wrong re: Paterno.

            My point is that it is naive to believe that an “expert” or an “investigator” is hired to provide some objective actual unbiased “truth.” That is bullcrap. I think it is naive to think that the PSU BofT was “hands-off.” That is bullcrap. The BoT checked in periodically with Freeh’s staff to make sure the “right” conclusions were being drawn, To be clear, the “right” conclusion was: “the BoT is not without some blame, but the real blame falls on these 3-4 evil scapegoats. The are the ones that should be tarred and feathered.” My guess is the BoT might have preferred three scapegoats over four. But, in this, they let Freeh make his own judgment. But the BoT needed scapegoats (regardless of how many) and that is what the BoT got. That Freeh got there with flimsy evidence was completely irrelevant to the BoT.

            Like

          • BruceMcF says:

            “Sure, but Freeh had no stake. He was getting paid no matter what his conclusions. What would he have to gain by intentionally doing a bad job and making unpopular conclusions?”

            Future business when someone needs an expert to reach unpopular conclusions along those lines?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            BuckeyeBeau,

            “Honestly, I think you are being a bit naive about Freeh and the PSU BofT.”

            And I think most of you are making stuff out of thin air. Freeh is not the BoT and vice versa.

            “For institutional reasons, the BoT needed scapegoats to fend off the media, the Department of Education, the B1G, the NCAA, angry corporate sponsors and donors, etc. etc. That is what the BoT bought and that is what they got.”

            Or perhaps they got Freeh’s best effort and it happened to be what it was. Freeh had nothing to gain by sullying his reputation with shoddy work.

            “And after the hire, you periodically check in with the expert to make sure he/she is heading towards “Blue.” If he/she is veering off course, you provide some correction by “helping” the expert massage the data or emphasis certain facts over others, etc. You can also help get to “Blue” by limiting what your “expert” reads.”

            Too bad everyone said that didn’t happen. But of course you know better.

            “My point is that it is naive to believe that an “expert” or an “investigator” is hired to provide some objective actual unbiased “truth.” ”

            Too bad I never said that. There is no such thing as objective actual unbiased truth. It’s convenient that you don’t want to argue whether Freeh was right or not but trash his work as not being true.

            “That is bullcrap.”

            So is your argument. Paterno’s report is more biased and less believable and almost every media voice in the nation has said so.

            I never even bothered with Freeh’s analysis. All I ever took from his work were the facts – emails, timelines, quotes, etc.

            But every time people complain about it, I just give him that much more credence and think worse of JoePa. If PSU fans keep this up, I’l start to believe JoePa was in on it with Sandusky.

            Like

    • Marc Shepherd says:

      The Paterno report was headed up by Dick Thornburgh, a former Attorney General (and also a former Pennsylvania

      Now, it’s not a surprise that a Paterno-funded report would come to Paterno’s defense, but Thornburgh has enough gravitas that Freeh felt the need to respond. If it had come from someone with less stature, Freeh might have considered a Paterno family response to be beneath his notice.

      I am not sure who’s right, but certainly Freeh left himself open to some reasonable criticisms. I don’t blame the Paternos for fighting back, given that JoePa’s reputation has been almost entirely overtaken by Freeh’s account of what happened.

      Unfortunately, I think it will be very hard for them to redress the balance, unless the Corbett lawsuit is successful. Otherwise, posterity will record that the NCAA held Paterno accountable, and the school did not contest that finding.

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        Sorry..that’s: former Pennsylvania governor.

        Like

      • Carl says:

        Marc Shepherd,

        “Unfortunately, I think it will be very hard for them to redress the balance, unless the Corbett lawsuit is successful. Otherwise, posterity will record that the NCAA held Paterno accountable, and the school did not contest that finding.”

        This is undoubtedly true, although, by the way, there are also other lawsuits to come. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out …

        Like

        • Brian says:

          You keep saying it will be interesting but I highly doubt it. It is much more likely to be a long, drawn out and tedious process that uncovers rumors, hints and half-truths but no smoking guns.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            I agree with you on that. Unless the 3 go to jail and tell it in their memoirs. But they won’t be talking until all the legal issues are settled.

            Like

          • Carl says:

            Brian,

            “You keep saying it will be interesting but I highly doubt it. It is much more likely to be a long, drawn out and tedious process that uncovers rumors, hints and half-truths but no smoking guns.”

            Says the one who keeps posting the stories, with commentary. 🙂

            Okay, Brian, you also love having the last word. The floor is yours. Impress us:

            Like

          • spaz says:

            There will be no smoking guns, I agree. That’s the problem: Freeh completely fail to provide any “smoking guns” to support his completely crackpot conspiracy theories. The reports commissioned by the Paterno family have much more value in showing that the findings of the Freeh Report have virtually no basis in factual support than they do in supporting a particular narrative is true.

            I don’t know what happened with any certainty in 2001 when PSU officials received a report from Mike McQueary. But there’s no evidence that Louis Freeh does either. So why the hell should we take his theories as gospel?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Yeah, Freeh is the one making crackpot conspiracy theories.

            Every time a PSU fan writes stuff like this it convinces me a little more that the NCAA was right.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The reports commissioned by the Paterno family have much more value in showing that the findings of the Freeh Report have virtually no basis in factual support. . . .

            The problem for the Paterno family, is that virtually no one will side with them, when a report they bought and paid for is the source trying to discredit Freeh. The Paternos probably have valid points, but they need them to be endorsed by someone more impartial than they are.

            Like

          • Phil says:

            The Paterno family’s real problem is that the Freeh report (and theirs) is irrelevant. We know (because he testified under oath to the grand jury) that Paterno was told that “fondling”, “things of a sexual nature” were going on in the shower between Sandusky and a young boy.

            So, he waited days to report it, made sure he wasn’t at any future meetings about it, didn’t follow up on it, didn’t react when he saw Sandusky was still involved in a charity for children, and didn’t stop players and asst coaches from continuing to work with that charity (and Sandusky).

            I have all of the information I need to judge Paterno as a man, without either of these later reports.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @Phil
            McQueary waited days to report it. Paterno acted quickly.
            Paterno had no business being in meetings on it. He didn’t witness it and Sandusky no longer reported to him. The followup was the responsibility of the administration.

            That’s one of my problems is that things get distorted.

            You are correct about your other statements. When he saw Sandusky still around, he did nothing, and so far as we know, said nothing. Those are failings.

            Like

          • greg says:

            “Paterno had no business being in meetings on it.”

            Paterno had a long history of inserting himself into things that he has no business being in. But pedophilia apparently doesn’t rise to that standard.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “McQueary waited days to report it. Paterno acted quickly.”

            JoePa waited until the next day. That’s not acting quickly to me.

            Like

  47. frug says:

    Considering the source I’m not sure how accurate this is, but it sounds plausible.

    Like

    • frug says:

      If this is true (IF) it would also officially put to rest all those ridiculous ND-Big XII if ACC crashes rumors that for some reason people actually thought could be true.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        ESPN seems ok with UT’s GOR inspite of having arguably a larger stake in the LHN than NBC has in a few FB broadcasts.

        Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        IF its true, the more interesting question is did NBC just up and volunteer this? or was ND considering/exploring possibly doing it?

        Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        I am not sure what you find ridiculous about it. The Big XII openly courted ND for a deal like the one the ACC gave them, and such a deal would obviously be both parties’ interest, assuming the ACC is no longer available.

        By the way, @MHver3’s tweet does not sound plausible to me.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Except they didn’t openly court ND. The only reports of the Big XII offering ND partial membership have come from Texas officials and Texas mouthpieces like Chip Brown, which makes sense because the only school with anything to really gain from ND’s partial admission is Texas since it sets a precedent for UT to eventually do the same thing.

          Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Texas has frequently gotten what it wanted in the Big XII. Not every time, but often enough that, once they want something, you can’t really call it “ridiculous.”

            There’s a pretty good argument that an ACC-like deal would make the Big XII’s media rights more valuable, and all the schools benefit from that, not just Texas. Maybe it wouldn’t prevail, but it’s not “ridiculous” either.

            Like

    • vp19 says:

      An inability to have a GOR leaves the ACC perpetually vulnerable — especially if the revenue gap with other conferences keeping widening. Football-oriented schools such as Clemson and Florida State, unable to enter the SEC because of the “gentlemen’s agreement,” may finally throw up their hands and pursue the Big 12 (especially if Big Ten presidents have no interest in a non-AAU FSU). By then, UVa and Georgia Tech might heed the siren call of the Big Ten, and UNC and Duke may have to do likewise, since I can’t see those two parking half a dozen of their athletic programs elsewhere because they aren’t offered in the SEC. WVU may have put its men’s soccer in Conference USA because the Big 12 doesn’t sponsor it, but I can’t imagine Chapel Hill and Durham settling for that option.

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        That’s why I think the UNC/DUKE to SEC talk is ridiculous. I guess UNC and NCState could conceivably (but not likely) go as a pair, but not Duke. I think they’ll both end up in the B1G Atlantic, or remain in a zombie ACC.

        Like

    • Pablo says:

      Having an increased commitment from ND football and getting a GOR are probably the 2 best things that could happen to the ACC. The ND/NBC football contract lasts through 2015.

      This rumor is just more of the same negative spin.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        Honestly, I just don’t see this being a roadblock if the ACC wants to go this route. The Grant of Right could be structured so as to only give the ACC the rights to the sports that it sponsors and teams play in. Since Notre Dame is a football independent they’d be excluded from the football portion of the contract, but be subject to it in all other sports. Maybe that brings a few issues with hockey (I believe Notre Dame has a contract there too; may be wrong there), but I think they could work it out (given Texas could around the Longhorn Network which was a much bigger deal).

        Like

        • frug says:

          How is the LHN a bigger deal than ND’s NBC deal?

          The Big XII didn’t need to anything “around” the LHN since ALL Big XII schools maintain the same rights Texas does.

          No one in the ACC besides ND gets to keep anything.

          Like

  48. ShawnShawn says:

    One quick note about JHU and LAX. I moved to Long Island a few years ago and was shocked by how big a deal lacrosse was in this region. On the Island, and in parts of MD, VA, and other places on the East coast it’s arguably bigger than college football. Lots of kids from the Island go play LAX at Hopkins, UMD, UVA, and other schools. If the BIG could create a LAX league that included Hopkins, UMD, (and perhaps UVA and UNC) it could get folks in non-football intense parts of the East coast interested in the BIG Network to see their kids play. This added to RU, MD, and all of the BIG alumni in NYC and DC, could create some additional pressure to put the BIG Network on systems that it wouldn’t usually be on. On its own, the LAX thing is small, but combined with the other pieces it could help tip the market. Just see the Hopkins add as all upside and no downside.

    Like

  49. Brian says:

    http://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/index.ssf/2013/02/on_the_move_penn_state_coach_b.html

    PSU is looking into playing a game in Ireland.

    “We are definitely looking into playing in Ireland, no question about it,” O’Brien said.

    “We’re working on an opponent and we’re working with the Big Ten on that. So that’s something that’s definitely in the works.”

    Working with the B10? I hope that means they’re trying to lock in a specific bye week so they can find an opponent.

    Like

  50. mushroomgod says:

    Possible 4 way tie for BT basketball championship? Would happen if:

    1. IU loses at UM and MSU, but otherwise wins out (including at MN and OSU at home);

    2. UM loses at MSU, but otherwise wins out (including ILL, IU, and MSU at home);

    3. MSU loses at OSU and UM, but otherwise wins out (including IU and UM at home); and

    4. Wisky loses at MSU, but otherwise wins out (including at MN, OSU at home).

    Definately possible.

    Like

  51. frug says:

    If you thought PSU-UCF and Mizzou-Arkie St. were bad

    http://www.voodoofive.com/2013/1/31/3936092/why-is-usf-football-interested-in-a-home-and-home-with-old-dominion

    Old Dominion and the University of South Florida are close to finalizing a home-and-home football series

    Like

  52. frug says:

    Interesting

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Makes sense that they approached them before…. Fox is a big winner from the breakup of the Big East with them getting the Catholic 7 inventory for their new Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2 cable channels.

      Like

  53. m (Ag) says:

    Sorry if this was already posted (don’t remember seeing it), but New Mexico State announced its first schedule as an independent…and it’s actually not bad for a low level school.

    They managed 7 home games, although one is against a division 2 school moving to FCS, and they only had to play Idaho once:

    Aug. 31 at Texas
    Sept. 7 Minnesota
    Sept. 14 UTEP
    Sept. 21 at UCLA
    Sept. 28 San Diego State
    Oct. 5 at New Mexico
    Oct. 12 Open Date
    Oct. 19 Rice
    Oct. 26 Abilene Christian
    Nov. 2 at UL Lafayette
    Nov. 9 Boston College
    Nov. 16 Open Date
    Nov. 23 at Florida Atlantic
    Nov. 30 Idaho

    Anyone know if they have a TV contract? At least a few of their home games might be filler on some cable station.

    http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/02/new-mexico-state-aggies-announce-2013-football-schedule/

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Let me get this straight — Minnesota and Boston College are playing in Las Cruces? I mean, I think it’s weird when Big Ten, Big 12 or ACC members play at MAC or Sunbelt schools (examples over the past decade include Minnesota at Toledo, Missouri at Troy and Maryland at Eastern Michigan), but New Mexico State? I suppose its proximiity to El Paso may add some allure, but…

      Like

      • cutter says:

        My niece and her husband went to NMSU. It’s a fairly small school with a nice, but also small football stadium. Las Cruces is okay, but it’s no great shakes and while El Paso isn’t too far away, I don’t think you’re going to get too many fans traveling there to attend a NMSU game with UTEP in town.

        My wife and I own property in southern New Mexico, but it’s located a couple hours to the east in Ruidoso. Beautiful area and located at 7,000 feet, it’s pretty green. I can’t say the same for Las Cruces or El Paso though.

        Like

      • Richard says:

        I fail to see how NMSU is a step down from most MAC or Sun Belt schools.

        Like

  54. Marc Shepherd says:

    The Dude of WV has his latest update: mostly stuff he has said before, but with more typos.

    There’s a mixture of stuff I can believe is true, along with some real head-scratchers and strange leaps of reasoning.

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      There’s a mixture of stuff I can believe is true, along with some real head-scratchers and strange leaps of reasoning.

      Such as:

      “The Big 10 has UVA on the hook. The question is will Georgia Tech be #16, and I’m not hearing anything that says they are not, but many ask if the Big 10 is shopping around for #16?

      “Sources within the Big 10 tell me that Georgia Tech cannot move until they know the outcome of the Maryland–ACC lawsuit. Georgia Tech is a perfect fit for the Big 12 and has enthusiastic support from both Purdue and Illinois, but Delany may want to move before Georgia Tech is financially able.”

      Dude says Delany “wants to move” with either Florida State (a feasible thought, though I’m still not certain Big Ten presidents would agree) or Boston College (he cites hockey and its potential attractiveness to Notre Dame, both wildly overblown factors — BC is hardly a serious contender for Big Ten membership). If UVa is truly in the fold (though I have my doubts), Delany will wait for GT to become available if he wants to reach 16 with minimal fuss. (And while Dude may believe GT is a perfect fit for the Big 12, I can’t imagine the honchos in Atlanta feel likewise.)

      Also find it hard to take seriously anyone who refers to the potential lacrosse-only Big Ten member as “John Hopkins” when the institution is named Johns Hopkins.

      Like

      • vp19 says:

        Oh, and Dude still believes UNC and Duke are viable SEC candidates, though I simply can’t envision Duke going to that conference no matter whom its partner might be, And as stated earlier, I don’t see UNC or Duke using Conference USA or other leagues as a solution to park its teams in sports the SEC doesn’t sponsor. (Incidentally, mea culpa – -West Virginia men’s soccer did not park in C-USA for 2012, but in the Mid-American Conference, alongside non-MAC members Hartwick and Florida Atlantic and MAC teams Akron, Bowling Green, Buffalo, Northern Illinois and Western Michigan.)

        Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          The entrenched rumor in some circles is that the SEC has been a-courtin’ UNC and Duke, not that Duke has ever shown a sign of returning the interest. The best spin that SEC could put on it on the academic front is that the SEC that Duke and UNC would be a member of would have at least as many AAU members as the ACC that Duke and UNC would be leaving ~ more, if UVA and GTech were to leave.

          But its not a very strong as an argument: if the academic cachet of the ACC is under threat, there is another conference that has expressed interest in further expansion where being an AAU member is the norm, rather than the exception.

          Like

          • Andy says:

            If UNC doesn’t want to be in a northern conference, then a new SEC that has Duke, Vanderbilt, UNC, Florida, Texas A&M, and Misssouri plus decent schools in Georgia and Alabama, would be on par with the original ACC academically, except that it would be 16 schools and would have a bottom 5 or 6 teams that are worse than anyone in the old ACC.

            Would that be acceptable? Maybe, depending on how much they value geographic fit.

            Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Tsk Tsk vp19. Defending the Dude is an unenviable position but in all fairness, his comment concerning the B12 was clearly a typo. “Georgia Tech is a perfect fit for the Big 12 and has enthusiastic support from both Purdue and Illinois…

        Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      I’m willing to cut the Dude a little more slack than some other rumor merchants. I think he does have what we will loosely define as ‘sources’ and I believe he honestly reports what they tell him. Most of it is pure speculation, but some of it rings true. He also appears to be a decent guy. Does the fact that he loves WV loathes the ACC influence his musings. Yes. He also partakes in wild flights of wish-fulfillment concerning the B12’s appeal to potential targets, but he is entertaining.
      Rock on Dude!

      Like

      • Marc Shepherd says:

        That’s a good summary of what the Dude is about; I find him entertaining, too.

        I just don’t get his Boston College fixation. I can’t find anything from a reliable source, suggesting the B1G would have the slightest interest in the Eagles. None of the reasons cited make sense to me (the Boston market, hockey, or attracting Notre Dame).

        Like

        • bullet says:

          One of the other WV people has mentioned BC.

          Like

        • Blapples says:

          I’m struggling to find a reason either. The Boston market doesn’t care about BC. They’re not AAU. Notre Dame doesn’t care about them (Serious LOL every time someone mentions them as “ND leverage”). They’re small, religious, and private. Their sports teams suck.

          If, and I mean IF, Delany and the presidents want to look Northeast again, the best play would be UConn. They’re a state flagship, good academics (close to and striving for AAU), good athletics, good market (Hartford-New Haven is 30th DMA), and they provide increased leverage for the BTN to get maximum carriage fees in the NYC market.

          UConn > BC in nearly every possible way if the B1G wants to go northeast again.

          Like

          • vp19 says:

            If the Big Ten has to add a non-AAU member that isn’t named Notre Dame, I’ll take Florida State over Connecticut any day of the week.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            Exactly: once you stipulate that AAU wannabees are acceptable, how can FSU not be the #1 target?

            Like

          • Blapples says:

            Well, yea. I wasn’t arguing UConn > FSU. I was arguing UConn > BC.

            FSU is obviously the biggest potential target that could become available in this round of expansion and I’d be on board if Delany and the presidents want to admit them. I was simply saying that BC isn’t even a better target than UConn and we could have UConn tomorrow if we wanted them. I do think UConn makes sense if the B1G goes to 20 as some have speculated.

            Like

          • vp19 says:

            I don’t think either BC or Connecticut are good targets for the Big Ten — though I might consider Storrs once it gained AAU status. If Syracuse regained AAU membership, it would be a better target than either.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            The question is not merely whether a school has AAU membership; it’s whether adding them is better than doing nothing. Because doing nothing is always an option.

            Every add has a cost, because there’s a limit to how big the conference can be (no one is suggesting >20), so every school you add is taking a slot that could have gone to someone else.

            A factor that weighs against these schools, is that they’ll always be available. No one thinks UConn, BC, or Syracuse is getting an SEC or Big XII invite. So unless you’re positive you need and want them, it’s better to wait.

            Like

          • Blapples says:

            @vp19 I’ve gotta disagree again on UConn vs Syracuse. Syracuse voluntarily left the AAU. They don’t have a large home market. They don’t grant as much leverage in NYC as much as UConn does. UConn is more popular in NYC than ‘Cuse. Syracuse plays in arguably the worst football facility in the country. Seriously, ask Fitzgerald if he’ll ever schedule a game there again. Finally, only ten years into their FBS existence, UConn is putting a higher quality product on the field than Syracuse is. UConn is the best option of anyone if they want to go Northeast.

            @Marc Shepherd Your point could stand. Maybe none of the other Northeast teams bring enough to the table to expand the per-school slice of the conference pie. I’m only saying that I think UConn has the highest potential to do so of any of the schools in that region.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            @Blapples: Syracuse’s departure from the AAU was not really voluntary: if they stayed, they were likely to face a vote like Nebraska did, which they believed they were likely to lose.

            I am a NYC resident, and if UConn is the more popular team, I see no evidence of it. What I know is that fan allegiance to schools is built up over many decades, and UConn has been in FBS (or its equivalent) for only a decade, as opposed to over 100 years for Syracuse.

            UConn has an all-time winning percentage of just .489, and that’s while playing against much weaker opposition for most of that time. Syracuse has an all-time winning percentage of .581. UConn’s all-time bowl record is 3-2, Syracuse 14-9-1. The ‘Cuse has simply had a lot more time to built uip fan loyalty.

            The one minor factor in UConn’s favor is their Big East record, which happened to coincide with a particularly poor period for Syracuse, the decade from 2002-2011, when they played WAY below their historical norm. The odds of that happening again are pretty low: college teams have a remarkable tendency to revert to form. The last two years (in which Syracuse has been the better team) are probably a better indication of what’s to come.

            If you think Syracuse’s 49,000-seat stadium is bad, what words do you have for UConn’s 40,000-seat stadium? Michigan’s athletic director tried repeatedly to get out of the Wolverines’ game there this year. Do you think the Big Ten would want to play 4-5 games a year at Rentschler Field?

            Like

          • Blapples says:

            @Marc Shepherd Yea, I was aware they left to avoid public embarrassment in the event of a vote going against them like Nebraska, but last I heard they aren’t scrambling to get back in. UConn however, just released a plan to invest $2 billion in their STEM programs over the next decade. The aim was primarily to attract lots of research grant money. Who likes research? B1G likes research. I know they’re not coming close to Michigan spending in terms of research, but $2 billion is nothing to sneeze at.

            According to Nate Silver (praise be the statistics god), UConn does own a larger market share than Syracuse. But you live there, so I’m sure the anecdotal evidence you see is hard to ignore. That’s not meant as a slight at you at all. If you see a lot of Syracuse people, I’m sure it would color your view of the city. However, I’ve gotta trust Silver’s accuracy on this one.

            My disdain for the Carrier Dome isn’t it’s seating capacity. I would hold the same opinion of the place if it seated 90,000. It’s an absolute dump. No air conditioning (LOL @ no A/C in the “Carrier” Dome). I prefer outdoor stadiums, but if you’re going to be in a dome, you need air conditioning. Terrible lighting. Bad seating. Even the restrooms suck. Thank God they finally got rid of the cement-like Astroturf a few years ago. I know we’re going there to watch a football game, but facilities matter.

            I haven’t been to UConn’s stadium personally, but at least their facility can be expanded. I’d have to look it up as to how much. They could always hold games in Foxboro or the Meadowlands if they wanted for Michigan/Ohio State/etc.

            I’m not a UConn fan by the way. I’m not even lobbying for them to be in the B1G. I mostly just wanted to stop hearing about BC as a likely B1G candidate.

            Like

          • Transic says:

            Living in NYC, I’m very much aware of Syracuse basketball. That’s their real calling card. In a way, they’re like UNC except that they’re private. Plenty of appearances on ESPN/ESPN2 over the years. They’re also a big power in lacrosse, which is now all the talk in BTN-land these days. If the B1G needs a #20 and they’ve already agreed to take UNC/Duke as a pair then Syracuse presents a compelling case just in basketball/lacrosse. Syracuse would need a new football stadium down the road and Central New York is losing population, so there’s a long-term risk that would have to be taken into consideration. UConn is much closer to NYC and, thus, closer to the major media centers. Their stadium needs some expansion (I would say the same for Rutgers, except theirs is already at 52,000 capacity; would need to get to 60,000) and their campus hockey/basketball arena may need replacement down the road.

            I think right now the order would have to be: Syr > UConn > BC

            if at 19 with FSU and UNC/Duke in the fold.

            Like

          • Blapples says:

            @Marc Shepherd I just looked at the fan ranking of NYC fans again. I guess UConn and Syracuse are pretty much statistically even. I was thinking there was a bigger spread the last time I looked at it.

            http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/

            @Transic Those are some good points. If you are assuming Virginia, Georgia Tech, UNC, Duke, and Florida State put us at 19, then I think Syracuse and UConn would be the two schools discussed that had the highest chance of joining. I don’t think ND will ever join.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            I was aware [Syracuse] left [the AAU] to avoid public embarrassment in the event of a vote going against them like Nebraska, but last I heard they aren’t scrambling to get back in.

            Well, after having left so recently, there would obviously need to be a substantial shift for them to be considered again.

            UConn however, just released a plan to invest $2 billion in their STEM programs over the next decade. The aim was primarily to attract lots of research grant money. Who likes research? B1G likes research. I know they’re not coming close to Michigan spending in terms of research, but $2 billion is nothing to sneeze at.

            I just recently finished visiting a bunch of universities, both AAU and non-AAU, and including Syracuse, as part of my son’s college search. I haven’t been to UConn, but I know someone who just graudated from there, so I have some familiarity with what is going on.

            All of these schools are constantly adding new facilities. Yes, UConn is trying to get better, but so is everyone else—those that have AAU status already, and those that aspire to it. Whether they’ll reach Big Ten levels of research spending is the big question.

            Like

          • Bikemore says:

            OK, I never claimed that New England functions like a state, so no need for the “fantasy” comment. My point is that a lot of people live in New England (nearly 15 million) and that the area is not large, meaning that one school could conceivably have a significant following throughout those six states. Is BC that school? I don’t know, but I certainly have no reason to rule out the notion that the B10 is looking into the possibility.

            We also don’t know one way or the other whether the B10 is looking at New England. Given that the conference is now just a little south of there, it would seem to make sense, if adding one school could get the conference a sizable chunk of the TV sets up there. Again, I’m not pretending to know, but I think it’s a little odd that so many are so definitively ruling it out.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            We also don’t know one way or the other whether the B10 is looking at New England.

            But they’ve actually said they are looking south, so their failure to mention New England would seem to be significant.

            Given that the conference is now just a little south of there, it would seem to make sense, if adding one school could get the conference a sizable chunk of the TV sets up there. Again, I’m not pretending to know, but I think it’s a little odd that so many are so definitively ruling it out.

            None of us can find a school that moves the needle enough. Since the Big Ten ADs keep referring to the south, their own analysis (which is a lot better than ours) probably says the same.

            Like

          • greg says:

            Boston College has an AWRU ranking of 401-500. No chance, at all.

            Cuse at 301-400, very very very very very doubtful.

            FSU and UConn at 201-300 is a big stretch.

            Like

        • BruceMcF says:

          Boston College is in the ACC. Boston College is the northernmost outpost of the ACC. Boston College getting raised would substantially shrink the ACC footprint on a conference map. The SEC and Big12 would never invite BC. So it has to be a potential target of the BigTen, by a process of elimination founded in wishful thinking where the wish is the collapse of the ACC.

          Like

          • Bikemore says:

            If New England were a state, it would be 5th in population,and Massachusetts alone is 14th. Given that the B10 is presumably looking to dominate the Northeast, it would seem to make sense that it would at least consider adding a New England school.

            UConn is a state flagship, but it’s never going to have a following outside its state borders. Connecticut has just 3.6 million people, and is growing far slower than the average state. And flagships in the Northeast really don’t have the following that they do elsewhere.

            Syracuse, given its location, also would seem to have little potential for a large following.

            I would think that BC would be the far better option because, if the program is successful, it at least has the potential for a New England-wide following. And at very least, it’s the primary (only) school in a very large market.

            Having said that, it may well be that none of the 3 NE schools would add enough value.

            Like

          • Marc Shepherd says:

            @Bikemore: No Big Ten president or AD has ever indicated an ambition to grow in New England. Although New England would be the fifth-largest state, if it were a state, New England just doesn’t function that way. It’s a fantasy to pretend that it does.

            To take a chance on any of these schools, the evidence would need to be extremely compelling.

            Like

      • Mike says:

        I asked Frank in the last thread about his blogging experience.

        https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/big-12-and-acc-relations-alliance-or-raid/#comment-157528

        He said something that I feel applies to the Dude and the other WV bloggers

        One general observation after witnessing how this blog has grown over the years: I’m now a large believer in “The Tipping Point” theory of building an audience when it comes to the web. Audiences on the web don’t build in a linear fashion. Instead, they typically build very rapidly as a result of a catalyst or critical mass of factors occurring at the same… or they never build at all. It’s kind of like how a seedy neighborhood can stay that way for decades, but when gentrification occurs, it’s usually swift and completely transforms an area within only a few years. I had been writing this blog for over 4 years with a steady audience and even regular mentions in places like Deadspin during that timeframe, but conference realignment was the issue that made it explode and it happened within literally the span of one month. I wish that I were smart enough to say that I planned it that way, yet I certainly wasn’t (other than subconsciously filling a void in the web marketplace of ideas and stumbling upon the fact that a lot of other people noticed that there was a void, too).

        Conference realignment gave them an audience. Suddenly, everyone cared what they were saying. I suspect their ACC Armageddon scenarios were initially just a reaction to the ACC not wanting them (and telling them they weren’t good enough) and taking their biggest rival Pitt. They probably didn’t understand how underserved realignment news was and the next thing they know they’re actually *someone* on the internet. How many times has “The Dude” said he was done writing about realignment only to start back up later? I’ll bet it has something to do with his audience shrinking.

        My biggest problem with “The Dude” is he’s rarely right. He claims to have all these sources but almost nothing he says happens. Before you tell me that Frank’s been wrong before, please note that there’s a huge difference between claiming inside sources and simple analysis.

        Like

  55. bullet says:

    Interesting article Finebaum wrote a couple years back after talking to a former SEC commissioner. Definitely shoots holes in anyone believing there is a long-time gentlemen’s agreement in the sEC.

    http://blog.al.com/press-register-sports/2010/04/finebaum_how_texas_nearly_join.html

    Like

    • vp19 says:

      Interesting that the late ’80s SEC really wanted Texas, but not A&M. Or that a pre-Big East Virginia Tech, not yet a football power, was an outside possibility.

      Like

      • metatron says:

        They still want Texas. Texas will probably join the SEC at some point in the distant future.

        Things, people change.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Texas has made clear for 20 years they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the SEC. If Texas has to leave the Big XII it will be for the Big Ten or PAC (or even the ACC if it survives).

          Like

          • metatron says: